Sex on the NHS - "sex surrogacy"

[SmallPug]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-on-the-nhs-disabled-man-loses-prescription-for-intimate-sessions-sxkz70j2s

I'm interested to get other people's thoughts on this. I have sympathy for Thomas but I find this line of argument about sex really troubling.

I am aware of that. You cannot divorce the two as you're attempting though. And I'm not squeamish. He's an adult male who has no more right to sex than any other adult male. His disability is irrelevant.

I have read articles about this before, there are female and male 'surrogates'

I almost started a thread about this, as yesterday my DP showed me the article and we both agreed that sex isn't a human right. And he has a very high sex drive! I read on the amnesty website recently that in the UK a judge ruled that a man had the right to have sex with his wife (!), this trend is worrying and glad many agree.

Anyone who's been single for years can tell you that they don't die from lack of sex!

Yet another man who believes he's entitled to a woman's body. Disgraceful and I'm glad the funding was cut.

@Clymene

I am aware of that. You cannot divorce the two as you're attempting though. And I'm not squeamish. He's an adult male who has no more right to sex than any other adult male. His disability is irrelevant.

You object to it which is fine but I can and I did.

The split is even more granular given some of the other nuances involved (Hayden, who ruled on whether care workers could support procuring services without legal penalty - and Buckland who had leave to appeal that decision).

I'm loth for Thomas to make the argument that sex is medicinal for him and must be provided by the state or a healthcare payer. My instinct is that it's incoherent as an argument and doesn't follow from HRA or any other agreement. However, I have no specialist training in the matter, I've just attended various legal events on the matter as part of general safeguarding considerations. The argument needs to be scrutinised because it does resemble a trojan horse for incels and general entitlement.

However, I acknowledge that discussing the various nuances of this isn't in keeping with the spirit or intention of the thread.

I have in the past worked with volunteer carers who have been asked to facilitate visits to prostitutes for disabled men and who have been offered money for sexual services by them so it is something I have been aware of. The barriers to sexual relationships that some disabled adults face are not exclusive to them and there is no right to sex with someone else.

I don't think the concept of sex surrogacy is the same as the idea that people should be able to pay for sex from prostitutes because they have a right to a sex life.

And FWIW, I think sex surrogacy is pseudo-scientific and shouldn't be a service offered for several other reasons as well. But it's always worth being accurate about what it is supposed to be about. And the idea is that it's a therapy for people who have a physical or mental problem which impedes them in romantic/sexual relationships. The idea isn't that it provides them sex, any more than practicing squeezing a ball in a physiotherapy appointment is meant to give you a chance to squeeze a ball. It's meant to help you overcome an injury/problem so you can go out and play games or do other things with your hands. Therapy with a sex surrogate is supposed to help people go out and form relationships in the real world.

However, while I am sure there are people who could use professional guidance in terms of forming sexual and romantic relationships, for example after an injury or abuse, I think talk therapy is more appropriate way to accomplish that.

Except in this instance @SmokedDuck this is not being positioned as a short term solution to resolve an issue. It's being positioned as a long term viable alternative to a man who cannot find a woman willing to have sex with him unless he pays them. So that is not sex surrogacy - it's prostitution surely?

@Clymene

Except in this instance *@SmokedDuck* this is not being positioned as a short term solution to resolve an issue. It's being positioned as a long term viable alternative to a man who cannot find a woman willing to have sex with him unless he pays them. So that is not sex surrogacy - it's prostitution surely?

Yes, I agree - and I'm not really sure why they are using the term sex surrogacy. There don't seem to be many real practicing sex surrogates, even in the US, but they always seem to be at pains to separate themselves from this kind of thing. I mean, I assume it's to make it seem more "medical" but I can't imagine it's going to go over well with people who really think they are doing therapy.

I am not in the slightest bit squeamish about a disabled man wanting to have a sex life. It is no doubt hard for someone with his disabilities to find a partner but it is by no means impossible. There are plenty of disabled people who have sex / love lives.
I would have no problem with some of his personal budget being used to help him access social events where he could meet someone to date.

I absolutely do not support prostitution in any form and that includes this. He does not NEED someone to have sex with him.
What if he was gay? Would they provide a man for him?
Has a woman ever requested this?

@OhHolyJesus

'Surrogate' is being used to disguise the truth, same as how it is used for when a woman gives her baby away.

This is a further blurring of language, I believe it is deliberate, and as no one has a right to a child, no one has a right to sex either.

Claiming it is a medical need is not even a stretch, it's just entitlement as the plain old 'demands' made by activists.

I am sorry for what this man has suffered physically but tax-payers money is better spent elsewhere. He works as an advisor on disability inclusivity for big corporations like the BBC and Sky, he can pay for his own 'sex therapy' so the woman who 'delivers' doesn't become a state-sanctioned prostitute for the disabled.

You’ve summed up my thoughts entirely.

There is no entitlement to sex, regardless of whether you are disabled or not.

The belief that there is such an entitlement is what leads to so many societal problems.

I do not support state-sanctioned prostitution.

I would be AMAZED to find an example where it is a woman having her sexual needs met. AMAZED.

Hasn’t “disabled people have the right to sex” led to teenage girls with intellectual disabilities being pimped, and her carers unable to do anything about it or possibly even participating?

I am pretty sure I read about that on here, perhaps someone will remember the details.

So as to exert maximum emotional pressure, the article implies that his needs for 'romance' were being met too.

But they clearly aren't. What could be less romantic than knowing that the other person is literally being paid to spend time with you, and would not do it otherwise?

An extremely difficult - perhaps insoluble - situation is being presented as though it's a straightforward matter of 'human rights'. Wants are presented as needs. It is all so familiar and so relentless.

Why is this topic just for men what about women, for crying out, LOUD, News Flash Were not Cardboard Cutouts Cartoons.. We Got Needs & Felling's too that Once Again are Brushed under the preverble Carpet 😢😢😢

State sanctioned prostitution is a disgusting concept. Britain clearly needs more women in charge so these kinds of abhorrent practices can be weeded out

🧟‍♂️ thread!

The NHS absolutely should not be funding prostitution, I had no idea this was happening, how incredibly inappropriate and exploitative. If he needed to build his confidence etc he should have been offered cbt or psychotherapy, not whatever the hell this is.
As a disabled woman, I can't even get basic halfway decent medical care from the NHS. This is largely because my condition is much more common in women and, like many such conditions, has been appallingly underfunded and ignored as a result....