A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.
His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.
His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.
They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.
Good! This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.
I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’. Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers. The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).
In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market. In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia. Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies? In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention. Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.
Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.
Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)? After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week. Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?
Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women. Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.
The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age. But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants).
This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions. We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality. Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games. Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd. Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.
Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity. In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light. In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.