Prostitutes & Public Health Care

Chumly- Is this what you're talking about:http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1537366.html?

My initial reaction is to say I don't find it objectionable. As long as both parties are comfortable and consenting- I think it's a compassionate recognition of a human need which certain people may be unable to have met any other way.

Of course there'd have to be a whole lot of screening of various sorts (emotional, physical, etc.) going on. And I guess you'd have to really think about the emotional repercussions in terms of the disabled person developing an attachment to a particular sex worker- and how that might evolve and cause more problems than it alleviated in terms of relief of stress, etc. in the long run (I'm assuming the sex workers are professionals who could control their emotions).

But if someone has chosen to make this their profession- I see no reason why it shouldn't also be practiced as a "helping" profession in a compassionate way.

But it should be recognized, the limiting factor is income, not disability. If one has the money, I'm sure anyone can hire someone to meet his or her needs, regardless of disability.
This quote:
makes it sound as if only the disabled are affected, when in reality, it's more generally pertinent to those who suffer from a lack of a partner and a lack of funds, whether they're disabled or not. Is the government also going to include access to sex workers for those who are impoverished and alone-so that they won't be "prevented" from having access to sex?
It is kind of a slippery slope....with a lot of inherent problems...actually, I can't really see it running very smoothly, but it's a kind idea- and given what many governments spend taxes on- I think there's been money much less well spent on more detrimental things.

I was watching a show on the tube, I can't remember the program's name but it's a popular weekly program about sex. I wish I could stir up a hornet's nest about government's sanctioning prostitution, publicly funding the sex trade, and all the presumed negative moral implications.......but I don't have a problem with it.

I see your point about who should get this government sexual subsidization. I have heard (though not confirmed so I don't know if it's true) that in the UK you can get a government sponsored pet.

Here's hoping a poster or two will mosey along to argue the evils of the slippery slope, lack of morals, and excessively liberal attitudes etc!

The webpage you found is the same topic, but the TV program did not mention "The Danish government is under attack" and "The disabled must have the same possibilities as other people".

That second point seems rather an idealization and not a pragmatic likelihood. What moral argument would you put forth to support that pretext? Let alone the rational for a government sanctioned sex trade; when so much of the world's population lives in poverty and we are potentially on the brink of ecological / environmental meltdown!

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1537366.html?

I'm not sure, if this is the latest information - it's from October 2005.

Walter wrote:

Yeah, it was the first link I came to that stated the proposal succinctly. There were some other links to scholarly publications in which this was an adjunct issue, but I didn't have time to read through them to find out what the stance or status was.

I would be interested in knowing whether it did come to fruition and what the general response has been though. Do you have any other more recent info?

Chumly wrote:
That'd be great if that was true. But it kind of makes me think again of the whole issue of sex as a basic human need or right, and whether or not this trivializes or is condescending in some way to the plight of the disabled (who do not have partners), by expecting them to be satisfied with the purely physical aspect of their needs for human contact and affection being met.

I've read/heard/ been basically indoctrinated to believe- that it's a fact that men are more able to approach sex non-emotionally than women (I'm not sure I buy that as being the case with all men though - or reciprocally that all women are incapable of dealing with it non-emotionally) but anyway, I think that's the general theory.

Why should we expect those who have disabilities to settle for less than what most of us who are not disabled are willing to settle for? Doesn't that strike you as somewhat condescending? Or do I just react that way because I'm a woman, and I know that I'd prefer or like some emotional connection along with the physical? But I guess I'd have to ask myself, that if there was no other option than this- would I be happy for this option, or would I prefer nothing at all?

I'm curious as to how they decided this was a priority for this population.
I know that there are non-disabled people who choose to live a celibate life, and don't feel sex is a priority for them, so I'm curious as to how they gathered their data among this population (survey) maybe? And I'm wondering if they found a difference in terms of desire for these services among those who were disabled after becoming sexually active as opposed to those who were disabled from birth or before reaching sexual maturity and ever having been sexually active.


Okay Chumly- I'm being facetious again here. I was just pointing out that if you have money- it doesn't matter what else you don't have- you can pretty much buy whatever you need (or want).
I don't think most governments would ever care about the personal and individual satisfaction or happiness of each citizen to enact something like this- especially those who are marginalized by disability and poverty. That's what makes this so surprising and unique.

If all the bugs were worked out- and human nature wasn't human nature- (which basically ensures the fact that all the bugs would never be worked out in an undertaking such as this) it'd be great. I think the thought behind it is lovely- it's just so empathetic and generous-and totally unexpected.


At least everyone would die happy...again, I'm being facetious- but don't you agree it's just so nice sometimes when someone (especially a government for goodness sake) wants to give something more than what you'd expect instead of the usual "just enough to get by" in life, especially to people who just have to struggle to live everyday?

Really interesting post Chumley- thanks.

No - and this mostly due to the fact that I don't know enough Danish to read the related sources.


Generally, in Denmark like in many other European countries, (local/state/federal) authorities compensate disabled people for extra costs incurred because of their disability.

In Denmark, since 2001, this includes e.g. helping to go to prostitutes (but not paying their sercice).
Same is done in Germany (though already much earlier and not explicitely mentioned in a bylaw).

I don't have time for a mega-response right now but give this a ponder: there are lots of men and women too who prefer the high class call-girl or boy-toy. Increased intimacy is not always the intended or desired goal nor is it always a beneficial net result when it does take place. Our divorce courts supply ample evidence of that.

Right, but is it fair to assume that people who have disabilities are not also desirous of increased intimacy?
And for those who are- could this "solution" possibly be a sad and probably ultimately more frustrating and ineffective substitute?


How so? If anything divorce courts supply ample evidence that peoples' needs for partnership, companionship and intimacy are not being met- as well as illustrating the fact that marriage as a way of life can be very, very difficult.

Do you think those who get divorced are doing so to escape intimacy?

I don't know about the word "fair" (brings up all that messy morality) but I would not automatically assume them to have wants and needs different from my own.That's more specific and impossible for me to address as too much would depend on individual circumstances. Clearly if the disabled person is of able-mind then the choices and the consequences would theirs not mine. I suspect most disabled men would choose the sexual intimacy at the risk of getting hurt on a longer term emotional level. In fact that viewpoint drives healthy men like me (at least in as much as basic innate drives can ever be rationalized in a logical conscious subjective sense) thus I choose sexual intimacy at the risk of getting hurt on a longer term emotional level (but I do not do so via sex workers, I do so in the more usual sense).Do you mean to suggest that increased intimacy is always a beneficial net result and that divorce courts are not evidence this increased intimacy can be hazardous?Speaking from my perspective, I would be wanting to escape from the intimacy of the present female company, not all female company, in fact I would be wanting to maximize the number of female company (strictly for the purposes of increasing intimacy of course) I think many other men would share that view (and perhaps get a chuckle out of the way I phrased it).

A perhaps more on topic question comes to mind however: the implications of a mentally disabled person and the government sponsored sex trade worker; the mentally disabled person's choices and consequences may not be of their own doing.

Many taxpayers might not consent to this use of their hard-earned money. And I'd agree with them. There is a case for the government forcing taxpayers to keep handicapped citizens fed, housed, and supplied with basic health-care. But when it comes to sex everyone's on their own -- handicapped or not. Make someone fall in love with you, or pay for a 30-minute stand. But the government's business isn't to supply its citizens with sex.

Many taxpayers don't consent to or agree with many uses of their hard earned money- still it gets spent in ways that you or I would not see fit.

I don't know what the rationale behind this was because apparently all of the detailed information about it is written in Danish, but I remain impressed with the fact that it seems compassionate and empathetic as opposed to the usual cold, hard view that is more common in the world today. Purely my opinion.

Do I think it's practical? No. Do I think the implementation and administration of such a program would be fraught with problems? Yes. Do I think most people would agree to help fund it? No.
Would I rather have my tax dollars fund a program such as this rather than the war in Iraq? Yes.

But none of those facts change my opinion of how I view the intent. I still view the intent positively. That doesn't mean I'd participate in it if I was disabled- but I'd be happy that someone somewhere was recognizing my needs as a fellow human being- whether I chose to participate or not.

The government wasn't supplying them with sex- it was supplying them with the option for therapeutic services which might serve to make their life healthier and happier. And I guess some governments do see that as their business. Obviously the government of Denmark at least considered making it its business.

I like Milton Friedman a lot, but he would be against this I am sure.

Despite my grievous misgivings as per government interventionism I might be willing to abide by the pretext as a social experiment if I had the chance to vote on it in Canada. After all, in Canada there is massive tax payer sponsored support for having children.

If that's not government funding for having sex I don't know what is!

Government spending
I only found out about this topic from reading what was discussed in this thread.

My thoughts are that the decision to offer the sex workers' services could be financially motivated. I assume that the disabled citizens are offered a choice (i.e. they are not forced to have a session with a prostitute if they don't want it). Is it possible they are offered a choice between this service or another more expensive one (such as a nurse for a home visit)? I find that when corporate decisions don't appear to make a lot of sense, there is someone in the background with a BIG calculator who is adding it up and saying that option x costs less than option y.

Hi kali!

It's great to see you made it to A2k - don't let the temporary glitchiness keep you from coming back.

It's always nice to get another perspective on things.