The Disabled And The Right To Service

It is a reliable source of dark amusement to watch two irreconcilable canons of political correctness colliding, as for instance with female genital mutilation, which pits defence of the female body against respect for cultural authenticity. The former canon has now emerged victorious, but there was once a time when this seemed by no means inevitable.

Something of the same sort is happening with respect to prostitution, for in certain progressive jurisdictions physically disabled men are being given public benefits for their expenses of transportation to the brothel, albeit Mummy State still declines to reimburse the service provider’s own fee. People who otherwise have their faces firmly set against commercial sex seem willing to countenance this, on the grounds that the disabled man would otherwise be deprived of his “right to sexual self-expression” or whatever the current buzz-phrase may be. It appears to be assumed, in my understanding quite inaccurately, that a man confined to a wheelchair (but with sensory and vascular systems still functioning) cannot get a girlfriend in the normal way, and should therefore be permitted to commit what for anyone else would be the PC sin of sins.

It appears that only the disabled have this “right” to sexual experience; a ‘right’ in the sense that it can be enforced in the courts. Certainly neither physical unattractiveness nor lack of social skills are held to qualify as disabilities, although the handsome Lothario who has been run over by a bus but retains his self-confidence and his mendacious patter will probably outscore the able-bodied dork and nebbish. In other words, paying for sex is only wrong for the man who still has all his arms and legs but who cannot convincingly deliver the requisite pick-up lines.

One might think that political correctness, supposedly devoted to finding human dignity everywhere, might have led to a more sympathetic attitude to unattractive men, who can only obtain the Holy Grail of sexual experience through commercial sex, mail-order brides and property-marriage systems in general. There is no trace here of any sympathy for the “differently attractive” male, which is all the odder in view of the aesthetic predicament that has driven so many women to radical-feminism.

Perhaps the whole animus results from projection or envy: if ugly women cannot get adequately laid, then ugly men may not get laid either. We therefore find progressives and rednecks gloriously united in their contempt for the “inadequate” male who needs to pay for it. Such a creature lacks the rights accorded to the “respectably” disabled, who may have their taxi to the brothel paid for by the government.

Posted on January 12, 2012 at 09:44 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: THE NAME OF THE GAME, The Ultimate Crime?

Leave a Reply