Disabled 'deserve' the joy of sex.

It was your first post that annoyed me, leith. saying the thread was full of disablist language and patronising.

I think it is more patronising to assume that people with disabilities will need to buy sex, and that they would actually want to.

And yes I have stated that the capacity to engage in a criminal act should be opon to everyone. What that was in reference to was the way that the language of this thread seemed to be suggesting that "disabled" people would not want to use prostitutes.

Exactly, sunshine.

Have you read the whole thread, leith, including links?

The thing is, those responsible for suggesting that people with disabilities should be able to buy sex is responsible for lumping all those with disabilities into one group. If they accepted that those with disabilities are no more or less likely than any other section of society to want to use a prostitute, there would be no need to have the discussion centred on people with disabilities.

I can see nothing whatsoever wrong with either of those posts.

No Sardine I am representing no one, why are you getting annoyed and where does my argument turn round on it's self egg?

Leithlurker - if a disabled person chooses to make use of a prostitute, that is between them, the prostitute and their conscience. What we're discussing here is a proposal that public funds be made available for that purpose. Which is making an exception to the law for disabled people at the expense of sex workers. Essentially giving one group rights over another, and using public funds to support a morally repugnant industry.

Not okay, no matter who is in either group.

As for disablist language - give me a break!!! Many of the posters here are disabled and I haven't seen any of them object (I am open to correction here).

Just to add - all the disabled people I know are having quite enthusiastic sex lives, and I don't want to imply that disabled folk need paid partners to have sex.

I am disabled, but I'm a woman, so obv have no right to have genitals, never mind sex.
It's unbelievably patronising to disabled people and equally oppressive to women.

Those are two of the earlier posts that appear on this thread which speak for some but not all impaired peoples experience.

You are trying to represent people with impairments are you?

Leith seems to be saying that because men who are not disabled are able to commit any crime, if they wish, so must men who are disabled. To say otherwise is to infringe their rights to a "normal" life.

What a load of rubbish.

Sardine if no such thing as women exists does that not pose the same problem for feminists as it does for people who are trying to represent people with impairments, you cannot possibly speak for all females so you will never get agreement on issues like porn and prostitution.

Up thread someone else suggested a blanket statement of no one should ever have to pay anyone else for sex, I agree whole heartedly but I suspect for different reasons.

Leith, you have twisted your argument so far round itself it's in a double knot

are you deliberately missing the point to cause a row ?

it certainly looks like it

Leith who on this thread has said any of the things in your post?

HMM?

Procuring a prostitute is not a crime.

Oh BLAH show us the horrendous disablism and how awful we all are.

A man with a disability does not have a right to sex.
And neither does a man with a disability.
So what's the problem.

And when did the law stop people thinking and carrying out such actions as robbery, or driving with out a insurance or a licence.
My point was that in terms of civil liberties disabled people are as open to break any law as they want, the patronising assumption that they would not want to only means that if a disabled person commits a crime like procuring a prostitute they are even more denied their humanity. Seen not as just disabled or male, or female, but deviant because as disabled people they will not be interested in paying for sex.

Again the sweeping statement of any woman who does not want to be a mother would be as wrong as saying all disabled people would not or should not want to pay for sex.

I just read the link to the disability now article.

I know a man who has a very annoying and sometimes uncomfortable skin condition. On a stag do he slept with a prostitute. he told me (while pissed in the pub) that he did it because he can't bear anyone to see him naked. Righto. Whatever. A year later he met someone and got married. And he wasn't a virgin before. He was simply justifying his use of a prostitute to himself (and to me, not that I asked ).

This whole thing is an extension of this entitlement.

Sex is not a human right
It is not a basic need
Just because men who are not disabled can buy sex does not mean that is OK. It is not OK. It is just so ARRRGHH to bring this up as a disability rights issues. Most men with disabilities, like most men without disabilites, find the idea of paying for sex undesirable at best, and repugnant at worst. Having a disability does not give anyone an opt-out on basic humanity.

There is no such thing as women either - there are many individuals who share the characteristic of having the same sex organ.

I agree with leithlurker I am shocked by some of the attitudes in this thread and how many generalisations have been written as the truth

on the other hand, if you wish to discuss something else entirely then go right ahead

If people (with or without disabilities) aren't CHOOSING to have sex with people with disabilities, then that is something that can be addressed.

Use of prostitutes is not the answer, for anyone.

Since this bill is specifically about the employment of sex workers specifically for people with disabilities, I think we can forgive us all for talking about them as a group

it's actually impossible not to, if you wish to address the specific issues being raised

"Those who are saying they know disabled people who are having active sex lives may want to reflect on this report from Disability Now."

Who is that aimed at, on this thread?

I think someone hasn't read the thread

Annoying.