ableism, the "ok" discrimination

Post Reply New Topic

I am providing you EVIDENCE that sexuality is a basic human right, according to the UN, EU, and various RESPECTABLE nations across the world. EVIDENCE. Yet, your sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalala".

Is it because "it's just sex/dating" is a corn-fed belief to people in society who are able to people who don't have to face impossible odds just for a minute chance of succeeding at it?

To be honest I did not even want to bring sexual rights into this discussion, but since YOU brought it up, most of the disability rights carriculum will be tackling this here in the US too (though it is questionable how much coverage we'll get, because we got no coverage from the protests in NY which were quite massive).

I know how horrible it is to feel patronised by society; but people are people, it is human nature to discriminate and misunderstand; and human nature cannot be changed overnight. The best you can do is try your best to pull your own weight and win their respect.

We need to be active, we need to protest, we need to DEMAND to be equals, on all levels of society (including sexually/intimately), and not accept a back seat.

What if our forfather just rolled over and said "hey it's human nature for them to wanna dominate us" and let the Brittish rule over America? What if the slaves thought "it's just human to be racist" and accepted segregation or slavery? What if women had that attitude and were still stuck in the kitchen/bed room?

Sex is what humans do, sexuality is what we biologically are, sure some people CHOOSE to go without sex, but this is a weak argument because some women CHOOSE to go without food. It does not mean it is healthy, and it does not mean that societal lack of access to food to a specified demographic does not equal oppression.
This is how humans have evolved over many centuries, the sex drive is seconded only to thirst and hunger. Especially in males, but in all humans reguardless of their gender.

I wasn't talking about basic rights, just attitudes.

Look, a lot of non-disabled people cannot get girlfriends. Do they deserve sex-surrogates?

Last edited by Aridarr on 11 Nov 2007, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

even some white "liberals" thought they were "open minded" during segregation, while supporting segregation. Legislation designed to include "everyone" did not always discuss who "everyone" included, at one time "everyone" discluded slaves.

Ok, so you can agree that our human rights deserve to be met then?

Not having access to this part of our lives is being stripped of a major part of our humanity.

From wiki:
1. Trouble with intimacy 2. Lack of confidence 3. Communication problems 4. Dating anxiety 5. Sexual inhibitions.
Those sound like a person with any of those problems pretty much is disabled to get a partner.

Anyway, sex surrogates sounds good to me

I agree with green/blue on this one, all people reguardless of their abilities or disabilities need to have consensual access to express their sexuality.

In some ways, I can see that as reasonable. I just don't agree with your reasons. And if what you really want is to been judged as equal and treated as an adult, asking to be spoon-fed sex won't do much for your public image.

I think your missing the point, I can't be Mr. Skills, I don't have the ability to read a woman the way other people do. If a paraplegic uses a wooden leg, is he being spoon fed his ability to walk?

Actually it's a myth that it is natural for the males of our species to have male-on-female sex, to be able to actively express sexuality with a female. Studies of chimpanzees etc show that many of the males NEVER get to have reproductive sex.Having male-on-female sex is reserved for the genetically advantaged, whether in muscles or brain power or something which puts them amongst the successful members of the group.There would be no evolutionary advantage in all males passing on their genes. Only the most fitted get to do it!! And they pick, generally , the "fittest" females.

Which means that in fact human males ( and some females ) through hundreds of thousands of years led heterosex-free existences. Until paternity became an issue with the division of resources after began settling and labouring land, when the "less" advantaged females began setting up with other "less" advantaged males ,(who were no longer being driven away from the group or being killed in fights, because could help on farm, represented valuable labour etc,) thus putting our genetic patrimony in peril ! !

One of the reasons many men suffer from not having sex in modern society is not so much sexual frustration, as loss of self-esteem because sex is 'sold" as sign of success, because once upon a time it WAS a sign of success, LITERALLY ( genetically).
"Not getting any" CAN be experienced as a label saying " you are a failure". But to let oneself think that would be retrogressive/old-fashioned because now that heterosexual-sex has become separated from reproduction, there is no reason why evolutionary determinism should continue to colour the image of "sex" ; it could begin to be seen as the sign of boring people, who can't find anything better to do, or are driven by pure boring biological drives!!

It is not sex which a human might be able to claim as a human right so much as physical affection, massages, hugs, touch.