Guardian article on sex workers and disabled people

The problem with trying to answer this issue with statistics is that first you would need a comprehensive understanding of what the overall demographic is before you can even begin to construct a representative sample of the experience of the group. This is impossible with prostitution for a number of reasons - either they are "happy hookers" who don't come to the attention of social services or the police (for once I agree with one thing OLKN says), they are abused/trafficked/hidden from social services, they have stopped doing it and want nothing more to do with it and there are also issues of cognitive dissonance. This issue has become bogged down in unreliable statistics for years. Based on people I know who have been involved at various levels, two prostitutes did it to support a heroin addiction, four lapdancers with abusive relationships and one lap-dancer who was a pro-sex feminist and lasted two days. From their experiences told to me as a friend, not a professional or punter, I believe most women are abused before or after or have mental health, drug or addiction problems. Incidentally, in discussing various aspects of their experiences, no-one ever mentioned shame and abuse from feminists as an issue they faced - because it's fucking laughable to suggest such a thing is even real.

This issue is ultimately a political and moral issue. I am opposed to prostitution for the political reasons outlined by LRD above and the ethical / moral reasons outlined by NiceTabard and others. Just because one thing (e.g. masturbation) used to be considered wrong and is no longer, doesn't mean nothing should be considered wrong. That argument is not even logical.

As for agency, there is no such thing as complete free agency in a society governed by the rule of law. We are all subject to restraints on agency. I cannot agree to work for £3 per hour even if I could live off that. I cannot use heroin even if I could manage my health and life while doing so. My DH and I can drive with just under .8 blood alcohol even though I would be incapable before that level and he would be fine after it. I can't drive at 120mpg on the motorway although some people could do this safely.

So yes, in my view, celibacy rather than prostitution does still apply.

I would still like to know what is the view taken of me paying for a male prostitute.

Does the 'celibacy rather than prostitution' argument still apply? Is a male prostitute seen as 'propping up' and condoning the sexual exploitation of young girls?

Some interesting posts on this thread, shame some of them are based on extremely ill informed opinions.

Before I go any further I have to say that I know the best part of a hundred escorts on a personal level. I speak to many of them on a daily basis and would like to say to the poster who has a sister that works with prostitutes and has only ever met one that did it out of free choice (can't remember who the poster is) but I have to assume that his sister is working at street level if this is her experience of the industry.

Mine is very different, the vast majority of the women I work with actually work from homes. They are your average housewife that do the job for a whole host of reasons that can vary from financial pressures to just simple boredom. A large proportion of these women earn an average of around £120 an hour, but can get as much as £500 and do pay tax on that. They have websites that they pay for and pay for a large amount of advertising too.

These women run their business like any other business, they work discretely in the privacy of their homes, privately rented accommodation or hotels and could be in your own street without you even knowing they are there, in fact there could possibly be more than one. They could be your sisters, mothers, cousins, neighbours or friends, you would never know because they become masters at hiding their true identity from clients and their working identity from family and friends.

These women (and their clients) police their industry in a very effective way. They use the internet to share information on dangerous clients, pimps and other undesirables that they may not want to come into contact with. They share information this way with regards to sexual health issues and possibly the most important aspect to their policing, is the fact that these women are going to find out about and help trafficked, abused and girls at risk, long before the police or other bodies are likely to.

A huge number of these ladies do come from caring backgrounds looking for a way to boost their income, so with that in mind, it stands to reason that they can and do cater for disabled clients quite comfortably. As to whether it's morally right for them to do so is neither here nor there. As consenting adults they legally have to right to do so.

On a personal level I'm a bit perplexed at the moralistic arguments on here with regards to sexual rights. I totally agree that nobody has the right to force anyone into having sex against their will, that goes without saying, but I also strongly believe that nobody has the right to sit in moral judgement and tell another what they can and can't do with their own body.

I wonder how many women here would start shouting if they were told that masturbation was immoral or that vibrators were being banned from sale (bet most of you have them). Orgasms are not a human right but we all chase/expect/enjoy them. We are all sexual beings and to deny that for somebody that may not be able to do it for themselves because of disability, IMHO is just plain wrong. I admire the ladies at TLC and other places that can accommodate these people.

Dennis McShane was indeed pwnd by paso and The rep from the English collective. But thats what happens when you rely on dodgy stats.

Whilst agreeing that trafficking in human of any gender and age is wrong and should be condemned, it appears that as a main plank of the anti sexwork case so often that it skews both the participants and the case for how to get rid of it. For example saying that stopping the sex trade would end trafficking is not true as people are trafficked for many reasons, it would also not address those that choose to pay to be smuggled then enter the sexwork business as they find no other viable employment yet they need to make money to pay off the debt they owe the smugglers.

It also denies a discussion about those people who are born in this country who are sexworkers, irrespective of the reason or motivation for doing so. In short it's a catch all argument used to close down those who would like a proper debate about how we end slavery and sexwork.

It is also nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the central issue that this thread was started on, which was about the supplying of sexworkers to people with physical impairments. This in it;s self led to the discussion about how should disabled people best be facilitated to experience a part of every day life that abled bodied people take for granted, and feel entitled to deny others of.

Have to at Denis McShane talking about statistics.

But yes, of course it's hard to figure out what the true numbers are, so why the repeated parrotting of "it's more likely than not that she's trafficked/abused/a slave"? I can believe that some trafficked (and indeed, homegrown) women want out, and of course there must be help available for them. But if we only look at stats provided by people who are providing that help, we're not seeing the full picture.

The fact is that "happy hookers", whether a minority or majority, are extremely unlikely to come to the attention of anyone counting.

To add to The range of useful links that Theoldlady has given I will add www.scot-pep.org.uk not just one voice but a umbrella group that speak for many sexworkers. Incidently despite Goths assertions about organisations started and run by pimps (Turn of the blue lamp) which in that instance looks to be true, the English collective was actually started by a marxist group as a off shoot from wages for housework campaign. Like scotpep and other organisations they do speak for and with women and mean doing sexwork,

Ok, so I should disregard what Dworkin says because a) it was all a long time ago and b) she is dead and can't argue with me or c) despite the unambiguous clarity of her words, that is not actually what she meant?

So feminists who are alive and can speak for yourselves, is this your view? Are your sons all inevitably the rapists or exploiters of other women?

I assume you will say of course not - but for me this is another example of the frustrating difficulties of these debates. As LL said, it all becomes polarised so quickly.

What are the statistics to prove the assertion it is 'more likely than not' a prostitute has been trafficked? And how likely is it that any woman trained as a therapist would be providing sex because she was coerced to do so?

And if I was able to find a man prepared to have sex with me for money, do your objections to paid for sex still apply for to him? Am I then the rapist and the exploiter or does this no longer apply as he might be penetrating me?

Still haven't had an answer to my plea for stats re "it's more likely than not", that a prostitute will be trafficked/pimped/whatever.

Two comprehensive police campaigns, which raided every known brothel in the UK, and cost millions of pounds, failed to find these women/children.

Anyone? Any recent, Uk-based, stats at all? Maybe a peer-reviewed and published report?

Zarrk - you are doing yourself no favours.

So being anti-prostitution is hysterical and crazy?

No. You can roll up pretending to be all about agency and whatever, but I can see what you are really about.

Pffft that privilege checklist is that same old guff about it being the fault of nasty feminists and stigma, that prostitution isn't nearly as wonderful as it could be.

I am not arsed about some future possible utopia where the sex industry is fluffy and not at all harmful. In this world, it is a hideously exploitative industry, regardless of whether it is legalised/decriminalised/whatever, hence there are still abuses occurring in Nevada and Amsterdam to give just two examples.

By supporting the sex industry, the grotesque sense or entitlement many men feel towards women is supported and encouraged. People also seem to forget that the sex industry is exactly that - an industry, one that wants to grow ever bigger, ever popular and the way to do that is to normalise it mock and undermine any dissent towards it.

You only have to look at shite like the Turn Off Blue Light campaign (started by a pimp), to look at how pernicious this thinking is: www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/about/poster-campaign/ especially disgusting, considering we're in a recession, with women bearing the brunt of financial pressures. How great it would be for pimps if they had more women working for them

Note of course, that there's no equivalent campaign telling men that being a rent boy is a nice little earner. Funny that.

I might have to go and post "accountants do God's work" on the MN quotes thread (and call my uncle the accountant to tell him the Good News)

And another link that's relevant to this thread.

Xenia does have a bit of a point: the only real difference between an unequal marriage and taking up sex work is that, in the marriage, you might only have one client but you are that client's property 24/7: if you are a sex worker (excepting trafficked people), you have lots of different clients but you get to do the job and go home at the end of the working day/night.

Accountants do God's work and ensure we have the funds to pay disability benefits to the poor. We are so useless in this country as we so often knock what is good.

Gosh the number of mumsnetters who provide sex to accountant husbands some on £1m a year who provide sex to their husbands in return for a nice house. There are transactions all over the place where sex is at the core which is why women the world over try to marry up, men who earn more and families pay dowries to take girls off their hands, sadly. Only when mumsnetters stop being housewives and earn proper livings and exceed their husbands will be get over these problems of women as property who provide domestic service and look after men in return for their allowance and shoes in the hope he will not run off with a younger model who provides better sex. I don't see why allowing women to sell what is just about the only thing of value many have to sell is any worse than many a bargain based marriage.

I have to admit I did feel slightly soiled when singing Rule Britannia with my choir at the institute of tax accountants' annual dinner. And it's true that we did it for the money, and had to smile and look keen while not actually feeling it.

But I really think I would have felt much more soiled by being penetrated by one of the tax accountants for money. And I doubt I'm alone here.

TBH, even if for you sex is the same kind of hobby as playing the cello, the analogy doesn't work. You have to try very, very hard to get an STD playing cello and you have to try even harder to be told you must play, against your will, when you're flat broke.

Obviously it'd be nice if everyone who was desperate for money was pondering whether or not to make a living with a little work in a jazz trio, but to me the differences seem quite stark!

On choosing clients etc saw this on BBC the other day:

here

"A report says that sex workers in Westminster are at greater risk of violence because of a fall in demand and an increase in those selling sex.

The study by Westminster Council shows the recession has led sex workers to cut their prices, accept more clients and take greater risks."

Market forces for you.