Mr Hansen started seeing a prostitute after attending a course at a social centre.
There, he and other disabled people were taught that if they had needs, they "could do something about it".
"I had a strong desire to have sex, and I think I gained the confidence around that time to get the call girls to come to me.
"Since then I've had a lot of escort girls coming to see me - but I've also had girlfriends."
५ ऑक्टोबर, २००५
"It's a lot more expensive getting them to come to my home rather than me going to a brothel."
Life in Denmark, where one expects the government to take care of your needs:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३ टिप्पण्या:
In the Netherlands the government allows persons with disabilities to get prostitutes or other sex workers as part of their therapy, i.e. the taxpayer foots the bill
The wags will be coming out in force on this one...
Are they going to give vouchers for the poor disabled? Will there be charter brothels? Magnet brothels for the gifted and talented?
There's a Meals on Wheels joke running around here somewhere, but I haven't had enough coffee and I'm thinking twice...
The temptation to make light of this matter is understandable.
But when one thinks of what the US government mandates to accommodate people with disabilities, facilitating sexual experiences might be the most life affirming assistance the government can provide.
Too bad “God” would not approve...
ALH: And too bad providing this service requires that women be prostitutes.
Too bad there aren't more individuals willing to give the disabled the time of day or to see them as possible mates instead of as burdens or inconveniences.
If someone would be willing to have a relationship with Mr. Hansen, perhaps this prostitute thing would be moot. Individual responsibility is at the heart. Mr. Hansen bears some responsibility for "getting out there" and his neighbors (as "Who is my neighbor?") bear much responsibility.
ALH... besides being snarky about "God" -- who do you want to service Mr. Hansen? The thousands (millions?) of girls and young women who are duped, kidnapped, and bought from eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Central America, China, etc.?
Perhaps just the "professional" "voluntary" sex workers with their retirement programs -- oh wait! they're dissipated at 30 (if not younger). Just what we need -- the government paying an underclass to "serve" another underclass. Let's put the moral question aside... I wouldn't want my money to pay for this because it's bad social policy and encourages the extreme exploitation of women as well as the disabled ("You ain't nothin if you ain't gettin' nothin'!") who are sent a very demeaning message.
I know there are prostitutes after 30. I've been working with cops for almost 15 years. Not a pretty sight. Obviously it's not quantifiable, but I would wager a large amount that most are "victims" somewhere down the line.
From what I understand, men get addicted to fab and nurturing personalities as well as hot bodies.
Well, at least this followup thread on the Danish handicapped being serviced by pros courtesy of the Danish gov't is going down another path than the first.
The first thread led to talk about the merits of privatised v. nationalised health care systems.
Yawn.
This time, it's leading down a more moralistic path, as to what kind of women would be hookers, before or after 30.
Maybe it's just me, being a woman and all, but I never catch sight of beautiful prostitutes.
They're usually wrinkled, dishevelled hags, age between 20 and death, who would turn a trick not because she's a trailblazing feminist, but because she just wants to score some crack later.
Oh! And speaking of the Netherlands, have you guys been to the Red Light District?
Painful, very painful.
Who on earth can want to pork those fat UGLY Surinamese women they have in their windows??
Yes, I know: men.
Cheers,
Victoria
I do think that when we introduce the fairer sex, this just opens the door for trouble.
After all, some of the female wags here have asked about foreplay, flowers, etc. We all know that many women need more time than their male brethern to be fully sexually satisfied. 15 minutes just won't cut it. But, if the state is going to provide this for the men, why wouldn't it be unfair not to provide it for women? (Is that 2 or 3 negatives in one sentence?)
Let us then factor in that a lot of women seem to hit a sexual peak later in life, and when they do, is isn't just 15 minutes, but multiple climaxes over a an extended period of time.
But then, maybe a lot of these guys wouldn't be good for more than one climax a day (week, or whatever). But if they start counting climaxes, you have the opposite problem - some women rarely if ever do.
So, I vote for what we have here. Much more uncomplicated. The state doesn't pay for men to be sexually satisfied, and it doesn't pay for women either. Eminently fair.
Let me add that disability is not necessarily a boolean condition. Rather, it is a continium. Precisely how disabled to you have to be to qualify? Does morbid obesity count? If so, how about technically overweight? Where do you draw the line? 50% overweight? 25%? And, for a lot of us, it is much easier to put on that weight than to take it off. So, if I am normally 25% overweight, but it takes 30%, how many guys might be tempted? (Or women for that matter?).
Another thought. What about those guys who can only get turned on by young nubile women? Should they be discriminated against by the state? Doesn't seem right. But then, what about the guys who only get turned on by young girls? Or, young boys?
miklos rosza
I do feel for you and, in particular, your friend. Some of what we did say was tongue in cheek.
But I do believe that Denmark has opened something that they probably shouldn't have.
I know plenty of guys in thier late 40s and into their 50s who aren't getting any, even without physical ailments. Ditto for women. You would think that all it would take is to get them together. But, that is the problem. It seems, the older you get, the harder that is, esp. those who have never been in long term relationships (or, I fear, those of us who were, but haven't been for awhile).
I know plenty of guys in thier late 40s and into their 50s who aren't getting any, even without physical ailments. Ditto for women. You would think that all it would take is to get them together. But, that is the problem. It seems, the older you get, the harder that is, esp. those who have never been in long term relationships (or, I fear, those of us who were, but haven't been for awhile).
I'd like to echo my sympathies which Bruce gave you so kindly, Miklos.
I don't know how sincere having a complete stranger say they feel for you, for what you are going through, but at least, it's important to say it, IMHO, so I am.
As Bruce also said, most of what was said in this thread is tongue-in-cheek (in fact, a lot of what is said on this blog is more for wittiness, than for substance -- although perhaps I shouldn't project my manner unto others).
But the highlighted bit of his commentary is not tongue-in-cheek.
It is God's honest truth.
The older one gets, it seems, the more difficult it is to find not even a soulmate, but just a mate...even if it's for the night.
I echo what he said that it's not the specifics, but the can of worms that the Danish gov't have opened up, that is the problem.
Although it's the specifics that make it funny. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा