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

"It is a human right not to have that aspiration denied by virtue of disability. "

Nope.

I really wish people would stop making up human rights.

There is no right, human or otherwise, to have your "aspiration" for sex attended to, whatever the reason.

Nobody ever suggests that women with disabilities might require such services so much as I sympathise, I agree with Nyac - it's a red herring.

'the manner in which others have chosen to mock it chills my blood, frankly.'

Veritable tip of the iceberg.

Why is it a red herring though? I think the point is is that there is no 'type' of man who will use a prostitute. They aren't all psychopaths, and they aren't all going to be disabled.

I find it pretty patronising that a disabled person should expect to have human interaction/hugs from a charity organisation. As other posters have said who may have more experience with disabled people, many of them do not have the social skills to go out there and get a girlfriend, or even the physical ability to pleasure themselves. Does that mean though that they have to become an asexual being? That they do not have the personal autonomy to go out and choose to have consenting sex with another human being?

(Just to clarify, I'm talking about the broader idea of prostitution, and not about people that have been traficked or exploited.)

tlc-trust.org.uk/index.php

Hi Nyac, I was sorting through some old paperwork and come across an old photocopy of this, I thought Mumsnet might be interested in it given the level of interest/ debate on here regarding the sex industry.

"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?"

Reread the first few posts, you've misunderstood.

What I wrote was in response to Teeb's friend (or whoever) being told she had to commit to giving up sex work forever before receiving any help from PP, this is at odds with the PP's own view that women are coerced and forced into sex work. They either believe she has autonomy in this situation or not, they can't have it both ways right?

I also went on to comment about Teeb's friend being told she must 'turn in' her traffickers (if she had any). In my opinion this should not be a prerequisite to helping trafficked women. In my experience they are too scared to consider reporting their traffickers and any professionals who put pressure on them to do so risk the victim totally disengaging from professional support systems and withdrawing consent for the NRM. If they WANT to report their traffickers and bring a criminal case against them then brilliant, I would always support my clients to do this - but I certainly wouldn't make it a condition of my involvement. I don't know if this is PP's policy to be fair, I'm just going off the experience of Teeb's friend.

The whole point is that no-one has the right to have sex with another human being, paid or otherwise.

It is a societal injustice if a person with disabilities lacks warmth, human interaction, loving touch and sex but attempting to resolve that by committing another grave societal injustice merely compounds both. It's also extremely patronising to suggest that a person with a disability won't have the same morals and sense of social justice as anyone else in society and ludicrous to advance that the need to be touched lovingly and desired sexually is going to be met by an interaction with a prostitute who wouldn't be doing it unless s/he was being paid.

Charbone why do you keep going back to restate something that is not in contention, you are not getting what people are saying and it has nothing to do with forcing people to have sex. The issue is about "WHY" some people pay for sex, WOMEN and men. The "RIGHT" is for everyone to have a sex life, or at least not be denied the oppertunity becouse of their disability. And no this is not one human right verses another. As I said up thread the perfect world would have no prostitution but it would also facilitate disabled people who would like to have sex or feel what it is like to cuddle someone of the opposite sex that was not a relative.

I have been as clear as possible in saying that all forms of abuse and coercion is wrong. However I am not going to allow the needs of people who do not conform to narrow views of sex and relationships to be marginalised by dogmatic statements about the motives of those who use sex workers.

SF I find it interesting that you came on to this thread to add to someone else's opinion of what is "chilling" after reading your comment on the "asexual" thread

Arf. Yes, aphids are really chilling. Did you read my apology to the poster? Aparrently not.

Why are you following me around?

I read your apology when you got pulled up on your comment, yes

Why are you popping up on any thread you can to shit stir ?

I apologised because I felt I should. Not because I was pulled up on it. People on that thread said FAR worse than I did, far worse, but hey, don't let that get in the way of having a go at me.

I have popped up on very few threads actually. With possibly the exception of this one, in which my comment wasn't particularly constructive, I haven't
'shit stirred'. You seem to be taking issue with me personally.

Notthefullshilling I don't understand what it is you are saying, so you're right I'm not getting it.

Are you saying that prostitution is wrong, except for people with disabilities and then it's a fair transaction?

And that everyone has a human right to a sex life, whether their potential sexual partners want to engage or not? And for those who do not, it's okay as long as you pay them for it?

'Does past abuse remove personal autonomy?'

This is a question from way upthread. The answer is not necessarily but the figures (whether you agree with them or not) reveal an undeniable link between the sexual abuse of children and entry into prostitution, usually some time during adolescence. This is mainly due to the effects of sexual abuse on self esteem and the conditioning of young children to think that this is what they are here for, that men have the right to make them their paid slave for half an hour.

Every single rationalisation here boils down to the idea that men are entitled to sex.

I'd like to know the OP's stance on the sex industry and on punters.

Charbone, twice if not 2 times I have made clear and straightforward statements about prostitution. I have argued clearly that the need for sex should not be something that is a commodity to buy and sell. Exploiting men and women, forcing them to sell themselves, degrading them, dehuminsisng them is not acceptible in any shape or form.

Now why do you not get off your moral high ground based on a world view that is of it's self blinkerd and partial, and address my point that people with disabilities are seen as non sexual beings who should put up with inforced celabicy becouse society decreese that they are unworthy to be held, touched, loved. The only option availible for those people with impairements who wish to go against this societial view is to pay someone to perform these acts.

yea I know full of typos but thats what happens when dyslexia meets uncontrolled hand movements!

Those men are utterly vile inhuman bastards. I don't want to believe that so many of them were aware that the girls they are raping are also abused and held by 'pimps'.

There is no such thing as a sexual need. These men should be forcibly castrated.

I'm disabled. I've never had to pay for it.

So is prostitution something that should be available only to those with some sort of disability? That is a novel concept. Grossly insulting to those of us who can form meaningful, sexually expressive relationships with others though.

I vehemently disagree that paying for sex is a person with a disability's 'only option' but you are being personal, rude and aggressive in your posts shilling and therefore it's impossible to engage on that footing.

We also disagree on a fundamental, which is that no-one has the right to buy sex from another human being and that no perceived 'right' will ever trump that core principle.

One of the most shocking things I ever heard was a friend of mine saying that as her boyfriend had grown up in Saudi Arabia "of course" he had visited prostitutes because you couldn't have sex outside marriage so when he went abroad he "needed" to have sex.

How on earth can this myth continue that men "need" sex? It really makes my mind boggle. I suppose it's just a justification for them.

minge isn't like buildings, education, employment, transport or any other service that under the terms of the DDA disabled people must be granted fair access to

it's slightly different from those other amenities

shillings I truly hope you do not believe what you're writing

Why do you hope she doesn't believe it, takingbackmonday? Isn't she allowed an opinion, however much you or I may disagree with it?