OAP home allows residents to book sex workers

(262 Posts)
Charlezee Tue 29-Jan-13 01:43:27
badgeroncaffeine Tue 29-Jan-13 01:55:37

It's also here:

Mail item

I have to agree with the top rated comments there...

..these people are humans and not vegetables and shouldn't be deprived of a sex life if they want one.

JustAHolyFool Tue 29-Jan-13 01:56:40

What do YOU think?

badgeroncaffeine Tue 29-Jan-13 01:58:21

Good point JustAHolyFool
Why do people ask others' views without stating their own...very odd.

FarelyKnuts Tue 29-Jan-13 02:01:22

I would wonder the same as others, surely you state your opinion in your OP!

And I think that sex is not a right because someone has "needs".

Charlezee Tue 29-Jan-13 02:13:34

My opinion is if the participants are consenting adults (disabled or not disabled) then there is no issue.

notcitrus Tue 29-Jan-13 02:13:36

Legally-competent adults do legal things in their own home; landlord allows them to enjoy privacy of home.
Whether I like said legal activities is neither here nor there.

I worked in nursing homes and although it never happened it wasn't something we could or would try and stop as they were consenting adults.

We did have residents visiting each others rooms though

Booyhoo Tue 29-Jan-13 02:47:52

paying for sex is legal? since when?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 02:50:05

A website dedictated to escorts willing to work with the disabled. I am a great believer in the rights of consenting adults to do what they wish with their bodies, and am heartened by the comments so far.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 02:52:27

Booyhoo, it is legal to pay for sex, and it is legal to be paid for sex. It is illegal to solicit in a public place and to "kerbcrawl". It is also illegal to control and to profit from the sexual activities of prostitutes. Otherwise, no probs atm.

Booyhoo Tue 29-Jan-13 02:54:08

ah thank you. i knew there was something that was illegal along those lines.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 03:19:32

It worries me that so many people who are keen to discuss paid sex, actually know so little about the law surrounding it. Calling for "decriminalising" it, when it's not actually a criminal offense really bugs me.

I'm not including you in that group, Booyhoo, because I have no idea how you feel about the general topic, but I see it time and time again, and it drives me nuts...

<bit of a pedant, but have been accused of being a pimp, a john or a prostitute so many times for saying so...>

PurplePidjin Tue 29-Jan-13 03:48:55

Afaik it's only illegal to solicit - ie if a staff member makes the arrangement and/or hands over the money. The visitors a mentally competent adult has to their home, and what they choose to do in private, is not up to the staff to decide

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 04:30:03

That would not be soliciting. Soliciting is streetwork, attempting to attract custom in public. (NB, advertising on tinterwebz is not soliciting.) It's a public nuisance type of offense.

The staff member making the arrangement could be in trouble, but only if s/he both controls and profits from the prostitute, though I suspect that their conditions of employment might say otherwise.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, is up to them.

PurplePidjin Tue 29-Jan-13 04:37:22

Sorry, know the theory (never had to act on it thankfully!) but not the terminology smile

It could, and imo should, be argued that a residential care home is the person's home - why should they have fewer rights just because they have physical or learning support needs?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 04:41:41

As I said, it's a bit of a bugbear with me, sorry. But yes, absolutely, residential care is that person's home, and they absolutely have the right to decide what they do in it.

Um, too many "absolutely"s there, but you get the idea.

Charlezee Tue 29-Jan-13 04:45:09

"and am heartened by the comments so far."

Agree. The readers' comments on both the news articles above are encouraging.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Tue 29-Jan-13 04:45:13

I'm not saying they have a "right" to have sex, btw, but they have the "right" to invite whatever visitors they want.

dublinrose37 Tue 29-Jan-13 10:06:45

I don't have an issue with it, its a private matter if a person wants to pay for sex and someone else wants to offer it for sale. I would imagine the payment comes from their own money too and I don't see why they should be prevented doing something they could do in their own home just because they are in a care home. Its not a prison.

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 29-Jan-13 10:10:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

carmenelectra Tue 29-Jan-13 10:59:12

I was just watching a discussion of this on The Wright Stuff.

Obviously, its prefectly legal to pay for sex and I guess in theory if someone is housebound and unable to doesn't have a partner then its an option. Yes, we all have needs but its not the same as having the right to sex.

However, I don't have a problem with a person paying a willing(I will say that loosely)prostitute to have sex with them. What is a totally different topic though are those who say there are men so frustrated that they are groping staff.they have no self control.

In actual fact, these men are abusing staff! Its not a natural outlet to maul a stranger because you fancy a shag. Plenty of people go all their lives with no or little sex and they don't die. And what about women? Do they suffer quietly because as we all know their sex drive isn't as strong.

I've been groped plenty of times over the 10 years I worked in nursing homes, however it was never by the compos mentis residents.

Same with the male carers, it's not something just the male patients do

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 29-Jan-13 11:56:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Leithlurker Tue 29-Jan-13 15:17:40

A clear line of departure needs drawn between those who are wilfully abusing staff members of either sex, and those particularly older people with forms of dementia that produce aggressive sexualised behaviour. The dementia causes the behaviour even in people who can still have periods of being time and place oriented. Or "compos mentis"

It might also be a result of unsafe working practises in residential establishments where both staff and patience are forced in to situations which are only barely legal in terms of health and safety but leave both groups open to abuse.

OneMoreChap Tue 29-Jan-13 16:05:29

It's legal, at the moment.

I'd be more concerned about my dad/mum being denied the right to spend their money on something they wanted to than by someone else's moral position.

Femini1 Wed 30-Jan-13 14:44:19

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Completely legal in this case, doesn't make it's morally right though but at the same time these are these people's homes and they should be able to do the same as they could if they were renting a house.

However if these men are sexually harassing the staff, I would worry that these women that are being hired aren't being treated right, I cannot see someone doing the job because they like it willingly being treated badly.

JuliaScurr Wed 30-Jan-13 17:49:05

anntagonist.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/rape-is-a-human-right/

If there is a human right to useh prostiturtes, there must logically be anobligation to be one.
This emphasis on 'choice' ignores reality

fluffygal Wed 30-Jan-13 17:59:43

I am on placement in an over 65s care management team. We would do a mental capacity assessment. Capacity is dependent on a specific time for a specific reason, someone who doesn't have capacity to make decisions about one aspect of their life may well have capacity in another area. If deemed to have capacity and not against the home policy then it is their decision. It is their home, their right, we are not there to dictate to them, they are adults.

OneMoreChap Wed 30-Jan-13 19:59:57

JuliaScurr

This emphasis on 'choice' ignores reality

How do you address the agency question?
When does someone have the right to decide what they choose to do and when not?

Can I give away a kidney?
Can I sell a kidney?
Can I have sex with another man because he wants me?
Can I take money off him for that if he's happy to pay me?

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 20:02:15

Well, no you can't sell a kidney. Obviously. It's illegal in every country in the world (bar Iran, and I don't know if we should be taking advice on our legal system from them.)

We do not live in a world where men and women are equal. Most people are not prostitutes through choice and how anyone can use their services knowing this really baffles me.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 20:06:48

Reasearch done recently by Suzanne Jenkins very strongly suggests that most prostitutes working in Britain are indeed doing so through choice.

OneMoreChap Wed 30-Jan-13 20:08:37

JustAHolyFool

Excellent: for body tissue then how about?
Blood
Hair
Eggs
Sperm
Bone Marrow

What can I do with other men for pleasure or profit?

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 20:12:43

I don't understand your post, OneMoreChap . There is a vast difference between sperm and kidneys, for starters. And there's a vast difference between paying for sperm and donating sperm.

OldLady what do you mean by choice? Is it a choice when the woman has no qualifications, 3 children with no support from the father and no family to support her? I don't call that a choice, to be honest.

OneMoreChap Wed 30-Jan-13 20:21:35

JustAHolyFool

Sorry, I've obviously been a bit opaque.

JuliaScurr said This emphasis on 'choice' ignores reality

I thought reality is what is on the ground, that we experience. Prostitution is legal, and presumably someone can make a choice?

So when I asked:
When does someone have the right to decide what they choose to do and when not?

Can I give away a kidney?
Can I sell a kidney?
Can I have sex with another man because he wants me?
Can I take money off him for that if he's happy to pay me?

I was asking what I could choose to do?
Here, I can't sell bone marrow; in the US (where prostitution is generally illegal) I could.
In the Philippines, up to a few years back I could sell a kidney.

I can choose to sell myself for money; why shouldn't others be allowed that choice?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 20:28:40

Dr Jenkins' work.

Justa, lots of people have few choices. I guess most people don't feel too great working for legal loan sharks either, at least an independent escort earns a damn sight more.

Why is this in the feminism section when the consensus seems to be its ok to buy sex?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 20:40:30

How could the Op anticipate the responses?

badgeroncaffeine Wed 30-Jan-13 20:43:39

It is OK to buy sex from someone who is selling it. Simple as.

Very true. Just confused I suppose. I think paying for sex is a bad thing in general.

badgeroncaffeine Wed 30-Jan-13 20:48:48

You are confused because you are used to seeing the same old nonsense trotted out...
And generalising is not sensible. In this case it certainly isn't a "bad thing" at all.

Oh well thanks for clearing that up for me.

badgeroncaffeine Wed 30-Jan-13 20:51:31

Not a problem, I'm always happy to help.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 20:51:41

Oh well, that's ok then, if they choose to do it. It's fine to exploit someone as long as they have no other options.

OneMoreChap I think you're really talking about too many issues in one. I don't think it's ok to sell kidneys or bone marrow or anything else. I also don't think it's ok to sell sex. Yes, some women do it out of "choice" but it's a very narrowly defined choice: I notice that none of my university-educated friends are hanging around in red light districts getting paid to have sex.

It is very easy to say "oh but how is sex different to selling anything else?" Well if it's the same, why don't people who have real choice to do it? Maybe when we get to a point where men and women are actually equal and where men don't abuse women on such a regular basis, sexwork will become a legitimate way to make money.

If people are so happy to defend it, I wonder if they'd be happy if their daughter, wife, aunt, mother or cousin was doing it?

fluffygal Wed 30-Jan-13 21:00:55

God I never said I agree with it, but there's plenty of people I see every day who make unwise choices. I do not have the right to judge or the power to tell them what to do.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:03:39

Do you spend a lot of time hanging out in RLDs, looking for your old pals? Only the main sex-for-sale scene these days is online.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:14:19

What's your point, OldLady ? You can nitpick, if you like, but we both know that you don't get a hell of a lot of people with choices in prostitution.

fluffy I don't judge prostitutes, but I do judge the men who buy sex from them.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:19:35

Did you read Dr Jenkins' work? The people she spoke to were quite insistent that they had chosen to do it, and most had no immediate plans to stop. Since these were all grown adults, I'm inclined to think that if that's what they choose to do, and it is after all legal, it's none of my business.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:25:32

I'm not saying they CAN'T choose to do that. They can and I don't judge them for it. Yes, they are grown adults, I don't think anyone's disputing that. I can see why it is a choice for some women.

My problem doesn't lie with the women. It lies with the men who choose to exploit women.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:30:04

But the men are simpley responding to an offer of sex for sale, by an adult, with full bodily-autonomy. And they pay well for it. I can't see that earning/paying probably £50 for 30 minutes, £100 an hour is exploitation.

OMC I find the examples you give interesting because they highlight to me the problems with consent that are encountered when money enters the equation - basically you end up with a load of desperately poor people who feel it's their only option. There are striking parallels with prostitution.

From The Guardian - Kidneys for sale: poor Iranians compete to sell their organs ...

In order to advertise her kidney, Marzieh has written her blood type and her phone number on pieces of paper and has posted them along the street close to several of Tehran's major hospitals, home to the country's major kidney transplant centres.

Others have done the same. Some have written in big letters or in bright colours to attract attention; some have sprayed their information on the walls of public or even private properties.

"Kidney for sale," reads one ad, carrying the donor's blood type, O+, and a mobile number, with a note emphasising "urgent", insinuating that the donor is prepared to consider discounts.

From this rather good blog article by a living kidney donor ...

If one is only concerned about would-be recipients, or one benefits from organ transplants, then a kidney market is something to consider. But if one believes that all people deserve equal consideration, then harvesting a major organ from a living person in return for money or other incentives is not acceptable. Pragmatically, there is simply no way to control for abuses and manipulations.

As JustAHolyFool points out, people who have real choice don't tend to sell sex, just as they don't tend to sell their kidneys.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:32:54

Selling sex doesn't deprive you of anything, though, especially not an organ.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:34:32

Would you do it, OldLady ?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:35:19

Yes.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:36:21

Though I would probably have had a bigger market 30 years ago. One could still make money at any age, any shape, though.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:39:24

Really? And the fact that you're very likely to be raped/beaten up/ridiculed by society and generally treated like shit doesn't put you off?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:50:51

Ridiculed by society; wouldn't happen if I were discreet about it. I'm not proposing hanging out in RLDs.

(And then there's the issue of why society would ridicule me, perhaps because sex workers are routinely presented as drug addicts, pimped, abused, and incapable of making their own choices? Why would society ridicule a victim?)

The risks of being raped/beaten up are very, very small in the indoor-working scene, and as I would work for myself (no pimp, agency or brothel) I could refuse any client I didn't like the sound of.

Yes, I've thought about it, I've read about it, I know the up to date facts.

But I'm very happy where I am. smile

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:54:05

"The risks of being raped/beaten up are very, very small in the indoor-working scene" - mm, really? Do you think so?

I think your attitude is really dangerous to be honest. And quite naive.

Why would society ridicule you? Well, feminists wouldn't, so maybe you're better hedging your bets with us.

Leithlurker Wed 30-Jan-13 21:54:52

So getting back to the op and away from the ad nausea debate on prostitution, old people having sex that is supplied by someone who is not doing it for love or from people in any kind of relationship with the old person at all.

Is there an issue with that?

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 21:58:03

Sorry the debate was so dull for you, Leith . After all, prostitution is at the heart of this debate.

Is your question about people who are paying for sex or not?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 21:59:25

You are, of course, welcome to think what you like about my naivety or otherwise, but I am fairly sure that the risks of working the way I would are small enough to be taken. I could be hit by a runaway bus next time I go out in the car, there are loads of risks in life and even staying in bed all day isn't without risk.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:02:41

Justa, would you mind if I start a thread (about a thread) on why prostitutes are subject to public ridicule? Because I agree they are, Dr Magnanti comments that even now she gets abused via email etc, but I'm not sure why.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:05:46

Why would I mind? confused

It's not me who ridicules prostitutes, any hatred or scorn I have is reserved for the men who pay for sex.

I think it is very foolish to think that you could somehow control the type of men you end up with. Look at the number of women on here who MARRY men who end up raping/abusing them. If they can't tell, after years of knowing them, how are you supposed to based on a phone call/meeting?

Leithlurker Wed 30-Jan-13 22:06:40

Yes it was boring as it was rehashing the same thoughts and ideas that always come out when any thing that is seen as prostitution related gets put up on here. I was trying if at all possible to move beyond the standard views and in to thinking much more about where the sight of contest actualy lies.

So if men and women were either recruited as volunteers receiving only travel expenses, OR if a network of surrogates were to be employed by the NHS in a theraputic role. Would the same objections exist not to the general sexualisation of society, but specifically to the act of two adults having sex where no money is changed hands but it is seen as a service or a therapeutic activity?

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:08:50

This is a discussion board. The same discussions will come up again and again.

No, it is still not ok if no money changes hands. It is still a service, it is still exploitative.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:09:53

And, by the way, it's quite rude to tell people what they can and can't discuss. If you don't want to join in, fine, just pose a different question. But telling people they are boring you is incredibly off.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:13:10

Well, because I'd be referencing your comment on this thread, and I wouldn't want to be rude.

The women who end up married to abusive men, are not abused from the start of the relationship, are they? And spending an hour or two, or even overnight, isn't the same thing as marrying someone. I could walk at any time, because I'd only meet in hotel rooms, which are fairly public should I feel the need to scream.

badinage Wed 30-Jan-13 22:25:56

I want the purchase of sex to be be illegal in this country so I am naturally opposed to what's happening at this nursing home.

But there are some angles about this I'm especially interested in. The workers at the home seem to be doing this as a means of escaping sexual assaults, in the naive and dangerous belief that men who pay for sex are going to be less likely to assault them in the future. There is no evidence to support that belief at all, whereas there is more evidence to suggest that men who are already sexually aggressive are likely to get worse if the objectification of women becomes acceptable and normalised.

The other angle is about procurement and engaging with suitable suppliers. Any other service supplied to municipal homes - even if it's being paid for by the residents - is vetted quite rigorously. Service providers often have to be CRB checked and must prove that they are running a legitimate business and paying tax. I doubt very much that such checks were made by the care home workers who procured sex on behalf of the residents.

There are also the other residents' rights to consider here too. Many of the residents are likely to be decent men who would be horrified that sex is being paid for in their home, with unvetted people being allowed to trade on the premises. A few misogynists' perceived right to buy sex does not trump theirs.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:28:10

Well I don't see that there's any need to reference my common.

My point is that you don't know who you're meeting. And if you really think that you can just walk away/scream to escape rape...come on. Really? If that was the case, no-one would ever be raped.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:28:21

My comment*

Leithlurker Wed 30-Jan-13 22:31:37

Actualy Just I was taking it back you see not interrupting, not derailing, not telling anyone what they can and cannot say. Look at the title and then look at the top three or four posts, the discussion about prostitution could be said to be the one that derailed the thread, others before were talking about old people having sex, and how a level of un addressed abuse towards male and female staff in care homes exists.

To your other point,please explain your thinking about who is being exploited and how in my two scenario, bearing in mind the specific caveat that I put in place about the issue not being about the general sex industry or the pornification of society or even how women are objectified. I am trying to be very precise.

OneMoreChap Wed 30-Jan-13 22:34:53

* badinage Wed 30-Jan-13 22:25:56*

I want the purchase of sex to be be illegal in this country so I am naturally opposed to what's happening at this nursing home.

But it isn't.
And as it isn't... should you stop people doing it.

I mean, I'm horrified that people drink to excess... but since it's legal it's hard to make, say Aunt Maud, stop doing it in the privacy of her room, however I feel about it.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:35:29

Hardly derailing. Derailing is when you talk about something that is nothing to do with the discussion. Prostitution is what this discussion is about.

You can't talk about your scenario without talking about the sex industry or anything else you mention. The whole lot is inter-linked. Why are women able to control their urges? It's not because they're not there, believe me. It's because it is acceptable for men to abuse women, very often in subtle and socially acceptable ways.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:37:34

Hmm, OK, I was thinking I'd say something like, "On another thread it was mentioned in passing that prostitutes are often subject to public ridicule. This got me wondering about why this is so..." blah, blah, blah, haven't thought it through properly yet. I wouldn't name you, but thought it polite to check you'd be OK with it.

As to leaving/screaming, the difference would be that in the most common date/aquaintance/partner rape scenarios (we both know that stranger-in-the-alley is rare, though it does happen) the woman trusts, or wants to trust, the man. She is viewing him as safe, and the sheer shock when he rapes is enough to silence her, make her question her own judgement. For me, simply feeling uneasy would be enough to terminate the appointment, probably return my fee, and leave. I would have no emotional investment in "wanting him to like me".

I'm probably not explaining it well, but the dynamics are quite different.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:43:52

Of course the dynamics are different, but it doesn't make sense to say that if you felt uncomfortable you would leave. Rapists aren't creepy weirdos who you can see a mile off. Very often rape happens once sex has started happening.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:46:59

As in, consent is withdrawn?

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 22:47:44

Yes

But there are sex workers who consider what they do as a kind of therapy and they themselves as healers. Probably quite a few in that category are doing this kind of thing (visiting clients in care homes). I fail to see why they shouldn't be paid for doing it - the art therapist, the music therapist and the counsellor expect to be paid for providing their services.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:56:56

Most men don't rape, and if consent is withdrawn, will stop. There is no reason a client/customer/punter would be any different.

About one in eight men use, or have used, the services of prostitutes. According to Dr Teela Sanders "Who are the men that buy sex?
•Across socio-economic groups
•Professional, managerial and manual jobs
•Full time employment
•Marital status: majority in long term partnerships (Gibbens & Silberman, 1960, Groom & Nandwani, 2006)
•No criminal record (Hester & Westmorland, 2004)
•Age – clients more likely to be over 39 years (Sullivan & Simon, 1998)
•Facts correspond with large scale surveys from USA (Monto, 2000).

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 22:58:38

You can read further in her book, Paying for Pleasure.

JustAHolyFool Wed 30-Jan-13 23:01:22

Right, OldLady, well if that's a risk you'd be willing to take, with a man who sees you as an object that he can buy you for sex, go right ahead.

Bowing out of this now, because I seriously can't see how people can be so blind.

Leithlurker Wed 30-Jan-13 23:02:31

Right there in your sentence "Why are women able to control their urges?" is the contradiction to your argument, and it's the same contradiction time and again brought forth in these stale arguments. Men afeel entitled to stick their cocks in women, or mens entitlement to sex. Ok so men have an entitlement to sex, show me where women and in particular modern women have not also sought to explore their sexuality. lady chaterlies lover, was that about a man or a woman having an extra marital affair? The number of women choosing not to marry in order to do as men once did, play the field encouraged by the knowledge that anything a male can do they should also be able to do. The number of older women left bereaved who go on to either have lovers or remarry. Yes women have urges and jolly well enjoy them, some a very small number engage in prostitution like activities and sex tourism.
None of this make prostitution right nort does it does it excuse the objectification of women or children, but what is does is highlight that humans will have sex, lots of sex. Sometime such as with prostitutes and extra marital affairs we can say that this is wrong. If though we are getting to the point of saying all sex must be between people who know each other and have some kind of relationship before and after the sex then its condem an aful lot of women as well as mean to celibacy.

What has it to do with my scenarios? Well if sex is free for consenting young un attached people with no moral or legal barriers what I am suggesting is that if the old people wanted to have the same free from moral and legal barriers would thinking about sex in the context still of a service but not one that is seen either to promote prostitution or entitled or immoral behaviour not be a better way to go.

badinage Wed 30-Jan-13 23:03:14

One More Chap yes we should stop homes where there are vulnerable adults allowing unvetted traders on the premises, or allowing any activity which compromises the wellbeing and feelings of safety of other residents.

SGB those people you mention are vetted before being allowing to trade. Even volunteers have to be vetted before they are allowed unsupervised access to vulnerable people.

I suspect the prostitutes who were allowed to trade in this care home were not.

MerryCouthyMows Wed 30-Jan-13 23:08:47

Of course it's a choice to sell sex. In the UK, you can claim benefits. It is not necessary to sell sex to feed your children. Yet, maybe when the harsher sanctioning regime for Universal Credit comes in, but that's not till later on in the year...

It is a choice that a Prostitute has made between accepting a lower standard of living surviving on benefits - tight but possible, or selling sex in order to procure a higher standard of living than benefits will allow.

It is NOT a choice between prostitution or starvation.

Yes, those prostitutes addicted to drugs are a different story, they are, IMO, having their vulnerability caused by their addiction taken advantage of, but as far as I can see it, if a non drug user, with full mental capacity wishes to sell sex in order to secure a higher standard of living than benefits would afford them, then that's their CHOICE.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 30-Jan-13 23:09:25

As already pointed out, many women in committed relationships are raped by men they trust; those men view "their" women as property to be used and abused as they wish. Women in these relationships are often trapped by financial dependency on their abuser, they have dc with them, live with them, may even be employed by them in a "family business", where everything is in his name. It takes massive effort to break free, we see it all the time here on the relationships/divorce/lone parents and gawd knows how many other boards on the site.

OneHandFlapping Thu 31-Jan-13 06:16:17

It's either OK to buy a woman's body for sex, or it's not.

if it's not OK for an able-bodied man to pay for sex, then it's also not OK for someone who is old or disabled to pay for sex.

Personally I think sex is not a need for men, its something they want. They don't die if they don't get it.

Prostitution is always wrong.

"I mean, I'm horrified that people drink to excess... but since it's legal it's hard to make, say Aunt Maud, stop doing it in the privacy of her room, however I feel about it. "

Difference is your Aunt Maud is only affecting herself and her immediate family, not a generally vulnerable and exploited group of women.

And I'd be interested in any responses to the person who pointed out - if their mental capacity is such that they can't "help" but abuse the staff, are they really in a position to consent to sex?

"if it's not OK for an able-bodied man to pay for sex, then it's also not OK for someone who is old or disabled to pay for sex."

Good point OHF which is why, for me, this thread is about prostitution, whoever has the cash.

if their mental capacity is such that they can't "help" but abuse the staff, are they really in a position to consent to sex?

This. I've worked in old people's homes and have been abused by residents. I have been punched, kicked, spat at, sworn at, as well as being felt up, had men (and one woman) walk right up to me while masturbating ... it kind of goes with the territory and, while a good home will do whatever they can to lessen the risk, it's always there because for some people with Alziemers this behaviour is a symptom of the disease. Often, it's behaviour such as this that is the reason relatives can no longer cope with caring for the person at home.

It's not just their capacity to consent to sex that needs to be considered. It's their capacity to understand that they are paying for it. Chances are, paying for sex is something this person would never have considered doing before they got ill.

And then, are we really saying that it's OK to expect a prostitute to have sex with someone who cannot control their behaviour? Who cannot help being abusive? Sounds a bit risky to me. What do you think, OLKN? you seem to have it all worked out.

Moominsarehippos Thu 31-Jan-13 08:31:43

I'd be worried about some of the prostitutes taking advantage and wangling money and gifts from their 'clients'. I know one elderly chap who hired a (qualified, from a reputable agency) nurse to look after him when his wife died. She was a complete gold-digger and got a flat and uni tuition fees for her kids out of him before the family realised what was going on. As soon as they mentioned the word 'police' she was off like shit of a hot shovel.

WRT vetting of people allowed to visit care homes: unless the residents are officially listed as 'vulnerable' and unable to make responsible decisions, it's not up to the carehome staff to police their choice of visitors. They might want to see (and pay for the services of) mediums or aromatherapists or music teachers or religious representatives, who may be crooks or predators.

And it isn't inherently wrong to exchange sex for money. Sex is just another recreational activity that some people are more interested in than others. With any other recreational activity, whether you spend/earn money by doing it is seen as up to you.

GayleFartsAreLoud Thu 31-Jan-13 10:35:10

The same idiots pro prostitution are dominating this thread now. I refuse to read their trite comments and won't return to this thread.

It is a disgusting idea. No-one has the right to pay for sex!

And I'd be interested in any responses to the person who pointed out - if their mental capacity is such that they can't "help" but abuse the staff, are they really in a position to consent to sex?

Well I think that comment was aimed at something I said, which was in 10 years of working in nursing homes it wasn't the residents who were compos mentis who did the groping. ( although I'm sure this isn't always the case) so it's not always as easy to say care workers should not have to put up with sexual harassment and the resident should be asked to leave the home.

If someone lacks capacity they would not be paying for sex, for one thing they dont tend to have money on them. Its kept in a bank and a family member usually is in control of finances. also visitors are monitored, so someone else organising a prostitute Or sex therapist would be difficult.We had more cases of vulnerable adults having money/ possessions stolen than anything else. but there were two occasions where visitors were barred from patients rooms because we thought something of a sexual nature had occurred and the resident lacked capacity

And solid is right, if a resident is not vulnerable the care home has no right to tell them who can visit them or what they can do, as long as it's not illegal or infringing on the rights of other patients

Leithlurker Thu 31-Jan-13 11:58:13

That is exactly why your point GayleFarts about No one has the right to pay for sex always, always, always derails and shuts down discussion. Some here want to talk about having sex, elderly people, disabled people, single people, those left alone by the death of a partner, those left with obvious disfigurements through accident or violence that means they cannot just go out to a nightclub and have a ONS.

The trope about no one has the right to expect sex is where I think the issue lies, part of being human is wrapped up in sex and pleasure. Some can and do make a decision to abstain for a number of reasons. Others feel they are not fully human as they are not able to participate in that side os their life and the common experience of the majority of other human beings. So again let me ask if the act of having sex is so open and available to the majority sometimes in harmful and dangerous situations, why are we demanding that those with no option not be able to engage in safer and controlled ways that does not exploit any one. It can be done, the Netherlands and other countries' have made provision for sex surrogacy.

Leithlurker Thu 31-Jan-13 11:58:22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sessions_(film)

badinage Thu 31-Jan-13 12:26:22

I disagree that there's 'nothing wrong' with selling sex but the reason this is a feminist issue and presumably has been posted on this board is because the vast majority of people who feel entitled to buy sex are men. Prostitution merely reinforces patriarchical attitudes that men have a right to sex however they can attain it; either through assault or by purchasing it. Sex is not a 'right'.

The distinction in this case is that the care home workers procured prostitutes without reference to the other residents, the Council or to their procurement and safeguarding policies. Those policies are in place to protect all residents' rights and not just a minority of male residents who feel entitled to buy sex. Those policies apply to all other non-gendered trades such as hairdressing, chiropody, counselling or reflexology.

Are you by definition arguing that care homes and councils shouldn't have safeguarding and procurement policies for those trades either and that any pedlar selling their wares should be allowed unfettered access to care homes then? Because that is the logical extension of your argument.

fluffygal Thu 31-Jan-13 15:02:48

I don't agree with prostitution. But I have no right to stop an able bodied man from using prostitutes, and therefore have no right to stop a less abled man from doing so.

This debate is about whether WE have a right to stop people in care homes using prostitutes, not whether its their right to use them.

badinage Thu 31-Jan-13 15:44:50

Yes this thread is about a specific issue involving care workers procuring prostitutes for some men and overriding the safeguarding practices and policies that are in place to protect all of the residents' rights who are in their care. Society currently DOES exercise its right to stop people in care homes using prostitutes, through those policies - which quite rightly apply to ANYONE allowed unsupervised access to residents in a shared home.

That's why there's a bloody inquiry. They fucked up.

Badinage: So what about, for instance, woo-peddlers and charlatans visiting the residents of care homes at the residents' request? Some of these people are well-intentioned idiots and fairly harmless, some are out-and-out con-artists and some are harmful. How much policing do you think should be done of visitors to residents who may be physically in need of constant care but mentally fully competent?

Also, while I agree that no one has the right to have sex, I think it's an important human right to seek ways to get your sexual needs met. I don't think it's at all acceptable for someone else to decide that a person's sexual needs are irrelevant and they should just accept that they will be celibate for the rest of their lives.
Please bear in mind that most human beings need affectionate touch to thrive, to the point where isolated people are often advised to book something like an aromatherapy massage, just so that someone touches them in a well-intentioned fashion.

badinage Thu 31-Jan-13 19:00:00

If you're moving the frames of reference to beyond this particular case where the defining characteristic was that the care home staff did the procuring - and now want to discuss private arrangements between a resident and supplier, the care home staff are still meant to comply with health and safety and conduct risk assessments, especially if the service performed is going to be unsupervised. Part of that risk assessment is whether the presence of the service provider would cause discomfort and generate objections from other residents. This is why a prostitute trading on the premises would be unlikely to pass those tests. The same policies would apply to woo pedlars and harmless idiots, as well as charlatans who are out to exploit. The policies are there to protect residents and not just the perceived rights of the few.

So I'm very comfortable that those policies are in place, because they serve to protect elderly people from con-artists and charlatans and preserve the rights of all residents to a degree of comfort and security in their own home. Many elderly people would feel discomfort and insecurity about prostitutes entering their home and trading sex. They have rights too.

AbigailAdams Thu 31-Jan-13 19:11:25

Great posts badinage.

Badinage: sex workers, especially those who are in the business of their own free will, and most definitely those who consider themselves as healers, are discreet (not least because they are aware that many people have a hostile attitude towards them and they would rather avoid verbal or physical abuse from randoms). They are not morons. They would not be rampaging around a care home in lingerie brandishing dildos and lube.

Leithlurker Thu 31-Jan-13 21:12:18

You cannot at all be comfortable badinage or else you are able to claim full knowledge of every resident, their politicle, religious, and moral beliefs. For example as solid gold points out a resident arranges for a visit in their own space not in a communal space of a medium. The person in the next room may have a strong and fundamental religious belief and be extremely upset by the presence of someone who says they can talk to the dead. You would resolve this by having a blanket ban on anything taking place that is likely to upset someone instead of allowing people who are competent if not able to make private arrangements that unless some incident happens will remain entirely private.

Solid your points about the need for affectionate touch and how it is very close to being authoritarian to determine for large numbers of people what they need and what they must do with out, yet allow other humans to act in any way they like.

Beachcomber Thu 31-Jan-13 21:24:07

I don't have any living grandparents.

My DH does though - his grandmother lives in a care home. She is mega - she set up the first feminist organisation in her region, was an active participant of the French resistance and was gang raped by soldiers during WWII.

I think she has the right to spend her final years in a safe fair and equal environment where she doesn't have to put up with the male entitlement of her fellow male residents to bring prostitution into her home.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Thu 31-Jan-13 21:42:28

I don't see why any of the other residents need know anything about these visits at all. "My niece is visiting" used to be the line.

Beachcomber Thu 31-Jan-13 22:12:12

The problem is though OLKN - she isn't stupid.

She knows that 'my niece is visiting' is bullshit.

She knows that 'what you don't know won't hurt you' is shoddy entitled crap.

Leithlurker Thu 31-Jan-13 22:20:19

Kudos to your DH's grandmother Beach, but factualy she has no ownership of the home, she has the ability to control what happens in her private space but not what happens in other residents private space.

Something that keeps cropping is how one side has rights but never both sides. So we always have an imposition of will and morality, on others, I wonder if that would have been recognisable to your DH's Grandmother as the thing she was fighting to stop.

Beachcomber Thu 31-Jan-13 22:24:45

Sexual assess to another human being is not a right.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Thu 31-Jan-13 22:30:11

Well, I hope when I visited my uncle in a care home, no-one assumed he was paying for my presence!

ReallyTired Thu 31-Jan-13 22:33:20

I think its repugnant to get a prostitutes in because a patient is groping a member of staff.

I imagine that supplying prostitutes to someone with learning difficulties would encourage such behaviour rather than nip it in the bud. Frankly I don't think someone with an IQ of 50 should be allowed sex. They have the level of responsiblity of a six year old and should be treated as such. If they want someone or something to love then maybe a cat or a puppy is more appriopiate. (No I do not mean beastiality)

If someone who is physically disabled (without learning difficulties) wants a sex worker then there should be nothing to stop him. However the idea should come from the client.

If people in a care home want to have sex with each other then thats fine. The role of a careworker would be to make sure that they use contraception and limit risks of STDs. Ie. provide condoms and offer the woman a hormonal injection.

Clearly care has to be taken to make sure that no one is being sexually exploited.

Leithlurker Thu 31-Jan-13 22:48:59

No but the the ability to make your own choices and lead an independent life free from coercion is a right. This is should not be about piting one person's rights against another save for the illegal. Its easy to get in to the grove of arguing that no one has the right to buy sex or the right to have sex, but as Solid said earlier people do have a right to be seen as human beings. Writing of peoples need to thrive, to be touched, to experience all parts of being human is to as good as cut them off from being a full member of the human race.
Again one groups desire for something in order to feel fully human or to have lived a full life could be extended in to areas such as child birth, is that up for debate as what is permissable to refuse as it is merely a wish rather than a right.

Beachcomber Thu 31-Jan-13 23:56:16

LL all I can make out from your post is that you do think having sexual access to another human being is a right.

WTF has childbirth got to do with men thinking they have a right to women's bodies?!

badinage Fri 01-Feb-13 00:00:08

You cannot at all be comfortable badinage or else you are able to claim full knowledge of every resident, their politicle, religious, and moral beliefs.

I struggled a bit with the syntax and grammar there, but I think what you're alleging is that I'm claiming to know every care home resident's belief system.

I am not. I don't know the belief system of all the residents of the care home featured in this story.

But neither, it appears do the people who run it.

Because they didn't consult the other residents, or the council, or the safeguarding and procurement policies.

The only people they consulted were the male residents asking them to procure sex, the prostitutes they booked - and eachother in the naive and dangerous belief that their personal safety would improve if they contracted out the danger posed by sexually aggressive men to some other woman.

badinage Fri 01-Feb-13 00:07:34

And as I keep pointing out, the policies that were so wilfully ignored in this instance cover every trade entering the premises, including mediums, hairdressers - anyone at all in fact who is invited into what is a shared home. So if residents objected to a medium operating in their midst or even in the next door room, those objections would be factored into the risk assessment.

If the council or the care home management got further involved and actually started to procure these services and making decisions about who got the right to trade and do business in the homes, then they must follow proper procurement procedure which requires chosen businesses to have proper policies and evidence of fiscal propriety, including the requirement to pay tax.

Doreen1a Fri 01-Feb-13 01:44:51

"Part of that risk assessment is whether the presence of the service provider would cause discomfort and generate objections from other residents."

Why would it? Do you think the prostitute is going to service her client in full view of every other resident? Prostitutes are very discreet- the other residents won't even know when a prostitute comes and leaves for all they know it could be someone's family member.

Doreen1a Fri 01-Feb-13 01:49:43

"Frankly I don't think someone with an IQ of 50 should be allowed sex"

I disagree. Just because someone has a low intelligence doesn't mean they are ignorant to the concept of sex and consent to sex.

Not just that, you don't treat a grown adult like a child regardless of capacity or IQ. Maybe a cat or a puppy would be more appropriate ffs

badinage Fri 01-Feb-13 02:32:37

Prostitutes are very discreet- the other residents won't even know when a prostitute comes and leaves for all they know it could be someone's family member.

Really? So how come the article and story to which this thread relates, states that the sex took place in a 'special room' which had a red sock placed over the door handle to signify to other residents and staff that a prostitute and resident were having sex and should not be disturbed?

Leithlurker Fri 01-Feb-13 05:10:16

Thanks to the syntax and grammer police for pointing out how crap my writing is, I am glad that your far larger brains and egos managed to not explode with the confusion.

Red sock at night prossie out of sight eh! I doubt the red sock idea was down to the the sex worker more like a care home policy, and not a very good one. Although what we do not know is if that room could also serve other purposes that require other staff and residents not to go in whilst it is in use. It could be a treatment room, a visiting space for confidential advice sessions, somewhere that residents can have privacy with someone with out it being in their own quarters.

Leithlurker Fri 01-Feb-13 05:29:58

Beach you are not a stupid person do not try and deliberately miss the point, having ivf, or having children in any way including adoption is not a right either. So if your arguing that their is no right to experience sex which is what both solid and I have suggested is not a right but part of being human, it follows that you are then happy to accept that women who feel that they have not lived a full human existence because they have never had children should also just accept that this is how it is as they have no right to do have children, even though our society in provides assistance and help for women to do exactly that.

As to your point about access to sex being a right, I have stated several imps that my stance is that I think it perfectly possible to reframe the idea away from sex work and in to a therapeutic one. This would remove any and all abuse, all the safeguards that badinage is on about would be on offer including crb checks. Tax would be paid, although I am not sure of those earning at the higher earning side of sex work that tax is always avoided. This is not the same as legalising as it would be pretty specific clients and overseen by the state so not just a free market situation.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 07:30:48

Nobody has a right to have a child LL. I don't know where you got the idea that they did. You can experience sex without using a prostitute.

You really do see women as a commodity don't you. And more importantly you think it is OK to treat them as one.

Leithlurker Fri 01-Feb-13 08:16:10

Ok Abigail, you repeat back to me EXACTLY what I said but include an insult and an assumption about what I "think"

Perfect example of why trying to have a conversation with radfems is like hearding cats. I told beach she was not stupid either you are, or you choose insults as a debating tactic which is a little bit shit really.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 08:30:23

I haven't insulted you have I? You want to be able to pay for a woman's body. That is treating her as a commodity. Why would that be an insult to you?

Well admittedly, I may have misunderstood as your argument isn't that coherent and pretty irrelevant, but you seemed to be implying that we think women have a right to have children, for some reason?

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 08:30:34

I wasn't deliberately missing the point hmm

I think your point is crap. I disagree with it.

I'm not arguing that people don't have a (personal) right to experience sex (although I don't think they do other than mastubation as bodily autonomy). I'm arguing that people (or let's face it, we actually mean men ) don't have a right to sexual access to another human being .

Having children is not a right either. (And a lot of people would be a lot happier if society stopped pushing the message that women haven't lived a full human existence unless they have had a child.)

Anyway comparing women having children in patriarchy, to men having sexual access to women in patriarchy, is beyond crass and positively bursting with male privilege and misogyny. (Clue - women are oppressed via our reproductive capacity and due to our reproductive capacity, women are also oppressed by rape culture and the misogynistic idea that men have a right to sexual assess to women.)

WTF is 'therapeutic' sexual access to another human being? Is that just rape culture with special pleading?

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 08:32:59

I am LOLing at the man telling us we are not stoopid so we must surely agree with him.

Does that make us stupid if we disagree then? hmm

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 08:33:11

Oh and I'm not a rad fem. HTH.

Leithlurker Fri 01-Feb-13 09:43:48

Oh you LOLing women, but if you can stop self congratulating yourself and each other for how clever you are, and how you can answer all mens by ignoring and belittling what they say in a reverse macho attempt to show how big and entitled you are in what you perceive to be your own space, you will find that you both have again missed the entire point and the context of what not just I but solid and others have said.

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Since it is fine to pass comment on my literacy and the argument I have put forward, then I am entitled to suggest that your emotional and logical processes perhaps even your cognitive process especially if you have to ask a question starting with WTF shows both a lack of ability to grasp different ways of thinking, and the maturity to be able to debate with out goading.

Interestingly though, the idea of women not having the right to have children being acknowledged and accepted, but then turned to be the fault of patriarchy seems somehow twisted. You agree with the patriarchy then. Or you would enforce that part of the patriarchy so that women could reclaim their reproductive systems that oppress them, only for some of those women to be unhappy and unfulfilled that they are not feeling or being treated like full humans as they are not able to have children. Mmm go over to the assisted conception boards and see how that fly's.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 09:58:04

LL I wasn't commenting on your posting style - I was commenting on your argument which struck me a convoluted way of saying that you think men have a right to sexual access to another human being whilst trying very hard not to say those actual words.

I wasn't commenting on grammar, etc - I was commenting on the convoluted mental gymnastics.

Please stop telling me I'm missing your point just because I don't capitulate. And please stop telling me what I think.

I have no interest in a conversation which compares female reproductive capacity and its role in patriarchy to thinking one has a right to sexual assess to others. It's making me feel a bit sick.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 10:08:10

"women who feel that they have not lived a full human existence because they have never had children" is the line I found full of male privilege and misogyny. It is the patriarchy that tells women that they have not lived a full human existence if they can't/haven't had children. It is the patriarchy not treating them like full human beings. Because obviously women are just walking reproductive systems hmm. It is really horrible that you are comparing the traumas and feelings that some women go through to have a baby with wanting access to another human's body because you want to have sex.

However wtf this has got to do with feeling entitled to have sex with a prostitute I don't know. Maybe you just wanted to have another go at women in general?

Not really understanding what you mean by the line:

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Just because you say it isn't commodifying doesn't make it true. Because you are wanting to buy sex, so that automatically makes it a commodity. You can't separate the sex from the woman you have it with. It is incredibly misogynistic to try and do that.

ReallyTired Fri 01-Feb-13 10:13:26

I disagree. Just because someone has a low intelligence doesn't mean they are ignorant to the concept of sex and consent to sex.

Have you met or worked with people with really low intelligence. (ie. not the bottom set at your local comp, but someone who is disabled by their lack of cognitive function. Such people cannot live independently or manage their money. They would not be able to organise a prostitute to come on their own. It is not unusual for some people with substantial learning difficulties to really struggle socially with basic friendships. (Ie. lack of theory of mind, the imagination to predict the future, ablity to read facial expressions, to tell when they are being exploited/ bullied, anger management)

For example someone with severe autism may struggle with the idea that the prostitute is providing a service and doesn't actually love them. If the prostitute decides that she no longer wants to service that client then it will cause a complex pychological mess. I am sceptical that the use of prostitutes increases someone's long term happiness.

Rather than organising a prostitute, I feel that care homes need to think what someone's true needs are. Everyone likes a hug, to feel needed, mentally simulated and the warmth of another's human touch. This is very different to having a shag. Rather than employing a prostitute prehaps care home need to employ more carers so that they can chat to clients and meet their social needs.

If someone with major learning difficulties is lucky enough to have a proper sexual relationship then that is very different. In that kind of situation the two people having sex are equal in the relationship and them making love is a beautiful thing. There is no exploitation of anyone.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 11:50:26

Anyway, what is interesting about this care home is this;

Bosses say many physically and mentally disabled people have no other sexual outlet - and become so frustrated they often resort to GROPING staff.

In other words the residents are sexually harassing and assaulting the staff. And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities .

This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 11:53:03

And WTF at this?

On one occasion, local strippers were invited into the home to perform a “special show” for residents.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 12:02:48

"This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women. " YY

Well Beach that knocks the whole "well other residents don't have to know, it doesn't affect them" argument into a cocked hat. Not that just because someone doesn't know what is happening is a reason to allow it to happen.

"And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities . "

Yes, exacly. And it's OK because the women are getting paid. No, they're still being exploited.

Beachcomber Fri 01-Feb-13 13:26:06

Well exactly AbigailAdams. Perhpas they told everybody it was a 'special present from some nieces who had gathered together to give the old dears a special treat'. hmm I suspect the red sock on the handle of the speschul lovin' room for speschul times rather gave things away too.

Thanks for this link JuliaScurr - it is spot on.

AbigailAdams Fri 01-Feb-13 14:00:45

That article really brings it in to sharp focus what is going on. Cuts to the chase.

Why are sexual acts the 'buying of a woman's body' when paying for other services that involve the functions of the body (such as manual labour, assisting someone to wash themselves or excrete) or the spending of time (listening to a person, performing tasks to benefit or please the person) are not? Paying someone to engage in sexual activity doesn't mean that you own the person, or the person's body, any more than if you pay to watch the person dance, or have him/her paint your ceiling. The service is rendered, the bill is paid, and the person goes home.

Not everyone would be happy selling sexual services, sure. No one should do it against his/her will. However, some people would find it less morally distressing to sell sex than to work as a bailiff - or to scrub toilets.

There does seem to be an idea that preventing people from having sex is some sort of Good Thing, that it's bad for anyone to have as much sex as s/he would like.

Somehow I get the feeling that even if money didn't change hands and care home residents were joining hookup sites and having visitors pop round for NSA sex, some of you would want that put a stop to on the grounds that it's... Eeew! Icky! Old people/disabled people having sex! Make them stop it.

Vitalstats Fri 01-Feb-13 22:44:05

Quote from Rhoda Grant (MSP who wants prostitution illegal in scotland completely, even among consenting adults).

"Sex with a disabled person is disugsting"

Says it all really. I think the whole "exploitation" argument is just a front. The real reason people want prostitution illegal is all because of morals and because they personally find the idea of sex with old/disabled people "disgusting".

Vitalstats: Well, no, objections to sex work on grounds of exploitation are not 'just a front.' There is serious exploitation and abuse of sex workers, and that's something that needs addressing.

However, prohibition and stigmatizing of sex workers is not the way forward.

That article completely ignores the humanity and autonomy and choices of sex workers.

badinage Sat 02-Feb-13 00:10:03

I'll tell you what's different about someone needing intimate care, their ceiling painted or someone to talk to. Both men and women pay for those services. What's different about prostitution as a service is that men pay for it and women (or men) provide it. It's based on the usual patriarchical model of sex, which is that men must have sex however they can attain it.

As usual, you conflate prurience about sex, with objections to the sex industry. I do wish you'd stop posting as though you're the only person in the world who enjoys sex and that everyone who objects to the sex industry is a prude who isn't nearly as enlightened as you. It substantially weakens your arguments and makes you look very foolish and bigoted.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 00:42:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 00:44:35

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badinage Sat 02-Feb-13 01:22:49

Can you provide a verified quote please from a parliamentary or news source where Rhoda Grant said that?

The sex of the person selling sex isn't the defining issue here. It's the sex of the punter.

Just because the gutter press dredges up a few shock-horror stories about a few women paying for sex, doesn't get away from the fact that the vast majority of people who pay for sex are men, either with women or other men.

Badinage, that's at least partly because it's only been in the past 50 years or so that reliable contraception -and economic independence - has enabled women to have more choice and more sexual autonomy. Women are still fed vast amounts of propaganda to the effect that they want 'love' (ie to be owned by a man and provide him with domestic service as well as sex) more than sex for the sheer pleasure of sex, and women who pursue casual sex with a variety of partners are still vilified, slut-shamed, blamed if a rapist targets them or at the very least urged to seek 'therapy' (ie someone to drug or coerce them into accepting the ownership of ONE man) to sort out their 'inability to commit'.

Less than a hundred years ago in the UK, women who liked sex, as opposed to accepting it while gritting their teeth, could get locked up in mental asylums and/or have their clitorises removed or damaged by 'doctors'.

badinage Sat 02-Feb-13 01:49:33

I don't disagree with any of that historical summary, but it is precisely because of that patriarchical and capitalist context that there can never be an equivalence between women paying men for sex and men paying for sex. Just as there is no equivalence between lap dancing/ stripping and Full Monty shows. The power dynamic is entirely different. That said, I would support the criminalisation of all sex purchase regardless of the sex of the punter. A woman sex tourist using her privilege to buy sex from an impoverished man in another country is no less abhorrent than a man paying for sex in the same circumstances.

Badinage: anyone buying sex - or domestic service, or handcrafts - from a person who is being exploited and/or controlled by a criminal organisation is in the wrong and should make more effort to buy goods and services from people who have chosen to sell them.

But in a better world, people would be able to buy - and sell - sexual services in the same way that one might buy or sell personal music tuition or couture tailoring or performance art. A perfect world would not be one where people who want sex are expected to 'control themselves' to the extent of accepting that Society has decided for them that they are not entitled to sexual feelings, and most definitely not entitled to act on any sexual feelings they may have.

badinage Sat 02-Feb-13 02:31:43

If that better world wasn't a capitalist patriarchy, that might be a utopian possibility.

But as long as it is, paying for sex just props up the patriarchical model of sex where men's rights to have it are paramount. As long as we have a capitalist patriarchy, as a feminist I can never support that.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 03:35:48

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 20:32:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 20:39:47

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

And if a politician who wanted prostitution illegal publicly states "sex with a disabled person is disgusting" I for one would be a little concerned.

"*she [RG] went on to say - "I'd also like to say that the notion of using disability as an excuse is offensive and appalling".*"

These statements don't mean the same thing at all though do they?

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 20:45:03

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

She didn't say "sex with a disabled person is disgusting"

She said "I'd also like to say that the notion of using disability as an excuse is offensive and appalling"

You have misrepresented her very badly.

I agree with her. If it's wrong to pay for sex, it's no less wrong just because the buyer has a disability.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 21:01:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

No, I'd rather talk about how you misrepresented what she said.

"sex with a disabled person is disgusting"

It's quite an appalling thing to claim somebody said, when they actually didn't.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 21:15:18

Did you present any other studies?

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 21:20:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 21:21:34

So that's a no then.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 21:29:11

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 21:54:35

Since you have totally misrepresented her other statement I'm not commenting on what you said she said. If you want to challenge her survey you'll need to point to another one. It's a bit weak to say "I don't accept your survey so do another one". The proposed change of law is not driven by that survey.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 22:05:38

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 22:08:36

I guess you don't know much about how laws are made or an effective way engage yourself in the process.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 22:24:43

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 22:29:45

Yes

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 22:35:09

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 22:35:46

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 22:48:37

That's a bit rich from someone who totally misrepresented what Rhida Grant said.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 23:00:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:08:20

I don't know what she said. You've shown yourself to be dishonest in your account of what she said so I'm not going to take your word for it. Your comment was weak though.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 23:09:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:16:58

That's not a source.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 23:18:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:23:17

So not a source then.

Jaan11 Sat 02-Feb-13 23:25:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:27:54

Pfft

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sat 02-Feb-13 23:31:48
FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:38:13

Source for what? What Rhoda Grant supposedly said in a public meeting?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sat 02-Feb-13 23:43:15

No, a source which Ms Grant could have used to inform herself about the current state of prostitution in the UK.

And it's written by a feminist.

FloraFox Sat 02-Feb-13 23:48:04

I have no idea what Rhoda Grant said let alone whether she's read this paper.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sat 02-Feb-13 23:59:02

Neither do I. But if Ms Grant claimed there was no other research available, she was being somewhat disingenuous. Not only is there work done by Dr Jenkins, there is also research done by Dr Teela Sanders.

When you seek to change the law, you should at least understand the effects of your changes.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 00:08:26

We don't have a reliable account of what she said however it seems to have been on the question of age on entering prostitution. If she wasn't aware of this research no doubt someone will have raised it in the consultation. Which is the point of the consultation.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 00:14:22

Ms Grant's lack of information/knowledge was indeed raised in the consultation, by people far better informed/more knowledgeable than her (including the blogger earlier linked, sex-worker Laura Lee). I will be interested to see the outcome of the consultation, given that the previous attempt was thrown out on Human Rights grounds.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 02:07:49

As suspected, that quote attributed to Rhoda Grant was a blatant lie.

Consultation about any proposed change to the law never just hears from one lobby - and quite rightly takes into account the vested interests of those who are opposed to change, as well as those seeking change. Good consultation encompasses the additional views of people without vested interests and especially those who have no financial or criminal interests in the outcome. While the opinions of people who buy and sell sex should be sought, their voices shouldn't be given any greater weight than any other lobby in the consultation. The sale and purchase of sex doesn't just affect the sellers and buyers after all.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 02:11:02

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 02:12:55

I hope it succeeds, then the rest of GB follows suit.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 02:14:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 02:16:02

No - anyone with a vested financial interest is biased. That's just common sense.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 02:16:28

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 02:17:00

The consultation was public; anyone could respond. Some of the people who did, were/are considerably better informed than Ms Grant (as one would expect, she's an MSP not an expert), including the association of police officers APOS who concluded (last time round, with Trish Godwin at the helm) that the proposed legislation was unworkable.

It will be interesting to see what happens this time.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 02:17:34

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 02:19:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 02:23:17

grin Love your bingo card, Jaan!

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 02:36:02

I disagree. The people actively involved in prostitution (especially the workers) are the ones who will know the most about it. Unlike anyone else they will have their own experiences to add.

That's a circular argument. They're doing it. They're obviously going to speak in favour of it.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 02:43:40

But everyone knows how abused etc prostituted women are, whyever would they speak in favour? confused <--- sarcasm

Oh, yeah, they can't possibly actually have any understanding of their own experience.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 02:46:19

Yes, just read those links thanks.

The proposal seems eminently sensible, although I'd have liked to have seen more reference to the Nordic countries, where criminalisation has been successfully in place for years - and those that have gone down the legalisation route like Amsterdam, which has been an abject failure and led to the very thing that Scot-Pep claimed without any evidence, would happen if selling sex were criminalised. I.e. the whole operation was taken over by criminals and led to indigenous prostitutes suffering greater risk after being forced out by migrant workers.

Apart from the philosophical arguments about 'rights', what are your practical and personal objections to not being allowed to sell sex? For example, do you fear having to attain a mainstream job, pay tax and NI, work more hours or are there other objections? What is it you fear personally?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 02:48:12

The ones who are actively involved and respond to a public consultation clearly have a vested interest.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 02:50:44

Er, you have misread the proposed legislation, which would not outlaw selling sex, rather the purchase thereof.

And Flora, did everyone who responded to the consultation have a vested interest?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 02:52:04

No.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 02:56:55

Just the people who actually have had the experience of being a sex-worker, then?

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 02:57:19

For those claiming that fears about safety are the driving force behind the objections, how would a prostitute using her own or a punter's premises as an independent, be more at risk of harm by these proposals?

I'm sure I've seen the pro-prostitution lobby on this board claim that street prostitution and brothels make up only a small part of prostitution and that the internet made prostitution more an 'independent/own or clients' premises' activity. Is that not true then?

Sorry - that was a typo. I didn't misread thanks. I mistyped. I'm very familiar with the concept of criminalising sex purchase and think that's exactly what should be criminalised.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:00:03

And pimps and punters. Maybe consider the definition of "vested interest".

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:01:09

Streetwalking forms a small minority (about 10%) of prostitution. Brothel-workers are the majority, and I have never seen anyone claim otherwise. With the rise of the internet, and AW, indy working is more common.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:06:34

Got any stats for that?

The internet's been around for 20+ years now. How do you know there aren't now more prostitutes working as independents than in brothels or on the street?

Also interested in what it is you fear personally about these proposals. Do you all work in a brothel or are you all independents?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:09:58

I refer you, yet again, to Suzanne Jenkins work, which you claim to have read.

smellsofsick Sun 03-Feb-13 03:11:18

Interestingly ( or not) I have a relative who worked at this home for quite a while and knew nothing of the sock on the door practice!

It makes me think it didn't occur all that often and that perhaps only a minority of staff knew about it.

My relative was passionate about promoting the rights and protecting the dignity of the residents they worked with but I think they would have had mixed feelings about this practice, just as a reaction to the whole idea of it.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:16:34

Just so I can consider the weight I might give to your opinions, OLKN and Jaan, are you a prostitute, pimp or punter?

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:16:59

I haven't claimed to have read that at all, you must be mixing me up with someone else.

I haven't got time to read through that now - and it was from 2009 by the looks of it. But perhaps you can cut and paste the part that backs up your claim that the majority of prostitutes worked in brothels, even back in 2009?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:21:07

And again, as more of an overview of many, many works of research, there is Dr Magananti's book. But of course, if the actual facts don't coincide with your views, you won't have an interest.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:24:11

My apologies if I mixed you up with someone else, badinage, but the link remains a good one regardless. Try reading it? It's long, but even the intro gives a flavour.

And Flora, why do the facts change depending on who presents them?

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:32:02

I'm wading through it, but can't find any evidence about your claims about ratios. It's appallingly written isn't it? Doesn't know the difference between practice and practise, for example.

I don't think Flora was talking about facts. She mentioned opinions. If your opinions are based on being a prostitute, a punter or a pimp - there is personal bias. It's the same with the consultation - the lawmakers need to know the vested interests before they'll give weight to people's opinions.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:33:06

It was you and Jaan who said the views of the pimps and prostitutes should be given more weight.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 03:33:44

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 03:35:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 03:36:49

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:38:21

Will you answer the outstanding questions please OLKN and Jaan11?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:40:36

Jaans

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:40:44

Opinions, based on... what? are meaningless unless backed up with yer actual research/information. And I have never said that the opinions of sex-workers should be given more weight than anyone else's, just that it is important to take into account actual lived experience.

And no, badinage, I don't agree that Dr Magnanti's phd thesis is appallingly-written. Keep reading, wontcha?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:45:18

And no, I won't answer your question as to whether I am a pimp etc, it's a typical silencing technique.

"Oh, you must be be a whore/pimp, so we can ignore your feelings/opinion".

Slut-shaming. Do take it elsewhere.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:45:52

Rhoda Grant hasn't said that people's lived experience doesn't count though (neither has anyone on this thread either asfar as I can see) and the consultation was available to everyone.

I was referring to that Jenkins thesis, which I think is very badly written and I still can't find the evidence you claim. Does it actually exist?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:48:14

You've read it all, already?

<impressed at speed-reading skills>

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:50:18

That's fine. I don't need to know as I don't actually care. Thank you for confirming that you don't agree with Jaans' assertion that the views of pimps and prostitutes should be given more weight.

Jaans?

Jaan11 Sun 03-Feb-13 03:51:18

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 03:51:54

Yes I'm a very quick reader and familiar with academic texts. But if you're interested in helping the discussion along, do say where it discusses the ratios of brothel workers/street prostitutes and independents. It just doesn't seem to be there. Am I wasting my time looking for it? A cut and paste or a Page No. would really help.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:52:54

It was, after all, written after much research, actually meeting with and talking to sex workers, been more than peer-reviewed (since it gained her her pHD) and published... But of course your opinion that it's "badly-written" matters more. <does the roll eyes thing>

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 03:57:59

Leaving aside the stats on what % of sex workers are streetworkers (I'llhave another look tomorrow) how do you feel about her general thesis, now you've read it so thoroughly?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 03:59:21

Oh a PhD paper written by someone somewhere... that changes everything. Or not.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:03:59

It doesn't change everthing. It sheds new light.

Have you read it?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:06:23

Doubt it. I've read enough pomo / third wave bullshit for one lifetime. You can't even be bothered to or you're not capable of summarising the salient points. Why should I bother to read it?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:06:32

(Given that the much-quoted Melissa Farley is self-funded and self-published, according to Dr Magnanti.)

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:07:59

Flora, if you were actually interested in the facts, you'd read it. What is it that disturbs you so?

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:10:09

What facts are in there?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:14:48

Erm, try actually reading it, then you'd know.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:16:48

It can't be that hard, badinage managed it in a short time.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:17:53

You're not selling this very well. 300+ pages written by someone somewhere - why should I read it? Because you think it's Very Weighty. And Sheds New Light. Whereas I have a strong suspicion I'll waste my time reading pomo / third wave bullshit. Saying Nothing New.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 04:23:43

Still reading, but it's irredeemably dull and full of personal bias. Still no sign of the data you claimed was in it either....

I think supplying a link which is 132 pages long as an answer to a question about the stats to support your claim about ratios, is a silencing technique in that it diverts attention from what I was asking you and Jaans about what your objections were, beyond the philosophical 'rights' issue, to these proposals.

Jaan mentioned safety but has failed to follow that up and OLKN you haven't answered those questions at all.

I'm really not interested in pausing a discussion to read a thesis. I only looked at it because you linked it as an answer to my question. So I'll look tomorrow to see whether you and Jaan11 are more forthcoming and whether you've found those stats. For now, I'm grateful to Jenkins for a sudden onset of drowsiness.....

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:25:54

<shrugs>

So you'd be happy enacting new legislation on the basis of one person's "feelings"?

<resists urge to quote Godwin's Law>

I prefer a bit of fact-based stuff, myself.

But, y'know.

It's a democracy and all.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:29:26

Badinage, you said you'd already read it! You big fibber! grin

Going to sleep now, will reconnect, with more references, later.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 04:31:44

Hah! Even worse to expect someone to break off and wade through 312 pages just to get some stats! Not 132 as I stated. Nighty night.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:32:14

And again, what are the facts? It's a thesis. It's someone's opinion.

This might be the only issue you have a vested interest in engage with so you might not know that when people are debating Clever Stuff, the done thing is to say: "here is an interesting paper by W who has X credentials. In it she says (summary of Y). I think that's relevant here because of Z."

Not, "I believe A. A PhD somewhere wrote something. Read it."

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:37:34

And neither of you have actually read the paper fully (total credit to badinage who is at least giving it a go) and Flora, have you any idea what getting a pHd means? It is not just "someone's opinion"!

Read the paper.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:42:22

If you can summarise the salient points and they do actually seem like they're shedding new light, I will read it. If you can't or they don't, I won't.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 04:45:09

I didn't fib. I said 'yes I was a quick reader' in response to your compliment about my speed-reading skills. I never claimed to have read the whole thing and I don't intend to. I'm only interested in finding the answer you wouldn't supply in a post. If it doesn't support your claim, then just say so. If it does, please direct me to it and I've been politely asking you to do that, but you either can't or won't.

So I'll just wait for you to back up your claims and answer the questions - and as is my right, draw my own conclusions if that's not forthcoming.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 04:47:05

Ok, which points would you like me to summarise? I'll do my best.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:48:54

have you any idea what getting a pHd means?

In what discipline? At which institution? Have you not even gleaned from my posts that it is PhD, not pHd or pHD? You're not covering yourself in glory here.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 04:51:44

How about the points you're trying to make? Signing off now.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 05:16:15

Oh, those comments really work, i make a typo and that's your argument? Well done.

FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 05:39:18

Still not sleeping...

No, my argument is that I do know what it takes to get a PhD from some disciplines and some institutions. Some are rigorous and significant and some are not.

My point is that I think you are placing too much emphasis on the significance of a paper from someone who happens to be have a PhD. Some are meaningful and some are not. I assumed that since you wrote it incorrectly twice, you don't know much about it and I do accept that may be unfair.

People write stuff all the time about prostitution. There's more stuff out there than you can read in two lifetimes. Unless you can make a case for why this paper is important, it's not really on to ask everyone to read it as a precondition to engaging in a discussion.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Sun 03-Feb-13 16:25:17
FloraFox Sun 03-Feb-13 17:52:50

What's the relevance of this document? It's a report on prostitution in Canada.

Jessika1 Sun 03-Feb-13 21:27:23

Why were the posts by Jan deleted? A lot of those posts had very valid arguments.

For some reason posting a link to the consultation response by Scot-Pep is "against mumnet talk guidelines". There must be something about that document MNHQ don't want us to see?

scot-pep.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/scot-pep_response_to_rhoda_grant_consultation.pdf

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 03-Feb-13 23:20:27

Ah, well. At least MN are getting on top of the more obvious trolls. Mwah mwah, dahling.

badinage Sun 03-Feb-13 23:58:19

Huh? That link is a 2006 study of prostitution in Canada, whereas the question was about the percentages of prostitutes working on the streets, in brothels and as independents in Scotland where the consultation is taking place. At a push I'd have accepted ratios for England, Wales or NI, but none of this answers the questions. Especially as even the Canada report isn't precise, stating that "street prostitution accounts for just 5% to
20% of all prostitution activity in the country". It doesn't break down percentages of the remaining 95-80% in terms of where they work.

The poster claiming that the main objections to the proposals related to safety, appears to have been banned. As other pro posters were earlier claiming that working as an independent would give them no safety concerns, we're still none the wiser about what these posters fear from the proposals.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Mon 04-Feb-13 01:54:14

The link was in support of my earlier claim that only "about 10%" of prostitutes are streetworkers. I was asked to supply evidence, and did.

badinage Mon 04-Feb-13 02:09:23

No that's not what I asked for and I've repeated the specific request several times now.

In a discussion about criminalising prostitution in Scotland and what yours and other posters' practical fears about the proposals might be, the issue of threats to safety was raised by Jaans.

You didn't reply. Earlier in the thread, you said you would have no such concerns about safety yourself.

I queried why safety would be a concern when as I understood it, a significant proportion of prostitutes currently work on their own or clients' premises. You said that only about 10% of prostitution was street-based and that the majority worked in brothels. I asked you this:

"Got any stats for that?

The internet's been around for 20+ years now. How do you know there aren't now more prostitutes working as independents than in brothels or on the street?"

to which you replied with a link to a 312 page thesis that didn't contain the answer - and consistently evaded my polite requests for you to direct me to it.

Then you linked to a 2006 report about Canadian prostitution that mentioned nothing about how many prostitutes in Scotland (or even GB generally) work in brothels compared to own/clients' premises.

If you don't know, just say so.

FloraFox Mon 04-Feb-13 02:55:48

The Suzanne Jenkins study you linked to OLKN was written as a PhD thesis. Suzanne Jenkins now seems to be a Policy Officer at Staffordshire County Council. She doesn't seem to have published anything else on this topic, that I can find on the internet.

This article in the New Statesman questioned Brooke Magnanti's reliance on the study:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis/2012/04/how-belle-de-jour-got-her-figures-wrong

Interestingly, Ms Jenkins seems to have commented BTL on that article:

"Just for clarity, as author of the study under discussion, I certainly don't claim my sample to be representative of the population, the sex-working population, or even escorts advertising on the internet. I would add that although I aimed to study 'escorts, many men, and women, work in more than one way/place simultaneously. e.g., many escorts work some of their week in a parlour, many started as street walkers or parlour workers before going independent. I personally interviewed over 100 sex workers and their experiences were wide-ranging - but that doesn’t mean others didn’t experienced sex work differently. Also, the question about plans to leave escort work were one of large bank of questions, and respondents were able to add explanatory data to their response, so some clarification of their meanings were elicited. Having said all that, my intention is not to promote sex work or to condemn it – it more about how the law infantilises and pathologises women and how in the name of protecting women it can place them in a more vulnerable position."

This is the only public statement I can find from Ms Jenkins.

Her belief that the law infantilises women is a subjective, political belief. She states herself that she does not believe her sample to be representative. I don't see that her paper adds anything of value to the discussion.

FloraFox Mon 04-Feb-13 02:56:48

Another link fail!

This

FloraFox Mon 04-Feb-13 03:11:06

The thing is, statistically, it's not possible to devise a meaningful representative study on harm or consent by asking prostitutes for a number of reasons.

- Those who are in forced situations will not be able to participate.
- Those who have left would be unlikely to participate or too difficult to find.
- The responses are largely subjective and therefore unverifiable.
- Dilbert always has something useful to add
- To paraphrase a famous prostitute: they would say that, wouldn't they.

Writehand Mon 04-Feb-13 18:01:56

I worked briefly in an old people's home and the matron there was quite vigilant in making sure none of them developed sexual or romantic relationships. It was horrible. She felt it was up to her what they did, as if they were kids. One old boy liked going to the pub for a few pints, and she tried to stop him too. He didn't get drunk or difficult, she just felt it wasn't appropriate. I thought she was a cow, and was very pleased to see this news story. If the residents want to do private things in their private space, good luck to them!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now