NDIS participants can no longer access sex worker services through funding. Advocates say it's a 'deep betrayal'
NDIS participants can no longer access sex worker services through funding. Advocates say it's a 'deep betrayal'
For over a month now, people with a disability have been unable to use NDIS funding for seeking sex worker services. Lived-experience advocates say it's a step backward.
I feel like they should have access to sex work services. Give them funding!
I agree also
To all these commenters casting judgement, I challenge you to go 12 months without any sex or masturbation and see what that does to your mental health. Now imagine being physically unable to do that for the rest of your life without paid help, which you cannot afford. Otherwise fuck off.
Thanks Bill! Really saving the taxpayer there.
It's important to acknowledge that when questioned about this decision, Bill said that he only knew of one case where NDIS money was uses for this purpose. While simultaneously saying it cost too much. I had such high hopes for this guy. But it turns out I was just ignorant about labor party politics. Now he's off to his vice chancellor gig, to further the agenda of university as a business and not a vehicle for improving society. Fuck these old useless policitians pulling the ladder up behind them.
Edit: sorry, I think I glanced through the article too quickly- it is referring to prostitutes. I'm not in Australia, and I'm not really sure if I have a stance on this, but wanted to correct my comment so I wasn't misleading people
It sounded like this meant prostitutes, but it seems like this actually just means things that help you physically make sex work if you have a disability, which seems much more normal and appropriateHow is disabled people safely and consensually experiencing a sexual existence not "normal and appropriate"?
I don't actually know that I think it's abnormal or inappropriate, I'm not really sure. But I thought it was saying they'd no longer be supported with sexual funtioning kinda issues related to their disability, like equipment or medication that makes improves sexual functioning. Those kinds of things are definitley reasonable, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't live in Australia, so what I think is honestly irrelevant; your government doesn't need to advocate for my interests. But I'm not really sure how I'd feel about policies making disability aid money available for the paying of prostitutes in my country (though prostitution isn't legal here, and the puritanical US would never accept that changing). I don't think prostitution is wrong, or that disabled people don't need support in the ability to life healthy full lives.
I guess I feel like I don't know enough about the variety of disabilities to have any sort of informed stance. My first thought is just that people with disabilities are generally still perfectly capable of forming meaningful relationships where intimacy could happen, sans government provided prostitution. But like, that's informed by a fairly limited perspective, there are a lot of disabilities and I can definitely see there being unforseen implications to familiar disabilities or disabilities I'm not aware of.
I have a disability, and it does kinda impact my ability to build relationships in the same way that other people do (a circadian rhythm disorder, my sleep schedule is extremely isolating) and I would never expect the government to give me money to pay for prostitutes. But I'm also from the US, where there's a very different relationship with the government than there is in most "developed" western countries (the culture being that the government should do as little as possible and everything people can do for themselves, they should. Though in practice it's just pro corporation and anti-human) and where sex has historically be demonized FAR more than in other western "developed" countries.
I could have communicated much more effectively in my first comment, but I did think the context and what I was responding to was an entirely different thing
It is prostitution, but so what? What is inappropriate about two adults undertaking an agreed transaction for sexual needs that would otherwise go unfulfilled? A disabled person already has so many limitations in life, any opportunity to expand those limits should be supported in my view. As a taxpayer, I support my money being used for these services for disabled community members.
Thank you for correcting me! I skimmed the article out of curiosity a bit too quickly I guess
I am a disability support worker in Australia, and this decision is abhorrent for many reasons.
The NDIS is meant to fund participants so they can do the things anyone without a disability can do that are reasonable and necessary.
Sex work is legal in Australia and sexual gratification is a normal human need for most.
Most people without a disability are able to masturbate or have sex, yet many of those with a disability cannot without assistance.
Bear in mind also that sex work in this context does not just mean hiring prostitutes, but also those who help disabled couples have sex. Those people might be considered sex therapists, but more commonly they are a subset of sex worker.
Many of the people I have worked with are unable to move much by their mid 20's. These are smart people, like getting their PhD smart. They can move their hands to drive their chair, but that's about it.
Can you imagine being in your sexual prime and being denied any sort of sexual gratification?
Just a heads up, your comment federated with aussie.zone after three days. I think it might take another three days for my reply to your comment to reach you. It's an issue between lemmy.world and aussie.zone which has been 'fixed' but might take a little while before az and lw are back in sync. It used to take seven days (14 day round trip) so things are getting better.
Interesting, I didn't know we were having those kinds of problems!
I see no evidence backed by actual science that allowing NDIS funded access to sex services improves outcomes for the community.
And I don’t just mean the disabled community but broader society, which is paying for the NDIS.
If this is about funding making a subset of people feel good and not about actual outcomes then I might as well ask for taxpayers to fund my holidays.
Making people feel good is an actual outcome. In fact, it's the only actual outcome.
Who cares about quarterly profits, and budget savings, and a strong economy, and anything else, if it doesn't make people feel good? Our laws and our economy should be designed with the intention of having a society of people who are happy. If the system isn't designed to increase happiness, then everything it accomplishes is pointless.
Also acknowledges the fact that those at the bottom of this awful economic hierarchy miss out on some of the things that "regular" people take for granted. You know, the basic enjoyments that make life bearable so we don't off ourselves. Everyone should consider themselves one accident away from being destitute if they don't have family wealth. Then consider what your life could be like in that scenario. A car crash happens, and then you could spend the rest of your life never touching skin with another person.
Biological imperatives are a thing.
It also has a significant emotional dimension, which I think goes undiscussed too often. And ties in with feelings of self worth.
Ah we found the Ayn Rand follower
Let's scrape all social benefits that have no benefit for
every single personcapitalists, things were better when industrialists worked kids starting age 7 60h week. If they want to go to school they have to earn it./s
So you don't think there should be any disability funding?
Government funded hookers hey? I fail to see how u can justify that?
They already justified it in a court of law. A judge found that it was both "reasonable and necessary".
They have. Multiple times. Multiple sources. Just because you never considered it and can't be arsed to doesn't erase reality.