Using prostitutes is like using cheat codes

Why? You know there's many men disabled, etc who quite simply can't get sex. A father took his son with down's to visit a prostitute because he had a sex drive but because of his disability he found it very hard to find a woman who wanted to date him/have sex. I think it's great that he could have an outlet to have sex just because someone's disabled it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a sex life . I would rather men who aren't into relationships go to hookers than pretend they are interested in a girl but they really they just want sex, It would make dating and relationships an awful lot simpler.

I certainly think there should be subsidies for them for disabled people.

No one cares what you have to say.

You can't be serious. We don't have the money to be subsidising prostitutes for the disadvantaged.

R1, R2, L1, CIRCLE, LEFT, DOWN, RIGHT, UP, LEFT, DOWN, RIGHT, UP.

Nah I don't see how it's remotely similar.

Yes we do, it would be a one-off cost. Every person should have a reasonable expectation of one day having sex with somebody, it's no different to when you get charities or fund-raising paying for disabled people to go bungee-jumping in the Grand Canyon or whatever. Able-bodied people can get jobs and pay for it themselves.

Not really. Johns are no worse than the sort of scum you see in nightclubs leching over pieces of meat - people who use terms like 'sloppy seconds' and 'fanny magnet' a lot. We would all like to be the jack the lad though wouldnt we? Strutting around nightclubs, seducing birds left, right and centre, but realistically the best most will come away with of an evening is an elbow in the face and a spilt pint down ones trousers. Online dating isn't really any sort of guarantee either and unless you want to be done for harassment those are the two most viable 'free' options. Plus prozzies generally have a higher level of integrity than the hairdressers cum slappers dancing around their handbags on a Friday night - no pretensions towards 'standards'.

Yes we do, it would be a one-off cost. Every person should have a reasonable expectation of one day having sex with somebody, it's no different to when you get charities or fund-raising paying for disabled people to go bungee-jumping in the Grand Canyon or whatever. Able-bodied people can get jobs and pay for it themselves.

Not really. Johns are no worse than the sort of scum you see in nightclubs leching over pieces of meat - people who use terms like 'sloppy seconds' and 'fanny magnet' a lot. We would all like to be the jack the lad though wouldnt we? Strutting around nightclubs, seducing birds left, right and centre, but realistically the best most will come away with of an evening is an elbow in the face and a spilt pint down ones trousers. Online dating isn't really any sort of guarantee either and unless you want to be done for harassment those are the two most viable 'free' options. Plus prozzies generally have a higher level of integrity than the hairdressers cum slappers dancing around their handbags on a Friday night - no pretensions towards 'standards'.

To be honest I agree, the government should subsidise women to those in need. I mean, we've already had them compared to 'buying an appliance' in this thread, and the gov. subsidises essential appliances to the disabled. I'm sure it's the same thing for them woman things.




And they say feminism is pointless.

Well, take a look at this website they won't anymore.

I assumed from 'subsidy' you were referring to government support. If it's NGO or charity then go wild, though I do think the millions and millions with far more pressing fundamental needs in the world almost shame the proposition and I wouldn't donate to such a campaign myself.