*Sex Should be Provided by Govt. for AS/other Disabled*

Post Reply New Topic

Now that the 10,000 year old system, ( which depended on a taboo on lone/unattached/loose women to make it work ), invented to solve the problem of "lone males", ( who used to be a menace to the peace and stability of society ), has been dismantled, and men are once again being left on the shelf, perhaps it would be a good idea for governments to provide, or pay for, sexual services for those men, ( and a few women ), who because of physical, social, or mental disability/disorder/disadvantage/difference are chronically unable to achieve a steady/regular sexual relationship.

Seeing as women do not, unless obliged by social contract/taboo, distribute themselves equally amongst all, or even most, men, but tend to prefer alpha/beta males or none at all, the alternatives seem to be coping with a growing number of indignant, miserable, depressed, frustrated men, ( who might, or might not, be a menace to the stability of society ), or providing them with what the old "loose woman" taboo once did, ( women prepared to accept any man, however unprepossessing, in order to avoid infringing the dreaded taboo, or staying at home with their parents for the rest of their lives); state-organised sexual services.

It won't solve the gene pool issue, which is that whereas the old taboo-based system meant that most men got to reproduce their genes, thus contributing to greater variety, ( some might say, weakness), of the human gene pool, the recent reversion to the "law of the jungle" means that many men are no longer passing on their genes. But at least the supposed mental and physical health problems associated with sexual frustration in the male will be avoided.

Discuss.
.

depends which member of the government you mean but I find all politicians equally unattractive so thanks, but no thanks.

I find nothing wrong with legalized prostitution for anyone.

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2174855/

government has no responsibility to provide for me.


from the sounds of it, it sounds like your issues could be fixed with just having prostitution legalized. may not allow the kind of frequency you'd want with sex but it'd certainly help. either that or legalize coke...coke makes getting laid too easy.

It does seem to be a treatable malady. But the religious would never allow it. I cant seem to think of a reason why but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

It is certainly an interesting idea. I would agree in principle with legalisation of prostitution. Government provided services are a bit more controversial and would have to be very strictly regulated to people who are quite severely disabled. There are several problems. One is that having a regular service like this would dissuade such people from ever seeking real relationships (and would also dissuade people who might be willing to be in relationships with such people). Another problem is people cheating the system (there are plenty of benefit cheats here - people claiming disability when in fact they are OK and just don't want to work - giving them free sex too is really too much). Then there is also a problem with public opinion. I myself see the benefits, but I can imagine that many people would not - perhaps not a vote winner for a government.

I think a better solution would be to legalise prostitution and try to destigmatise it and certainly clean it up (no trafficked women, no criminality behind it) and make it acceptable for people to use prostitutes if they have no other means of getting sex, and even go to the extent that health workers can suggest to their patients to use certain sex services if necessary, but not to actually provide it for free - if disabled people are given adequate benefit to live on, then they should be able to choose for themselves if they wish to spend it on prostitutes or on other things.

I am really dithering about this. I haven't voted yet.

I don't know if sexual activity really is necessary for mental health. Or whether it is physically affectionate company that is more important to many. And how would a govt provide that?

I don't know if sexually, or affectionately, frustrated men really are a problem anymore for society. Does it "matter" if 16% of households in the USA are men living alone?

Does it matter if a significant percentage of men now don't get to reproduce?

And as merrymadscientist says there would be logistical problems in establishing who was to receive the services, and for how much, and whether the existence of such a service would just further disincline people from trying to make "real" relationships work.

I don't think that there would be conscious scroungers though because there would probably be a stigma attached. Only the really "in need" would probably claim it, and even they would probably need encouragement and counselling before they would do it.

I think that it must have been a serious problem in the past, for such a scheme as "unattached/"loose" woman" taboo to have been invented to ensure that most men would end up with a partner. Have men, or humans, changed enough for chronic male solitude to no longer be an issue for society, only for the individual?

.