"'Because it was funded by the state I could basically not have the shame of it being an unsafe or outlawed practice,' he said. However, the funding was removed in April after the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) wrote to him saying it had been decided that continued sessions were not 'an appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds.'.... 'The NHS opened up a political can of worms by awarding me funding and they wanted to shut it quickly. But they have already set a precedent.'... [Beverlee] Lewis...works only with disabled clients and describes herself as a 'conscious sex worker' offering 'companionship and sexual intimacy' in a non-judgmental setting. 'It’s really not all about sex A lot of my clients want to cuddle and caress,' she said. Most of her clients, she added, would find it 'really difficult' to find a girlfriend, 'because their level of disability is so severe.'... Williams intends to appeal against the NHS decision to withdraw his funding. 'The money in itself isn’t what makes it legitimate,' he said. 'But funding it as a medical need allowed me to see it in the same way as I would a surgical procedure or a tablet. It’s a medical need and a necessity.'"
From "Sex on the NHS: disabled man loses prescription for intimate sessions" (London Times).
Posts
8 comments:
Face it. Sex is a human right. We need a Universal Sex Intake. It will provide jobs for sex workers. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
'It’s really not all about sex. A lot of my clients want to cuddle and caress,"
This is what many prostitutes will say about their clients. Or, so I'm told. It's what I've read. I wouldn't actually know, but I've heard from friends. I think I saw it in a movie once.
Anyway, the curious thing is that I'm not surprised that this is a governmental agency paying for this man's sex needs. The surprise is that they pulled it back. I'm sure it happens here in the US as well. Positive it must happen here in the US, but in other ways. Not a direct payment from Medicaid to the sex worker, but a cash payment to the sex worker from a US citizen receiving money- oh...let's say a 'stimulus' (how appropriately named) or an extension of unemployment. Or just a helpful monthly payment of some sort. The kind that also pays for other things found in liquor stores or on the corner of any street in our country.
If the problem is not the money, but the perceived stigma, then sex isn't his problem and it's outrageous that he thinks taxpayers should pay for his sex. There is a better case to be mode for taxpayers paying for therapy targeted at reducing his anxiety about breaking taboos.
Sex trafficking is sex trafficking, no matter who pays for it. Imagine how it would take off if a trafficker knew he could get guaranteed government money for his “workers.” It would be like the hospital industry boom underwritten by Medicare, and the college boom underwritten by government guaranteed student loans.
I have a Jersey friend that could use this… therapy? He had a brain injury that messed up his cognitive abilities. He can easily go into a rage. He’s fine otherwise, can drive to the stores to get his groceries and the pharmacy to get his prescriptions and regular doctors. Has a home health aid come to his state grant apartment almost every day. He’s a fellow AA. Sometimes he shares intimately about his desires and its kind of sad.
We had a pad in London
But we didn't stop for tea
How cozy it was
Now since our breakup I wake up
Alone on a gray morning-after
I long for the sound of your laughter
And then I see the laugh's on me
But thanks for the memory
Of every touch a thrill
I've been through the mill
I've lived a lot and learned a lot
You loved me not and still
I miss you so much
I know it's a fallacy
That grown men never cry
Baby, that's a lie
We had our bed of roses
But forgot that roses die
And thank you so much.
'It’s really not all about sex. A lot of my clients want to cuddle and caress,'
It's not really about genuine love and affection either, which is what people really want and need. Sure, there might be some momentary physical thrills, but it is all a lie.
Of course, the larger question here is: What should be covered under public-funded healthcare? The same issues would arise in the U.S. if "Medicare for all" ever became a reality. Yes, we would all agree to pay for doctor's visits and antibiotics and heart surgery. But what about chiropractic treatments, acupuncture, massage therapy, Viagra, women's "low-desire" medications, or feminine-hygiene products? Or over-the-counter drugs, or vitamins and nutritional supplements? Not to mention huge issues like "experimental" treatments and massively expensive therapies that may or may not extend someone's life. This controversy over sexual surrogacy is interesting to read about (and for the newspaper to write about), but it's the tiny tip of an enormous iceberg.
Post a Comment