Disabled 'deserve' the joy of sex.

here is a male sex worker offering himself to female clients on a site for disabled people

TLC organisation though the home page of this volunteer run association has a sentence which made me think the whole thing was a satire or something as it implies that they regret not being able to engage trafficked 'service providers' because it is illegal. Which is pretty horrendous - IME Disability Rights Campaigners are generally more politically aware than that

"I don't know how I would tell if someone was co-erced - the 'free' suggestion was a good one - maybe the Austrailian gvt could set up swinger-type parties, the only entrance requirement being an inclusive / equal opps attitude. And a free egg and bacon sandwich and glass of sangria and your bus pass paid to cover expenses."

That's not prostitution then is it. If people want to have sex with other people because they want to, then that is just bog standard sex.

Although some people are desperate enough to sell themselves for a free sandwich, so I'm not sure that idea is much good.

No, Chibi, it hasn't.

But in any case, metaphors are only ever useful to explore one aspect of something, they are a device, a technique for looking at something from a differnt angle, not proof.

here is a woman talking about paying for sex

I don't know how I would tell if someone was co-erced - the 'free' suggestion was a good one - maybe the Austrailian gvt could set up swinger-type parties, the only entrance requirement being an inclusive / equal opps attitude. And a free egg and bacon sandwich and glass of sangria and your bus pass paid to cover expenses.

But then I am about fostering being a source of income, and know of instances where it has led to the very bad treatment of fostered teens. They are perhaps a commodity, used as a source of oncome for the fosterer - but that doesn't mean that good foster parenting should be stopped.

Yes, SQ, most strange

it's always about the disabled man's right to get wanked off by all these ready and willing female sex workers

Sex is not a human right.
Loads of people (for whatever reason) don't have sex.
Using prostitutes is not the answer.

And interesting that in none of the articles that I have read or documentaries that I have seen, has it been suggested that men be paid to perform sex acts on women with disabilities. Funny that.

Absolutely, and sex workers should also be provided for prisoners too . It is after all a human right and as such should not be denied to criminals in a civilised society!!!!!

Your metaphor turned the seller of sex into a thing.

Do you have a foolproof way to know who was trafficked, or threatened, or coerced in to selling sex?

Mining turns human beings into commodities. Capitalism based on human labour does.

Actually perhaps it is only in slavery the human becomes a commodity, because the body itself is owned and bought. In sex work and other human labour it is the act which becomes a commodity.

Obviously trafficked, pimped, co-erced women count as enslaved and commodified because their bodies have been stolen. But I'm not sure that paying for sex or a sinsual pleasure from a non-coerced woman or man is turning that person into a thing.

I am not comparing a woman to a choc egg.
I am comparing the respective desires of the desirer for something that is sensually pleasurable and nice, whilst not being essential.

I don't see sex as a bad thing to desire, I don't see it as an intrinsically bad thing to offer someone sensual pleasure.

To some extent I do see where you're coming from, Calming Miranda. And theoretically, if the sex worker truly did choose that profession when all other viable careers were open to them, then I would have no problem with your scenario.

All this comparing payment for sex to fostering or buying cream eggs is disingenuous, IMO, because they aren't really comparable. Sex work is turning a human being into a commodity, however you colour it and however willing that person is to be a commodity.

Where is all goes horribly wrong, and where I feel this proposal could never work, is that there is no definite way to make sure that the sex worker really and truly is a willing participant and not in any way being exploited. Unless the services were offered for free.

presumably the person who is to sell sex is at least marginally different from a chocolate egg? this is a deeply disturbing metaphor - woman as thing (yes, thing) to be consumed

brrrrr

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. And I am listening to those disabled women on this thread who would find it repellant. Personally, so would I. I don't think being disabled would change my feelings about hiring someone to have sex with, why would it?

But I never assume that someone else will feel the same as me or ought to feel the same as me, or make the same decision as me.

I don't see why desires are not valuable.

Chocolate isn't a 'need' (no, really, it isn't), and yet we would consider that disabled people have as much right as anyone else to seek gratuitous pleasure. So if a disabled person needs assistance from a PA to nip to Tesco's for a creme egg, we would be a harsh society indeed if we provided the services of a PA only to cater for needs and not for the occasional creme egg.

And rape is no more defensible than smashing a shop window to steal a creme egg, in fact it's obviously worse as it is a crime against a person, physically emotionally and psychologically, but just because sex has been a site of political struggle doesn't mean that the dialectic has to be one track for ever more, does it?

Sex is bad if it's bad. Beyond co-ersion and abuse, which can never be condoned, in any circs, there may be other models.

You know, there ARE people, including women, who will chosses sex work over some other jobs, if they can choose their clients and so forth.

I am playing devil's advocate, or at least 'can we talk about this' to a certain extent becaue I don't like dogmatic responses.

The series starting tonight could be illuminating in exploring specific barriers that some disabled people have in fulfilling their desires.

No. No.No.No.

Nobody dies by Not having sex: indeed, for many people, they are healthier or save their lives i.e. AIDS.

To decree it is a Need is to fuel the rape myth.

what everyone else has said. I'm a disabled woman and am horrified at this sugestion.

Sex is a want, not a need.

Even small children can be taught the difference between a want and a need.

CalmingMiranda - I don't see how you can compare dealing with someone's toiletting needs to taking care of their sexual desires. One is a need. The other isn't.

No one is suggesting that disabled people have any less right to sex than anyone else. What we object to is that sex coming at the too-high priced of exploitation of a sex worker.

I would ask anyone who thinks this is a good idea to show me a sex worker who wouldn't rather be doing another job if he/she could.

To view sex as a 'need' fuels rape myths for sure. Many non disabled people are virgins their whole lives and it didn't do them any harm. Famous people even. The idea that sex is a need is a modern myth. It's pretty much always men paying for sex. In the current climate, prostitutes are abused, beaten up, KILLED etc on a regular basis. Why should anyone have a 'right' to buy into that? Thanks very much for prioritising their (bullshit) 'rights' at the expense of mine as a woman. And sex is NOT comparable to personal care and other essential needs.

Because they are not paid to care, they're paid for the added expense it brings. Sex isn't sacrosanct per se, but it has been a site of political struggle for a long time, particularly with reference to women having equally enjoyable sex as men. Marie Stopes was an early campaigner in the early C20.
Every time sex is provided as a 'service' itundermines the aim of equal, mutually pleasurable sexual relationships, partic for women

Paid to care, to give parenting / paid to give sexual pleasure.
It seems a comparable sort of principle to me unless you see sex as something inherently bad that can only ever harm the person involved. It can be bad and harmful, it can be wonderful, it can be ordinary, and unloving by mutual consent.

Fostering: if it's real life caring why do they need to be paid?

Well, it was an open question.

I am not so sure that sex is sacrosanct as something never to be sold.

I am 100% against exploitation of women as sex workers, and there is a terrible balance of power dynamic in a paid sex relationship betwen a woman and man, where the woman is economically, socially, legally, physically and medically vulnerable.

A few years ago I saw a documentary about sex workers offering paid sex to disabled people. I don't see how this can be funded through state benefits, but I don't know why if someone can be paid to take care of other bodily functions such as toiletting, then they couldn't also be paid to take care of other intimate actions. In this context, why is sex more sacrosanct? It's a thing people do, often for love, often just for pleasure, even with someone they don't love. Plenty of women have unloving sexual relationships for the enjoyment of it.

Sex is just something to do for pleasure.

Unless it is used in an abusive context.

The reason foster care is differentis because the carer gets to be an actual, real life carer - not acting out a 'real carer experience' for the money

This was done last year sometimes and it was specifically to do with those with severe learning disabilities most of whom would not be capable of full penetrative sex anyway but may need to help to physically masturbate. I actually refuse to get brought into this discussion though because there is enough ignorance about adults within our society with severe learning disabilities without having to read or listen to all this shite.

No, this is exploitation

Puzzled that offering foster care should be compared to selling your body....