5 ms·
Failure to find sexual partner is now a disability, says WHO
- coldcode 10y agoEverything can't be a disability. Would not having a defined disability be a disability? If I can't find a date does that mean someone owes me something? What a an odd world we live in.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- kabouseng 10y agoSo the asshole who can't find a date can now also legally park in the disabled parking spot...
- dragonwriter 10y agoWHO isn't applying the definition of disability that exists in US federal law or state motor vehicle codes (much less doing so with any binding authority), so, basically, no, not at all.
- k__ 10y agoI thought it was the nice guys who can't get laid? Don't you want nice people have a place to park?!
- shkkmo 10y agoThat headline is rather misleading. The key quote is: "Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems. " I am quite happy that the WHO is taking that stance to support the human rights of non heterosexual couples. I feel like the people who are jumping all over the use of the term 'disability' are doing so disingenuously rather than standing up and saying that they believe heterosexual couples are inherently more worthy of having children.
- dogma1138 10y agoHow can men undergo IFV?
- nadezhda18 10y agotheir sperm can be non-viable and it may be treatable I assume
- cholantesh 10y ago>That headline is rather misleading Well, it _is_ the Express.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- egwynn 10y agoIs there a primary source for this? Which part of the WHO said what, when, and to whom? Right now, even the supposedly-official stuff isn’t even clearly marked in quotation marks. Maybe the WHO is doing something boneheaded, but right now the biggest offenders are the writer/publisher of this article.
- helthanatos 10y agoI would agree. Reading it felt like a mush of useless quotes and no real substance. All I can find are articles citing this one and when I search WHO, I only get articles about infertility and disabilities, not anything suggesting not finding a partner is the same as infertility.
- anilgulecha 10y agoI'd like to present a hypothesis related to this topic. We're evolution-wise ready to mate at puberty (11-14 y.o), and that's probably the age when pre-civilization humans were sexually active. That's been pushed much father today.. and it probably varies from say an average age of 16 to 25 when people are active (varies from culture to culture). Most cultures also look down upon pre-marital sex, and anyone who wishes to give in to the evolutionary signals to have sex earlier is probably following a path frowned upon by most societies. So my hypothesis is that our current-milieu is at odds with our biology, and (possibly) a source of a lot of issues in the world. Sex is at the core of being human, and when you have religions and cultures frowning down upon all but certain white-listed methods of going about it, at an age much past the biological starting point, we're sowing seeds that can affect the species' longevity. Thoughts?
- consultant1 10y agoI have tried out changing of my grades and it worked all thanks to darkconsultant1@sigiant.org. He saved me from the shame of explusion
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]