Disabled Men in Bosnia Fight for Right to Sex with Prostitutes

http://news.yahoo.com/disabled-men-bosnia-want-prostitution-legalized-142148075--spt.html

Members of a Bosnia wheelchair basketball club are launching a campaign to legalize prostitution in the country to help disabled people "achieve their right to love."

Marinko Umicevic, president of the club Vrbas, said Wednesday that Bosnia had to catch up with 21st century Europe, where he said some people with disabilities "even get state subsidies to pay for sex."

Umicevic said some of his players had never had sex and legalizing the sex trade would help people like them achieve their basic rights. Club members were organizing a petition on the proposal in Banja Luka.

Unfortunately, 21st century Europe may not be so progressive as these disabled men would like to believe.  A care home in the UK is 'under investigation' after reports that staff allowed prostitutes to brighten the lives of its disabled residents :

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1168741/county-council-investigates-allegations-prostitutes-visited-home-disabled-people/

A spokesman for East Sussex County Council said: "We plan to examine allegations of prostitutes going into a care home."

A multi-agency team, including the council, set up to protect the safety of vulnerable people, will investigate the allegations, he said.

"They will see if the allegations are true and whether or not there are any concerns surrounding them," the spokesman said.

Ian Macrae, editor of the website disability now, defended the right of disabled people to enjoy such visits.

"Disabled people have a right to spend the money the government gives them on whatever they like, including sex, but this does open up a wider debate about society’s attitude to sex and disabled people in general," he said.

Naturally, the psychopathic feminists who make anti-prostitution laws and regulations don't care for the voices either of the sex workers or the disabled men fighting for their right to enjoy the only sex they can hope to get.  The sex workers are 'trafficked' and 'exploited' whatever they may say, and the disabled men are either being taken advantage of or are guilty of 'supplying the demand' for trafficked women.

17 thoughts on “Disabled Men in Bosnia Fight for Right to Sex with Prostitutes

  1. inclinedreader

    Naturally, the psychopathic feminists who make anti-prostitution laws and regulations don’t care for the voices either of the sex workers or the disabled men fighting for their right to enjoy the only sex they can hope to get.

    That’s like one big common theme which runs through the entire abuse industrial complex. Nobody actually talks to the alleged victims and actually values their opinions and cares about what they have to say; quite likely for fear that they would undermine and shoot gaping holes into received conventional victimhood theory.

  2. Eric

    Check out Rookh’s post, on a similar topic:

    http://www.kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2013/02/red-socks-and-door-knobs-confirmation.html

    It seems that a British nursing home is under fire from the United Queendom paedocrites for daring to have hired prostitutes for its residents, which Rookh describes as a ‘very enlightened and progressive social policy.’

    LOL—I don’t think that opinion would set well with the likes of Dean Esmay or Typhon Blue!

    Rookh then critiques the Daily Mail mangina who was puffing his outrage over the fact that elderly men might be enjoying themselves sexually:

    “There is a potent strain of misandry in Anglo-American conservatism. The puritanical meme in Anglo civilzation has, at its root, a callous indifference to male sexual needs…Thus we see the folly of ‘conservative MRAs’, they have internalized and accepted the mechanics of their own oppression. In sum, the systematic denial of male sexual needs oppresses men and exalts women, whose value always rises in climates of erotic scarcity.”

  3. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric
    Rookh said

    There is a potent strain of misandry in Anglo-American conservatism. The puritanical meme in Anglo civilzation has, at its root, a callous indifference to male sexual needs…Thus we see the folly of ‘conservative MRAs’, they have internalized and accepted the mechanics of their own oppression…

    I say this might possibly be more accurate: The puritanical meme in Anglo civilzation has, at its root, considerable bitterness and jealousy, directed by (sexually oppressed) males towards other (lower status) males, who have been fortunate enough, one way or other: to often fulfill or satisfy their sexual needs… Thus we see the folly of ‘conservative MRAs’, they have internalized and accepted the mechanics of their own oppression; thus exert their ENVY on those they perceive as more sexually successful or fortunate than themselves.

    Just another manifestation of that all too common (feminist) denominator: JEALOUSY.

  4. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The puritanical meme in Anglo civilzation has, at its root, considerable bitterness and jealousy, directed by (sexually oppressed) males towards other (lower status) males

    Good point, and probably the central explanation of the motivation behind male puritanism, but you can never ignore the role that female sexual jealousy plays in puritanism, and even, consequently, the strength it gives to such male weaknesses as paedocrisy and general male hypocrisy over sexual morality.

    Members of the Indian Social Purity Movement of the 19th century : http://chandrakantha.com/articles/tawaif/images/salvation_army.jpg

    I still think that, if left to their own devices, men would or at least could tolerate a society with more or less complete male sexual freedom, especially in a 21st century (with the pill, abortion, paternity testing etc) where there is little obvious reason why such a society could not function healthily.

    Gay culture is quite illustrative of this. Throughout history, homosexuality didn’t operate with many moral inhibitions, either when it was illegal, or when it was legal. Actually, for thousands of years, there was really no such thing as homosexuality as we understand it today, including of course, the absurdity of ‘gay marriage’. Gay culture, for all these millenia, consisted of an older males love of a teenage or pubescent youth. The idea of ‘monogamy’ let alone ‘gay marriage’ would be ridiculed by ‘gays’. Unsurprising, given that the selfish possessive desire to keep one sexual partner as your exclusive property is a trait only possessed, and only makes sense to, firstly women, and then secondly heterosexual males seeking to ensure paternity of their offspring after making that major commitment to a woman (i.e. sacrificing their own sexual freedom and intrinsic male urge to fuck, fuck, fuck).

    Of course gay culture, left to its own devices, has no need for the influence of women and their sexual mating pattern needs, or for that matter, the heterosexual male desire to raise children, and ensure that they are your genetic offspring. Hence, for thousands of years, gay culture consisted in the expression of the urge to fuck a different pretty boy every single day of the year.

    Fast forward to the late 20th century, early 21st, when society has been transformed into a gynocracy that ha given gays their ‘rights’, and see how homosexual culture has changed. Now gay marriage is the supposed pinnacle to which all homosexual men aspire. But this is the most revealing part – homosexual men are the biggest paedocrites and paedohysterics on the planet. Go on any homosexual forum and express a desire that the age of consent be reduced, and you get fire and brimstone hurled at you quicker than on a typical SoCon website. They will tell you that you are a paedo not a homosexual, that you are confusing paedophilia with homosexuality and should be immediately shot in the head, and that above all you are ‘undoing the work’ of gay liberation.

    Now why is this I wonder? Is this an unforeseen puritanical element of gay culture that the history books have mysteriously ignored, or is it simply that these homosexuals are having their thoughts and attitudes determined by circumstances that have been controlled and set by feminists and female sexual needs? For example, that it was made abundantly clear at every stage of ‘gay liberation’ that they would have to sell their soul and denounce ‘pederastry’ completely if feminists were to let them have their rights? i.e.homosexual rights groups were only very recently allowed to sit on United Nation’s panels, for the explicit reason that the feminists who dominate and control the UN stated that they would not be allowed to until they completely and unreservedly condemned sex with adolescent boys (and by implication sex with teenage girls) and disassociated themselves from any groups advocating for that (this is of course, strikingly parallel to what we are seeing in the current MRM and AVfM- women, even obvious feminists, coming in and validating the idea of men’s rights, but on condition that the MRM validates the prohibition of sex with teenagers).

    To return to Rookh, if that is his view, and Alan’s deeper analysis is correct, then it’s all the more unfortunate he ends up applying bitter male sexual jealousy at a supposed low status male (Jimmy Savile) getting an overabundance of teen pussy, even validating the tabloid nonsense that ‘King Jimmy’ raped an 8 year old boy, dresses it all up as a sophisticated Game theory analysis concerning such low status males and ‘soft rape’, and completely ignores everything that is important and obviously relevant to men’s rights in the biggest and most important men’s rights story in the UK for decades.

    But at least he didn’t mention anything about Savile’s satanic cult worship I guess.

  5. Alan Vaughn

    (and by implication sex with teenage girls) and disassociated themselves from any groups advocating for that (this is of course, strikingly parallel to what we are seeing in the current MRM and AVfM- women, even obvious feminists, coming in and validating the idea of men’s rights, but on condition that the MRM validates the prohibition of sex with teenagers).

    Very well put (not just what I quoted either, but your entire comment)! Why is it that only you and regular readers and commentators on your blog can see this obvious feminist SCAM and the blatant acceptance and validation of it by conservative manginas in the mRM?
    The mind boggles…

    “But at least he didn’t mention anything about Savile’s satanic cult worship I guess.”

    No, I don’t expect he ever will either. Anyone even with only ‘room temperature IQ’ knows that fairy-tales such as the ‘SRA phenomenon’ are ‘fictional’ anecdotes and fairy-tales are not generally regarded seriously, at least not by reasonable and intelligent adults, such as Rookh.

    However, the present day mRM seems to think the phenomenon is at least worthy of further investigation and subsequent persecution of offending paedophiles, that the recovered repressed memories of victims have ‘positively identified’.
    (This of course has only relatively recently been facilitated, thanks to the invaluable and ‘heroic’ work of feminist abuse industry ‘therapists’, who needless to say, the same mRM, as we’ve seen recently, also have a great deal of respect and admiration for)…

  6. Eric

    Alan:
    I’ve come more and more to believe that manginas and white knights are motivated by jealousy as well. If the best they can manage is an AVfM Sheila, it’s no wonder they’d reflexively attack a 15 y/o guy fortunate enough to land a hot 20-something. Ditto for ‘creepy’ guys like the teacher who eloped with Megan Stammers.

    Thinking back to the Vancouver box-cutter incident, it was very noticable how the white knights because increasingly violent the more the femihags egged them on. If you combine mangina sexual jealousy with the normal male sex drive to compete against other males for sexual dominance, you get an EXTREMELY dangerous combination.

    I mentioned this once on Fidelbogen’s blog, and he agreed that the male feminists were actually more dangerous than the female ones.

  7. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    That’s an excellent analysis. One idea I’ve been toying with lately is that matriarchial societies are inherently puritanical (Rookh’s Anglobitch Thesis maintains that Anglo-Saxon culture is inherently matriarchial). It seems that the ‘outbursts of puritanism’ that you mentioned earlier always seem to coincide with decline in male power and authority.

    One issue I’ve always held in the MRM is that Civilization and Patriarchy are synonymous. Interestingly too, none of the mainstream MRM/ femRAs talk about a ‘return to patriarchy’ and when I’ve brought that up on mainstream blogs, I get shouted/voted down rather quickly.

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Another example would be the career of David Fraudtrelle himself.

    15 years ago, when it was still hip and acceptable to do so in the young ‘sex positive’ feminist circles he was associated with, he railed against government interference into preteen internet porn groups.

    Today, when feminists have now uniformly declared any sexual interest in under 18s to be the worst form of perverted evil, he is raging against pictures of 17 year old girls in tight jeans as child pornography.

    Whats the best way of explaining Fraudtrelle’s u-turn? A complex analysis of the relationship between religion and puritanism, or the obvious fact that in the modern gynocracy, it is a matter of self-interest, if not survival, for a man like him to be a raging white knight paedocrite?

  9. Alan Vaughn

    Whats the best way of explaining Fraudtrelle’s u-turn? A complex analysis of the relationship between religion and puritanism, or the obvious fact that in the modern gynocracy, it is a matter of self-interest, if not survival, for a man like him to be a raging white knight paedocrite?

    Yes for sure, which is one point I raised earlier today (and of course, the same one that you have raised so MANY times before), when I mentioned how such paedocrites are now found publicly declaring on blogs how they find older women ‘attractive’, or even more blatantly and paedocritically: (lying) older, BBW: as sexy or ‘HOT’!

  10. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch politician, loved teenage Moroccan boys, and was called a misogynist.

    Yes, from what I gather, back then it was quite acceptable for a far right politician in the Netherlands (if of a uniquely Dutch ‘liberal’ kind) to openly confess to being attracted to young teenagers. How quickly the Netherlands turned from a truly ‘progressive’ society, in fact the greatest experiment on Earth, to just another paedohysteric hell hole! I guess it keeps the homosexual skinheads happy while they wait for the muslims to turn them into their little bitches.

  11. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    Certainly Fraudtrelle is motivated by opportunism rather than morality…but I can’t help but wonder why a culture, once it’s tasted liberation, seems to regress backwards into puritanism and social repression unless there’s an underlying puritanical strain already built into it.

    On one of Rookh’s articles about Savile, here’s part of what he wrote replying to a comment of mine:

    “…while the 60s had some positive aspects (principally sexual ones), these only touched a relatively small percentage of the population (the urban middle class). Also the Puritanical undercurrents in Anglo culture are not to be dismissed; consider how quickly the tide turned against the ‘free’ 60s, and how completely!…Futrelle, for instance, espouses ’60s values’ while sharing the punitve puritanism of Reagan and Thatcher.”

    I do see his point here: what appears to sporadic bouts of puritanism are really the inherent puritanical strains recoiling against attempts to liberate it. A gloomy picture, if Rookh’s correct, because it would almost imply that Anglo-American culture is essentially impervious to positive change.

    I don’t know enough about the culture in ancient and mediaeval Britain to know whether it had these tendencies prior to the Reformation or not, but it certainly seems to go back that least that far.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Antifeminist:
    Certainly Fraudtrelle is motivated by opportunism rather than morality…but I can’t help but wonder why a culture, once it’s tasted liberation, seems to regress backwards into puritanism and social repression unless there’s an underlying puritanical strain already built into it.

    On one of Rookh’s articles about Savile, here’s part of what he wrote replying to a comment of mine:

    “…while the 60s had some positive aspects (principally sexual ones), these only touched a relatively small percentage of the population (the urban middle class). Also the Puritanical undercurrents in Anglo culture are not to be dismissed; consider how quickly the tide turned against the ‘free’ 60s, and how completely!…Futrelle, for instance, espouses ’60s values’ while sharing the punitve puritanism of Reagan and Thatcher.”

    I do see his point here: what appears to sporadic bouts of puritanism are really the inherent puritanical strains recoiling against attempts to liberate it. A gloomy picture, if Rookh’s correct, because it would almost imply that Anglo-American culture is essentially impervious to positive change.

    I don’t know enough about the culture in ancient and mediaeval Britain to know whether it had these tendencies prior to the Reformation or not, but it certainly seems to go back that least that far.

    Post Restoration England (i.e. when the monarchy was restored after Cromwell’s death) was notorious for its sexual liberalism. Obviously this had a lot to do with the society having suffered under years of extreme puritanism imposed by Cromwell, but as far as I know, 18th and early 19th century England wasn’t reputed to be any more puritanical than other European nations. At the time of the Social Purity Movement in the late 19th century, and the campaigns to raise the age of consent and new laws against prostitution, there were estimated to be over 100,000 prostitutes working in London alone – of all ages. London was a magnet for prostitutes all over Europe – and consequently, sexual hedonists. Of course, the first feminists soon changed that.

    The important question to ask is who is responisible for these sporadic brouts of puritanism? Err..women, chiefly, and their opportunist hangers on like Fraudtrelle. And as has been documented here since day 1, there are good reasons for this. For example, that in times of sexual liberation, the average sexual value of a woman plummets. Regarding the correlation between anglo-saxon societies and attempts to wipe out sexual liberalism, yes feminism is stronger in these places because these places were sexually liberal. One major reason why feminism is more advanced (towards femi-nazism) in Sweden than, say, Italy, is because 40 years ago Sweden was the most sexually liberal society on Earth – it’s only rival being equally protestant Netherlands. Yes, the most puritan i.e. feminst nations in the West today are protestant, 40 years ago, the most sexually liberal societies were protestant – actually, the very same societies. I’m not sure how the claim that this is because such societies are ‘inherently puritan’ means anything here. We’ve seen how quickly Japan is turning – now men are being chased by the police for just asking schoolgirls directions. We’ve also seen with the witchhunt against Berlusconi how catholic nations like Italy will soon be as feminazified and puritan as places like the UK and Sweden.

    Yes, these bouts of puritanism are the response to the opening up of the sexual market, but why do we need to stress the puritanism angle (done to absolute death, including on nearly every other single site that even mentions paedohysteria) on a men’s rights anti-feminist site? For me, puritanism and feminism are practically interchangeable terms. But where does ‘puritanism’ get us except dismissing these issues (paedohysteria etc) as men’s rights issues?

    if Rookh’s correct, because it would almost imply that Anglo-American culture is essentially impervious to positive change.

    I think that’s the key here. If we’re to believe that the war on male sexuality, including paedohysteria and anti-prostitution and porn laws, are just something that the anglo-saxon mind is inherently adapted to accept, what is the point of trying to convince the likes of AVfM and the rest of the movement who want to engage in activism that these are men’s rights issues? Why stress puritanism over feminism and female sexual jealousy, when these latter two things are the motivations behind modern puritanism anyway?

  13. To break open the STU, ask the feminist what she thinks of polyandry, and if she likes to deflorate young men. If she thinks these are bad ideas, she admits that women are different from men.

  14. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    I see your point here, I think the situation is somewhat colored in America because the Religious Right is stronger here, and that whole movement is filled with White-Knight puritans who are basically opportunists like Futrelle (e.g. Rev. Mark Driscoll and Dr. Thomas Fleming).

    It’s interesting because the social conservatives and feminists really rose to political prominance at the same time here (the 1970s). Prior to that time, America was a relatively sexually liberated place. The authorities were ‘officially’ puritanical but generally considered sexuality a personal matter that the government had no business interferring with, unless it became a public nuisance in some way (like some gay activists did back in the 60s and 70s).

    However, I do think that quite a few of the North American mRAs have swallowed a lot of the social conservative/feminist values; and conflate it with inherent American cultural values. That’s how it’s largely spun in the media here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>