Proposal: ‘disability-friendly’ (and some reasons for it).

[Dani]

First of all, I would like to thank such an —always increasing— formidable and complete network/community this website is. My suggestion, as a disabled person that is not capable to engage in a —let’s say— “ordinary” kind of session (but non the less wants it so badly), is to bring to admin.’s consideration the idea of including —if you find it feasible or suitable, of course— some sort sign or label (visually discreet, modest), in the sessioner’s profile, in order to know, positively, if a sessioner is predisposed ‘a priori' to include a “disabled-friendly type of session” within her offered wrestling-services. I’m aware that disability is not an univocal term, and many people tend to identify it rigidly with a "vegetative state”... which is not necessarily the case; so this forced vagueness —implied in this term— can, in principle, ‘backfire' my proposal. Therefore, in other words: just as our body performs a vast complex of functions (more or less intertwined), in the same manner dysfunction can irrupt, for one reason or another (paving the way to more or less risky scenarios). In my concrete case: I have —among other things— orthostatic intolerance (i.e., just by changing my posture and standing up, I suffer severe tachycardia, reaching a heart rate of 140 bpm, without doing any additional exercise), so even “fantasy wrestling” could be hard to some extent (so it implies some sort of —at least, attitudinal— downgrade in the regular deployment/rhythm of a session). Of course, the very details always have to be discussed, frankly, with the sessioner in each particular case. Finally, trying to be realistic: as the love for this art (mixed wrestling) is, also in us, inextinguishable (no matter what), it's not far-fetched that some clients could disguise their condition, in order to fulfill it’s urge, and by doing so putting some "sessioners" in an undesired situation precisely because of this asymmetrical information, for which they are not even remotely aware of the whole picture. Of course, this does not mean that all sessioners must forcibly take, positively, this “disabled-friendly” position… but I guess this vague and general proposal —paradoxically as it can sound— can offer some backing (in more than one genre of affairs) for the safer development of sessioner’s work. I know it is a complex topic. I hope I’ve just explained my concern as correctly as I could. Thanks for reading. Dani.