Incels, Invalids, & Intimacy: A MRDAtarian Perspective


A week ago, my favourite bottle fairy (Cheers, Tink!) drew my attention to an interesting Guardian article dealing with the sex drives of disabled folk. Triggered by recent revelations of care home workers hiring sex surrogates to sate the lusts of those confined to their care, the article compiles a variety of views on the subject, including this soundbite by one Mik Scarlet:

It’s like the world telling you that disabled people are so unsexy that the only way they can have sex is to pay for it. If you’re growing up as a disabled child or someone who’s just come to disability, how does that affect how you feel about yourself? I don’t want a world where it’s easier for disabled people to visit sex workers, I want a world that sees disabled people as sexual and valid prospective partners.

Many would call this a laudable sentiment and I’d be hard pressed to disagree. However, seeing as the general public won’t be aligning with Scarlet’s vision anytime soon, what will the horny handicapped do for release and stimulation in the meantime? If the general public regard the disabled, in aggregate, as undesirable sexual partners, isn’t interfering with their one outlet simply adding to the cruelty and aridity of their situation? Folk with an anti-prostitution bias dismiss the undesired with a sneer of “let them stroke cock”, but even wanking sounds a tad impractical for those who lack the limbs required for the task.

That said, I’m sure plenty of disabled folk out there get more in the way of cock and/or cunt than many an able-bodied person. Even if the sexual dalit caste contains huge swathes of the crippled and invalid, they’re by no means its only members (neither does it encompass them in toto); beyond the world of the wheelchairs, there exist a plethora of people who may as well be bedridden amputees for all the interest they elicit from those they desire. For them, as well as for their disabled cousins, all the pity in the world’s no substitute for the alleviation of their pent-up yearnings.

Fuck, even in Scarlet’s ideal world, there’d still be a shitload of incel incapacitates passed over in the sexual arena; for them and their more ambulate counterparts, Mik’s heaven would still be hell. Nothing illuminates the inequality of existence quite like the push ‘n’ pull of sexual selection; and, no doubt, nothing exacerbates the ire of incels like the pisstaking and pathos tossed their way in place of pussy (and/or penis). For the bodily-impaired, it must be twice as as infuriating, what with having to deal with the nauseating cultural paternalism that follows them around on account of their condition. All too often, people claim them as living, breathing pets, assuming that because two of their legs are inactive, their third must be also.

I say sod that! I’m guessing the invalids and incels of the world could do without the sexual protectionism and stigmatization erected between them and their drives. Sure, paying for it’s (usually) far from ideal – I doubt the majority of working girls address the more emotional strains of TLC romantic partners (and sex surrogates) specialise in – but at least letting down the barriers to it would serve to satisfy the more primal intimacies craved by most members of our species, particularly those members who would otherwise go without.


This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Moral Panic, News, Perspectivism, Sex, Society and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

3 Responses to Incels, Invalids, & Intimacy: A MRDAtarian Perspective

  1. Ann Sterzinger says:

    Jeez. Who would be cruel enough to even think of taking away a crippled person’s hooker? That’s sick and wrong.

  2. You said “I’m guessing the invalids and incels of the world could do without the sexual protectionism and stigmatization erected between them and their drives.”

    While I realise the context you are coming from, as a life-long disabled woman I strongly object to the word “invalid”. That has immense negative connotations and I resent the inferred assumption that I, as a person inhabiting a CP body , am sick. I might occasionally have a sick sense of humour, I am fit and healthy.

    While I am here, I also object to the word “crippled” in the post left by Ann Sterzinger, on exactly the same grounds.

    • OttifantSir says:

      Sorry, but if you have CP, then you ARE sick. You have a neurological illness. Why is it so wrong to say you are sick when you are? The word disabled, which you also don’t like, means to be less than fully able, and with CP you aren’t fully able. I can think of several dozens of things you cannot do because your illness prevents it by making it dangerous or impossible.

      I am sorry for your situation, but it doesn’t mean that I have to use…. Actually, what DO you “allow” me to describe you as? I can’t think of much else to describe your situation than handicapped/disabled/has neurological illness.

      Let’s say I was a reporter reporting on a murder. If I simply say “Person was killed by person and the police is chasing after the person who killed the person,” I would leave HUGE gaps in the story. Such as whether it was breaking and entering gone wrong, attempted kidnapping, time, place, description of suspect, etc etc.

      Your illness is a part of you. It is NOT the only description someone can use to describe you, but the law of numbers say that if I were to describe you as the girl with CP to someone who knew you by looks only, that frowns would most likely understand who I am talking about right then. If I describe you as the blonde/brunette/redhead, my friend would have several questions trying to understand which one I meant.

      I understand you and your situation better than you would think. I have epilepsy myself and live in constant fear of a seizure at any moment. I don’t like to be seen as ill, but I am. I have a neurological illness. Different than you, but same as you.

Leave a Reply