Sexual Pleasure As a Human Right: Harmful Or Helpful to Women in the Context of HIV/AIDS?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Women’s Studies International Forum 28 (2005) 392–404 www.elsevier.com/locate/wsif Sexual pleasure as a human right: Harmful or helpful to women in the context of HIV/AIDS? Jennifer Oriel University of Melbourne, PO Box 404, Hurstbridge, Victoria, 3099, Australia Synopsis Sexual rights advocates recommend that sexual pleasure should be recognised as a human right. However, the construction of sexuality as gender-neutral in sexual rights literature conceals how men’s demand for sexual pleasure often reinforces the subordination of women. In the context of HIV/AIDS, men’s belief that they have a right to use women for sexual pleasure is a recognised and cross-cultural barrier to effective HIV prevention. Research on sexuality from the fields of feminism, political science, public health, and HIV/AIDS reveals that violence against women is fundamental to the construction of masculinity. This violence is manifested through rape, sexual coercion, sexual objectification, and prostitution. By challenging the forms of sexuality and sexual pleasure that reinforce masculinity, it may be possible to imagine sexual rights that are based on sexual equality. In this article, I suggest that a new model for sexual rights that simultaneously provides women with greater sexual pleasure and lessens the risk of HIV transmission is possible. D 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Introduction human rights. The right to sexual pleasure is listed as one of eleven core principles. There are five major Within the growing international discourse of sexual sexual rights declarations or bills in global circulation rights, it is increasingly recommended that sexual plea- and four of them propose that sexual pleasure should be sure should be recognised as a human right. Since recognised as a right. The authors of these declarations 1983, sexologists have worked with the World Health use gender-neutral language in principles and defini- Organization (WHO) to define sexuality and sexual tions of terms. Thus, they do not explain how the right health (PAHO and WHO, 2000, pp. 1–2, 49; WHO, to sexual pleasure, or any sexual right, may affect 1987, pp. 1, 21). Their work culminated at a meeting women and men differently. The omission of a feminist with the WHO and the Pan American Health Organi- analysis of gender from sexual rights principles means sation (PAHO) in 2000, during which the WHO agreed that they are difficult to apply to political reality. How- to endorse the World Association for Sexology’s ever, the fact that one set of these principles has now bDeclaration of Sexual RightsQ (PAHO and WHO, been endorsed by the WHO demands that feminists test 2000, pp. 2, 37–38). Within this Declaration, it is the application of each principle to women’s lives in a recommended that sexual rights are fundamental to variety of economic, cultural, and sexual contexts. I am 0277-5395/$ - see front matter D 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2005.05.002 J. Oriel / Women’s Studies International Forum 28 (2005) 392–404 393 interested in exploring whether a right to sexual plea- Petchesky’s emphasis on bmultisexualismQ inter- sure will enhance progress towards sexual equality and sects with Barbara Klugman’s criticism of the Euro- whether it will help efforts to prevent HIV transmission pean interpretation of sexual rights. According to from men to women. Sexual equality has been included Klugman, director of the Women’s Health Project as a theoretical goal because it is essential to the mean- at the University of Witwatersand in Johannesburg, ingful expression of human rights. I have selected HIV the phrase is interpreted differently by South Afri- as a political context because each day, 8800 women cans than Europeans. She contends that in South are newly infected with HIV (UNIFEM, 2000, p. 11). Africa, sexual rights are understood as bthe right of Women account for 55% of new infections and 70% of women to control their sexualityQ (Klugman, 2000, all new infections are spread by sexual intercourse p. 1). She criticises the European delegates’ interpre- (Sandrasagra, 2001, p. 5; UNIFEM, 2000, p 11). In tation of sexual rights at the 1995 Beijing conference this sense, the spread of HIV from men to women because, as she claims, they were bunable to con- directly involves the pursuit of sexual pleasure and ceptualize sexual rights beyond the limited aspect of therefore, the proposed transformation of sexual plea- discrimination on the basis of sexual orientationQ sure into a human right. (Klugman, 2000, p. 6). Thus, there are strong differ- Feminists and sexologists have attempted to de- ences underlying the interpretation of sexual rights, fine the concept of sexual rights during the past even among feminist advocates. While Petchesky decade. According to political scientist, Rosalind concentrates on how the suppression of sexual mi- Pollack Petchesky (2000), sexual rights became a nority politics impedes the possibility of sexual part of international discourse in the platform for rights for lesbians and homosexual men, Klugman women’s reproductive rights during the 1994 Inter- focuses on how male dominance obstructs all national Conference on Population and Development women’s sexual rights. (ICPD) and at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (FWCW). She explains that the term bsexual rightsQ appeared in the draft Platform Feminist sexual rights for Action arising from the Beijing conference, but was deleted from the final version. Petchesky There are two sexual rights documents that have believes that the phrase was deleted because been drafted by feminist activists. The first is found in bunderneath the aversion to sexual rights lurk taboos the bAction SheetsQ of the North American based against homosexuality, bisexuality, and alternative organisation Health, Empowerment, Rights and Ac- family formsQ (Petchesky, 2000, p. 86). She reveals countability (HERA). The second is bSouth Africa’s that the sexual rights discourse at Cairo and Beijing Sexual Rights CharterQ, drafted by the Women’s was suppressed by Vatican-led fundamentalists who Health Project (WHP), of which Barbara Klugman began a media campaign against reproductive and is a member. The Charter is a part of bThe Sexual sexual rights on the basis that they were associated Rights CampaignQ in South Africa, which includes with bindividualismQ, bWestern feminismQ and seven major non-governmental organisations and ad- blesbianismQ (Petchesky, 2000, pp. 86–87). Petch- ditional community based organisations. Both HERA esky is concerned that the human rights discourses and WHP’s versions of sexual rights include non- of feminists focus solely on sexual violence against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as women rather than asserting women’s right to sexual well as emphasising the need for women’s sexual pleasure. She believes that this is a bvictim-izing autonomy. Members of HERA created an Action tendencyQ and that feminist human rights campaigns Sheet that they claim defines bthe central concepts bcapitalize on the image of women as victimsQ of the agreements reachedQ at the 1994 ICPD and (Petchesky, 2000, p. 90). Her aim is to create sexual 1995 FWCW. They write: rights in which there is a positive acceptance for relationships and family forms beyond heterosexual- Sexual rights are a fundamental element of human ity in a new paradigm that she labels sexual diversity rights. They encompass the right to experience plea- and bmultisexualismQ (Petchesky, 2000, p. 91). surable sexuality, which is essential in and of itself 394 J. Oriel / Women’s Studies International Forum 28 (2005) 392–404 and, at the same time, is a fundamental vehicle of tution, and the right to well-trained professional and communication and love between people. Sexual caring services. Many of these rights encompass a rights include the right to liberty and autonomy in feminist understanding of women’s experiences of the responsible exercise of sexuality (HERA, 2004, sexuality. Yet the Charter falls short of identifying p. 27). and addressing the perpetrators of sexual violence against women. For example, there is no (?) right to Thus, the right to bpleasurable sexualityQ, or sexual recourse against men who commit sexual violence pleasure, is deemed bessentialQ and a fundamental against women and children. Perhaps more impor- element of human rights by HERA. Their version of tantly, there is no recognition in sexual rights docu- sexual rights include non-discrimination about the ments that by making sex a right, inequality in sexual choice of sexual partners as well as the bright to relations may be exacerbated. For example, a right to choose to be sexually active or notQ (HERA, 2004, sexual pleasure which is exercised by men may in- p. 28). They also emphasise that gender equality crease the violation of women’s right to say bNOQ to bcannot be achieved without sexual rightsQ, a state- male initiated sexual activity. ment that places sexual rights firmly within the scope of international feminist and human rights activism (HERA, 2004, p. 29). HERA recommends that human The ideological origin of sexual rights rights workers and advocates should be trained in the promotion of sexual rights as human rights (HERA, I suggest that one reason why sexual rights dis- 2004, pp. 30–31). However, HERA does not define course may not begin with an analysis of male sexual the terms that they use, which leaves them open to dominance or the goal of sexual equality is that the interpretation, including misinterpretation. Consistent very concept of sex as a right is derived from sexol- with all other sexual rights documents, HERA’s defi- ogy rather than feminism. As discussed, the nitions do not include gender-specific language. The bDeclaration of Sexual RightsQ endorsed by the use of gender-neutral language in sexual rights con- World Health Organization was created by members ceals how gender and sexuality are interrelated.