https://www.dropbox.com/s/q27ma4exx4hd44i/JME Sex and Disability Published Version.pdf?dl=0#pageContainer4
^^ I found the latest academic paper about sexual entitlements with a summary of a debate and an argument by an ethicist (who happens to also be a feminist) named Alida Liberman as to whether or not we should be given sexual entitlements. Alida argues no entitlements or rights.
Much to Alida's dismay, academic Jacob M Appel (male, what a coincidence) did argue for such entitlement in 2009. He argued for sex surrogates for those "whose physical or mental disabilities make sexual relationships with non-compensated adults either impossible or highly unlikely"
"and such services should be covered by all public health systems and private insurance plans"
https://jme.bmj.com/content/36/3/152
Alida argues (in the most annoyingly verbose way possible) that what Jacob proposes could not possibly be moral or possible, because a (large?) amount people would be too ugly or kinky for willing surrogates (aka hyped up prostitutes). Now, I literally know of no single instance in which someone has reported to the public that no hooker anywhere is willing to service him and he has tried many hookers (only exception being maybe elephant man, but I don't know his case). So with that looks argument that doesn't play out in the real world, what Alida is implicitly arguing is that because a few people would be rejected based on kinks, the right isn't universal to all disabled people and therefore immoral. I wonder why she thinks degenerates who can only get off through kinks are so numerous, is she one of these people? I'd argue if 2-3 people out of 3 million people can only get off by shitting on people and can't find enough people to shit on often enough, we can safely eliminate them from having an entitlement to shitting on people out of a utilitarian argument for the 99.999% of incels who can theoretically happily get off with a real adult person who isn't traumatized or harmed in any way by the experience.
She then argues that the scope of 'disabled' is impossible to scope without encompassing too many people. Essentially saying that there wouldn't be enough women willing to be paid to have sex for men who can't have sex. Is that a problem in any country with legalized prostitution? NO.
She goes onto argue that there's too many people that would receive such an entitlement, because a parapalegic man is obviously the same thing as a man in a city with a too high male:female ratio /sarcasm. She seems to avoid the fact that some men simply are much, much more disabled than others. One way I'd propose to measure how disabled someone is is by how long someone has gone without sex. And I don't think anyone would try to game that entitlement by not having sex for a year or whatever to receive a free surrogate, especially if you required a note from a therapist that said person has tried as hard as they could to have sex.
^^ I found the latest academic paper about sexual entitlements with a summary of a debate and an argument by an ethicist (who happens to also be a feminist) named Alida Liberman as to whether or not we should be given sexual entitlements. Alida argues no entitlements or rights.
Much to Alida's dismay, academic Jacob M Appel (male, what a coincidence) did argue for such entitlement in 2009. He argued for sex surrogates for those "whose physical or mental disabilities make sexual relationships with non-compensated adults either impossible or highly unlikely"
"and such services should be covered by all public health systems and private insurance plans"
https://jme.bmj.com/content/36/3/152
Alida argues (in the most annoyingly verbose way possible) that what Jacob proposes could not possibly be moral or possible, because a (large?) amount people would be too ugly or kinky for willing surrogates (aka hyped up prostitutes). Now, I literally know of no single instance in which someone has reported to the public that no hooker anywhere is willing to service him and he has tried many hookers (only exception being maybe elephant man, but I don't know his case). So with that looks argument that doesn't play out in the real world, what Alida is implicitly arguing is that because a few people would be rejected based on kinks, the right isn't universal to all disabled people and therefore immoral. I wonder why she thinks degenerates who can only get off through kinks are so numerous, is she one of these people? I'd argue if 2-3 people out of 3 million people can only get off by shitting on people and can't find enough people to shit on often enough, we can safely eliminate them from having an entitlement to shitting on people out of a utilitarian argument for the 99.999% of incels who can theoretically happily get off with a real adult person who isn't traumatized or harmed in any way by the experience.
She then argues that the scope of 'disabled' is impossible to scope without encompassing too many people. Essentially saying that there wouldn't be enough women willing to be paid to have sex for men who can't have sex. Is that a problem in any country with legalized prostitution? NO.
She goes onto argue that there's too many people that would receive such an entitlement, because a parapalegic man is obviously the same thing as a man in a city with a too high male:female ratio /sarcasm. She seems to avoid the fact that some men simply are much, much more disabled than others. One way I'd propose to measure how disabled someone is is by how long someone has gone without sex. And I don't think anyone would try to game that entitlement by not having sex for a year or whatever to receive a free surrogate, especially if you required a note from a therapist that said person has tried as hard as they could to have sex.
Last edited:
