OAP home allows residents to book sex workers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Yes

As in, consent is withdrawn?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My comment*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Why would I mind?

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?

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.