Can't a disabled person buy a sex toy like the rest of us? Why do they need it to be government covered? Shouldn't the goal be for disabled people to have the same rights and opportunities as...
Disabled Australians should be able to access sex toys,
Can't a disabled person buy a sex toy like the rest of us? Why do they need it to be government covered?
Four of Australia's major disability groups argue the NDIS needs a "sexuality policy" to cover a broad range of needs such as... services from sex workers
Shouldn't the goal be for disabled people to have the same rights and opportunities as non-disabled people? Are disabled people really incapable of finding people to have sex with?
There was an example of a woman with MS. Surely she could at the very least find an attractive man with MS who is empathetic to her condition? I thought people form communities around their disabilities, does the government really need to step in to help them shove their genitials together? The example was for a woman who requested sex therapy, rather than a prostitute (which I misread).
This seems a little ridiculous. I am not Australian, but honestly, I would think there is common agreement that government should try to level the playing field of minority human conditions. Providing certain citizens free prostitutes sort of goes beyond that.
EDIT: Added context to certain points, removed one point that resulted from me misreading a part of the article.
Have you considered that you are perceiving it this way precisely because sex is a sensitive subject? I don't see my comment as a "cheap shot" in any way. I just don't see how sex toys and sex...
rhetorically to mock and patronise. (Especially because the subject of sex is one that is so heavily stigmatized and misunderstood, so it invites cheap shots.)
Have you considered that you are perceiving it this way precisely because sex is a sensitive subject? I don't see my comment as a "cheap shot" in any way. I just don't see how sex toys and sex workers should be covered on the public's dime.* Can you explain it to me?
*with the acknowledgement that I am not a member of the Australian public
Your description feels lifeless, cheap, and vulgar, as though all that's necessary to meet a person's human needs is the bare minimum for orgasm.
Is not sex ultimately the shoving of genitials together? Is that not what sex is? There is nothing wrong with that. Certainly, the act of sex can and often does nclude intimacy. But the article discusses, and I am addressing, the use of sex toys and sex workers, who, other than under rather rare and specific circumstances, are not so focused on intimacy.
When I think of sex workers, I think of most of the examples listed on the Wikipedia page for sex workers:
prostitutes
professional dominants
pornographic models and actors
Phone sex operators
Webcam models
Performers and live models
erotic dancers
If you aren't referring to one of these examples, then perhaps use a different terminology so members of the public know what you are referring to.
I am not going to shame someone for wanting to seek therapy concerning their intimacy problems, but certainly I would be against my own government giving anyone a voucher to spend an hour with a prostitute once a month.
I think the point is that they can't use sex toys (i.e. impairment to their mobility). If you read the article: Also, there is the added component of the physical, human-intimacy (even with sex...
Can't a disabled person buy a sex toy like the rest of us? Why do they need it to be government covered?
I think the point is that they can't use sex toys (i.e. impairment to their mobility).
If you read the article:
... someone with severe cerebral palsy who could not reach their own genitals.
Also, there is the added component of the physical, human-intimacy (even with sex workers, despite the transient nature) which makes current technologies sub-par with respect to human sexual needs.
Can't a disabled person buy a sex toy like the rest of us? Why do they need it to be government covered?
Depending on the disability, some people have no incomes and depend on the government/insurance anyways. Presumably this would just be progress in expansion.
This article is about using government money to pay for sex therapists and prostitutes to provide services to disabled people. It's not about legalising sex work.
This article is about using government money to pay for sex therapists and prostitutes to provide services to disabled people. It's not about legalising sex work.
@hhh's question is a way of implying that people wouldn't recommend using government funds to pay for sex services for non-disabled people who want them, so we probably shouldn't recommend using...
@hhh's question is a way of implying that people wouldn't recommend using government funds to pay for sex services for non-disabled people who want them, so we probably shouldn't recommend using government funds to pay for sex services for disabled people. It's a very indirect way to approach the subject, but it's still about spending government money on sex workers.
It's also worth noting that prostitution has already been decriminalised in most Australian jurisdictions. It's highly regulated and extremely restricted, and the legislation varies greatly from state to state (some states require prostitutes to work in licensed brothels, while brothels are illegal in other states) - but, in most Australian states and territories, prostitution is legal in some form. The legalisation argument is therefore old-hat here. (Which is why disability advocates can suggest using government money to hire sex workers!)
Given that most people with disabilities who are involuntarily celibate ("in-cel") are in that situation without being hateful sexist pigs, you'll need to define who you're talking about. But, if...
Given that most people with disabilities who are involuntarily celibate ("in-cel") are in that situation without being hateful sexist pigs, you'll need to define who you're talking about.
But, if you're talking about able-bodied men who aren't able to get sex because of their misogynistic chauvinistic entitled attitudes to women... then, no, I highly doubt that disability activists are suggesting we use taxpayer funds to provide them with prostitutes. This service would be for people who are physically unable to get out of the house, or who have problems with their sexuality due to a disability.
A horrible personality might be a disadvantage in life and romance, but it's not a disability.
Yes. I'd like to see studies done whether it does help self worth and quality of life before a program fully kicks off but i dont see why you wouldnt extend it to less visible disorders. Lets be...
Yes. I'd like to see studies done whether it does help self worth and quality of life before a program fully kicks off but i dont see why you wouldnt extend it to less visible disorders.
Lets be honest, when you get past the buzzwords and meme status of "incels" (and when it's not just being used as an insult like virgin was in highschool) it's just an outwardly destructive manifestation of self worth and depression issues. We know men and women "show" different when it comes to many different mental conditions. An "incel" has many of the same problems that his sister counterpart has but where hers are anorexia and thinspo boards his are misogyny and incel boards. Both have the right to help.
Access to a sex worker is likely not going to help a stereotypical incel much though. These men are usually able bodied and their malady is mental rather than physical. They would do much better...
Access to a sex worker is likely not going to help a stereotypical incel much though. These men are usually able bodied and their malady is mental rather than physical. They would do much better seeking the help of a therapist than a sex worker. That said, I feel a sex therapist is the same as any other therapist with a specialty focus and that people who need access to one should definitely receive it. An incel that has access to a sex worker will not change their toxicity and delusions just from having sex.
I can see how it might be possible to give them the perspective needed to break free from that mentality. They've built up the idea of sex in their minds so much over so long, giving it wildly...
I can see how it might be possible to give them the perspective needed to break free from that mentality. They've built up the idea of sex in their minds so much over so long, giving it wildly disproportionate importance in life. They believe that having sex is the goal, that it's their right, and it will make them happy and whole as a man. It's difficult to simply talk that down, particularly if the recipient believes the advice to come from someone who is having it, viewed like telling a man in the desert, "really, water isn't that great, you don't need it". What if, instead, they could be shown exactly what they're missing and asking for? While the act is certainly pleasurable, it's not magic, and I can see the after effects going a few different ways. On the negative end is that nothing changes, they still hold the same views, maybe even rationalizing the results and doubling down. On the positive end, it could sow the seeds of confidence and positivity, all of the benefits that @vivaria mentioned elsewhere, and give them the tools to dig themselves out of the mental hole. And in the middle, they may feel the same same pain, lack of fulfillment, emasculation and realize that sex wasn't the silver-bullet they believed, starting to open them up to new ideas and mental help. That last one seems fairly likely; "I guess I'm a man now, but I don't feel any different" is a fairly common theme in coming-of-age media.
Can't a disabled person buy a sex toy like the rest of us? Why do they need it to be government covered?
Shouldn't the goal be for disabled people to have the same rights and opportunities as non-disabled people? Are disabled people really incapable of finding people to have sex with?
There was an example of a woman with MS. Surely she could at the very least find an attractive man with MS who is empathetic to her condition? I thought people form communities around their disabilities, does the government really need to step in to help them shove their genitials together?The example was for a woman who requested sex therapy, rather than a prostitute (which I misread).This seems a little ridiculous. I am not Australian, but honestly, I would think there is common agreement that government should try to level the playing field of minority human conditions. Providing certain citizens free prostitutes sort of goes beyond that.
EDIT: Added context to certain points, removed one point that resulted from me misreading a part of the article.
Have you considered that you are perceiving it this way precisely because sex is a sensitive subject? I don't see my comment as a "cheap shot" in any way. I just don't see how sex toys and sex workers should be covered on the public's dime.* Can you explain it to me?
*with the acknowledgement that I am not a member of the Australian public
Is not sex ultimately the shoving of genitials together? Is that not what sex is? There is nothing wrong with that. Certainly, the act of sex can and often does nclude intimacy. But the article discusses, and I am addressing, the use of sex toys and sex workers, who, other than under rather rare and specific circumstances, are not so focused on intimacy.
When I think of sex workers, I think of most of the examples listed on the Wikipedia page for sex workers:
If you aren't referring to one of these examples, then perhaps use a different terminology so members of the public know what you are referring to.
I am not going to shame someone for wanting to seek therapy concerning their intimacy problems, but certainly I would be against my own government giving anyone a voucher to spend an hour with a prostitute once a month.
I think the point is that they can't use sex toys (i.e. impairment to their mobility).
If you read the article:
Also, there is the added component of the physical, human-intimacy (even with sex workers, despite the transient nature) which makes current technologies sub-par with respect to human sexual needs.
Depending on the disability, some people have no incomes and depend on the government/insurance anyways. Presumably this would just be progress in expansion.
Because this is about intimate human to human connections, not orgasms.
But it is also about orgasms. As is intimacy is not necessarily dependent on genital stimulation (otherwise companions would suffice).
In this clause of the first sentence of the article, it's about orgasms.
Do the people supporting this think this should be extended to incels? I'm genuinely curious.
This article is about using government money to pay for sex therapists and prostitutes to provide services to disabled people. It's not about legalising sex work.
@hhh's question is a way of implying that people wouldn't recommend using government funds to pay for sex services for non-disabled people who want them, so we probably shouldn't recommend using government funds to pay for sex services for disabled people. It's a very indirect way to approach the subject, but it's still about spending government money on sex workers.
It's also worth noting that prostitution has already been decriminalised in most Australian jurisdictions. It's highly regulated and extremely restricted, and the legislation varies greatly from state to state (some states require prostitutes to work in licensed brothels, while brothels are illegal in other states) - but, in most Australian states and territories, prostitution is legal in some form. The legalisation argument is therefore old-hat here. (Which is why disability advocates can suggest using government money to hire sex workers!)
Given that most people with disabilities who are involuntarily celibate ("in-cel") are in that situation without being hateful sexist pigs, you'll need to define who you're talking about.
But, if you're talking about able-bodied men who aren't able to get sex because of their misogynistic chauvinistic entitled attitudes to women... then, no, I highly doubt that disability activists are suggesting we use taxpayer funds to provide them with prostitutes. This service would be for people who are physically unable to get out of the house, or who have problems with their sexuality due to a disability.
A horrible personality might be a disadvantage in life and romance, but it's not a disability.
Yes. I'd like to see studies done whether it does help self worth and quality of life before a program fully kicks off but i dont see why you wouldnt extend it to less visible disorders.
Lets be honest, when you get past the buzzwords and meme status of "incels" (and when it's not just being used as an insult like virgin was in highschool) it's just an outwardly destructive manifestation of self worth and depression issues. We know men and women "show" different when it comes to many different mental conditions. An "incel" has many of the same problems that his sister counterpart has but where hers are anorexia and thinspo boards his are misogyny and incel boards. Both have the right to help.
Access to a sex worker is likely not going to help a stereotypical incel much though. These men are usually able bodied and their malady is mental rather than physical. They would do much better seeking the help of a therapist than a sex worker. That said, I feel a sex therapist is the same as any other therapist with a specialty focus and that people who need access to one should definitely receive it. An incel that has access to a sex worker will not change their toxicity and delusions just from having sex.
I can see how it might be possible to give them the perspective needed to break free from that mentality. They've built up the idea of sex in their minds so much over so long, giving it wildly disproportionate importance in life. They believe that having sex is the goal, that it's their right, and it will make them happy and whole as a man. It's difficult to simply talk that down, particularly if the recipient believes the advice to come from someone who is having it, viewed like telling a man in the desert, "really, water isn't that great, you don't need it". What if, instead, they could be shown exactly what they're missing and asking for? While the act is certainly pleasurable, it's not magic, and I can see the after effects going a few different ways. On the negative end is that nothing changes, they still hold the same views, maybe even rationalizing the results and doubling down. On the positive end, it could sow the seeds of confidence and positivity, all of the benefits that @vivaria mentioned elsewhere, and give them the tools to dig themselves out of the mental hole. And in the middle, they may feel the same same pain, lack of fulfillment, emasculation and realize that sex wasn't the silver-bullet they believed, starting to open them up to new ideas and mental help. That last one seems fairly likely; "I guess I'm a man now, but I don't feel any different" is a fairly common theme in coming-of-age media.