Guardian article on sex workers and disabled people

So in not reducing another human in to a commodity, you reduce other humans in sexless beings unable to give or receive a basic human experience. That sounds like women being more worthy of human status than disabled people.

So address the issue that we have spent so much time talking about on this thread, instead of the one we have spent fairly little time talking about Mariaa. Do you think that as a result of having a disability and therefore being substancialy less likely to be able to have sex with a lover, that women and men should be forced in to celibacy?

Well this is the nub of the debate isn't it?

A pity it becomes obscured by posters contemptuous of male sexuality or the sexuality of the disabled - as I say I think it was both.

I do think it unnecessarily paternalistic to say to a grown man or women - you cannot use your body to earn money in a way you are happy and comfortable with.

Have you read the link about the author who went to a sex surrogate? Do you think she was degraded in her work and did not genuinely consent to what she was doing?

Did you read about the profound and positive impact this had on the author?

do you not think there is more to this argument than simply stopping dead at the thought 'you cannot treat a human as a commodity?'

I'm not sure that that you can really separate sex surrogates as "two consenting adults" from prostitution - which as a concept is totally wrong.

It is still, regardless of the circumstances, reducing another human being into a commodity.

No one is saying that anyone has a right to anyone's body!

Of course they don't!!

The argument is about whether or not sex surrogates ought to be available to disabled people. Whether or not two consenting adults can enter into a commercial transaction to buy sexual contact.

Some people seem to think not, because they think it is just about men wanting to 'buy' an attractive woman they couldn't otherwise get.

And that massively pisses me off because it is just lazy, knee jerk responses.

Leith, the point is that no-one, regardless of circumstances, has the right to another person's body.

Disability does not give you special rights over other people.

Mooncup - I think we have all accepted that paying for someone else to hold you is a pretty poor substitute for the 'real thing' i.e being held and carressed by someone who really loves you. But as I said, it seems that some people wish to deny disabled people even a poor choice.

I found Tabard's responses really unhelpful, just knee jerk dismissal by claiming that people were saying things they weren't saying. I particularly disliked how she/he characterised one of my comments as 'just men trying to shag people out of their league' or something similar or that I was claiming sex as a 'right'.

Maybe it is my fault for going on too much about ejaculation, but a lot of posters were simply writing about (and condemning) men for wanting sex.

Its not just about men! I haven't posted about any experiences of women buying sex because I haven't done that (yet) and no one has been brave enough to ever admit to me they have done it. But maybe when my daughter is older and I have more time I will seriously want to consider it. And I would like to explore those options. Not be told that no one is ever allowed to enter into a commercial transaction because that is prostitution and that is evil male construct of the partiarchy.

For all the many reasons we have explored, that is not always true and reveals a paternalistic attitude which concerns me.

Mooncup please have a look at the articles I linked to, you will see that disabled women and men are not stupid they know that having sex with a prostitute is not the same as a loving relationship. That is why the issue is far deeper and more complex than this focus on prostitution we always have. Look at all of spero's posts on this thread, as a disabled woman she speaks for herself and the experience of many disabled women as again highlighted in the articles I linked to.

Mariaane, on this thread we have spent a lot of time talking about many issues, one of the first ones we (I can use the collective we as at least four if not five posters have agreed with this point, so stop being goady and inflammatory and making this about ME!) spoke about is how these discussions always have this prostitution focus which prevents the experiences of disabled people, mainly disabled women ever being discussed. For that reason I will not go over old ground about an argument that some people seem to use as a defence against having to consider that they are invoking able bodied privilege over disabled people, again a point not made by me but another poster on this thread.

I did make a passing reference to male ejaculation at the beginning of this thread, and am sorry if that has offended people. I appreciate that buying sex services is about more than that... though I note that no one seems to have taken me up on my invitation to give examples of women (fully abled or disabled) who have bought sex services.

I have absolutely no problem with disabled people having sex. A poster above has quoted 'I wanted to be held, caressed, valued'... and of course that desire is perfectly understandable. But how can one feel valued when one's paying for a service, rather than engaging in mutually enthusiastic love-making? This is what I don't understand.

No Leith, I would rather focus on how you - or anyone else - think it is justifiable for anyone, disabled or not, to patronise prostitutes.

Hence "No-one has the right to anyone else's body."

Flora that was written before I knew the poster was disabled, even so the point she was making was only her interpretation which is directly contradicted by the articles she refused to read.

"No-one has the right to anyone else's body."
Yep that was the general thinking back on page two Mariaane, what about the rest of the discussion? Especialy how women are being disadvantaged by the focus on male ejaculation?

"In that case tabard you are not bothering to look at the views and experiences of the people you wish to pontificate about. Your assertions about rights not being rights are just that assertions. You would have read that indeed many people seem to want to define what the right of people with impairements are, few however have to suffer the consequences of having their right to a full and meaningful life denied them.

"Must be nice to live in a world where you can take your own freedom of action for granted. Not worry about bullying or ridicule, never thinking that your not a full human being, always being able to get a shag even a pity shag if you want one, or even just to have someone hold you for a reason that has nothing to do with your inability to function.

"The right is not about sex it is about being human, having sex is part of being human.

If that's in line with you asking for a debate and that's your response to someone who is disabled, it's not surprising some people are choosing not to contribute to the thread. I'm not contributing further for that reason. I just wanted to respond to your post calling out people for not contributing.

It seems that no-one is any longer allowed to express an opinion here without being demanded an opinion on male ejaculation!

I agree with FloraFox and NiceTabard.

No-one has the right to anyone else's body.

I beg your pardon Flora I misread your post, let me rephrase, by not focusing on male ejaculation do you consider that I am being dishonest and what I am really wanting to do is continue male privledge?

Why do you think I have fixated on male ejaculation Flora? What specificly do you agree with Nice Tabbard about?

I have had a re read of the comments made both by and to Nicetabard, they were in line with asking for a debate about the issue of people with impairments having sex, and the notion that many people who are disabled think of themselves as "unfuckable" as in practice they cannot get one. Both the articles I linked to support that contention. What do you think was unfair Flora?

I don't accept that it is either of those things and I don't understand why you have fixated on this concept of it not being about male ejaculation. I agree with NiceTabard's posts above and I don't agree with your responses, either in substance or tone.

Flora how would you approach the issue then firstly do you accept that it is an issue of human experience rather than male ejaculation?

Speaking for myself, I normally contribute to threads about prostitution if I see them and I am an equal opportunity opposer. I've been reading this thread with interest but I have not posted mainly because I'm not comfortable with how some posters on this thread were treated, particularly NiceTabard who, I thought, made some interesting points. I'm opposed to prostitution on feminist / ethical grounds not because I don't want disabled people to have sex. Someone said people are not posting because Spero is a woman. I don't believe that's true. But then any response would just be "repeating the same tired old arguments", wouldn't it?

x posted with you AF: Again I understand the view and I see the logic in it, again maybe its my thought processes that need to adjust but I pretty much type as I think and I would say as part of a conversation, I wonder where so and so is as they would have something to say on this. Or something along those lines. Maybe like spero I do not have the energy for double thinking everything these days. Hard enough making sense of my own life without worrying about others, sigh which I know is another thing I will be mulling over.

AF: Thoughts on "lumping"?

O brave new world.

Given that tone is often quite difficult to interpret or even recognise when one is typing, if we are going to dictate no sarcasm, no goading, no attempts at humour then it is bye bye forum.

I was going to be flippant AF and say that cricket is yet another game we Scots are not any good at. I understand the words and I even understand what they mean, however as pointed out earlier by remarking that x and y have not contributed on a subject that they have done so on many, many threads is not necessaries goady. Context is everything. I was once deleted for thanking someone for having a look at a link I posted, it seems it was deemed to be sarcastic when I was being totally sincere.

If it is not about context, would people who post looking for specific advise, like teens, or legal not be playing cricket when they shout out a particular posters name? I am being genuine by the way absolutely not goady.

Well I really couldn't give a shit either way.

I just don't get this level of angst that attaches to 'some one has mentioned my name! Someone is goading me!'

Sorry, I may be very obstuse or thick skinned but I just don't understand why on earth it matters. Each of us choses the level with which we engage in this site or feel validated by it.

Some people, judging from what I have been reading recently, take it far, far too seriously.