When Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa took over the reins of government in January 2007, he vowed to re-write the constitution to increase the power of the people and to tackle political instability. In a country that has been rocked by decades of political and economic turbulence and social volatility, a constitutional proposal to enshrine a "woman's right to enjoy sexual happiness" has sparked fiery debate in the predominantly conservative Roman Catholic nation.
Opposition members in the Constituent Assembly immediately raised a howl, protesting that such an intimate subject is private and should not be enshrined into Law. Other opponents ridiculed the proposal as legislating libido, and accused the proponent, Maria Soledad Vela, a member of the ruling governing body, as attempting to decree orgasm by law. The proponent's declaration that "Women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects and child bearers" has not helped her proposal gain adherents in the Assembly. Others argued the improbability of prosecuting violators if the "victims" didn't know what it feels like to have an orgasm. Not surprisingly, the most virulent criticism and ridicule came from the men.
Ms. Vela clarified that she wanted women to have a right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex and clearer laws on life, health, and sexual education - not the right to an orgasm. But what is revealing is the kneejerk reaction of the men in the Assembly. The traditional male dominance over women in a Catholic environment may have been threatened, viewed as providing equal power to women who should be subservient to men - especially in love making. The conservative view that sex should be used only for the procreation of children, and that sexual gratification is lustful, still prevails among societies with fundamentalist practices and beliefs. This hypocrisy is in itself conflicted, and biased against women. How can procreation take place if the man, at least, is without "lust"? That would only mean a failure to launch.
What is not being made explicit in the proposal is the woman's "right to refuse" which puts and end to the "sex on demand" by men. By keeping the subject intimate and within the confines of the conjugal bedroom, men in such societies have long escaped prosecution for sexual abuse and marital rape. The proposal is being attacked on the basis of the allegations by the men of its implications. However, it is clear that the proponent in pushing for women's rights, in a country that treats them as lower than second class. The window of Democracy opened by the US educated President is an opportunity to correct this malady. That it will lead to several laws on women's rights, especially of the emerging indigenous population, is another factor that elicits strong opposition.
It is men who refuse equality, especially for the opposite gender, who are the weakest of all. Pretensions to strength of character are based on power currently dispensed, but will not allow a level playing field for fear of losing. Men whose egos are more important than the pursuit of justice will always prefer a corrupt and unjust environment, for as long as they enjoy the upper hand. It's difficult to believe that they love their mothers, sisters, or daughters when they would allow them to endure such cruel and humiliating experience for the rest of their married lives.
Harrrrwwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
Opposition members in the Constituent Assembly immediately raised a howl, protesting that such an intimate subject is private and should not be enshrined into Law. Other opponents ridiculed the proposal as legislating libido, and accused the proponent, Maria Soledad Vela, a member of the ruling governing body, as attempting to decree orgasm by law. The proponent's declaration that "Women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects and child bearers" has not helped her proposal gain adherents in the Assembly. Others argued the improbability of prosecuting violators if the "victims" didn't know what it feels like to have an orgasm. Not surprisingly, the most virulent criticism and ridicule came from the men.
Ms. Vela clarified that she wanted women to have a right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex and clearer laws on life, health, and sexual education - not the right to an orgasm. But what is revealing is the kneejerk reaction of the men in the Assembly. The traditional male dominance over women in a Catholic environment may have been threatened, viewed as providing equal power to women who should be subservient to men - especially in love making. The conservative view that sex should be used only for the procreation of children, and that sexual gratification is lustful, still prevails among societies with fundamentalist practices and beliefs. This hypocrisy is in itself conflicted, and biased against women. How can procreation take place if the man, at least, is without "lust"? That would only mean a failure to launch.
What is not being made explicit in the proposal is the woman's "right to refuse" which puts and end to the "sex on demand" by men. By keeping the subject intimate and within the confines of the conjugal bedroom, men in such societies have long escaped prosecution for sexual abuse and marital rape. The proposal is being attacked on the basis of the allegations by the men of its implications. However, it is clear that the proponent in pushing for women's rights, in a country that treats them as lower than second class. The window of Democracy opened by the US educated President is an opportunity to correct this malady. That it will lead to several laws on women's rights, especially of the emerging indigenous population, is another factor that elicits strong opposition.
It is men who refuse equality, especially for the opposite gender, who are the weakest of all. Pretensions to strength of character are based on power currently dispensed, but will not allow a level playing field for fear of losing. Men whose egos are more important than the pursuit of justice will always prefer a corrupt and unjust environment, for as long as they enjoy the upper hand. It's difficult to believe that they love their mothers, sisters, or daughters when they would allow them to endure such cruel and humiliating experience for the rest of their married lives.Harrrrwwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!
