Do we have a right to sex?
The question arose from a question of the difference between the way Sweden and Denmark treat people with physical and mental handicaps. In Sweden, the sexuality of handicapped people is denied, repressed, and discouraged. In Denmark, on the contrary, the sexuality of people with disabilities is acknowledged, discussed, and facilitated.”
Consider the balm of masturbation in JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN: Dalton Trumbo, 1938 Johnny's legs, arms, jaws, and eyes, were blasted away. He could hear, but not see, not move, not talk. He was placed in a private room in the back of the hospital, covered by a tent, and periodically cared for by staff, On Christmas Eve, a nurse (male? female? don't know) gave him a gift: He/she jerked him off. Yes, it was pleasurable, but it was also affirming of his personhood.
Eventually he was able to communicate a little by banging his head on the cot -- so many bangs per letter. HIs first message was "Kill me." You can read this great book or watch the movie (made in the 60s) in the privacy of your own home. If you have no home, you have bigger problems than sex.
There are thousands of people, maybe a couple of million -- not sure -- who have disabilities that prevent them from pleasuring themselves. They just can move, or move in a minimally coordinated way.There are mentally retarded adults who can move, but... are they allowed to masturbate? Shown how? Don't know.
And then there are 7.5 billion people, more or less normal, for whom sex was, is, or will be a matter of course. Some people, though, face barriers. In parts of Africa, for instance, gay men might face imprisonment for having sex with each other. In many towns of India and China there are not enough women to partner 1 to 1 with the excess number of men. (This wasn't an accident: It occurred because parents preferred sons.)
Consider the balm of masturbation in JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN: Dalton Trumbo, 1938 Johnny's legs, arms, jaws, and eyes, were blasted away. He could hear, but not see, not move, not talk. He was placed in a private room in the back of the hospital, covered by a tent, and periodically cared for by staff, On Christmas Eve, a nurse (male? female? don't know) gave him a gift: He/she jerked him off. Yes, it was pleasurable, but it was also affirming of his personhood.
Eventually he was able to communicate a little by banging his head on the cot -- so many bangs per letter. HIs first message was "Kill me." You can read this great book or watch the movie (made in the 60s) in the privacy of your own home. If you have no home, you have bigger problems than sex.
There are thousands of people, maybe a couple of million -- not sure -- who have disabilities that prevent them from pleasuring themselves. They just can move, or move in a minimally coordinated way.There are mentally retarded adults who can move, but... are they allowed to masturbate? Shown how? Don't know.
And then there are 7.5 billion people, more or less normal, for whom sex was, is, or will be a matter of course. Some people, though, face barriers. In parts of Africa, for instance, gay men might face imprisonment for having sex with each other. In many towns of India and China there are not enough women to partner 1 to 1 with the excess number of men. (This wasn't an accident: It occurred because parents preferred sons.)
Comments (67)
Also many people who can't have sex for physical reasons generally show little interest in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a "right" to sex, because I don't see sex as the summum bonum of man's life, or otherwise required for it. I think we have a right to things that are required to achieve the highest good for man - for example, food, education, healthcare.
I think people are attracted more to the intimacy that can result from it than to the mere physical pleasure. The only reason sex seems like a necessity is that we live in a culture which PUSHES people to have sex, and treats sex as the highest good for man, and thus sees those who do not have sex, or who do not relentlessly pursue it as somehow stupid/wrong. We don't live in a society which is tolerant of sex - but rather intolerant. It hyper-sexualises people, and oppresses them if they refuse.
Quoting TheMadFool
Necessity for achieving the highest good for man. The highest good isn't to reproduce. It is to know and understand the world. In order to be able to do that, your real needs have to be provided for - food, shelter, water, education, health.
In this context, the facilitator may not be having "sex" with the client. We used to see people who have touch deprivation at the Chiropractic office and how a full body massage would change their stress levels in many areas of physical pain, aggression and overall feeling of well being.
I think it is reasonable to think that a person who is mentally 'normal' but physically challenged to the point they require an electronic, padded chair to move around in and an automated sling lift to get into a mechanical bed, is going to have a harder time finding a one nighter than someone who does not have this disability. Just because they cannot control their body or it's possible contortions, does not mean that the person does not have sexual urges, hormonal increases when aroused, desire to satisfy a very normal and important part of a person.
The facilitators are very professional about the set up, some countries like Australia cover a 'visit' every 6 weeks. They know how to work around some realities that others could not both physically and psychologically. Sometimes it is just a massage or cuddle session with their client and other times there is sexual intercourse, with everything in between.
It's really an amazing program that heads off a lot health problems for the clients as well as their caretakers, it truly looks at a patient as a whole and not just a condition.
Yes, I would grant that sex can be another good of man. In my assessment, the highest good is the good in virtue of which everything else is good. The highest good is virtue (which is the same, as Socrates said, with knowledge). That means that virtue is what makes everything else that we call good, good. Sex, money, and everything else have no goodness in themselves alone, but only in-so-far as they share in virtue ;) . Think by analogy to Plato's forms. Ultimately the forms also have no real existence except in-so-far as they share in Agathon - the form of the Good, which alone makes all of them possible.
The object is to provide extended time in erotic arousal through light massage (front side of the body) and sexual stimulation short of orgasm. (Avoiding orgasm is part of the tantric bit; experiencing orgasm doesn't invalidate the experience, but it should be quite delayed.) Deep breathing and relaxation techniques are also part of it.
This program was developed primarily for persons with AIDS. But the basic techniques work on anyone. (Do try it at home.)
Picture yourself deprived of physical pleasure for lack of physical capacity, for years on end. Can one survive? Yes. Is there any virtue in experiencing zero physical pleasure vs. experiencing intense physical pleasure? No. A whole person requires a validation of embodiment by experiencing pleasure, gustatory pleasure, sexual pleasure, warmth, coolness, movement -- the gamut.
Sexual pleasure may not be the ultimate good, but it is never-the-less well worth having.
I don't disagree with any of this, I merely disagree with the state providing this. If it was a loved one, etc. then I wouldn't mind it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If by sexual pleasure you mean intimacy, then I am very inclined to agree. People who are physically handicapped, etc. require to be cared for, with love, not with duty. It's not the state that must do this - but rather kind human beings.
I am aware of this. This is also apparently a better way to achieve stronger orgasms than actual sex, however, one of the main purposes of sex (intimacy) cannot be achieved by this (at least when done by oneself), and thus this experience still misses what is most important in the sexual experience (which is not pleasure itself). Nevertheless, this is not to say I am against such techniques (in fact I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in sex purely for pleasure).
Some people, though, can't perform the acts necessary to engage in social interaction as a first step. They have a range of neurological and physical disabilities which prevent normal socializing, let alone normal sexual interaction. Who will provide them with loving, intimate care? Families usually do this for children, but as children age into adults this often becomes physically and psychologically impossible to continue. (The parents, remember, are getting older too.)
In some cases, parents opt to have their children's physical growth suspended (through growth and sexual hormone blocking medications) so that they can continue to care for the child into their adulthood (by keeping the child physically small -- small enough for the parents to lift and transfer). Usually this is done in the case of early childhood brain damage.
I don't like this approach either, but the alternative is usually institutionalization. Institutions can do an excellent job, but they can't be counted on. Changes in personnel, funding, and policy by state agencies can change the quality of care completely and suddenly.
Not everyone has family nearby. Adults who were once able bodied can become totally incapacitated a long way from home. They may not have spouses; they may not have siblings or children. (The US is a big place -- families are often scattered thousands of miles apart.) The disabled adult might rather die than subject their family to their intense care needs.
These are extreme situations, but quite real. The extremity of their circumstances has implications for all people. We are all embodied beings with similar needs and potentials. Can we, as a policy of compassion, assure that those who are disabled physically (and mentally in terms of mental illness rather than severe cognitive impairment) have the opportunity to live a fuller life which includes sexual pleasure?
No, but if they express such a desire, and someone is willing, then I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.
And no, sex isn't necessary.
Is it uncomfortable to abstain from any sexual gratification, particularly when you are bored and have nothing to do? Yes. Is it impossible to do so? I hardly think so.
So sex is hardly what I would say to be something that needs immediate attention.
But I do think that prostitution should not be illegal, at least not to adults (18+, or perhaps 21+). Prostitution without the use of contraceptives should be illegal, though, and generally prostitution should not be advocated as a legitimate business practice when there are safer alternatives. You want to sell your body? Go ahead, I won't condemn you but neither will I applaud you.
I was a late bloomer when I came to sexual gratification, and actually only began experimenting after I heard some of my school friends talking about it. Before then, I was more or less ignorant of the whole masturbatory process, although I am sure I would have found out by myself eventually.
Also another issue that might be relevant is the use of testosterone-impairments. Lowering the testosterone in men will lower the sex drive and aggression in men.
Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. A subjective feeling of pleasure in itself is never meaningful, unless it is associated with an objective perfection. It can however be percieved as meaningful (even though it really isn't) when it is associated with a sense of SUBJECTIVE perfection.
The reason why most people who are interested in sexual gratification for pleasure prefer having sex with, for example, a random partner, instead of engage in some tantric form of masturbation (either mutual or individual) isn't because the physical pleasure is any better. It is not. Rather, there are psychological reasons. And these can be quite diverse (the noble ones are ruled out, since we have already assumed they're pursuing sexual gratification just for pleasure - not for intimacy or reproduction).
1. A misguided pursuit of intimacy can be one such reason - often masking a fear of commitment, and a fear of intimacy - the person seeking sexual gratification is nevertheless motivated by intimacy; however they are afraid of what it may entail, so they do not want to jump in - they want just a small sip of it instead. If the being in question is a stranger, this is perceived as a less risky situation, so the stranger is preferred to the friend.
2. Another reason can be a subtle feeling of superiority compared to their peers (not to the convinced being) because they have convinced another being to yield their body to them (and if this being is perceived as a stranger, then the pleasure associated with intercourse is even greater - cause the person in question assumes his power to be absolutely great, as even a stranger was won over by it).
3. Yet another reason can be a feeling of superiority over the being whom they have convinced. Again, convincing a stranger will yield a stronger sense of subjective pleasure than convincing a friend. This is seen again as a situation of ruling over, and dictating the behavior of another - usurping their freedom by the proxy of their own assent.
4. Yet another reason is to achieve good social standing, and to be perceived as successful by their peers, as well as by themselves. This is when one's sense of self is associated with sexual conquest.
5. And yet another reason is because one feels the need to be desired by another. Again, the more unlikely someone is to desire them a priori, the greater the pleasure to be found in sexual intercourse. That's why strangers will be preferred.
These reasons (and the fact that most people don't know how to properly masturbate) explain the popularity of the one-night stand over masturbation - nevertheless, they are base and misguided reasons, and ultimately and ironically, harm the person who gives in to them more than they benefit them - even the psychological pleasure in these cases is mere illusion - a mere SUBJECTIVE (and selfish), not OBJECTIVE perfection is achieved. How's that for a, pace Spinoza, a more geometrico breakdown of the psychology behind the pursuit of sex? ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. Some remain completely blind to the potentials of sex for their whole lives and never realise. In any case - people who truly enjoy and are helped by sex are few. Sex is a very sharp double edged sword. It can be a great help, or it can be a great impoverishment - use with care ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Indeed, I agree. But I would favor looking at creating communities where such people are cared for voluntarily - or where such people can and do get in touch with other people with disabilities (maybe not as severely disabled as they are). Then bonding and love can develop amongst such a community, don't you think so? I'd be much more in favor to setting that up, then having a state funded "doctor" masturbate or have sex with them.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes - by creating communities of people in similar circumstances and enabling these people to get in touch together. They best know how to take care of each other - we are just guessing here. Then amongst such a community bonding and love can develop - including sexual gratification.
Quoting Sapientia
Good point woof woof! :D See, you're a good boy, even though you bite hands sometime *gives Scooby snack* :D
Quoting darthbarracuda
I agree 100%. Excellent points!
Quoting darthbarracuda
Indeed - but intimacy, and the desire for love which are underneath the desire for sex DO need immediate attention for people in such dire circumstances.
Quoting darthbarracuda
:-O What? Prostitution?? Who talked about prostitution?
I would say it either has more meanings (some of which you listed later) or it has no meaning at all. I prefer not to think it has no meaning.
Quoting Agustino
I have no idea what these two phrases mean.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Yes, casual sex can do all this and more for individuals. You or I may not like it, but these are contributions to the meaning of sexual encounters.
Example of more meaning : A gay man just coming out is likely to experience validation in the act of sex with another man, in a way that straight men or women might not. Sex in the gay community often is the means by which links between otherwise isolated individuals are made. (This would apply to pre-social media, pre-Grindr, GPS facilitated chats, and so forth. This 'epoch' is little more than a decade old. It also applies to pre-and-early gay liberation when and where there were few ways of meeting other gay people aside from sexual encounters.)
Quoting Agustino
How the hell did you come to this conclusion?
Quoting Agustino
It's a breakdown, alright.
Quoting Agustino
If X says he has found intimacy and a loving relationship, on what basis would you be so bold as to dismiss his claim as an error? It seems highly presumptuous to dismiss other people's experiences, especially when one isn't there to observe them, and when there is no basis for the judgement shown. How would you sort the deceived from the truly and intimately loved?
An 18 year old will have such and such an experience of intimacy and love. The same person 18 years later will probably have a different experience of intimacy and love, and at 65 yet another sort of experience. It isn't that they were wrong in each instance, just that their horizons probably expanded.
Those meanings I listed later are illusory and unreal. They SEEM to be meaningful, in truth they are not. They just show vileness of character, and egoism - the pettiness of man. Not that I condemn that to the fires of hell... absolutely not, in the end it is human, all too human, and most of us, including myself, have passed through such stages. I have noticed most of those "meanings" i listed there in my own soul. That's how I came to know them. By watching keenly why I wanted to have sex. And that's how I also freed myself from this bondage, by understanding the causes, and how it brings a harm to myself and others - how it is motivated by ignorance.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Objective perfection is an actual perfection. Intimacy or reproduction are actual perfections - we can look at people and say they have objectively achieved these perfections when we see that they bring forth children, and when we see sustained love and compassion and consideration of beloved over self over a long period of time. Subjective perfections are things which temporarily seem to be perfections - ie FEEL like perfections to the individual in question, but may not feel like perfections in the long run, or when viewed from the outside.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Do not confuse perception with reality BC. People can (and do) percieve things, and yet can be decieved by those perceptions.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, the requirement for external validation is ultimately a short-coming - a sign of weakness, not of psychological strength. Do you mean, per Maslow, to say that gaining psychological strength requires the passing through such stages? If so, then I would disagree, in a limited kind of way. I think one FIRST starts with self-actualisation, and THEN can go on and fulfill the rest - if they start anywhere else, it's merely a false start. Ultimately they will have to begin with self-actualisation anyways.
Quoting Bitter Crank
For the simple reason that most people do not know, nor practice tantric forms of masturbation.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:D
Quoting Bitter Crank
On an investigation of their relationship and what is actually going on among the two people. On watching the two people together, and looking at their behavior towards one another. On watching how their relationship evolves over a long period of time - most relationships crumble - there simply is no real love, just a fake imitation.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I can't do it, they would have to do this themselves. I don't spend my time next to them all the time. But - there are signs of intimate love that aren't there in the case of self-deception. If one analyses both their actions and their feelings clearly, one will start to see. That is why I ultimately advocate self-knowledge. YOU must come to know whether you are decieving yourself. That's what matters. I can say they are decieving themselves because I know and understand the motions of their souls sometimes, in comparison with my own, and having travelled (some) of these roads, know they are deceitful.
No they won't have a DIFFERENT experience, the experience will just be expanded. I couldn't have felt with my girlfriend when I was 17 the depth of intimacy I could feel now with someone I love. Even though I do not have a girlfriend at the moment, I KNOW my capacity for intimacy has increased - I do feel this more in my soul, and I am attuned much more closely than I used to be to other people
Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex.
This is a non-sequitur. Sex is a biological and psychological capacity of man (to call it normal - what do you even mean by that?). Being forcefully stopped from actualising your sexual capacity is wrong because it deprives you of your freedom and the potential that exists within your being. But this is not to say that you have a RIGHT to sex - no one has to guarantee that you actually actualise your sexual potential. What has to be guaranteed on the other hand is that you have the opportunity to actualise your sexual potential if you so desire. This means removing barriers which are oppressive towards people when it comes to the achievement of the goods of sex (reproduction and/or intimacy). Removing stigma from homosexuality for example - people must have the free choice to make whether they engage in homosexual sex or not - and they must be respected in their choice, even if others see the choice as morally wrong. The fact that we live in a society which still largely condemns gay people - thus forcing them to be promiscuous, etc. in pursuit of their sexual desires - THIS is what is wrong. That such people are isolated, that such people are left uncared for - that they are forced to resort to sex in order to come together with other people like themselves, or to validate themselves - this is what is wrong. Not only does it deprive them of their freedom, it also deprives them of their self-worth, and makes their self-worth depend on misusing their sexual potential, such that if they fail to get sex, their whole psychological well-being is destroyed (which is almost guaranteed to happen for many of them due to the oppressive structure of society).
Quoting TheMadFool
Right. So someone who chooses not to have sex (for whatever reasons), does not live a normal life? :s (notice what you're doing - you're condemning someone to lust and desire after sex - otherwise they're not normal according to you. Again - you seek to associate someone's sense of self-worth with sex)
Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. It just requires that you HAVE those potentials (preferably), and that you COULD actualise them if you so decide. For example - I have the potential to have sex physically. I'm not currently actualising it. But, if I so desired, I COULD actualise it. What really matters to me is that my capacity is free to manifest itself - not that it actually does. My sexual energy is still with me, manifesting itself within - even though I don't currently actualise it externally - I simply don't have the opportunity for intimacy and/or reproduction now, and thus it's not that my sexual energy has disappeared, but rather that it is awaiting the opportunity to manifest itself. And if this opportunity comes, or it doesn't - that is all fine with me. I don't make demands on it, I just live in the moment, with what exists. Problems appear when psychologically I lose self-esteem - when I start associating my sense of self-worth with actually manifesting my sexuality externally. When psychologically, I require external validation for being who I am. And so forth. Because then, the mere existence of my capacity will no longer satisfy me - I will start making demands of myself and my current circumstances to be different than they are, I will start doubting my capacity and thus seeking to prove myself in my own eyes, etc. These are all psychological short-comings, which merely take away from the joy of the capacity itself. These psychological short-comings lead people to misuse their sexual potential - to pursue unskillful means of satisfying their desires (such as seeking promiscuous sex to satisfy the desire for intimacy, which just cannot be satisfied because there isn't a committed partner present), OR to pursue sex for unskillful reasons (such as the list of illusory meanings I have provided earlier).
Oh no, we're in agreement again. Is this a cause for concern?
Quoting Agustino
I disagree with you immensely on this point, and let me widen the area of disagreement
I maintain that actualization of potential is part of a normal life, and without such actualization we are consigned to a decidedly arid, barren existence (and it isn't something we choose, generally). Sexuality is one part of an embodied life, one of several elements which demand actualization. We've flogged sex long enough, for now.
The reason why "most men lead lives of quiet desperation"ººº is exactly the psychopathology of normality. 99% of us are actively prevented from striving toward self-actualization because our lives are exploited (alienated labor) and actualization is repressed in the interests of tight social control and maintenance of supporting moral systems which devalue the lives of workers (who are, more or less, 99% of the population).
Quoting Agustino
Your phrase rings in my ears and knots up my gut because this is EXACTLY the sentiments of the corporate world toward its workforce and towards it's necessary consuming population. "Never mind your potential personhood, just keep buying this crap."
ººThis is a quote from Wikipedia; I don't have my personality theory texts from 40 odd years ago -- you can't keep everything.
ºººHenry David Thoreau -- one of Maslow's few exemplars of self-actualization, and a hero of my youth.
This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!
That's nonsense, since it fails to account for at least two very important factors: capacity and consequence. Firstly, if someone is not capable of living a normal life, then it makes no sense to say that they have the right to live a normal life. And secondly, if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right. Hence, with regards to the latter point, I'm against forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled in that regard as some sort of twisted notion of social assistance.
Typical. My comments never get picked, but flawed comments like the one that you quoted do.
I suppose it does have a ring to it, if you think that that's more important than critical analysis...
But anyway, congratulations! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D
Wow we agree again :-O ... what is happening with this world? I do agree with the thrust of your point. Given her first initial post in this thread, it is blindingly obvious that Tiff has been biased in picking that reply out, and not an opposing point of view. Confirmation bias :p - which I would go as far as saying is disgusting when seen on a PHILOSOPHY forum, a place where the truth, and not personal preferences, are supposed to be the essence.
Quoting Sapientia
Indeed. Rights can only be things which it makes sense for a community to guarantee.
Current thinking about disabled people is that they have a right to live their lives as close to normal as possible. Students with mobility limitations, for instance, should not be sorted and then isolated into classrooms of only mobility limited students; blind students should attend class with sighted individuals (with appropriate accommodations). People in wheel chairs should be able to access any public building without unnecessary barriers. (Hence, retrofitting entrances with ramps, buildings with elevators, public toilets with wide doors, and 'least restrictive' rules about caring for disabled people.)
Well, I don't think anyone has proposed 'forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled" or with anybody else. For instance, if I were a care giver, I could without squeamishness, conduct erotic massage with a client (if such were deemed to be legal and appropriate -- which it probably wouldn't be in the US). I could do this because it's "a procedure". It's not "having sex", or "making love". It's 'intimate contact' but so is catheterizing a patient or carrying out a colonoscopy (hopefully it's more pleasant than either of those items).
Doctors performed s procedure something like this in the early 20th century when electrical vibrators were invented. It was discovered (probably seconds after being invented) that vibrators were terrific sexual stimulators. Female patients suffering from "hysteria" (nervousness, agitation) found this therapy extremely helpful. Naturally--they were experiencing regular orgasms, finally. This wasn't a customer doctors could keep, because vibrators soon appeared in the market place and women learned that they could accomplish wonders at home by themselves.
But back to you, "if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right."
There's a difference between having a right to do something and having the resources to do something. I have a right to go to the airport and buy a ticket to Paris this afternoon--first class. I can't afford it, but I have the right to do it. Students have a right to basic education -- they don't have a 'right' to attend school in marbled halls with fine woodwork, antique carpets, and original old masters on the wall. But they do have the right to attend school in a safe building, not some moldy, dilapidated wreck that is likely to collapse at any moment.
Disabled people have a right to sex -- if they can afford a $500 an hour out-call prostitute, and they can dial a phone, they're all set. If not, they'll have to make do with something less expensive.
No kind deed goes uncriticized.
That is, I think, because you didn't understand what I am saying, and are instead reading me through the prism of other things you have read/heard. Let's see...
Quoting Bitter Crank
:-O I agree! "But... you contradict yourself" No, I actually don't. I said a normal life doesn't REQUIRE the actualisation of (I would add "some") potentials. Not that actualisation is not a part of normal life. It totally is - in fact I cannot imagine a normal life where one does not strive to actualise their potentials. But this may not be possible in some cases - where it is impossible - striving to actualise that specific potential is a mis-directed effort. The impossibility of actualising a potential, in itself, is not a harm to oneself - this is what I'm saying - it should not drive one to despair. What IS a harm is when the actualisation of potential is prevented by force - be that social force, or physical force. For example - it is no harm to me that I currently don't have a woman to be intimate with - not actualising this potential is of no harm. Why? Because I have simply not met such a person, and demanding that I did meet them when in fact I haven't is stupid (and wrong). Furthermore, looking to people who can't fulfill this role as if they could is also stupid and wrong. What would be a harm on the other hand is if I had, for example, found this person, and society, their family, my family, etc. prevented us from sharing our intimacy and love together by force - either social pressure, physical force, or any other kind of oppressive force.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:-O I agree! I would add another thing which prevents us - lack of real intelligence, and this society's hatred for, and oppression towards intelligence. It is because of lack of intelligence that people go on and on slaving away for their corporate masters; lack of intelligence and lack of courage.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It may be their sentiments, they're not mine. On the contrary, I have said that PREVENTING the actualisation of potential by force is WRONG and an EVIL - and this is exactly what the corporate world is doing. And I agree that what they are doing is wrong.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
I do understand why you misread me though BC. I do understand, I think, what you are striving to achieve here (do correct me if I am wrong please). Your point really is that people can and DO get very hurt when societies prevent them from actualising their potentials (and I agree). Your further point is that one must actually actualise their potentials, necessarily, in order to be able to live fulfilling lives. This, i would guess, mirrors the road you have travelled. In order to get your sense of self-worth, I would venture to speculate, you had to break society's oppression - through different actions, including having sex, which did validate who you are. Perhaps (and most likely) you could have done no differently to free yourself. But this is because you were born in a crooked society, which has oppressed people who, for example, like you, have a different sexual orientation. They have used force to prevent you, which is indeed wrong. Mostly, I would imagine, social force was what was used. Their use of force to prevent you, has, naturally, driven you to despair, and to probably have strong negative feelings. As such, the path you took was the only path open to you at that point - the only path that could lead you to self-actualisation and freedom from those negative feelings.
I am saying however that we should focus on fixing society instead of promoting this path. I rather promote the high path - self-actualisation comes FIRST. I first am confident in who I am, and in my sense of self. Then I can think rightly about sex, not obsessively and compulsively. Sex will not be a reaction to my society, but rather something I freely choose. Then I will be open to understand the real meaning of sex - the meaning that is lost when sex is performed as a compulsion, as an ugly (but sometimes necessary) reaction to an oppressive society. In the end, the only thing that using sex to break the oppression of society does is that it leaves one equally lacking any meaning. Only that, their mind, is now no longer obsessed about sex and its meaning, so, paradoxically, for the first time they are free to assert who they are, without fear, and without compulsion.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan, you're putting us off.
Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
Stan: (pause) I want to be one.
(pregnant pause)
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
Reg: What!?
Stan: It's my right as a man.
Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me.
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the
fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(Stan starts crying.)
Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually
have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the
Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to
have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: (pissed) What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he
can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Like all human beings, they too must be given the freedom required to fulfil their potentials.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I always wondered if this is a good thing. I would imagine they must feel alienated to look around and see everyone being different. They would feel much more comfortable in a community of people sharing similar conditions that they are having. Why would you say this is not the case?
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is exactly what it's wrong with it. It's a procedure, a duty. Not something done out of love.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No you don't have a right to actually do it, you have a right to the possibility of doing that if you so desire to make use of it, and of course have the resources necessary to make use of it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
They have a right to actualise their sexual potential (which again I maintain is objectively intimacy and/or reproduction) IF THEY SO DESIRE. They further have a right to use their sexuality as they wish (even misuse it so long as they are not directly harming others).
Indeed. But I don't go to the extreme of promiscuity just because we have been abstinent and repressive in the past. I am not like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another. I want to take a balanced position - neither extreme - just the truth.
Sure, but within reason. I don't have any objections to the examples you gave.
Quoting Bitter Crank
There is an implication - whether intended or otherwise - in the way in which the question is worded (as others have also picked up on), and this is what I was rejecting. Whatever you call it, I think it should be voluntary rather than mandatory. I don't think that social carers should be obligated to wank off (or provide that kind of "intimate contact" for) those under their care, but if both parties willingly consent, then I don't have any problem with it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm open-minded enough to allow or even encourage sexual advice about the usefulness of vibrators, but I'm against medical practitioners and social carers just picking one up and using one on their patient or the person that they're formally responsible for without them fully understanding or consenting to it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, I agree, there is such a difference.
They are capable (with some assistance if necessary) of entering an unsafe wreck of a building. But the risk outweighs the benefit.
Similarly, the cost of imposing such a "procedure" in a nonvoluntary way has convinced me that it would not be acceptable as an institutionalised or enforced practice in social care.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, provided there's mutual consent, I don't give a hoot.
Especially when it overlooks me. It's all about me, you see.
Edit: Ah, Life of Brian. It has been too long.
More than mere consent would be needed at this point. There is no legal framework at this point for allowing care providers engaging in explicitly sexual contact with clients.
I raised the topic as a philosophic issue, not as a 'best practices' discussion at a social work conference. A prosecutor would probably view aides engaging in sexual contact with clients in about the same light as they would view aides assisting clients in killing themselves. The trial would be short and the prison sentence would be long.
Besides, not every disabled person is crying out for sexual stimulation, not every disabled person would tolerate a caregiver shifting from physical care to an erotic service, lots of care givers would be unwilling to provide erotic services, poorly performed sexual assistance might well be much worse than nothing at all, and society is not ready to have a conversation about this just yet. It's a non-starter.
BC did when he offered the solution of sex workers.
Have you not heard of sexual surrogates?
There [i]is[/I] philosophy behind what is deemed 'best practice' in social care, ya know. Laws, policies, and guidelines are often in place for good reason. But please note that I [i]am[/I] agreeing with your philosophical views on this issue, provided you don't view what I was objecting to as acceptable.
Asinus... how is an examination of the role of sex in life (and on man's psychology/well-being) not philosophy? Or do you always cry and point fingers at everything you disagree with and don't have any real criticism to make? :s If you have any SPECIFIC disagreements with what I say, please point them out and provide reasons for maintaining them. You just have to understand that pointing at something, stomping your feet, and crying that it's wrong doesn't belong on a philosophy forum - it belongs back in kindergarten.
And by the way - what I've said is PHILOSOPHIC, in-so-far as it 1. addresses a philosophical topic, and 2. is thorough and coherent in its analysis of the issues at hand, following largely lines that have been developed in philosophic tradition (talking about the purpose of sex, for example, is a reference to Aquinas (only that, unlike him, I don't take the purpose to be strictly reproduction), talking about the badness of the some of the motivations for sex is a reference to Kant amongst others - but of course you can't know any of this without doing any reading). And what I've said is SCIENTIFIC in that it paints a theoretical framework that is COMPATIBLE with what we know empirically about sex. I totally despise ignoramuses like yourself making some vague and general claims, with no backing, meaning just to make a silly rhetorical point and insult real thinking. That's just disgusting. If I disagree with you, I put an argument forth. Like I did here, to expose your nonsense. I don't just point fingers and cry and insult like a child.
Yes you can stand by whatever you want, fact of the matter is that you proved nothing, and your post lacks any philosophic or scientific content, quite ironically. Even your so called "observations" are mere prejudice, and are embarrassing for someone to put on a philosophy forum, especially after I have shown how wrong they are. You have engaged with nothing from what I wrote or expressed. Really Hanover, this is shameful. Shame on you.
Hanover's point is you use your arguments to proclaim just how much better and wiser than everybody else, a gigantic stroking of you own ego and its love of being superior to everyone else.
Rather than egaging with people as they live, you ignore them, belittle them, misunderstand their motivations and values, all because you are caught up in listing all the thoughts and experiences which have saved you from the lowely life of the rest of us philosophical plebs.
Your misunderstanding motivations and expressions of sex is a good example in this thread. You acted like casual sex was purley about feeling sexual pleasure, as if it could be replaced with masturbation if people only understood what they really wanted.
Yet, the need for another was there or along. Casual sex, even in it most crass an exploitative form, involves a need for someone else, something masturbation cannot fulfill. You spend paragraph supposedly giving us grand insight to the motivation of casual sex, but you utterly miss a basic point about its motivation.
Your "theoretical framework" which supposely gives us the grand insight into humainity, which "explains" us, is pointless. If you are describing sex and its motivations, you are talking about what people do. There is nothing to fit into the world of human sexual behaviour. It's only a matter of describing people and their behaviour themselves.
What does this say Willow?
Quoting Agustino
:-d Again, I simply don't know what you Willow are reading, because you clearly are not reading what I wrote. The need for intimacy IS the need for another. What I've argued is that casual sex ultimately ends up NOT fulfilling this need (but rather frustrates it), and so, one is better off without.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
My theoretical framework shows how their motivations end up being contradictory and self-defeating through these behaviors that have been illustrated, which leads to their (as well as others') suffering. Thus, my theoretical framework gives the knowledge and understanding required to live more intelligently.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Let Hanover speak for Hanover please. On a secondary note, I do not stroke my ego in this manner. There is no joy in being "better" than others. The joy is in the virtue itself. I simply want others to share in this joy as well, so that is why I share my understanding with them. The more people share in understanding of the truth, the better it is for everyone.
It may be people like Hanover, or perhaps even like yourself, who do think I want to feel better than others by showing how bad they are, etc. It's your right to think that, but I am convinced that you are wrong about my motivation when it comes to that, as I've explained above.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, quite the contrary, I don't ignore it as I have noted that some people live that way. I have acknowledged that many are motivated by something that is, in itself, good, intimacy, but, through their method of seeking and achieving it, they are bound to always fail and come short. I have merely shown that such a life, lived in that manner, ends up harming the one who lives it more than benefiting them - ultimately it betrays their own REAL self - their own REAL good. I have further shown that many do not even know what they are seeking - they are merely fumbling through the dark.
In your psychological theory, Intimacy is inherently good, and sex which does not aim for intimacy must fail. If intimacy is the only goal, the ultimate goal, and the only good goal, then I suppose it is true that all other goals, or methods that are not intended to produce intimacy, will fail. The deficiency in this theory is that there are other goals which, I assert here with total conviction, are worthwhile goals whose pursuit will, in itself, cause no harm.
Among those goals are adventure, pleasure, variety, danger [for the risk seeker), community, and relaxation. I don't think any of these need to be explained (save community: people build networks of sexual connections which can be very useful elsewhere in life). STDs? Disease is quite transmissible in bona fide intimate relationships. Unwanted pregnancy? Entirely possible in 100% faithful, intimate relationships. Abuse? It happens in intimate relationships fairly often.
Intimate, cozy, secure relationships are nice. But.. they are are NOT the only nice around. Further, when they fall apart (and they often do fall apart despite the best intentions of everyone concerned) the failure is generally far worse than the failure of a casual relationship.
Quoting Agustino
Evaluations of other people's lives need to rest on something more substantial than dogma. You do not know whether "a life lived in that manner ends up harming the one who lives it more than benefitting them". You can not know that as a dogmatic rule. I can say, for myself, that the pursuit of casual sexual relationships has been beneficial to me. I can say, on the basis of study, of leading numerous discussion and therapy groups with gay men who practiced a lot of casual sex, and for 45 years participated in many capacities in a community years which has valued casual relationships as well as intimate relationships, that it appears entirely possible for people to live happy, fulfilled lives while pursuing casual sex. Further, the pursuit of casual sex does not prevent them from establishing long term intimate sexual relationships. (Of course, some people have difficulty with intimate relationships, whether they pursued casual relationships or not.)
Casual sex is one of several possible experiences people can have. Intimate relationships are another of several possible experiences. Solitude, withdrawal to a monastery, sex work, sexual performance in video productions, lifelong monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, divorce, remarriage -- and so on are all possible experiences people can have. The all can (and are) given human value and meaning. There is no such thing as meaningless sex.
What works best? Depends on the individual in a given setting at a given time. There are no hard and fast rules or dogma which can specify what will work best for an individual. The individual has to work this out through experience.
Your problem is epistemological: You can not know what people really want, (especially if people themselves don't know). There isn't any theory that can predict what sort of sexual experience will fulfill any given individual. The best test is to ask them after they have had enough of a sample of life's possible offerings: like... after their 45th birthday.
Intimacy and reproduction are the goals of sex in my theory, not necessarily of any other human activity. They are further not the only interests of a human being.
Quoting Bitter Crank
None of these are inherent to sex, that's the problem with your position. For this reason they cannot function as inherent purposes and goals of the activity. Reproduction is something that only sex, or sex-related activities can fulfill. Intimacy of this kind is again something that only sex, or sex-related activities can fulfill. That is the reason why I call them purposes or goals of sex.
The desires for adventure, pleasure, variety, danger, community, relaxation etc. while perfectly human cannot be anything but accidental in sex. For this reason, having sex based on such motivations (as if they were primary, inherent motivations for the activity) is a misuse of one's sexual potential - it would be like eating something but gaining no nutritional value from having eaten it - it defeats the inherent purposes of the activity, EVEN IF other accidental desires are fulfilled (such as it tastes good). Luckily for eating this is hardly possible - as most things that one can eat do have SOME nutritional value. Posions make an exception, as well for example chewing a piece of lasagna, and then spitting it out instead of swallowing it (which would be a highly immoral abomination btw).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, fear of intimacy. I am familiar with this, I too know the fear. But just because something may fail is not a reason not to pursue it. Just because it is logically possible you may fail to attain a good is not to say that you should not pursue it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why do you think my theory is dogma? It's only dogma if you maintain that we cannot know the purposes of sex, and further, that it is ethical to use other people as means to an end.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If my premises are correct, then I do know that. And so I must take it that you disagree with my premises, and your objections are fundamentally of an epistemological nature, in which case the real question that we should be talking about is how do we come to hold true premises?
Quoting Bitter Crank
And I may agree, but I would venture to say that they have been beneficial only negatively - they freed your mind of something, or, accidentally because of it, you met someone, etc. On the other hand, I would suggest that there have been ways you have been harmed by it as well. Whether the harms outweigh the benefits or not to you personally, I cannot say.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If we take meaningful to mean fulfilling the inherent purposes of the activity, then no, some of the activities you mentioned are not meaningful.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I knew you'd say this sooner or later. I'll have to get back to you on this later, perhaps I'll open another thread. You assert I cannot know what others want. I say that I can and do know, in some cases better than they themselves know, and in other cases worse, what they want. My point will be that we CAN know, even if this is difficult and arduous.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Depends what you mean by fulfil. If you mean just subjective fulfillment, then I agree with you. But if you refer to objective fulfilment, then I disagree, because clearly if the purposes of the activity are met and the person experiences a subjective sense of fulfillment that is visible in the world, one can safely say that the sexual experience has objectively fulfilled the individual.
You did not.
Quoting Agustino
It's an attractive idea that we can know for sure what others are thinking, what others want, or need.
I'm pulled both ways by the idea that we can know what other people are thinking, feeling. On the one hand, this is trivially true. We can figure out what people want when they are displaying cues, or if we know them well. I know Jack wants more coffee right now because he's standing there with an empty cup. I know the dog wants what I'm eating because of the intense stare she has focused on my dish.
On the other hand, I don't know what my parents thought of their lives, or what some of my elderly siblings want at this point in their lives. I don't know what, exactly, the unhappy custodian at church wants. I don't know exactly what I want for the remainder of my life . I want, but what?
Well you have a right to think that and to disbelieve me if you want. When I claim I knew it, I meant to say the following. I have studied and thought about these matters for a long time. I know that my logic is not wrong, and hence the only possible point of my being wrong is on the premises. And the only reason to disagree on the premises MUST, almost a priori in this case, be of an epistemological nature - you will claim, after all other objections are shown to fail, and it is clear that given my premises my conclusion follows inescapably, as you in fact did, that I (or anyone else) cannot know that the intrinsic and inherent purposes of sex are reproduction and intimacy only - a premise that my conclusion requires. So yes, I have foreseen this objection, and I have answered it in my thinking long before you even brought it up. I'm not saying that it is impossible that you bring up something that I haven't thought about; I'm just saying that so far nothing of this sort was brought up. Again, if you are so inclined, feel free to doubt my honesty - I cannot do anything but tell you what I think. So that's why considerations of method (and epistemology) need to be discussed so that the way of reaching true premises can be determined. These discussions are much more relevant than just regarding the sex question, which is why I'm tempted to open a new thread. They are relevant because epistemological skepticism underlies almost the entirety of the modern (and esp. POMO) movements, with the majority of real problems faced by the modern age (not just regarding sexuality) stemming from there.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Are you sure? Don't you know that your elderly siblings want to be happy? Don't you know that you yourself want to be happy for the rest of your life? Don't you know that you want to grow and expand the potentials that exist in your being? The only question that remains, again, is what ARE those potentials? What is happiness? What is your "self"? And are these things the same for you, as they are for your neighbour? (A question which I answer with "yes"). Because again - the only reason, as I told Sapientia before regarding Hume, that anyone could disagree with these matters IS epistemological skepticism - and this too serves to explain why most philosophers in history have agreed about the wrongness of casual sex (for example), while the moderns do not - the moderns (and POMO lovers too), at least a large share of them, are epistemologically skeptical, which allows them to ignore certain truths, labeling them as unknowable, subjective, or even false. But this view can be shown to be wrong - we can and do know these matters; I largely think that Aristotle sketched the correct view of happiness as explained by Aristotelian Mortimer J. Adler below:
I agree. Do open a new thread.
Of course "I know" they want to be happy. I want to be happy. Everyone wants to be happy. That part isn't difficult, and I can probably even manage my own happiness.
Quoting Agustino
Of course. That we desire growth and expansion of our potentials is a general truth. It applies to everyone (except when it doesn't). There are, for instance, a minority of people who do not desire expansion of their potentials. They are complete, done. This is not altogether unusual in the elderly, but it's a tragedy when it occurs in younger people.
Quoting Agustino
Right, and this is where thinking about other people's happiness gets complicated. My siblings do not each have the same potentials. An individual's potentials are not the same throughout life (we hope they expand). What is happiness for me, for my siblings, for my neighbors, for anyone, will not be the same, and won't be the same all the time for a given individual.
For instance, the death of a spouse is a grievous event, but in time may open up new horizons for the survivor. How someone will complete grieving and move on, develop new habits and interests, find new things to do, new ways to live, is difficult to predict without knowing a lot about that individual. And even then... I have no idea what my 77 year old widowed sister will do, or what will make her happy at this stage in her life. She is only gradually coming to see options that haven't existed for decades (dairy farming screws you tightly to the milking schedule, year in, year out).
If one does social work, or counseling, or teaching (and the like) one has to have confident assumptions about other people that justifies the work one does with them. One has to believe that teaching people literature, or helping them resolve knotty conflicts, or helping them adjust to permanent disability, is both possible and worth doing. BUT, critical reservation, there are definite limits to what one can know about what is good, bad, and indifferent for other people.
For instance, someone may legitimately qualify for disability. Fine. Apply for benefits. However, for some people, disability status in itself becomes a second disability. Some people don't manage well without an imposed daily structure--something which a job can provide. In these instances, disability may not be advantageous. Oddly, the struggle and difficulty of work might be better for them. Might be better? Sure, but 'might be better' is not so certain that it entitles the social worker to scuttle their disability application. Our ability to know what is good for other people is limited.
The lived happiness is not going about saying how happy everyone will be. It's in one's connection, interactions and sense of self worth with respect to their own works. Family, friends, building, honesty and expression of one's goals. It's never "happiness," "perfection" or "want."
Bitter Crank can't say what he wants because the question is absurd. One cannot reduce a life to a moment or happiness or celebration at getting a single moment where a desire is fulfilled. The "happy" life premised in your argument is an empty one. A life so unknown and unexamined it substitutes in this notion it is all for "happiness" where description and comprehension of moments should be.
I can say I most certainly do not want your "perfection," "happiness" or "expanding potential." Going off your proclamations I have no idea if this means having a joyful relationship my family, turning my sibling into a social pariah because them had sex with five people or gleefully laughing at my mother's funeral becuase happiness is the constant for everyone. You are all a whirlwind of worshiping "perfection". Observing lives as the are lived is sadly missing from your approach.
Completion is achieved only sub specie aeternitatis, never sub specie durationis, hence one can never be done. There never exists a point in life when you are done, because every single moment is a moment when you are manifesting your potentialities. And that includes old people. However, many old people have come to the wisdom that one does not have to actualise all their potentials right this instant to be content and happy - an illusion of which I've spoken before and with which many young people are drunk.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Largely we all have the same potentials. Sure, you may not actualise your physical potential by playing golf, the way I do. But we both have the potential for physical activity, unless one of us is in a wheelchair. We all have the potential for understanding of the world, unless we are mentally impaired for one reason or another. We all have the potential for intimacy with ourselves and with others. And so forth. These potentials are universal, the means for actualising them are not necessarily the same for all men.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I argue that it is the same, precisely because, you are all human beings, and as human beings you share in some objective potentials, such as the potential for friendship, the potential to love and be loved, the potential to understand, etc. These are not universal in the sense that absolutely all human beings share all of them - no. But they are universal in the sense that no human being can exist without having at least a large share of them. You can be born physically handicaped for example, in which case you may not have physical potentials that other human beings have. Nevertheless, you are still a human being, as you do have the potential to love and be loved, the potential for friendship, etc.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Indeed, but finding new ways of fulfilling these same potentials which exist does not mean that the potentials have changed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, but these reservations do not extend to the basic potentials that all human beings share in. Neither does it lie in questioning contradictions between our actions and our objective potentials (as in the case of casual sex). These matters are clear, objective and unassailable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
"Might be better" is an empirical consideration which takes into account their own psychological limitations. Surely, someone, because of the way they grew up, etc. etc. may not be capable of perceiving and feeling love and affection (for example). This does not mean that love and affection cease to be objectively relevant to them - merely that they cannot percieve them as such - they are perceptually blind to it. The work with such a person involves causing a shift in perception in them - so that they can come to realise the objective truth. Not saying "ye ye, let's just try to get you to FEEL satisfied". That's what the greedy capitalist who is just superficially interested in people (and much more interested in their money) would say. In fact, it is precisely this sort of capitalist psychologist who uses the phrase what "might be better". It "might be better" in that circumstance for the person to focus on what he enjoys, instead of trying to develop his perception of love and affection, an effort which makes him unhappy. The real carer for the soul knows, largely, what is better, and strives for this - strives to decieve the person they are helping into the truth as it were; as Kierkegaard put it, strives to smuggle Christianity back in Christendom - strives to collapse the false assumptions of the person in question into the truth, while appearing to take on these assumptions.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Which question? Be clear. You haven't quoted any part of my post.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
A living happiness is fulfilment of your potentials. It is knowing who you are, understanding the world and your self. That is happiness, and it is the highest good of man.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Agreed.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You just love speaking in the name of other people no? :P First Hanover, now Bitter Crank... we might need to get you into a practicing law firm, your talents would clearly be useful there ;)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I agree, neither did I ever think otherwise.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Very strange. First you say that you don't even understand what my "perfection" "happiness" etc. are, and then you are dead sure you don't want to reach them...
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes it does mean having a joyful relationship with your family among other things.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, it doesn't mean this, people need to be taken care of, not abused for making mistakes.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, it doesn't mean this either. Mourning at your mother's funeral would be the right thing to do, but this does not mean that the element of happiness ceases to exist in the background. Even when I'm sad, paradoxically, I'm happy. Somewhere deep down happiness remains even through suffering; in fact, despite suffering and loss.
As says, nobody is obligated to provide sex to someone else. But could society be obligated? Suppose that someone opened a charity called "Hookers-4-Gimps" or something like that. All of the sex workers in the program would be ones that signed up willingly - and if you offered a decent amount of money, you'd certainly find people who would do it. These hookers provide tax-funded sex to disabled people free of charge. Is Hookers-4-Gimps a social obligation? Should they receive tax money?
Nope.
Granted, paid sex, charity sex, and the like is no substitute for sex with love, but it's a lot better than nothing. "Better than nothing" because sexual experiences are core human experiences.
It was creepy.