Disabled 'deserve' the joy of sex.

[SmellsLikeTeenStrop]

www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/disabled-deserve-sex-rights/story-e6frea83-1226310720177

In brief, the Dignity for the Disabled MP in Australia wants the tax payer to fund sex workers for the disabled.

thoughts?

Leith, you have twisted your argument so far round itself it's in a double knot

are you deliberately missing the point to cause a row ?

it certainly looks like it

Sardine if no such thing as women exists does that not pose the same problem for feminists as it does for people who are trying to represent people with impairments, you cannot possibly speak for all females so you will never get agreement on issues like porn and prostitution.

Up thread someone else suggested a blanket statement of no one should ever have to pay anyone else for sex, I agree whole heartedly but I suspect for different reasons.

Leith seems to be saying that because men who are not disabled are able to commit any crime, if they wish, so must men who are disabled. To say otherwise is to infringe their rights to a "normal" life.

What a load of rubbish.

You are trying to represent people with impairments are you?

Just to add - all the disabled people I know are having quite enthusiastic sex lives, and I don't want to imply that disabled folk need paid partners to have sex.

I am disabled, but I'm a woman, so obv have no right to have genitals, never mind sex.
It's unbelievably patronising to disabled people and equally oppressive to women.

Those are two of the earlier posts that appear on this thread which speak for some but not all impaired peoples experience.

Leithlurker - if a disabled person chooses to make use of a prostitute, that is between them, the prostitute and their conscience. What we're discussing here is a proposal that public funds be made available for that purpose. Which is making an exception to the law for disabled people at the expense of sex workers. Essentially giving one group rights over another, and using public funds to support a morally repugnant industry.

Not okay, no matter who is in either group.

As for disablist language - give me a break!!! Many of the posters here are disabled and I haven't seen any of them object (I am open to correction here).

No Sardine I am representing no one, why are you getting annoyed and where does my argument turn round on it's self egg?

I can see nothing whatsoever wrong with either of those posts.

The thing is, those responsible for suggesting that people with disabilities should be able to buy sex is responsible for lumping all those with disabilities into one group. If they accepted that those with disabilities are no more or less likely than any other section of society to want to use a prostitute, there would be no need to have the discussion centred on people with disabilities.

Have you read the whole thread, leith, including links?

Exactly, sunshine.

And yes I have stated that the capacity to engage in a criminal act should be opon to everyone. What that was in reference to was the way that the language of this thread seemed to be suggesting that "disabled" people would not want to use prostitutes.

It was your first post that annoyed me, leith. saying the thread was full of disablist language and patronising.

I think it is more patronising to assume that people with disabilities will need to buy sex, and that they would actually want to.

"And yes I have stated that the capacity to engage in a criminal act should be opon to everyone".

Get a grip.

Some people can't orgasm unless they are inflicting violence, or with a child. Do they have a right to sex too? Some of those people may be disabled. What then?

Honestly.

The whole argument is up the spout.

SardSunshine, what you seem to be saying is that at any given time people with impairments are damned. If we operate our civilo rights and committe a crime we are not representative, and if we do not then once again we are not representative. Or would you please make your point again but a little bit clearer for me.

No Sardine I disagree the argument is not up the spout it is just begining, for example you say you read the disabled now piece but then went on to tell of a conversation in the pub, which I am sure you intended to make a point although it just seemed to me that it was used to tell a tale. The article spoke about the need to have discussions like this which are about disabled people having sex, and in the article it did say no right existed to have sex, but it did talk about the right to have a sex life.

"in the article it did say no right existed to have sex, but it did talk about the right to have a sex life."

?

What's the difference?

The only thing that separates those with disabilities from those without are the disabilities. There is no difference between their humanity or range of behaviours. I think we can all agree on that.

In that case, why the need to present the 'need' for sex to be paid for as something peculiar to those with disabilities. The desire for sex is no more pronounced for someone with a disability than it is for anyone else. Many people without disabilities have problems finding sexual partners. Should they have the right to pay for sex with prostitues too? What makes people with disabilities so different? In effect, this proposal marks them out as different, which is something we should surely be avoiding.

The article covers the experiences of some people, 3 I think. It is 3 tales.

And it's not just a "conversation in a pub", it's a good fried.

I am all for people with disabilities having sex, with consensual partners, in safe circumstances. For too long the idea of people with disabilities having sex has been considered "wrong". I think that is appalling. That's got nothing to do with the exploitation of vulnerable people in the sex trade though.

Spot on sunshine.

Sardine I cannot comprehend your reference to people and violent sex. Sex with children is by it's nature illegal and not sex per se. Sex that includes violence like bdsm is not illegal or would you like to make it so? Either way I do not see what either of those has to do with what I said about people with disabilities being able to engage in a criminal act if they want to.

I have had experience of this tactic of saying but no one said this, or no one meant that before. It is for me to judge the intention of the words used not anyone else to tell me that I am wrong. I have no intention of telling other people what to think or how to interpret things so do not do it to me. I have read many, many threads on MN that talk about women refusing to be told what they should or should not read in to things, and a shed load of threads that talk about one thing but are turned round to talk about something else becouse someone has "read" something else in to a post. So I feel my view about the intention of the language and the tone of the thread is every bit as valid as you probably feel it is not.

If you think that people with disabilities have a right to sex and a right to break the law then there is no line to be drawn.

People with disabilities are just as likely to be violent or peadophiles as anyone else. Just because men who are not disabled can act on these desires, does not mean that men who are disabled should be allowed to, in the name of equality.

Equality is not about giving people who have been disempowered (in this case through disability) the right to access the power usual to people of their caste / sex / race / whatever.

Personally I think that the implication that people with disabilities

a. can't find anyone to have consensual sex with and
b. are happy to pay for sex

worrying and upsetting, frankly.

Sardine you answerd your own question "I am all for people with disabilities having sex, with consensual partners," this is a sex life or at least the description of a sex life. In other words something that up to this point the majority of disabled people have not been able to have for reasons that are to do with identity and the way society views disability, as well as the technical aspects as well.

A sex life should be the norm for everyone it should be what we want for everyone, even the less desirable parts like one night stands, or infidelity.

Sunshine I would want what you say to be the case however if we are talking about employment, shops, the ability to live independently, the ability to lead many aspects of life that others take for granted, disabled people do need to have special adjustments made for them, and you are right it does draw attention. However the fact that they are disabled is the cause of this not the adjustment it's self. In the same way women have attention drawn to them by having septate times for swimming lessons etc. They want that separation and need it in order to feel more comfortable so they have been given that adjustment.

Sardine It upsets me and worry s me too, but those are both facts. It is how we deal with those facts that becomes the issue.