Men who buy sex, who they buy and what they know

[allthequeensmen]

Threads relating to strip clubs and the sex industry always seem to attract a lot of attention on here so I thought some of you might be interested in this study:

www.eaves4women.co.uk/Documents/Recent_Reports/Men%20Who%20Buy%20Sex.pdf

Sorry for not including the disabled woman into the equation, I agree with that too. Just for clarity on this thread the running theme tends to have come from a feminist point of view and been 'woman = prostitute' plus 'man = purchaser' although I am aware that there is a prevalence of gay male prostitution also, which shouldn't be ignored.

When you look at a young child, what do you feel it's basic needs are within it's development? Food? Warmth? Water? Sleep? I'm not sure if you would agree that touch is also a basic need that a young human being would need? And in that situation, do we ever really 'grow out' of these basic needs?

I think that is where I was coming from in the point about a disabled man 'deserving' human touch, just as I believe everyone in this country 'deserves' to be fed and not to go hungry.

Another point that has come up is the violence against prostitutes by males that are users, and I do believe that is from the whole social stigma associated with the idea of selling sex in general. It's deemed that the woman could never possibly choose to do something so dirty and cheapen herself in some way, she must be such a badly damaged and weak poor lamb. There seems to be two streams of thought, that we either 'look down on them' or we pity them.

I don't feel prostitution will ever 'go away.' To those that feel negatively about it, it might be the same as saying that murder has been outlawed since ancient times, but there doesn't seem to be any end in sight for that.

Oh dear, I'm not sure if I made very much sense there.

Indeed AThingInYourLife.
Men don't "deserve" to be touched by a woman no matter what, they don't "deserve" nor should they have the RIGHT to stick their dicks inside a woman who doesn't desire it. Paying doesn't make it all righty.

Only a really fucked up society can come up with that idea.

I think that is a really good point about how society doesn't decriminalize or legalize murder just because it will always happen, we still make a stand about the sanctity of human life and it's reassuring that increasingly there is interest in doing the same with prostitution. It's important to say 'we do not condone this' in the same way as we did with slavery, which was also once upon a time viewed as a 'necessary evil'.

It's important to say 'we do not condone this' in the same way as we did with slavery, which was also once upon a time viewed as a 'necessary evil'.

Right on!

Of course disabled people need touch, but how ducked up is our society if the only way they can get that is to pay someone to have sex with them!!

If someone is worried about the disabled men (what about the women?) who do not recieve enough human touch, why not volunteer? Start a free hugs organisation or something?

There is something of an organisation like that CardgamesFTW here.

or they could have a tantric massage which is a sort of posh wank anyway, or just a nice normal massage

But are tantric massage providers not sex workers also? Or is it only PIV sex that counts?

Uuuuuh nooo I'm talking about hugging people. For free. Instead of arguing on the internet that disabled men need prostitues - show how much care by touching them yourself. But before you barge into some random disabled man's house and start to hug him, ask first. Maybe he doesn't even want human touch from a stranger. Maybe he is content with his life. He might even have a girlfriend!

they are, it was a very private joke in my own head - I meant anything but tantric massage, I've had massages in hospital before so it's NHSable, therapeutic touch

doesn't have to involve an orgasm, think of all the ugly fucks who couldn't get laid anyway? Life can be cruel but what can you do? Pretend that sex isn't supposed to be fun and friendly, that it can be a transaction fraught with power imbalance? Nationalize the industry so we have a National Sex Service?

I am afraid I find the idea that disabled people do not "deserve" to be touched just because they pay for it disabelist, and quite possibly ageist. As has been said we are far from living in a perfect society so I grant freely that the idea of paying for something that should be a human right and a expectation aspiration of any human being is not to be condoned. Nor any abuse of any other human exploitation, or sexual and material gain at the expense of others.

BUT the imperfect world that we live in reduces the role of disabled men and women in to being sexless things to be scorned and pitied, not loved or nurtured and very definitely not to be thought of as attractive or sexual. For those in this thread that have spoke about disabled men have no right to use their disability to buy sex I would suggest you consider two things.

The first is that they are bying an experience that most take for granted and often think nothing about, apart from how often or with whom they would like to indulge. I include gay and bi sex in that. For many disabled men and women their only experience of sex with someone else will be through paying for it, or to be even more precise paying to experience a part of their physical and psychologicle humanity that is closed to them at all other times. And no before someone says says the absurdly stupid, it is not possible for many disabled people to even masturbate themselves.

The other point I would make is that disabled people are touched some many times a day, the majority have been touched through out their lives many more times than none disabled people. However this is all functional and clinicle touching, no love or emotion just dressing washing, wiping bums. No pleasure no warmth, no sense of human contact bar the sense of warm or quite often cold flesh. The last time for very many disabled people they were cuddled, or held in such a way as to signify human warmth would have been when their mothers held them. Air kissing and quick hugs do not make for a lasting exchange of feeling and warmth. The same is true for many older people who having lost their partners long for a human touch that is about contact with someone, feeling the closeness of someone heartbeat, the warmth of love even though it is bought and paid for. It is for disabled people and some elderly people such a cold lonely existence that buying someone to give them that feeling of humanity and contact for others, is a price worth paying. You want to stop prostitution make a society that touches, holds, really speaks to and welcomes EVERYONE. Yea and I know some people wont like what I said but thats tough as I can and will introduce you to many people for whom what I say is a reality.

I never know when it's satire or if it's real. Is it ok to laugh anyway?

What is it that yu find funny, possibly we will all join in.

the post above mine, couldn't tell if it was a parody or not, it's good if it is - is it your own work?

lets stop dancing shall we, what is your point?

I thought you were responding to my joke about a National Sex Service for the disabled and had taken off with it to hilarious effect.

I actually like your idea of a NHSS. Although as I point out the sex is not in of it's self what some, I cannot possibly speak for all people with disabilities need, want to get out of the experience. I do think the idea of hugging people is good but needs to be more of a full on cuddle than hug.

Unfortunately I am serious about some peoples ideas that those with impairments do not "deserve" to be touched is disabelist. The context of paying to be touched or to have sex is what is wrong, the idea that they should be denied these experiences as a result of their impairment is what I call disabelist.

PFFT no one is saying that. Try reading the thread pal. It's not a human right for men to have women touching and sexxxing them - clearer now?

No one is saying what cardgames, and I have read the thread think you, and I have not said any one has a "human right" I have argued it is human to "want" to be touched. It is a human right not to have that aspiration denied by virtue of disability.
And if you do not mind I am not your "pal" I have a name. I do not mind people being overly friendly if they are saying something nice, however your use of the word pal in this context is not something I think is used in a friendly or equality led manner.

The people worried about disabled men not getting touched can offer to do it themselves as a volunteer, not expected a sexually exploited woman to proved the service.

Just to go back to something that was said earlier on the thread, that confused me slightly:

"Oh the irony of them putting the onus on the woman to give up sex work when simultaneously espousing that she is probably coerced and exploited!"

You do know that the Poppy Project is there to support women who've been trafficked, allthequeensmen. If a woman hasn't been trafficked then they wouldn't have any help to offer her. So what would the irony be exactly?

This report has been around for quite a while now OP. Is there a reason you posted it now?

Sorry I was following their line of thinking - that a woman would have to be paid to touch a disabled man. If that was the case then why don't they volunteer.

In fact it's an anti-disabled attitude that someone who is disabled must necessarily have to pay for sex. And the "what about disabled men" cries are just red herrings to disguise basic defenses of the sex industry.