Tuesday, 5 February 2013

Red Socks and Door Knobs: Confirmation of the Anglobitch Thesis





 A British institution is daring to acknowledge (and respond to) human sexual needs:
A British nursing home is on the defensive after local authorities learned it may have regularly hired prostitutes for its residents. According to The Times of London, Chaseley nursing home in Eastbourne, England, is accused of regularly scheduling visits with sex workers, who meet residents in a special room and put a "special red sock" on the door for privacy. Caregivers are said to check on the rooms every fifteen minutes, the paper reported.
Chasely caters mostly to ex-soldiers.

Manager Sue Wyatt told British tabloid The Sun that a "third party consultant" handled the procurement of the sex workers, who helped residents with their "needs."

Helena Barrow, whom The Sun says is a Chaseley ex-manager, clarified further: Professionals offer a service that is both therapeutic to residents "frustrated" by "primeval needs" and helpful for the staff, she told The Sun.

“If you have a resident who is groping staff, one way of resolving that problem is to get a sex worker in who is trained to deal with that situation," Barrow said. "The fact is sex workers are allowed by law to sexually enable people but care workers are not."

The Inquisitr reports that the East Sussex County Council is nevertheless looking into the practice to make sure residents are not being harmed.

The council released a statement saying, “We will examine our concerns through the Pan-Sussex Multi-Agency Policy and Procedures for Safeguarding Adults at risk. This has the potential to place vulnerable East Sussex residents at risk of exploitation and abuse.”
Source: Huffington Post
Fantastic. A logical, humane response to the problem of sexual disenfranchisement. If we consider the ‘mainstream’ English media’s response to this progressive solution, however, puritanical hysteria looms large. In a Daily Telegraph Blog article entitled 'Prostitutes for Disabled People: Does anyone see a moral problem here?' Jake Wallis Simons presents the puritan case:
Here’s the long and short of it. A care home is accused of hiring prostitutes to have sex with its disabled patients. Does anybody see a moral problem here?

The establishment in question is Chaseley in East Sussex, a facility that cares for adults disabled by spinal injury or illness. Former manager Helen Barrow says that the disabled feel “frustrated by a primeval need they cannot fulfil” and that the provision of sex constitutes a “holistic level of care”. The home, we are told, uses a “special consultant” to contact the sex workers and places a red sock on the door handle so that the “special visits” are not disturbed.

It would be a grave mistake to pass judgment upon people with serious disabilities, and it is certainly not my intention to do so. But setting aside the legality of the issue, the fact that Chaseley can talk so glibly about this "service" speaks volumes about the sexualisation of our society. I’m no prude, but in this case the place of sex within a broader emotional relationship seems not to even be considered. They are simply fulfilling a biological urge in their patients, and that is all there is to it.

Here we are confronting two insidious and damaging attitudes that are ubiquitous today. Firstly, the tendency to view sex as a biological function, nothing more. Secondly, the belief that everything can be commercialised, even the human body, even most intimate of human interactions. These twin delusions are conspiring to cheapen our society, lying at the heart of much of popular entertainment and mass culture. We have, as Allison Pearson pointed out, young girls pressured into oral sex at school; cosmetic surgery presented as an ideal; and sexy clothes marketed for toddlers. That’s not to mention the increasingly central role of porn in the lives of young people, to the extent that the line between porn star and role model is blurred.

The day has come when we need to be reminded that sex is an exchange of the spirit, as well as the body. It must also be made clear that there are many things that cannot be bought. This is not to promote a return to Victorian puritanism. But it strikes me that there is a dark side to the liberalisation of the stuffy mores of the past, and it is masquerading as open-mindedness today.

It will be noted that this response lacks even rudimentary logic. Repression is assumed to be a superior psycho-sexual condition and sex itself a quasi-mystical phenomena. Indeed, the author's tone is almost Tantric. Worse, we see total, callous indifference to the walking death of male sexual disenfranchisement.  One wonders if the socially integrated, upper-middle class individual writing this drivel would be quite so sang-froid if he himself was facing a lifetime of sexual deprivation.

Truly, there is a potent strain of misandry in all Anglo-American conservatism. The puritanical meme in Anglo-Saxon civilization has, at its root, a callous indifference to male sexual needs. Perhaps this derives from the abrasive and atypical Anglo-American class system – elite males often impose a puritanical agenda on low-status males. Of course, this is to legitimate sexual inequality of opportunity and reward.  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.

There is another important point to consider. Why are Anglo conservatives so ‘illogical’? Why do their core opinions lack elementary rationale? Perhaps the answer lies deep in Anglo intellectual life.  Nietzsche noted that English intellectuals retained a reflexive attachment to Christian morality while rejecting literal belief in God. He divined a certain folly in this: how could one accept a theological moral code while rejecting its divine sanction? After all, contemporary English Christianity – a kind of puritanical socialism - has no more spiritual gravitas than Dyak head-hunting; yet in our post-Darwinian age of money, sex and power, Conservatives still assume its immutable value.

And so the same old repression is reflexively trotted out as a universal panacea for all life’s ills without evidence or justification. One is reminded of a horse uselessly pawing the earth: for conservatives are creatures of useless reflex, not constructive thought.



7 comments:

  1. "They are simply fulfilling a biological urge in their patients, and that is all there is to it."

    One could say that about love as well - or the need for compassion, caring, nurturing - that they are all simple "biological urges".

    The "biological urge to survive"???

    I do not question the innate hatred of men and male sexuality present in that man - however;

    "Truly, there is a potent strain of misandry in all Anglo-American conservatism."

    Jake Wallis Simons is an idiot. However; he is not an American - he was raised in Israel it seems, and currently lives in Britain (according to what I have read).

    And - is he a conservative?

    I do not intend to be argumentative here. But since when are conservatives the only ones who speak/think like this?

    Harry Reid is a Liberal, not a conservative, and he is trying to outlaw prostitution in America (Nevada).

    As far as Christianity goes - I'd argue that it got screwed up when it first came out of the gate. (Watch "The Book of Judas" by National Geographic)

    Also - many of the rituals that churches practice have nothing to do with what is written in the Christian bible. South Park made an episode in which they made fun of Catholicism - and demonstrated how irrelevant many of its practices have nothing to do with what is in the Christian Bible...

    And - why is it that the preachers who screech the loudest about sexual morality are typically the ones getting caught picking up gay prostitutes, engaging in pedophilia with altar boys, or wrapped up in sex-scandals?

    Add all this to the "giant list of things I'll never have answers to".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *And - is he a conservative?*

      If he writes a blog for the Daily Telegraph, it is pretty safe to say he is a conservative.

      Delete
  2. Scarecrow:
    On the issue of political conservatism:

    What we've seen in the social fabric over the last couple of decades probably shouldn't be classified as 'conservative' but instead as 'right-wing.' Traditional conservativism would be probably be closer to libertarianism today---and libertarianism is not a strong social force these days.

    This phenomenon was observed by social scientists back in the 20s and 30s. During the chaos of post-WW1 Europe, individuals and entire nations swung back and forth between the far left and the far right with blinding speed. Ernst Roehm, the Nazi Brownshirt leader, and Karl Radek, the German Communist paramilitary chief, both raided recruits from each other with relative ease.

    It seems to be a tendency of the underclass in general to move to whichever herd offers them the most in return, without any solid ideological commitment to any one. Witness how many so-called 'pro-MRA' women are former radical feminists for example: they all claim that feminism did nothing for them, when the find the MRM does nothing for them either, they'll likely swing back to feminism again.

    So Rookh's last statement about useless reflexes would have applied to the liberal culture of the 90s and applies to the conservative culture of today, just as it likely will the liberals, once they are in the ascendent again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Small wonder that elite class despises the underclass, or at least that's the image i have got.

      Delete
  3. There is nothing redeemable or worth preserving in Anglo-American culture which always makes me laugh when American Republicans talk about being a conservative. They've lost from the start, the culture was never worth conserving to begin with. The future of the Commonwealth is Asiatic, the future of America is Catholic and Latin.

    Anglo culture lost its what somewhere around the time of the cult of Melancholia. It seems anglo culture has never gotten over its woman-cult from Elizabeth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ybm, this is how subversion works, by making people believe their traditions are worthless; making it all the easier for the radicals to supplant it with their 'utopia'.

    The irony is that the subversion tactics from radical outsiders, also serve to benefit the ruling contingents, especially if they want to gain ever more totalitarian control. Because the checks and balances that stop the Bureaucracy from totally ruling their democracy, are our traditions of liberty.

    Destroy tradition, and unloose the sheet anchor of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.All143.com

    hot and sexy images

    http://www.All143.com

    ReplyDelete