Disabled 'deserve' the joy of sex.

Leithlurker

You haven't actually read the thread, have you.

Anyway

I wrote "People with disabilities are just as likely to be violent or peadophiles as anyone else. Just because men who are not disabled can act on these desires, does not mean that men who are disabled should be allowed to, in the name of equality."

and your response is that you find that a "troubling statement". Bloody hell.

Leithlurker I'm pretty sure you're the only person putting that spin on Sardine's words. I think most people, like me, would say that Sardine is advocating less 'othering' than you are with your insistence that people with disabilities are missing out unless they can rape vulnerable women.

Sorry SQ, I know you don't need me to speak for you.

What men do to prostituted women isn't sex. It's masturbating inside a body, the owner of which has been paid not to reject the mastubator.

Bring me someone to pick pocket. It's my right

Sardine you said
"People with disabilities are just as likely to be violent or peadophiles as anyone else. Just because men who are not disabled can act on these desires, does not mean that men who are disabled should be allowed to, in the name of equality."

This is a very troubling statement not least because you choose to view disabled men as offenders, you could have easily have used a positive image but you did not. But let that go for now, the point you make about disabled men not being able to carry out paedophilia because they are disabled would seem to suggest you regard that as something to be celebrated, like "thank god they wont be able to do that as they are disabled". This is a use of the language that I have seen on this thread that I would consider disabelist as you are implying the disability is something that reduces the threat, in which case you place the value of the disability higher than the value of the person.

Also and the main problem with this is that you have no means that I am aware of, of identifying who is a paedophile so your argument about disabled men should not be free as non disabled men are to commits crime hinges on the fact that in order to prevent just that, all disabled men would have to be prevented from having sex.

No one has the right to commit a crime, surely?

We adapt society so that it doesn't discriminate against those with disabilities. How can providing prostitutes be considered an extension of ensuring doorways are a certain width and have a ramp, or that a hearing loop is in place?

A sex life should be the norm for everyone it should be what we want for everyone, even the less desirable parts like one night stands, or infidelity.

If a sex life should be the norm for everyone then there are a hell of a lot of people without disabilities who are not normal. And while I understand the sentiment, one night stands and infidelity tend to involve consenting adults entering into it for no other reason that a mutual desire to have sex. By its very nature, prostitution can't be described like that.

Well we couldn't have men who weren't able to stick their penises somewhere could we? It's against nature.

"A sex life should be the norm for everyone"

Everyone?

Quite, nyac.

"In other words something that up to this point the majority of disabled people have not been able to have for reasons that are to do with identity and the way society views disability, as well as the technical aspects as well."

This is rubbish.

What is your definition of disabled.

The Feminism board gets hijacked for all sorts of reasons. I didn't see this one coming. < shrug >

If people feel concerned about some disabled people not having access to sex they should volunteer themselves. That would be the humane thing to do, rather than expecting a sexually exploited woman to fill the gap.

Sardine It upsets me and worry s me too, but those are both facts. It is how we deal with those facts that becomes the issue.

Sardine you answerd your own question "I am all for people with disabilities having sex, with consensual partners," this is a sex life or at least the description of a sex life. In other words something that up to this point the majority of disabled people have not been able to have for reasons that are to do with identity and the way society views disability, as well as the technical aspects as well.

A sex life should be the norm for everyone it should be what we want for everyone, even the less desirable parts like one night stands, or infidelity.

Sunshine I would want what you say to be the case however if we are talking about employment, shops, the ability to live independently, the ability to lead many aspects of life that others take for granted, disabled people do need to have special adjustments made for them, and you are right it does draw attention. However the fact that they are disabled is the cause of this not the adjustment it's self. In the same way women have attention drawn to them by having septate times for swimming lessons etc. They want that separation and need it in order to feel more comfortable so they have been given that adjustment.

Personally I think that the implication that people with disabilities

a. can't find anyone to have consensual sex with and
b. are happy to pay for sex

worrying and upsetting, frankly.

If you think that people with disabilities have a right to sex and a right to break the law then there is no line to be drawn.

People with disabilities are just as likely to be violent or peadophiles as anyone else. Just because men who are not disabled can act on these desires, does not mean that men who are disabled should be allowed to, in the name of equality.

Equality is not about giving people who have been disempowered (in this case through disability) the right to access the power usual to people of their caste / sex / race / whatever.

Sardine I cannot comprehend your reference to people and violent sex. Sex with children is by it's nature illegal and not sex per se. Sex that includes violence like bdsm is not illegal or would you like to make it so? Either way I do not see what either of those has to do with what I said about people with disabilities being able to engage in a criminal act if they want to.

I have had experience of this tactic of saying but no one said this, or no one meant that before. It is for me to judge the intention of the words used not anyone else to tell me that I am wrong. I have no intention of telling other people what to think or how to interpret things so do not do it to me. I have read many, many threads on MN that talk about women refusing to be told what they should or should not read in to things, and a shed load of threads that talk about one thing but are turned round to talk about something else becouse someone has "read" something else in to a post. So I feel my view about the intention of the language and the tone of the thread is every bit as valid as you probably feel it is not.

Spot on sunshine.

The article covers the experiences of some people, 3 I think. It is 3 tales.

And it's not just a "conversation in a pub", it's a good fried.

I am all for people with disabilities having sex, with consensual partners, in safe circumstances. For too long the idea of people with disabilities having sex has been considered "wrong". I think that is appalling. That's got nothing to do with the exploitation of vulnerable people in the sex trade though.

The only thing that separates those with disabilities from those without are the disabilities. There is no difference between their humanity or range of behaviours. I think we can all agree on that.

In that case, why the need to present the 'need' for sex to be paid for as something peculiar to those with disabilities. The desire for sex is no more pronounced for someone with a disability than it is for anyone else. Many people without disabilities have problems finding sexual partners. Should they have the right to pay for sex with prostitues too? What makes people with disabilities so different? In effect, this proposal marks them out as different, which is something we should surely be avoiding.

"in the article it did say no right existed to have sex, but it did talk about the right to have a sex life."

?

What's the difference?

No Sardine I disagree the argument is not up the spout it is just begining, for example you say you read the disabled now piece but then went on to tell of a conversation in the pub, which I am sure you intended to make a point although it just seemed to me that it was used to tell a tale. The article spoke about the need to have discussions like this which are about disabled people having sex, and in the article it did say no right existed to have sex, but it did talk about the right to have a sex life.

SardSunshine, what you seem to be saying is that at any given time people with impairments are damned. If we operate our civilo rights and committe a crime we are not representative, and if we do not then once again we are not representative. Or would you please make your point again but a little bit clearer for me.

"And yes I have stated that the capacity to engage in a criminal act should be opon to everyone".

Get a grip.

Some people can't orgasm unless they are inflicting violence, or with a child. Do they have a right to sex too? Some of those people may be disabled. What then?

Honestly.

The whole argument is up the spout.