The Sessions

[tryingtogoveggyagain]

Has anyone watched The Sessions? It's been around a few years now (2012) and won lots of awards at the time. We watched it again recently on DVD and were reminded what a good movie it is.

It's based on the autobiographical account of Mark O'Brien (played by John Hawkes) an American poet and journalist who was paralysed by polio and has to pass his days in an iron lung but really wants to lose his virginity before it's too late and hires a sex surrogate (played by Helen Hunt) to help.

It's witty, warm and moving and I recommend it if you've not seen it before. We also had no idea about sex surrogacy before we watched it.

I haven’t heard of that movie but it sounds right up my street! Life is so beautiful, yet fragile and we spend far too much time worrying about ultimately inconsequential issues.

Hated it. Paying for sex is vile no matter the circumstances.

I saw it years ago. I didn’t like it, as a pp said, it’s not ok to pay for sex....even if you’re disabled. 🙄 The entitlement is off the scale.

I think the Cherokee saying “Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes” is pertinent here.

I think the Cherokee saying “Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes” is pertinent here.

No. Buying sex is wrong. Simple really.

That creepy Catholic priest. Just wrong. I didn’t find it warm and moving at all. At the centre of it was a man who felt entitled to a woman’s body.

I imagine a person stuck in an iron lung has very limited opportunities for meeting a sexual partner. Should their sexuality be ignored, removed by pharmacological means? Should they be infantilised due to their disability? How would that impact their Human Rights?

@BrightLightsCalling

Please educate yourself prior to throwing a tantrum. A Surrogate is different to a prostitute:

‘The International Professional Surrogates Association, a professional organization for those in the field of surrogate partner therapy, ensures that its members receive training, achieve competency, and maintain a specific code of ethics.’

Also, you don’t know me, how could you possibly evaluate my morality.

I agree with others here and didn’t like the movie. A ‘sexual surrogate‘ is just a made up term to make people feel better about buying someone and using them for sex. It’s very unethical. Disability can be very difficult to live with but feeling that you are entitled to sex so will buy it is a very troubling POV.

I don’t know what the said about your morality mermaids but many people will judge someone’s morals based on what we see them put on other threads here.

Are these surrogates not trained and give a service just like a physiotherapist, chiropractor etc.? Is it not the case that the services are paid for (at least some of the time) by the NHS, other health services or health insurance rather than the disabled party or the party suffering severe sexual dysfunction? It would seem that the surrogates have chosen this career path in the same way as other health professionals and is as far away from prostitution as you can be. I reckon a lot of the naysayers here should educate themselves to know what they are talking about and get off their high horse and allow these surrogates to help the poor people that need them.

PS to my last post I thought it was an excellent film, not creepy in any way. I think anyone who finds that film creepy says more about themselves than the film in question.

No we don’t need to ‘educate ourselves’. That line is always trotted out when someone wants to do something unethical.

There was a case where a disabled man lost his nhs payment for sex a few years ago. When discussed on here people were horrified that he ever received money to buy sex. The general feeling was that having sex isn’t a human right and that it was nothing more than paying for a prostitute. Disgusting.

Who says it is unethical. You and a number of your narrow minded friends. It is only unethical in your eyes. If the surrogates were complaining about being exploited etc. that would be another matter but they are professionals doing a job they chose. Personally I see no wrong in a woman helping another human being with a problem and it would be unethical to me to try to stop them or criticise them unduly. Stop trying to force your 'morality ' on others.

I haven’t seen the film, but know of it. Sex surrogacy is just prostitution made to sound better to try to justify it, usually for the benefit of men. Shocker! It’s always wrong to pay for sex, no ifs, no buts.

This thread is about a film. Have you anything to say about the film, or just about a particular moral position you hold?

Well if you haven't seen the film, like those who were spouting forth about the film Oppenheimer on another thread then I suggest you watch the film and read about the real character and the real surrogate before passing judgement. In many cases the client is not doing the paying for the professionals service and it is nothing, I repeat, nothing like prostitution. In the case of severely disabled or people with sexual problems (not seedy men ffs) the service provided is akin to medical services and if you care to research further rather that spewing unsubstantiated nonsense you would see that it is not always female surrogates helping males but also the other way round in many cases. But you would likely criticise the male surrogates and describe them in poor terms. I cannot believe people like you and the other ' moralists' on this thread. How dare you inflict your ideas of ethics on other people who have a perfectly legitimate other point of view. But then that is the way of small minded people who think they are always right, moral, upstanding and that everyone who opposes them are wrong and not entitled to their own point of view and of 'ethics'. Do stop it!!!

I have read about the person and seen clips of the film. No chance I’d watch something trying to make “sex surrogacy” into anything less awful than any other sex work. Paying for sex is not a good thing in any situation. As for trying to pass it off as a medical service....lol. Do stop it!!!

This thread is about a film. Have you anything to say about the film, or just about a particular moral position you hold?

The film is about a real situation and the thread has led to a discussion about sex work. I’ll post where I like, you are not the thread police. Although it would be great if mumsnet actually monitored the board as it’s often so filled with sleazy types. 😉

So don't watch something but feel free to spout nonsense about it. Sort of sums it up well doesn't it. Try reading about the surrogate who is a respected professional in her field rather than just the receiver of the service. As I said before keep your outdated, puritanical morals to yourself and maybe just open your mind to something you know nothing about. You may just learn something but as aforementioned that requires an open mind something that you appear to suppress or not be capable of. Signing off now as I feel disgusted by the so called moral protectors on here!

respected professional. 😅

Every time you post you show your ignorance. Respected professional, yes actually! Laugh all you will, it doesn't hide your warped sense of morality. You sound like some of the most deplorable characters in the Handmaid 's Tale!

Do the detractors hold the same views on ‘Good Luck You, Leo Grande’? I’m just curious.

You can post where you like within the posting guidelines. I didn't say otherwise. But if you don't have anything to say about the film then what you say isn't relevant. You could, for example, have had something to say about how the film treats surrogacy without having to agree with surrogacy, like, for example, a film on the Holocaust. But as you haven't seen it, you can't, and your half-disguised personal attack (which I considered reporting but didn't) adds nothing to your position.

Put it another way: Mumsnet is a place to discuss things. But if, regardless of the discussion, the same people turn up and start complaining about the weather it's not being the thread police to say it's annoying.