The question, "Do you really need this?" strikes me as somewhat misleading. Strictly speaking, we don't "need" food that tastes good, and it might be more efficient and environmentally friendly for us all to eat tasteless, vitamin-rich gruel manufactured in government facilities. But most of us won't assent to that.

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?

Is Hookers-4-Gimps a social obligation? Should they receive tax money? — Pneumenon

Nope.

I believe in the Netherlands they have something like that. The disabled get grant money that they can spend on prostitutes.

Presumably having sex with a disabled person (a gimp) is not all that different than having sex with an able-bodied person. Disabled people tend to be 'a-sexualized'. Since they are not asexual, being so defined represents an additional stigma and loss for such persons. I like the idea of a disabled person being able to purchase sexual services if they so desire.

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.

I remember that movie, with Donald Sutherland playing Jesus.

It was creepy.

Hello! I have a recommendation for everyone here. I work for good company. I'm a writer over there. If u need an essay for school - order here :)

Sure they have gay parades that cost millions I say we take them same amount of money hire tons of female escorts and have an orgy straight pride day !! Equal rights