i missed the debates last night since i had band practice. but i did tape them, so don't worry your pretty lil head that i won't be commenting on it. from all i hear in the media & from my many kerry-supporter coworkers, kerry undoubtedly prevailed. i wasn't surprised though, given bush's lack of debate prowess.
in a 180 degree turn of subjects, this article on DISABLED PERSONS & SEXUAL RELIEF both befuddles & amuses me. the article states that "The organisation behind the scheme says the sexual rights of disabled people are currently being overlooked". it occurs to me that they'll start organizations for anybody & everybody now. i have to say it's an issue i've never really considered.
i suppose it begs the question: should special exceptions be made for physically handicapped to experience portions of life like the rest of the so-called whole body population? which further begs the question that if i believe God intended sex in marriage for our benefit, why would we suggest making special exceptions for those who (supposedly) can't marry? if that's the case, why not make special loopholes for the so-called nerds & geeks, a geek-clause if you will. "since it's obvious that those sorts will never marry, we'll provide sex services to make you feel lik more of a contributor to society!" i mean, if we think of it logically, we've all got disabilities, some just more prevalant than others. special exceptions for all our hang-ups could get messy.
tonight? time for a hoity-toity dinner party affair at my house. i'm not sure about some of the cats coming to din-din, but we'll have a grand time. south american food, homemade by my colombian flatmate. i feel so latin i could lambada.
in a 180 degree turn of subjects, this article on DISABLED PERSONS & SEXUAL RELIEF both befuddles & amuses me. the article states that "The organisation behind the scheme says the sexual rights of disabled people are currently being overlooked". it occurs to me that they'll start organizations for anybody & everybody now. i have to say it's an issue i've never really considered.
i suppose it begs the question: should special exceptions be made for physically handicapped to experience portions of life like the rest of the so-called whole body population? which further begs the question that if i believe God intended sex in marriage for our benefit, why would we suggest making special exceptions for those who (supposedly) can't marry? if that's the case, why not make special loopholes for the so-called nerds & geeks, a geek-clause if you will. "since it's obvious that those sorts will never marry, we'll provide sex services to make you feel lik more of a contributor to society!" i mean, if we think of it logically, we've all got disabilities, some just more prevalant than others. special exceptions for all our hang-ups could get messy.
tonight? time for a hoity-toity dinner party affair at my house. i'm not sure about some of the cats coming to din-din, but we'll have a grand time. south american food, homemade by my colombian flatmate. i feel so latin i could lambada.
This entry was posted
on 01 October 2004 at 10/01/2004 10:55:00 AM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
That IS pretty interesting. However, I don't think I agree with the practice.
It just seems like a way to trick those with disabilities into thinking they actually have a relationship with the, uh, facilitator. It'll provide an illusion of actual caring, love, and respect that might not be able to be discerned by the so-called benefactor.
Sounds to me like a masked kind of torture.
ah, young mayhap-san is wise. that was something i considered, but iddn't post, now did i? i wonder the effects on those people when their facilitator leaves.
my experience with the challenged population (to be PC) has been that they don't really operate under the same set of guidelines so for them a strong attraction automatically equates with a heart connection.
new meaning to sex so good one cries upon conclusion, i suppose.
» Post a Comment