Taking AN ADULT child with a disability to a brothel

I last had sex six years ago. It's different for me because I could. I choose not to have a random, slightly desperate shag but I could choose to go for it. My celibacy is not at all comparable to that of a person who realistically can't get sex of any kind without paying.

Hah, I was thinking of Gambia, too! Problem is, that's also exploitative. I know there are happy outcomes, but even they arose out of a context where rich women use poor men (who no doubt see themselves as the users ... so not unlike your 'happy hooker' scenario.)

So they can have unpaid-for sex or celibacy?

The overwhelming majority of purchasers of sex are men

Yes, currently, because men have all the power and money. But it would be interesting to see what happens if that ever changes. The Gambia, perhaps?

They are talking about this on Women's Hour now. I wonder if parents with a daughter feel that she needs to be taken to a sex worker? Or is it only male children that 'need' sex?

This first post?

Ok then, no, it isn't only parents of males.

xpost, Hully

I dunno, Dittany, are you saying that men and women who're too disabled to have sex or masturbate should shut up and put up? Is no less dismissive solution imaginable?

I know a woman with various physical impairments who has made an arrangement with a consenting male to provide paid-for sex. I can't judge her, she has one life and that is what she feels she wants and is happy to pay for.

It wasn't about MEN's right to exploit, it was about ADULT CHILDREN. Gender unspecified because it affects everyone.

while I agree absolutely that sexual exploltation is always and entirely wrong, it doesn't mean that discussing issues aroudn human rights and access to sexual expression should be excluded from this or any other section, unless a clear set of MN guidelines exist to that effect?

The trouble is:
There will always be people who insist that those 'lesser' than they (by their own evaluation) deserve no rights. This should be rectified, where possible, by legislation.
There will always be people who recognise the rights of others but claim their own rights trump others'. This should be adjudicated, as fairly as possible, by law.
There will always be those who defend their rights without accepting their responsibilities. They should be made to accept them, as far as possible, by law.
Which leaves you relying on a legal system to make all the selfish bastards act like functioning members of a functional society. The law, though, has its own agendas and they can be pretty selfish too.

Since we don't live in an ideal world, I empathise with those who realistically don't have any opportunity for sexual experience unless they are assisted. The usual way of such things is for the person of compromised opportunities to pay to get their needs met - paying for company, for example, as well as to have their toilet needs attended and so forth.

If we cannot envisage a paid-for sex service without exploitation, how do we balance that issue against the limitations of the person who can't have sex (or go to the toilet, etc) without hiring someone to assist?

I would like to think there are people who provide this service honestly and - at least - no less willingly than the toileting assistant. The websites I looked (very briefly) at seemed to suggest there are.
But I just ... don't ... know.

Oh, let me also apologise as I felt you were barking at me. I am sorry for giving any offense, and I am so very glad to see you say what you did about the HRA being a criminals charter.
My perfect world would be one where human rights were confered as a set of principles at birth to every human. These would be in line with all the things that each of the minorities want to change about our society. In general then I think male and female able and disabled black and white, all have the capacity to live together. However to do that each group will need to compramise as some of the gains of one group will be at the expense of others. This will not be popular but needs to be acheived in order to move on. Human rights are not the final answer as the article above raises issues about what my access and dignity needs are over yours. However starting from a place where we agree that these are objectives not barriers is probably sounding very wet and liberal, but in my view better than the "entitled" arguments put by each politicle and social grouping.

Killed the thread now.

Sorry, just looking at your posts again - they are quite confusing - do you think I am anti disbility rights or something

I am talking about the HRA because it was developed to stop people having to take their cases to Europe to be heard.

It was meant to save time and money but has been treated as if it is some kind of criminal's charter.

I asked about your attitude towards me. I apologise if I am wrong but you seemed to be barking at me for accusing you of doing something.

It rather took me aback as I hadnt noticed you until then.

I dont really understand the point you are making leith.

Indeed they do, mainly by saying what is not there, no mention anywhere about the right to have sex, never was never will be. Also you are looking in the wrong place the HRA is not the standard that disabled people want or refer to in terms of human rights. The ultimate human rights test is that written up by the united nations, even the european union charter is better than the HRA.

The united nations charter article 3 states:
Article 3 - General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons;
Non-discrimination;
Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
Equality of opportunity;
Accessibility;
Equality between men and women;
Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

My attitude as you call it comes from this document and not the fact that you have not heard enough about human rights OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere.

something else I have been thinking about to throw into the mix...

What about the exploitation by a care worker, driving the need and support for someone they support to make use of sex workers, for thier own personal sexual gratification and perversion thus exploiting the individual they are suposidly supporting. this is an area that could never fully be regulated to safeguard vulnerable people.

As dangerous put better - people misinterpret the HRA on a fairly regular basis.
It would not be unusual for a young, inexperienced care worker to feel they had to facilitate an activity or risk violating somebody's HR.

Is there any need for the attitude leith?

There have been references to the Human Rights of people with disabilities etc.
Human Rights most usually refers to the Human Rights Act. I dont remember the term being used a great deal before the HRA was introduced. Much is made of how the HRA means that people have to have this or that. It doesnt.
That is what I was clarifying.
If that is ok?

Julie, I agree with you and particulalrly your point on liberlism The "but" here is only that the discussion of rights is often posed as a "my rights" are better than yours.

A friend of mine now thinks that the disability rights campaign of the 80's which she was a very active member was fighting the wrong battle. Instead of fighting for equality whic is always something of a moving target as well as a hostage to fortune, she argues that a clear understanding of human rights that would form a baseline for every human so that no one vested interest could be played against the other.

Norman; In line with what I just said I agree with your summation, it is always wrong to abuse or subjigate others for any reason. That said and here I want to just be certain of what you are saying, would you also say that society in the general sense has an obligation to redefine sexuality, and what is acceptible in terms of interpersonal relationships.

And it is wrong in all cases as you are exploiting those (mostly female) sex workers