Sexual Pleasure, Sexuality, and Rights
Subtopic 2 : Sexual Pleasure and Rights - A Summary 

Greetings! I wanted to share some thoughts, observations, and short summaries of some of the debates with everyone from Subtopic 3 before we move into the fourth and final subtopic of the Pleasure Forum.

How does claiming a 'sexual right' have an impact on how those rights are realized? When trying to define sexual rights, one participant brought up an excellent point - from which perspective are we trying to approach sexual rights? It is has traditionally been easier to talk about sexual rights in terms of what's being restricted as opposed to what is free. This is obviously due to the discomfort associated with the topic and because sexual pleasure has never been a given part of the public debate on sexuality. Claiming sexual rights highlights a host of issues -some conflicting. As one forum participant noted, conceptually, rights can't be wrong. But, could they be, if the state started defining appropriate and acceptable forms and 'levels' of sexual pleasure? One participant asked if we wanted the government in our bedroom, deciding acceptable levels and forms of pleasure. What would it look like if promoting and protecting sexual rights is taken too far? Who would decide these boundaries? And as another participant highlighted, it would be critical to take into account country contexts when talking about how to enforce sexual rights

It is also important to define what we are asking for when we talk about claiming a sexual right - again, there are different understandings as to what this means in the context of sexuality - is it the freedom to decide your sexual partner, irrespective of their sex or gender? Is it the freedom to choose to express pleasure in whichever form pleases you? What is that expression is harmful to another? There are lines that might be definitive concerning "harm," but what about those grey areas that are not free and clear "harms" to all people? It becomes complicated here, and there is a need for a broader articulation around sexual pleasure as a right and how that might be practically realized from a state and civil society perspective.

What has feminism contributed to the debate on sexual pleasure? Feminism has had an interesting and diverse set of debates within sexuality. These debates have had their own progression throughout different parts of the world. It is true what some forum participants have states - feminism is not monolithic -anywhere. Feminism has brought many difficult, taboo, and ground-breaking ideas to the public forum. In India, feminists have brought many debates to the public sphere; violence against women, women's rights, and their participation in development - with some successful outcomes. However, its engagements with sexual pleasure, and even sexuality, has been mixed. Recently, feminism has increased its level of debate on sexuality, but it has largely been in connection to HIV/AIDS, violence against women, and migration issues. Sexual pleasure has not entered the realm of discussion as a part of the discourse on sexuality and wellbeing, as an issue in and of itself. The space for sexual pleasure discussions and debates have been fragmented at best, at least from a South and Southeast Asian perspective, and therefore, activists are still trying to find the language to talk about it, and create more constructive spaces to do so (as we talked about in Subtopic 1). Feminism has been one such space, but it has been a mixed bag in this region. We have touched on several other spaces, such as medicine, public health, media, and art, to name a few, but we have yet to bring these connections together to create a more diverse and engaged conversation on sexual pleasure and rights.

The gaze of desire has also been brought up as a part of the discussions feminism has contributed to the debate on sexual pleasure- is pleasure defined by the gaze or by the act of the individual? Previous forum postings have addressed this topic, when talking about how sexual pleasure could be a thought, anticipation, an act, a feeling - which can be individual, or defined by someone's engagement with the individual.

Different groups - Different rights? This has been one of the more interesting questions within the debate on sexual pleasure and rights. Participants highlighted that it would be problematic for different groups to have different definition of rights in terms of sexual pleasure. The example given of the disabled man who asked for reimbursement for a serves provided by a sex worker as a part of necessary expenses related to his wellbeing - is this an example of the state defining different set of rights based on a group that may not have the usual avenues for sexual partners, as opposed to citizenship, ? Or is it an example that further complicates the debate on sexual pleasure as a right - should the state be in the business of defining different definitions of sexual pleasure and articulating it as an inherent right? Can sex workers then be employed by the state as social workers providing a public service to which a certain community has rights? Regulating this would be in the very least, interesting!

Similarly, one forum participant brought up the context of sex workers and how they negotiate to provide sexual services to paying clients. The range of things that they negotiate in terms of what is permissible and what isn't - the examples given include how sex workers regulate acts such as kissing and anal sex, among other things, and how brothels have policies on what is permissible within its boundaries. Can this translate as easily to the public sphere by the state? Larger questions about how to hold the state accountable and in check with this also need to be a part of the debate.

Who is regulating who? As pointed out by a forum participant, government, the culture of communities, and societies completely regulate the right to pleasure. This is not to negate the role of "self" in regulating sexual pleasure and what one thinks they are entitled to. This was highlighted in the example given by a forum participant when talking about the institution of marriage and monogamy within it - how that "is" supposed to be the pleasure. And while some say that being married and monogamous is a personal choice, it is actually self and society who have applied the regulations to the institution and people's behavior in it.

What Next? In the fourth and final subtopic, we will be talking about the contentions of the public health approach and sexual pleasure. Previous forum postings have already begun to talk about the issues of health and sexual pleasure and asking the question of how does "safety" fit in? One of the forum participants had asked an interesting question last week about how to conduct sexuality education when you could only describe the clitoris in very medical terms? We will be asking forum participants to share examples of how they are able to "practice" integrating principles of pleasure into programming. There is also scope for talking again about the kinds of spaces that have traditionally occupied the "legitimate" space for sexual pleasure - (media, pornography, sex toys, medicine, etc.) - we can then begin to talk about how some of those spaces have crossed over with health programming and conversations about risk and safety and what kind of impacts they are seen to have.

I hope you have been able to gain something valuable from the second discussion. Again, looking forward to a lively dialogue around the issues. An introduction to Subtopic 4 will be sent to the forum shortly. Hope to hear from many of you then!

Thank you,

Neha Patel (Moderator)
The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality