Female Orgasm by law

[Jim Johnson]

Sex on Ecuador's political agenda  
By Daniel Schweimler
South America correspondent, BBC News  



Ms Soledad Vela wants laws covering life, health and sexual education


A woman from the governing party in Ecuador has proposed that a women's right to enjoy sexual happiness should be enshrined in the country's law.

Her suggestion has provoked a lively debate in conservative Ecuador.

Maria Soledad Vela, who is helping to rewrite the constitution, says women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects or child bearers.

Now, she says, women should have the right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex lives.

Ms Soledad Vela is a member of the governing party on the Constituent Assembly that is rewriting the country's constitution.

Its aim, among other things, is to ensure a better distribution of wealth and rights for indigenous communities and the poor.

Women, she believes, should not be left off that list.

But her comments have provoked a lively response - mostly, unsurprisingly, from men.

Opposition assembly member, Leonardo Viteri, accused her of trying to decree orgasm by law.

Another called the proposal "ridiculous" and said that such an intimate topic should stay intimate and not be enshrined in law.

Ms Soledad Vela responded to the criticism, saying she had never requested the right to an orgasm - merely the right to enjoy sex in a free, fair and more open society.

She explained that sex was a difficult subject to discuss in Ecuador and that what she wanted were clearer laws covering life, health and sexual education.

[KBCraig]

I've read that by Jewish law, a husband is required to keep his wife sexually satisfied. (The reverse isn't stated, but I guess it's presumed that his needs get taken care of by fulfilling hers.)

[Raineyrocks]

I've read that by Jewish law, a husband is required to keep his wife sexually satisfied. (The reverse isn't stated, but I guess it's presumed that his needs get taken care of by fulfilling hers.)

I wonder seriously if that's why there is that saying, and I'm not implying that it's true, how in the world would I know? But the saying is pretty much men can forget about getting BJs after marrying a Jewish woman.  Has anyone heard of that saying?

[Cyro]

Its aim, among other things, is to ensure a better distribution of wealth and rights for indigenous communities and the poor.

[J’raxis 270145]

A woman from the governing party in Ecuador has proposed that a women's right to enjoy sexual happiness should be enshrined in the country's law.

Its aim, among other things, is to ensure a better distribution of wealth and rights for indigenous communities and the poor.

Ms Soledad Vela is a member of the governing party on the Constituent Assembly that is rewriting the country's constitution.

Good idea. Bad motives. Bad execution.

[Jim Johnson]

Good Idea?

The door bursts open and someone yells, "Police... STUD (Sexual Tentions Untightening Department)... everyone on your backs your coming with me!"

Mister Rogers... the court is very disappointed in your performance... and so is your wife.

Jesus Garara... you are convicted of being a very sexy man and not fully servicing the women who frequent the coffee shop in which you bus tables.... you are ordered wear a burka and hide your sexiness after serving time in the womens correctional institute.

[J’raxis 270145]

Oops, left too much in the first quote ("... should be enshrined in the country's law").

Good idea: Right to enjoy sexual happiness.
Bad motives: The wealth redistribution motive.
Bad execution: The legal/constitutional route.

[Cyro]

Oops, left too much in the first quote ("... should be enshrined in the country's law").

Good idea: Right to enjoy sexual happiness.
Bad motives: The wealth redistribution motive.
Bad execution: The legal/constitutional route.

Not even that, It's not a right, otherwise we'd have people sueing each other left, right and centre for "not satisfying" them. It would be dumb.

[ReverendRyan]

Oops, left too much in the first quote ("... should be enshrined in the country's law").

Good idea: Right to enjoy sexual happiness.
Bad motives: The wealth redistribution motive.
Bad execution: The legal/constitutional route.

Not even that, It's not a right, otherwise we'd have people sueing each other left, right and centre for "not satisfying" them. It would be dumb.

Not exactly.

You don't have a right to food, but you have a right to eat. Same thing.

[J’raxis 270145]

It's not a right, otherwise we'd have people sueing each other left, right and centre for "not satisfying" them.

In context, it's really just a special case of the right of free association—the right to disassociate oneself with one's partner if they're not. More about what she actually meant, from the article:—

Maria Soledad Vela, who is helping to rewrite the constitution, says women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects or child bearers.

Now, she says, women should have the right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex lives.

[Free libertarian]

 Females can have orgasms?  What will they think of next?! 

[Raineyrocks]

Females can have orgasms?  What will they think of next?! 

  Who knows?