Sex for disabled
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Sex for disabled
Post #1For those adults without the mental skills for a marriage relationship, but who do have normal sexual desires, should sexual activity be prohibited? Would it be wrong to hire a competent sex worker to help satisfy those needs? Why or why not?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #11
A marriage is a complex relationship, ostensibly for a lifetime. Informed consent for an encounter is not complex. And erection and a nod would suffice. It seems that mental capacity required for each would differ.
We're also talking about the sex worker (or volunteer provider) NOT being the person with reduced capacity right?
Let's assume that leading edge technology (condoms) are used.
I'd say that compassion would suggest that if the reduced-capacity person wants it, responds to an offer or actual presentation thereof, and it is made available, then they should have it. Denying it to them based on rigid traditionalist religious marriage laws would be to lose the trees for the forest, a tyranny of ideology. But looked at in secular terms, I think it's a no brainer. I think it's a no brainer anyway. The sin or evil would be exploiting the person or making them suffer yet another absence. But meeting their needs is a mercy; and having the broadmindedness and large-heartedness to do so is a hallmark of moral and cultural sophistication. Kudos to the team (financer, procurer, donor, provider).
We're also talking about the sex worker (or volunteer provider) NOT being the person with reduced capacity right?
Let's assume that leading edge technology (condoms) are used.
I'd say that compassion would suggest that if the reduced-capacity person wants it, responds to an offer or actual presentation thereof, and it is made available, then they should have it. Denying it to them based on rigid traditionalist religious marriage laws would be to lose the trees for the forest, a tyranny of ideology. But looked at in secular terms, I think it's a no brainer. I think it's a no brainer anyway. The sin or evil would be exploiting the person or making them suffer yet another absence. But meeting their needs is a mercy; and having the broadmindedness and large-heartedness to do so is a hallmark of moral and cultural sophistication. Kudos to the team (financer, procurer, donor, provider).
