« Deeply Disturbing Tidbit of the Day | Main | Today in "Teddy Bears in the News..." »

August 18, 2010

Sex Is A Human Right?

According to the Nanny State, it is:

A 'man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers' money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.

His social worker says sex is a 'human right' for the unnamed individual - described as a frustrated virgin.

His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital's red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.

Money quote from his state appointed "counselor":

'Wouldn't you prefer that we can control this, guide him, educate him, support him to understand the process and ultimately end up satisfying his needs in a secure, licensed place where his happiness and growth as a person is the most important thing?

'Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.'

It amuses me no end to watch the social safety net concept continue to evolve. What will be the next 'human right' taxpayers are placed on the hook for?

France, one of a few countries that has made Internet access a human right, did so earlier this year. France's Constitutional Council ruled that Internet access is a basic human right. That said, it stopped short of making "broadband access" a legal right. Finland says that it's the first country to make broadband access a legal right.

Feel free to vote for your favorite human right in the comments section.

Posted by Cassandra at August 18, 2010 08:01 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3828

Comments

What if one of these guys is so unattractive that no prostitute wants to have sex with him for anything resembling the normal price? Does the government conduct an auction to ensure that he gets his sexual experience, no matter if it costs 1 million Euros per bang? Or will some unfortunate prostitute be conscripted for the task?

This beautifully illustrates the problems with the "positive rights" worldview...one man's rights become another man's (another woman's, in this case) obligations.

Posted by: david foster at August 18, 2010 10:16 AM

Hm, 'his growth as a person.'

...

...

...

No, I can't bring myself to do it. Seriously, though, does this mean that prostitution is compatible with the woman's personal growth? I mean, if human dignity is the issue, she obviously must be doing something that is also dignified and praiseworthy -- something we should want our daughters to grow up to do!

Likewise, apparently cell phones must be a human right too -- I mean, everyone has one now, and I understand the government will even pay for you to get one.

However, I live far enough out that there's no plan that provides coverage here. So -- are the taxpayers on the hook for building a new relay tower for me?

Posted by: Grim at August 18, 2010 10:26 AM

"Or will some unfortunate prostitute be conscripted for the task?"

Nah, they'll just go to a *union* brothel where granny has seniority.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at August 18, 2010 10:31 AM

Hm, 'his growth as a person.'

You're just trying to deflate his "sense of self worth".

Meanie.

Posted by: "Personal Growth" is a Human Right at August 18, 2010 10:37 AM

The Dutch government is clearly discriminating against these people: after all, Nicholas Sarkozy gets to (presumably) have sex with Carla Bruni; why should these disabled individuals b limited to those women who are probably less-attractive and almost certainly have less-sparkly personalities? (OK, Sarko/Bruni is Italian & French, but I'm too lazy to look up a Dutch equivalent)

What is clearly needed is a government panel to rate all prostitutes and quantity their attractions on both physical and emotional dimensions, so that assignments can be properly done based on an individual's degree of victimhood. (Lots of job opportunities for academics and think-tank types there) Otherwise, this government benefit program is likely to be as unappealing as "worker housing" in the Soviet bloc.

Posted by: david foster at August 18, 2010 11:02 AM

Since he has a learning disability, that must mean that they have already determined that one trip will not be enough and follow-up sessions will therefore be necessary. Let's hope that that's the only 'gift that keeps on giving' that comes of this.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at August 18, 2010 11:16 AM

Why can't some liberal female just volunteer? Save the money

Posted by: wayne Peterson at August 18, 2010 11:17 AM

Oooh!!!! Ooooh!!! Pick me!!!!

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at August 18, 2010 11:22 AM

Teddy bears for everyone!

Posted by: Teddy Ruxpin at August 18, 2010 11:28 AM

Hey, Nancy Pelosi...although we are mostly hard-hearted conservatives and libertarians at this site, we do have some milk of human kindness in our souls, and would not favor extreme deliberate cruelty to the disabled.

Posted by: david foster at August 18, 2010 11:51 AM

And in other news, Knut the Oppressed, Gay Polar Bear, has announced a new product line in an attempt to capitalize on the current craze.

Posted by: DL Sly at August 18, 2010 11:56 AM

***
A union boss went into a cathouse. The madam lined up the ladies--he pointed to an attractive young lady. The madam said, "You can't go with her. You have to go with this other lady instead--she was about 70 years old!
***
The boss asked, "What does she have that the other girl doesn't?" The madam replied, "Seniority!"
***
I hope this guy got his pick.
***
Rocketman
***

Posted by: John Bibb at August 18, 2010 12:31 PM

Knut the Oppressed, Gay Polar Bear, has announced a new product line in an attempt to capitalize on the current craze.

I think my Human Rights were violated by that photo...

Posted by: Nan Pelosi at August 18, 2010 01:12 PM

This is very close to a prediction I've had for last few years. I previously concluded that eventually women and men will face human rights and discrimination charges for turning down dates with others based off of income, looks, age, handicaps etc. scarry that something a little similar is happening.

Posted by: Jon at August 18, 2010 01:28 PM

Has no one heard of "self-help"...???

If he has a "human right", shouldn't the social worker have a duty to provide for that right...personally?

Posted by: Ragspierre at August 18, 2010 02:30 PM

How about the right to not pay a lot for this Muffler!

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 18, 2010 02:33 PM

Likewise, apparently cell phones must be a human right too -- I mean, everyone has one now, and I understand the government will even pay for you to get one.

It's so they can monitor where you are, in case Obama wants to a predator drone strike on somebody he dislikes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 18, 2010 02:52 PM

I have a right to rock!

Or is it a right to a rock, and a left to Albuquerque?

Posted by: BillT at August 18, 2010 02:53 PM

I . . . can't even bring myself to mock this. It's perfect as is.

Posted by: Texan99 at August 18, 2010 03:01 PM

I think that it is a human right that everyone be given an iPad. Also an iPhone. And a Kindle. Because being behind in technology is an impediment to a person's ability to hold a competitive, well-paid job, and therefore an infraction against their human rights.


Also, we all should be given a cool pair of Nike sneakers so that no one can be teased for wearing cheap Payless knockoffs. It's a human right that nobody should ever be teased for anything.


Oh, and employees who skip work the day after Super Bowl Sunday are exempt from having to use a vacation day. It's a human right that THAT many hangovers should get to stay in bed. In fact, let's make it a national holiday!

Posted by: MWR at August 18, 2010 03:16 PM

Trans fats.

Let's face it people, I can't maintain this manly physique all by my lonesome!

Posted by: Michael Moore at August 18, 2010 03:27 PM

You gotta fight
For your right
To paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaartay.

Posted by: Beastie Boys at August 18, 2010 03:29 PM

Nah.
Botox, people.

It's right in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to an eerily wrinkle free, perfectly motionless face."

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at August 18, 2010 03:30 PM

Teleprompters.

Posted by: Barack Obama at August 18, 2010 03:35 PM

once again, the confusion between human desires and human rights.

will a learning-disabled female virgin also be provided with a session of taxpayer funded boinking at her request?

Posted by: ShyAsrai at August 18, 2010 03:54 PM

:facepalm:

I ... that's all.

Posted by: htom at August 18, 2010 04:25 PM

Roit, iss story is insultin to Bri'ish prostitutes, innit. You mean to tell me, ey couldn't find some bird to andle is bollocks proper roit ere in Merrie Olde England?

Posted by: a former european at August 18, 2010 04:44 PM

Well, afe, prostitution is legal, but solicitation for sex is not. Hence the trip overseas.

Posted by: Cricket at August 18, 2010 05:02 PM

"Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights."

Hey! That means every time I passed through Heathrow and Gatwick, my human rights were violated!

Okay, as far as having to use Heathrow goes, that just means they were even *more* violated...

*sob*

I feel so *un*used....

Posted by: BillT at August 18, 2010 05:16 PM

Oh. I had just read the excerpt and not the link itself...thought this was being perpetrated by the *Dutch* government until I saw Former European's comment.

Entirely consistent, sadly, with lots of other things I've seen coming out of the UK recently.

Posted by: david foster at August 18, 2010 06:21 PM

You haven't heard that the UN considers sex a human right, and that it's targeting laws in the US that require someone who has HIV/AIDS to inform potential partners of their being infected, as a violation of basic human rights? It's happening. What's next, rape laws being a violation? Or given democrats wish to include pedophilia as something that people just are, age of consent laws coming under attack?

Sex isn't a human right, and I was laughing myself silly when I read the bit quoted about obtaining sex in a brothel making someone "happy".. are these people insane??

Posted by: Jenny at August 18, 2010 06:31 PM

Germany has some female pop star on trial for having unprotected sex with men without informing those men she is HIV positive...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at August 18, 2010 08:31 PM

If this learning disabled...person has a natural right to sex, what does that say about the proper role of women in society?

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at August 18, 2010 09:09 PM

Eric, good point because I suspect if the mentally challenged individual were female, this would not be happening. I also wonder what this does for situations where a person who is not mentally competent is sterilized because he or she is unable to care for children, as happened while my parents were in medical school (a number of years ago). I also wonder just how this person came to understand what sex is, how the caregivers know that the person "is a frustrated virgin," How they are going to monitor the encounter so that the individual is not abused . . . This is getting far too much like some cyberpunk novels and stories I've read, with a dose of A. Huxley.

New human right? Straight As in college, even if it is not Pr*ncet*n or H*rv*rd.

Posted by: LittleRed1 at August 18, 2010 09:35 PM

It is vital to my well-being and full self-actualization that I have a semi-attractive, caring and intelligent man make passionate love to me on a regular basis. I demand my rights to happiness and fulfillment!!

Ridiculous.

Posted by: FbL at August 18, 2010 11:01 PM

Me, too, FbL. Me, too...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at August 18, 2010 11:47 PM

Once again, this brings up the most basic point. The only things that are "rights" are those things that do not require anyone else to give up their liberty or property.

Free speech: right
Free housing: not a right
Free practice of religion: right
Free healthcare: not a right
Bearing arms: right
Free firearms: not a right

The CLOSEST we come to in this country to a right that does require someone else to give up their property or liberty is the right to free legal counsel IF the defendant is unable to afford it for themselves. That concession was made because if the state has legal representation in a trial (aka the prosecutor), then the defendant MUST have representation as well. The state pays for the prosecutor, and if the defendant cannot provide his own, it also pays for the defense attorney. Lesser of two evils.

Posted by: MikeD at August 19, 2010 09:10 AM

The only things that are "rights" are those things that do not require anyone else to give up their liberty or property.

I agree with this as a working definition.


Free speech: right
Free practice of religion: right

I suggest these are not entirely good examples.

A blanket free speech right necessarily impacts on everyone's free speech rights: I cannot call you a liar and otherwise assault/destroy your reputation, just because I feel like it. Nor can my exercise of my free speech right impact on your free speech right "unfairly."

The proper practice of my religion requires me to proselytize my religion at sword point, yet this impacts your right to practice your religion--including proselytizing at sword point, even though your different religion may require you to do so, also.

If we accept the working definition, then we must accept limits on the practice even of our natural rights. This is part of the conflict about which Locke wrote, in his social contract discussions, of the role of governments and their relationship with the governed and with freedom.

In re the "not rights" enumerated (and others bandied about in the NLMSM), our Founding Fathers wrote of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as being natural rights, and it is these rights that drive the Left to argue that the examples MikeD identified above (and others) as, indeed, rights--as embodiments of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. The fatal flaw in their argument, I submit, centers on this: the limits that must be applied even to natural rights in order to maximize individual freedom--maximizing those same Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness rights: your right to free housing in no way obligates me to pay for it--even indirectly through use of taxes paid by me into the general coffers.

It may be the moral thing to do, it may be good long-run business to do, it may be the smart thing to do, to help the houseless (which is not the same as homeless although that distinction is not relevant to my exposition), but I am in no wise obligated to be moral, engage in good business, or to be smart. And if we allow a government to mandate the definitions of morality, good business, or smartness, then we will have surrendered our Lives, Liberties, and Pursuits of Happiness to a modern-day King George.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at August 19, 2010 01:21 PM

I will be brief; no, they do not have a right to sexual fulfilment because of the attendant moral issues. There are consequences to consider...not that the nanny state ever fashes itself about those...they leave those little messes for the taxpayers.

Have the do-gooders ever stopped to think about the consequences of this with regard to the type of client? Mental disabilities especially? Or the fact that the entitlement the state thinks they ought to have may not be kept in the confines of a brothel? That there might be increased sex crimes? Sterilization might be in order, unless they think that the right to have sex comes with the right to procreate.

Yes, I am being harsh and alarmist. This also strikes at the foundation of families in teaching responsible behavior to their mentally disabled children.

'Wouldn't you prefer that we can control this, guide him, educate him, support him to understand the process and ultimately end up satisfying his needs in a secure, licensed place where his happiness and growth as a person is the most important thing?
'Refusing to offer him this service would be a violation of his human rights.'

I would prefer his parents to 'control', 'guide' and educate him as well as support him. NOT the state. If his parents WANT that for him, then let them pay for it and whatever comes as a result of it.

Ninnies.

Posted by: Annoyed Cricket at August 19, 2010 04:39 PM

[Leftist Moralist Hat]...because of the attendant moral issues.

Whose morals? And who are you to impose your morals on this poor, benighted person--in particular the social "worker?" After all, what about the social worker in the Dutch brothel, and his/her right to earn a living? [/Leftist Moralist Hat]

Crap

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at August 19, 2010 04:54 PM

Eric,
I love yer gutz.

The left pushes their agenda in terms of rights, when it isn't about rights, it is about abolishing the chains that bind and gag everyone.

heh.

Posted by: Cricket at August 19, 2010 06:49 PM

Follow the money, Cricket. I suggest that whatever the left espouse as their motives, or even actually believe about themselves, it's about power.

Who really benefits from all these moves? Our (to be willfully un-PC) horny retard? Or the social worker who gets to spend someone else's money for his personal agenda? Mr Biden insists that it's the patriotic thing to do to pay even more taxes than we do. If the Treasury needs the money so badly, how much has Mr Biden donated to the treasury as voluntary contributions beyond his tax bill? Oh--it's only patriotic when it's someone else's money. Mr Gates, and others, think all the rich should pay [usurious] taxes. If the Treasury needs the money so badly, how much have Mr Gates, et al., donated to the Treasury as voluntary contributions?

And what happens with all the money that the left takes from us? Unabashedly, it's redistributed--which keeps the recipients hooked on these dealers' dope. It's the company town, the plantation, the hacienda writ nationally large. Lenin had it wrong--it's not religion that's the opiate of the masses, it's socialism. And the beneficiaries are solely those in power who increase and consolidate their power with the addiction of redistribution.

We conservatives and 18th century Liberals have our own ills, but who are the beneficiaries when we're true to our principles? The individual we teach to fish and so to fend for him/herself? Do we increase our power when we empower others? Or the one we give the fish to (the left's solution)--and so keep beholden to us and our egos?

This 18th century Liberal will pay millions for hands up, but not one red cent for hands out.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at August 19, 2010 07:21 PM

Eric, I know it is about power...who controls the gold makes the rules.

Long years ago in my journey toward Constitutional Libertarianism (as opposed to being a wingnut) I was a member of the John Birch society. Don't laugh, they really did
help me see the light.

Anyway, one day I was reading an improving pamphlet entitled 'The Communist Manifesto' and the ten planks.

We are so there it is pathetic that the main stream psychophants still insist that the Emperor's clothes are lovely and how DARE the peasants start revolting!

Posted by: Cricket at August 20, 2010 01:53 AM

A blanket free speech right necessarily impacts on everyone's free speech rights: I cannot call you a liar and otherwise assault/destroy your reputation, just because I feel like it. Nor can my exercise of my free speech right impact on your free speech right "unfairly."

But your words are allowed as long as they do not materially harm me or anyone else. Thus the prohibitions against slander and inciting a riot. You are free to express the opinion that I am a doody head as much as you like. You may not accuse me of being a serial killer. Thus, your rights extend up to the point where it would infringe on someone else's rights and no further.

The proper practice of my religion requires me to proselytize my religion at sword point, yet this impacts your right to practice your religion--including proselytizing at sword point, even though your different religion may require you to do so, also.

Similarly, your rights to practice any religion you wish (or no religion at all) extends only until it would harm someone else. You are free to try and convince someone else to join your religion by word or deed, but not by threat or violence. Similarly you may not cause harm to others through the practice of your religion, which is why you can't freely practice the ancient Aztec religion in the states (cutting the hearts out of living human sacrifices and burning them for the Sun God Huitzilopochtli is sort of frowned upon).

Like anything else, moderation is key. Too little freedom and you have tyranny. Too much and you have anarchy. Both involve the suppression of the rights of others. The former from official policy, the latter from abuse of one persons' rights by another.

Posted by: MikeD at August 20, 2010 10:32 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)