Wants vs. Needs vs. Rights

Fri, Dec 20, 2019 8:49 PM

Got into a discussion with a disabled gentleman who has stated that his disability prevents him from finding a romantic partner (knowing him, I believe it has more to do with his vanilla demeanor and awkward personality).

He argues that the illegality of prostitution is oppression of the disabled and socially marginalized.

Furthermore, he argues that it is an infringement of his rights, specifically because sex, he argues, is a need.

First, is there any good argument to establish sex as a "need" on an individual basis?  Obviously, a species needs procreation to survive, but at the single individual level, is there anyone who can think of a good argument for sex as a need?

Secondly, is there a logical framework that can be used to justify a right based on the fact that it's a need?

Ad

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 2:33 PM
    posted by O-Trap

    Got into a discussion with a disabled gentleman who has stated that his disability prevents him from finding a romantic partner (knowing him, I believe it has more to do with his vanilla demeanor and awkward personality).....

    First, is there any good argument to establish sex as a "need" on an individual basis?  Obviously, a species needs procreation to survive, but at the single individual level, is there anyone who can think of a good argument for sex as a need?

    Secondly, is there a logical framework that can be used to justify a right based on the fact that it's a need?

    1.  I'm no attorney, but I did see the movie "Holiday Inn" last night.  f you can survive without sex, it's not a "need".

    2.  Did you ask him why thinks prostitution is the only way to satisfy his "want"?  I did a few searches, right away I found something about Tinder for the disabled.  Awkward or not, he has avenues available to him, but you do have to watch out for the crazies. 

    I dunno, maybe that's the kind he's looking for.  Guys talk, word gets around, ya hear things - and from the word I get from guys around me talking, there are women out there who would be turned on by a guy in the wheelchair (something about all that hardware?).  

    Did you suggest a sleazy strip bar with lap dancing, or Robert Kraft's favorite massage parlor?

    Sun, Dec 22, 2019 1:11 AM
    posted by Zunardo

    1.  I'm no attorney, but I did see the movie "Holiday Inn" last night.  f you can survive without sex, it's not a "need".

    2.  Did you ask him why thinks prostitution is the only way to satisfy his "want"?  I did a few searches, right away I found something about Tinder for the disabled.  Awkward or not, he has avenues available to him, but you do have to watch out for the crazies. 

    I dunno, maybe that's the kind he's looking for.  Guys talk, word gets around, ya hear things - and from the word I get from guys around me talking, there are women out there who would be turned on by a guy in the wheelchair (something about all that hardware?).  

    Did you suggest a sleazy strip bar with lap dancing, or Robert Kraft's favorite massage parlor?

    I didn't but mostly because I was doing my best to keep the conversation rational.  He was obviously a man on a mission.

    I tend to fall the same way you do regarding what a need is.  If one person can survive without something, I don't think of it as a need.

    He offered the "some people" don't have any other options.  Maybe he's referring to more than just guys in wheelchairs.  I dunno.

    Dude's on a mission.  I get the impression that he's looking for justification.  I also get the impression that he's a somewhat militant incel.

    Mon, Jan 6, 2020 8:05 AM

    I must have missed sex in the Bill of Rights.

     

    Maybe in the DoI the "pursuit of happiness" phrase? Although, it does only say you have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't say you have the right to happiness.

     

    Sorry, your acquaintance is a moron and doesn't understand the difference between something he wants and something that is a right. 

     

    Of course there is a lot of that going around these days.

    Mon, Jan 6, 2020 10:47 PM
    posted by jmog

    I must have missed sex in the Bill of Rights.

     

    Maybe in the DoI the "pursuit of happiness" phrase? Although, it does only say you have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't say you have the right to happiness.

     

    Sorry, your acquaintance is a moron and doesn't understand the difference between something he wants and something that is a right. 

     

    Of course there is a lot of that going around these days.

    Well, you can make a pretty solid case that rights exist outside the BoR.  In fact, calling them "inalienable" alone would indicate that even the Constitution being amended or rewritten wouldn't preclude them as rights.

    His concept of a "right" was a "need."  And he says that sex is a "need."

    So the conversation was two-fold.  It wasn't just whether or not rights were needs, but also whether or not sex is a need.

    I just don't see how sex is a need on an individual level.

    Tue, Jan 7, 2020 7:39 AM
    posted by O-Trap

    Well, you can make a pretty solid case that rights exist outside the BoR.  In fact, calling them "inalienable" alone would indicate that even the Constitution being amended or rewritten wouldn't preclude them as rights.

    His concept of a "right" was a "need."  And he says that sex is a "need."

    So the conversation was two-fold.  It wasn't just whether or not rights were needs, but also whether or not sex is a need.

    I just don't see how sex is a need on an individual level.

    1. He was talking legal aspects, so the BoR and DoI is the place to look, at least start looking.

    2. Sex isn't even a biological need (on an individual level). Air, water, food, etc are needs. Sex is a want. There are plenty of people who go without sex for decades or more. No one is going without air for more than a few minutes, water for a few days, or food for a few weeks. Those are needs, sex is a want. If he was being intellectually honest at all he would admit to that. But he was showing his confirmation bias the whole discussion.

    Tue, Jan 7, 2020 5:34 PM
    posted by jmog

    1. He was talking legal aspects, so the BoR and DoI is the place to look, at least start looking.

    2. Sex isn't even a biological need (on an individual level). Air, water, food, etc are needs. Sex is a want. There are plenty of people who go without sex for decades or more. No one is going without air for more than a few minutes, water for a few days, or food for a few weeks. Those are needs, sex is a want. If he was being intellectually honest at all he would admit to that. But he was showing his confirmation bias the whole discussion.

    Well, he was advocating for the legalization of sex work, but he was arguing that it "SHOULD" be treated as a right since, in his view, it was/is one.

    Now, being the good little anarchist I am, I agreed with legalizing sex work (though, as a concept, I find it abhorrent).  But the argument seems terrible.

    Ad