'Right' to sex for PWD

This is just me thinking aloud in problem-solving mode.

Would a carer be expected to position some kind of fleshlight on a cock?

No, what I envision would need to be placed near the genitalia but not in contact, the user would control the final approach after the carer had left the room. The point being that no sexual contact would be needed between carer and user.

Fair point about needing to undress the user first. But don't carers need to undress people anyway for bathing and things?

Of course, some poor sod has to clean it afterwards unless self-cleaning or disposable parts are somehow baked in to the design. But then don't men spontaneously ejaculate in their sleep anyway, and a carer would have to deal with that?

The sex industry using disabled people as a human shield is not new. It is deliberate. It reframes misogynistic, entitled, abusive, perverted men who choose to pay to access choiceless women's bodies as vulnerable, sympathetic figures who just need a little of what we all take for granted. It is a constant effort.

I hope we can get some feminist legal
minds to put forward some analysis of why a "right to sex" is a really ill-founded concept. Something like "freedom for consenting adults to have sex" is a better concept and in line with rights like privacy, right to a family life. Whereas "right to sex" implies someone has a duty to fulfil that right. I'm baffled how we got to this point as a society. Last year I saw that Rightsinfo, who have done good work on other non-feminism related topics produced a video about "is there a right to sex?" which moved seamlessly from one woman's sad real life case where a botched operation left her unable to enjoy sex, to Yogyakarta principles and a sort of general "isn't sex nice" statement, and never mentioned consent or boundaries, or even discussed the question of who should have to fulfil the right to sex. I was left asking myself whether it was sophisticated Men's Rights propaganda or a really poorly supported summer intern project. A "Right to sex" is not the right concept and it's a pain that we need to waste time spelling it out but looks like we need that to happen. Video here if anyone wants to take a look.

This really makes me angry. Both because sex is not a right and using women this way and normalising it, truly makes me sick.
But also because resources are needed on more important basic needs of disabled people.

Autistic people who despite their high IQ are unable to function independently are treated in a similar way, both by other "Aspies" and autism charities. I'm sick of the way they keep extolling the positives of autism and basically imply it's being a socially awkward quirky genius.

Agreed ^ I am totally sick of people assuming people on the spectrum who are verbal, high IQ or aspergers, don’t need assistance. Most do. Invisible illnesses and disabilities are just as valid. Charities for autistic people are for everyone on the spectrum, not just the ones others deem ‘properly disabled’. It’s rude to speak in this way. I do appreciate and think it’s important to speak of the positives though, because there are many. But to only speak of it that way, to speak of it like a virtue or something, is very odd too. I think it’s contributed to the small trend I’ve seen to ‘identify as autistic’ as if it makes you edgy and smart.

Sorry to derail! I have a real problem with this concept and I’m just amazed at all the organisations listed on that link who endorse that message.

Not everyone needs to have sex all the time - when my children were small I went without sex for 5 years. I didn't miss it at all because I was busy looking after small children and I was very tired. My husband wasn't happy about it but he didn't have to get up most nights or clean,cook and entertain small people so he accepted it.

This idea has likely come about after a woman (not man) recently won the right to use NDIS funds for a sex worker. She took the NDIS to court over it as they said no.
I do not agree at all because funds are already stretched & should be spent on genuine supports. I personally don't care if they use sex workers but it shouldn't be paid for by tax payers.
My ASD L2 son was accepted immediately, but they're looking to remove streamlined access for this level so we'll likely lose access soon. It's already a fight to get the funding he needs for therapies. It's not about medical requirements, I was told by an industry insider it's because if money - Apparently they didn't expect such a volume of ASD participants so the bean counters are out to cut costs the easy way. So yeah, it really bugs me people want money for personal pursuits while everyone else fights for genuine assistance! Add to this they've just allowed the therapists to increase prices to ridiculous levels so I've had to cut my son's therapies back & it's really, really making me angry!!

I 100% agree that PWD should not have the right to access to sex workers.

Where do we draw the line? Disability friendly sex toys sound great but what about people who are severely disabled and would need help with undressing? Would a carer be expected to position some kind of fleshlight on a cock?

Autism is the same way: autism charities are so busy telling everyone that severe non-verbal autism isn't the norm and that plenty of autistic people live amazing and very normal lives, that the people with very severe disabilities that they were originally meant to help are being cast aside.

Just wanted to add that it's not only severely autistic non-verbal people who are cast aside in this equation. Autistic people who despite their high IQ are unable to function independently are treated in a similar way, both by other "Aspies" and autism charities. I'm sick of the way they keep extolling the positives of autism and basically imply it's being a socially awkward quirky genius.
Dare to say Aspergers is a disability in certain quarters and you'll get jumped on for it. Of course it's hardly a coincidence that the people jumping on you are mostly self diagnosed or diagnosed later in life adults who have careers and "special talents."
You face similar levels of ignorance from so called professionals, they assume just because you have Aspergers that means you can live independently, work, go to university and drive. For some reason they can't understand that just because one person with AS can do that, doesn't mean we all can.
Sorry, I'm ranting, not really sure what my point was, just felt like I needed to add my thoughts.

They're capable of physical sex acts

But possibly not self-stimulation. I'm thinking thalidomide.

If someone has a hand and can reach their cock or clit, they can wank. If they don't have a hand, society's answer should be advanced robotic sex toys (and I don't mean lifelike dolls, I mean a Hitachi wand or male equivalent with positional adjustment in three planes, tilt adjustment, etc so you don't need hands to position it or control its intensity).

Sex toys for disabled people would be a good idea. Developments in robotics and eye tracking[1] would mean that even the most paralysed person could control a suitably-designed toy.

So why insist that living women are paid to be raped by disabled men? Oh, right, that male entitlement thing again.

[1] Although the user would have to learn to close their eyes during orgasm to avoid involuntary eye movement being interpreted as instructions.

Let's be 100% clear about this.

This isn't about PWD.

It's about MWD.

Men. Tell me: how many disabled WOMEN would be willing to invite a male in the sex trade into their home and bedroom, even knowing that if he did anything you didn't want, no one would believe you and you'd be seen as having gotten what you'd paid for?

Almost none.

This is yet another part of the new disability activism, in which the people who are mostly advocated for are the people with the most minor disabilities and most comparative privilege. Someone who is severely physically disabled and non-verbal with an IQ of 30 is obviously much closer to the target of "disability activism" of the 1990s. Today, people with severe disabilities are a minor afterthought in the disability rights movement.

Autism is the same way: autism charities are so busy telling everyone that severe non-verbal autism isn't the norm and that plenty of autistic people live amazing and very normal lives, that the people with very severe disabilities that they were originally meant to help are being cast aside. Now, researchers think the definition of autism is so diluted that it barely means anything in research, compared to what it used to mean.

We see the same dilution here. The MEN, not PEOPLE, with disabilities who can benefit from this are fully capable of consent, apparently, which rules out people with really significant cognitive problems. They're capable of physical sex acts, which rules out the most severe physical disabilities. Let's face it, the number of men who would claim "autism" to get access to prostitutes covered by the government would vastly, vastly outnumber the polite, sad men in wheelchairs, the type advocates are hoping you'll imagine when supporting their proposal.

That's truly disgusting.

Sex is not a right. Access to women's bodies is not a commodity.

The war on women is real.