I can think of ways of torturing someone by depriving him/her of sex. We feel pain (and experience torture) when we're deprived of our basic rights. Therefore, yes, sex is a basic right of the individualX-)

We're allowed sex but others aren't obligated to provide sex.

I don't think sex is a necessity that should be facilitated by the state. Having said that, I would encourage the state to facilitate one on one committed relationships, and make it easier for people to get into relationships. Sex would obviously come as a side-effect of that.

Also many people who can't have sex for physical reasons generally show little interest in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a "right" to sex, because I don't see sex as the summum bonum of man's life, or otherwise required for it. I think we have a right to things that are required to achieve the highest good for man - for example, food, education, healthcare.

Perhaps sex is like an addictive drug. Once you try it you need to keep having it! Some, perhaps those not exposed to this drug, don't think it's a necessity. Anyway, necessity for what? Clearly, sex is a necessity evolutionarily.

Perhaps sex is like an addictive drug. Once you try it you need to keep having it! Some, perhaps those not exposed to this drug, don't think it's a necessity. — TheMadFool

I think people are attracted more to the intimacy that can result from it than to the mere physical pleasure. The only reason sex seems like a necessity is that we live in a culture which PUSHES people to have sex, and treats sex as the highest good for man, and thus sees those who do not have sex, or who do not relentlessly pursue it as somehow stupid/wrong. We don't live in a society which is tolerant of sex - but rather intolerant. It hyper-sexualises people, and oppresses them if they refuse.

Anyway, necessity for what? Clearly, sex is a necessity evolutionarily. — TheMadFool

Necessity for achieving the highest good for man. The highest good isn't to reproduce. It is to know and understand the world. In order to be able to do that, your real needs have to be provided for - food, shelter, water, education, health.

We're allowed sex but others aren't obligated to provide sex. — Michael

In this context, the facilitator may not be having "sex" with the client. We used to see people who have touch deprivation at the Chiropractic office and how a full body massage would change their stress levels in many areas of physical pain, aggression and overall feeling of well being.

I think it is reasonable to think that a person who is mentally 'normal' but physically challenged to the point they require an electronic, padded chair to move around in and an automated sling lift to get into a mechanical bed, is going to have a harder time finding a one nighter than someone who does not have this disability. Just because they cannot control their body or it's possible contortions, does not mean that the person does not have sexual urges, hormonal increases when aroused, desire to satisfy a very normal and important part of a person.

The facilitators are very professional about the set up, some countries like Australia cover a 'visit' every 6 weeks. They know how to work around some realities that others could not both physically and psychologically. Sometimes it is just a massage or cuddle session with their client and other times there is sexual intercourse, with everything in between.

It's really an amazing program that heads off a lot health problems for the clients as well as their caretakers, it truly looks at a patient as a whole and not just a condition.

I agree with you. I don't think sex forms an essential part of the highest good in man. Would you grant that it does have a contributory function to our happiness though? One feels more relaxed and happier after sex.

The title of your thread and the wording of your poll are not quite the same. I would agree that one has the right to have sex, but I would not agree that sex is an essential part of human existence.

The difference is that these facilitators aren't obligated to do what they do. It's the obligation to provide sex (or other intimacy) that I reject.

I agree with you. I don't think sex forms an essential part of the highest good in man. Would you grant that it does have a contributory function to our happiness though? One feels more relaxed and happier after sex. — TheMadFool

Yes, I would grant that sex can be another good of man. In my assessment, the highest good is the good in virtue of which everything else is good. The highest good is virtue (which is the same, as Socrates said, with knowledge). That means that virtue is what makes everything else that we call good, good. Sex, money, and everything else have no goodness in themselves alone, but only in-so-far as they share in virtue ;) . Think by analogy to Plato's forms. Ultimately the forms also have no real existence except in-so-far as they share in Agathon - the form of the Good, which alone makes all of them possible.

There is an erotic massage program (The Body Electric) which teaches people how to give and receive safe, sexual experiences through tantric practices. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus". In current parlance it's called 'edging".

The object is to provide extended time in erotic arousal through light massage (front side of the body) and sexual stimulation short of orgasm. (Avoiding orgasm is part of the tantric bit; experiencing orgasm doesn't invalidate the experience, but it should be quite delayed.) Deep breathing and relaxation techniques are also part of it.

This program was developed primarily for persons with AIDS. But the basic techniques work on anyone. (Do try it at home.)

Picture yourself deprived of physical pleasure for lack of physical capacity, for years on end. Can one survive? Yes. Is there any virtue in experiencing zero physical pleasure vs. experiencing intense physical pleasure? No. A whole person requires a validation of embodiment by experiencing pleasure, gustatory pleasure, sexual pleasure, warmth, coolness, movement -- the gamut.

Sexual pleasure may not be the ultimate good, but it is never-the-less well worth having.

Picture yourself deprived of physical pleasure for lack of physical capacity, for years on end. Can one survive? Yes. Is there any virtue in experiencing zero physical pleasure vs. experiencing intense physical pleasure? No. — Bitter Crank

I don't disagree with any of this, I merely disagree with the state providing this. If it was a loved one, etc. then I wouldn't mind it.

Sexual pleasure may not be the ultimate good, but it is never-the-less well worth having. — Bitter Crank

If by sexual pleasure you mean intimacy, then I am very inclined to agree. People who are physically handicapped, etc. require to be cared for, with love, not with duty. It's not the state that must do this - but rather kind human beings.

There is a erotic massage program (The Body Electric) which teaches people how to give and receive safe, sexual experiences through tantric practices. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus". In current parlance it's called 'edging".

The object is to provide extended time in erotic arousal through light massage (front side of the body) and sexual stimulation short of orgasm. (Avoiding orgasm is part of the tantric bit; experiencing orgasm doesn't invalidate the experience, but it should be quite delayed.) Deep breathing and relaxation techniques are also part of it.

This program was developed primarily for persons with AIDS. But the basic techniques work on anyone. (Do try it at home.) — Bitter Crank

I am aware of this. This is also apparently a better way to achieve stronger orgasms than actual sex, however, one of the main purposes of sex (intimacy) cannot be achieved by this (at least when done by oneself), and thus this experience still misses what is most important in the sexual experience (which is not pleasure itself). Nevertheless, this is not to say I am against such techniques (in fact I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in sex purely for pleasure).

Why do I disagree with the state or institutions doing this? Because institutions can never do something from the heart. That's why this is something that must be done by kind and loving individuals, who do this because they choose to, not because it's an externally imposed duty (rather it should be an internally imposed duty, aka love).

I absolutely agree that love is the best motivation; intimacy adds more meaning to sex; institutions can not act out of love (or any other emotion). Most people (somewhere above 90%) go out and find the sex and intimacy they desire, and they engage in mutually loving relationships -- at least sometimes.

Some people, though, can't perform the acts necessary to engage in social interaction as a first step. They have a range of neurological and physical disabilities which prevent normal socializing, let alone normal sexual interaction. Who will provide them with loving, intimate care? Families usually do this for children, but as children age into adults this often becomes physically and psychologically impossible to continue. (The parents, remember, are getting older too.)

In some cases, parents opt to have their children's physical growth suspended (through growth and sexual hormone blocking medications) so that they can continue to care for the child into their adulthood (by keeping the child physically small -- small enough for the parents to lift and transfer). Usually this is done in the case of early childhood brain damage.

I don't like this approach either, but the alternative is usually institutionalization. Institutions can do an excellent job, but they can't be counted on. Changes in personnel, funding, and policy by state agencies can change the quality of care completely and suddenly.

Not everyone has family nearby. Adults who were once able bodied can become totally incapacitated a long way from home. They may not have spouses; they may not have siblings or children. (The US is a big place -- families are often scattered thousands of miles apart.) The disabled adult might rather die than subject their family to their intense care needs.

These are extreme situations, but quite real. The extremity of their circumstances has implications for all people. We are all embodied beings with similar needs and potentials. Can we, as a policy of compassion, assure that those who are disabled physically (and mentally in terms of mental illness rather than severe cognitive impairment) have the opportunity to live a fuller life which includes sexual pleasure?

Do people have a right to sex that entitles them to social assistance in obtaining sexual pleasure? — Bitter Crank

No, but if they express such a desire, and someone is willing, then I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.

And no, sex isn't necessary.

Sex is not a necessity to exist. Just look at the ascetics, monks, and nuns who (supposedly) did not participate in the realm of sexual affairs. If you imprison someone but give them enough food, water, exercise, and sleep, they will not die.

Is it uncomfortable to abstain from any sexual gratification, particularly when you are bored and have nothing to do? Yes. Is it impossible to do so? I hardly think so.

So sex is hardly what I would say to be something that needs immediate attention.

But I do think that prostitution should not be illegal, at least not to adults (18+, or perhaps 21+). Prostitution without the use of contraceptives should be illegal, though, and generally prostitution should not be advocated as a legitimate business practice when there are safer alternatives. You want to sell your body? Go ahead, I won't condemn you but neither will I applaud you.

I was a late bloomer when I came to sexual gratification, and actually only began experimenting after I heard some of my school friends talking about it. Before then, I was more or less ignorant of the whole masturbatory process, although I am sure I would have found out by myself eventually.

Also another issue that might be relevant is the use of testosterone-impairments. Lowering the testosterone in men will lower the sex drive and aggression in men.

intimacy adds more meaning to sex; — Bitter Crank

Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. A subjective feeling of pleasure in itself is never meaningful, unless it is associated with an objective perfection. It can however be percieved as meaningful (even though it really isn't) when it is associated with a sense of SUBJECTIVE perfection.

The reason why most people who are interested in sexual gratification for pleasure prefer having sex with, for example, a random partner, instead of engage in some tantric form of masturbation (either mutual or individual) isn't because the physical pleasure is any better. It is not. Rather, there are psychological reasons. And these can be quite diverse (the noble ones are ruled out, since we have already assumed they're pursuing sexual gratification just for pleasure - not for intimacy or reproduction).

1. A misguided pursuit of intimacy can be one such reason - often masking a fear of commitment, and a fear of intimacy - the person seeking sexual gratification is nevertheless motivated by intimacy; however they are afraid of what it may entail, so they do not want to jump in - they want just a small sip of it instead. If the being in question is a stranger, this is perceived as a less risky situation, so the stranger is preferred to the friend.
2. Another reason can be a subtle feeling of superiority compared to their peers (not to the convinced being) because they have convinced another being to yield their body to them (and if this being is perceived as a stranger, then the pleasure associated with intercourse is even greater - cause the person in question assumes his power to be absolutely great, as even a stranger was won over by it).
3. Yet another reason can be a feeling of superiority over the being whom they have convinced. Again, convincing a stranger will yield a stronger sense of subjective pleasure than convincing a friend. This is seen again as a situation of ruling over, and dictating the behavior of another - usurping their freedom by the proxy of their own assent.
4. Yet another reason is to achieve good social standing, and to be perceived as successful by their peers, as well as by themselves. This is when one's sense of self is associated with sexual conquest.
5. And yet another reason is because one feels the need to be desired by another. Again, the more unlikely someone is to desire them a priori, the greater the pleasure to be found in sexual intercourse. That's why strangers will be preferred.

These reasons (and the fact that most people don't know how to properly masturbate) explain the popularity of the one-night stand over masturbation - nevertheless, they are base and misguided reasons, and ultimately and ironically, harm the person who gives in to them more than they benefit them - even the psychological pleasure in these cases is mere illusion - a mere SUBJECTIVE (and selfish), not OBJECTIVE perfection is achieved. How's that for a, pace Spinoza, a more geometrico breakdown of the psychology behind the pursuit of sex? ;)

Most people (somewhere above 90%) go out and find the sex and intimacy they desire, and they engage in mutually loving relationships -- at least sometimes. — Bitter Crank

I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. Some remain completely blind to the potentials of sex for their whole lives and never realise. In any case - people who truly enjoy and are helped by sex are few. Sex is a very sharp double edged sword. It can be a great help, or it can be a great impoverishment - use with care ;)

Some people, though, can't perform the acts necessary to engage in social interaction as a first step. They have a range of neurological and physical disabilities which prevent normal socializing, let alone normal sexual interaction. Who will provide them with loving, intimate care? Families usually do this for children, but as children age into adults this often becomes physically and psychologically impossible to continue. (The parents, remember, are getting older too.) — Bitter Crank

Indeed, I agree. But I would favor looking at creating communities where such people are cared for voluntarily - or where such people can and do get in touch with other people with disabilities (maybe not as severely disabled as they are). Then bonding and love can develop amongst such a community, don't you think so? I'd be much more in favor to setting that up, then having a state funded "doctor" masturbate or have sex with them.

Can we, as a policy of compassion, assure that those who are disabled physically (and mentally in terms of mental illness rather than severe cognitive impairment) have the opportunity to live a fuller life which includes sexual pleasure? — Bitter Crank

Yes - by creating communities of people in similar circumstances and enabling these people to get in touch together. They best know how to take care of each other - we are just guessing here. Then amongst such a community bonding and love can develop - including sexual gratification.

And no, sex isn't necessary. — Sapientia

Good point woof woof! :D See, you're a good boy, even though you bite hands sometime *gives Scooby snack* :D

Sex is not a necessity to exist. Just look at the ascetics, monks, and nuns who (supposedly) did not participate in the realm of sexual affairs. If you imprison someone but give them enough food, water, exercise, and sleep, they will not die.

Is it uncomfortable to abstain from any sexual gratification, particularly when you are bored and have nothing to do? Yes. Is it impossible to do so? I hardly think so. — darthbarracuda

I agree 100%. Excellent points!

So sex is hardly what I would say to be something that needs immediate attention. — darthbarracuda

Indeed - but intimacy, and the desire for love which are underneath the desire for sex DO need immediate attention for people in such dire circumstances.

But I do think that prostitution should not be illegal, at least not to adults (18+, or perhaps 21+). Prostitution without the use of contraceptives should be illegal, though, and generally prostitution should not be advocated as a legitimate business practice when there are safer alternatives. You want to sell your body? Go ahead, I won't condemn you but neither will I applaud you. — darthbarracuda

:-O What? Prostitution?? Who talked about prostitution?

Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. — Agustino

I would say it either has more meanings (some of which you listed later) or it has no meaning at all. I prefer not to think it has no meaning.

objective perfection ... SUBJECTIVE perfection. — Agustino

I have no idea what these two phrases mean.

[cope with] a fear of commitment, — Agustino

subtle feeling of superiority — Agustino

a situation of ruling over — Agustino

achieve good social standing — Agustino

[satisfy the] need to be desired by another — Agustino

Yes, casual sex can do all this and more for individuals. You or I may not like it, but these are contributions to the meaning of sexual encounters.

Example of more meaning : A gay man just coming out is likely to experience validation in the act of sex with another man, in a way that straight men or women might not. Sex in the gay community often is the means by which links between otherwise isolated individuals are made. (This would apply to pre-social media, pre-Grindr, GPS facilitated chats, and so forth. This 'epoch' is little more than a decade old. It also applies to pre-and-early gay liberation when and where there were few ways of meeting other gay people aside from sexual encounters.)

most people don't know how to properly masturbate — Agustino

How the hell did you come to this conclusion?

How's that for, pace Spinoza, a more geometrico breakdown of the psychology behind the pursuit of sex? — Agustino

It's a breakdown, alright.

I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. — Agustino

If X says he has found intimacy and a loving relationship, on what basis would you be so bold as to dismiss his claim as an error? It seems highly presumptuous to dismiss other people's experiences, especially when one isn't there to observe them, and when there is no basis for the judgement shown. How would you sort the deceived from the truly and intimately loved?

An 18 year old will have such and such an experience of intimacy and love. The same person 18 years later will probably have a different experience of intimacy and love, and at 65 yet another sort of experience. It isn't that they were wrong in each instance, just that their horizons probably expanded.

I would say it either has more meanings (some of which you listed later) or it has no meaning at all. I prefer not to think it has no meaning. — Bitter Crank

Those meanings I listed later are illusory and unreal. They SEEM to be meaningful, in truth they are not. They just show vileness of character, and egoism - the pettiness of man. Not that I condemn that to the fires of hell... absolutely not, in the end it is human, all too human, and most of us, including myself, have passed through such stages. I have noticed most of those "meanings" i listed there in my own soul. That's how I came to know them. By watching keenly why I wanted to have sex. And that's how I also freed myself from this bondage, by understanding the causes, and how it brings a harm to myself and others - how it is motivated by ignorance.

I have no idea what these two phrases mean. — Bitter Crank

Objective perfection is an actual perfection. Intimacy or reproduction are actual perfections - we can look at people and say they have objectively achieved these perfections when we see that they bring forth children, and when we see sustained love and compassion and consideration of beloved over self over a long period of time. Subjective perfections are things which temporarily seem to be perfections - ie FEEL like perfections to the individual in question, but may not feel like perfections in the long run, or when viewed from the outside.

Yes, casual sex can do all this and more for individuals. You or I may not like it, but these are contributions to the meaning of sexual encounters. — Bitter Crank

Do not confuse perception with reality BC. People can (and do) percieve things, and yet can be decieved by those perceptions.

Example of more meaning : A gay man just coming out is likely to experience validation in the act of sex with another man, in a way that straight men or women might not. — Bitter Crank

Again, the requirement for external validation is ultimately a short-coming - a sign of weakness, not of psychological strength. Do you mean, per Maslow, to say that gaining psychological strength requires the passing through such stages? If so, then I would disagree, in a limited kind of way. I think one FIRST starts with self-actualisation, and THEN can go on and fulfill the rest - if they start anywhere else, it's merely a false start. Ultimately they will have to begin with self-actualisation anyways.

How the hell did you come to this conclusion? — Bitter Crank

For the simple reason that most people do not know, nor practice tantric forms of masturbation.

It's a breakdown, alright. — Bitter Crank

:D

If X says he has found intimacy and a loving relationship, on what basis would you be so bold as to dismiss his claim as an error? — Bitter Crank

On an investigation of their relationship and what is actually going on among the two people. On watching the two people together, and looking at their behavior towards one another. On watching how their relationship evolves over a long period of time - most relationships crumble - there simply is no real love, just a fake imitation.

How would you sort the deceived from the truly and intimately loved? — Bitter Crank

I can't do it, they would have to do this themselves. I don't spend my time next to them all the time. But - there are signs of intimate love that aren't there in the case of self-deception. If one analyses both their actions and their feelings clearly, one will start to see. That is why I ultimately advocate self-knowledge. YOU must come to know whether you are decieving yourself. That's what matters. I can say they are decieving themselves because I know and understand the motions of their souls sometimes, in comparison with my own, and having travelled (some) of these roads, know they are deceitful.

An 18 year old will have such and such an experience of intimacy and love. The same person 18 years later will probably have a different experience of intimacy and love, and at 65 yet another sort of experience. It isn't that they were wrong in each instance, just that their horizons probably expanded. — Bitter Crank

No they won't have a DIFFERENT experience, the experience will just be expanded. I couldn't have felt with my girlfriend when I was 17 the depth of intimacy I could feel now with someone I love. Even though I do not have a girlfriend at the moment, I KNOW my capacity for intimacy has increased - I do feel this more in my soul, and I am attuned much more closely than I used to be to other people

All depends on who believes it, and what they're willing to do about it.

To add...

Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex.

Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool

This is a non-sequitur. Sex is a biological and psychological capacity of man (to call it normal - what do you even mean by that?). Being forcefully stopped from actualising your sexual capacity is wrong because it deprives you of your freedom and the potential that exists within your being. But this is not to say that you have a RIGHT to sex - no one has to guarantee that you actually actualise your sexual potential. What has to be guaranteed on the other hand is that you have the opportunity to actualise your sexual potential if you so desire. This means removing barriers which are oppressive towards people when it comes to the achievement of the goods of sex (reproduction and/or intimacy). Removing stigma from homosexuality for example - people must have the free choice to make whether they engage in homosexual sex or not - and they must be respected in their choice, even if others see the choice as morally wrong. The fact that we live in a society which still largely condemns gay people - thus forcing them to be promiscuous, etc. in pursuit of their sexual desires - THIS is what is wrong. That such people are isolated, that such people are left uncared for - that they are forced to resort to sex in order to come together with other people like themselves, or to validate themselves - this is what is wrong. Not only does it deprive them of their freedom, it also deprives them of their self-worth, and makes their self-worth depend on misusing their sexual potential, such that if they fail to get sex, their whole psychological well-being is destroyed (which is almost guaranteed to happen for many of them due to the oppressive structure of society).

Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool

Right. So someone who chooses not to have sex (for whatever reasons), does not live a normal life? :s (notice what you're doing - you're condemning someone to lust and desire after sex - otherwise they're not normal according to you. Again - you seek to associate someone's sense of self-worth with sex)

Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. It just requires that you HAVE those potentials (preferably), and that you COULD actualise them if you so decide. For example - I have the potential to have sex physically. I'm not currently actualising it. But, if I so desired, I COULD actualise it. What really matters to me is that my capacity is free to manifest itself - not that it actually does. My sexual energy is still with me, manifesting itself within - even though I don't currently actualise it externally - I simply don't have the opportunity for intimacy and/or reproduction now, and thus it's not that my sexual energy has disappeared, but rather that it is awaiting the opportunity to manifest itself. And if this opportunity comes, or it doesn't - that is all fine with me. I don't make demands on it, I just live in the moment, with what exists. Problems appear when psychologically I lose self-esteem - when I start associating my sense of self-worth with actually manifesting my sexuality externally. When psychologically, I require external validation for being who I am. And so forth. Because then, the mere existence of my capacity will no longer satisfy me - I will start making demands of myself and my current circumstances to be different than they are, I will start doubting my capacity and thus seeking to prove myself in my own eyes, etc. These are all psychological short-comings, which merely take away from the joy of the capacity itself. These psychological short-comings lead people to misuse their sexual potential - to pursue unskillful means of satisfying their desires (such as seeking promiscuous sex to satisfy the desire for intimacy, which just cannot be satisfied because there isn't a committed partner present), OR to pursue sex for unskillful reasons (such as the list of illusory meanings I have provided earlier).

Good point woof woof! :D See, you're a good boy, even though you bite hands sometime *gives Scooby snack* :D — Agustino

Oh no, we're in agreement again. Is this a cause for concern?

the psychopathology of normality

Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. — Agustino

I disagree with you immensely on this point, and let me widen the area of disagreement

I maintain that actualization of potential is part of a normal life, and without such actualization we are consigned to a decidedly arid, barren existence (and it isn't something we choose, generally). Sexuality is one part of an embodied life, one of several elements which demand actualization. We've flogged sex long enough, for now.

• "The term, self-actualization, was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize one's full potential. Expressing one's creativity, quest for spiritual enlightenment, pursuit of knowledge, and the desire to give to society are examples of self-actualization. In Goldstein's view, it is the organism's master motive, the only real motive: "the tendency to actualize itself as fully as possible is the basic drive... the drive of self-actualization."
  
  Carl Rogers similarly wrote of "the curative force in psychotherapy – man's tendency to actualize himself, to become his potentialities... to express and activate all the capacities of the organism."
  
  Abraham Maslow had very low expectations. "self-actualisation...rarely happens...certainly in less than 1% of the adult population." The fact that "most of us function most of the time on a level lower than that of self-actualization" he called the psychopathology of normality." ºº

The reason why "most men lead lives of quiet desperation"ººº is exactly the psychopathology of normality. 99% of us are actively prevented from striving toward self-actualization because our lives are exploited (alienated labor) and actualization is repressed in the interests of tight social control and maintenance of supporting moral systems which devalue the lives of workers (who are, more or less, 99% of the population).

Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. — Agustino

Your phrase rings in my ears and knots up my gut because this is EXACTLY the sentiments of the corporate world toward its workforce and towards it's necessary consuming population. "Never mind your potential personhood, just keep buying this crap."


ººThis is a quote from Wikipedia; I don't have my personality theory texts from 40 odd years ago -- you can't keep everything.

ºººHenry David Thoreau -- one of Maslow's few exemplars of self-actualization, and a hero of my youth.

Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool

This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool

That's nonsense, since it fails to account for at least two very important factors: capacity and consequence. Firstly, if someone is not capable of living a normal life, then it makes no sense to say that they have the right to live a normal life. And secondly, if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right. Hence, with regards to the latter point, I'm against forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled in that regard as some sort of twisted notion of social assistance.

This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Typical. My comments never get picked, but flawed comments like the one that you quoted do.

I suppose it does have a ring to it, if you think that that's more important than critical analysis...

But anyway, congratulations! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D

Typical. My comments never get picked, but flawed comments like the one that you quoted do.

I suppose it does have a ring to it, if you think that that's more important than critical analysis...

But anyway, congratulations! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D — Sapientia

Wow we agree again :-O ... what is happening with this world? I do agree with the thrust of your point. Given her first initial post in this thread, it is blindingly obvious that Tiff has been biased in picking that reply out, and not an opposing point of view. Confirmation bias :p - which I would go as far as saying is disgusting when seen on a PHILOSOPHY forum, a place where the truth, and not personal preferences, are supposed to be the essence.

That's nonsense, since it fails to account for at least two very important factors: capacity and consequence. Firstly, if someone is not capable of living a normal life, then it makes no sense to say that they have the right to live a normal life. And secondly, if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right. Hence, with regards to the latter point, I'm against forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled in that regard as some sort of twisted notion of social assistance. — Sapientia

Indeed. Rights can only be things which it makes sense for a community to guarantee.