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?

i'd much rather just make buying sex illegal and criminalise every john and pimp and throw them in jail and protect those girls myself.

You know, the patriarchy hates sex workers. THe patriarchy wants sex workers to be kept stigmatized, exploited and coerced as a way of keeping other women under control.

nah the patriarchy loves sex workers - they like their dicks sucked, they like to fuck young girls, they like to have women grind on their laps and they like all of this cheap and on tap. as an added bonus they know that the existence of the sex industry keeps all women in their place.

also note i said i want the johns and the pimps criminalised rather than the women.

I posted that in a rush as DS wanted to use the computer. WHat the patriarchy hates is the idea of the willing, high-earning sex-worker: every change in the law that's proposed is one that will hit these sex workers hard, and make it almost impossible for sex workers to work safely (not allowed to work together, for instance, not allowed to have friends, helpers etc or these people will be charged with aiding-and-abetting type offences). Because the bottom line is that the patriarchy thinks women should just allow men to have sex on them, and not expect anything in return, and that every woman's sexual self needs to be owned by a man, so it needs to be kept as difficult, dangerous and horrible as possible for a woman to earn money for performing sex and to do this with different men rather than belonging to one.

i can't bring myself to overly worry about those high earning women taking a dent in their earning capacity over the real victims of a society where men are indulged in the right to 'buy' sex sgb. to me it would be like worrying about poor factory owners in light of the minimum wage or something.

the bottom line is that patriarchy wants women to be for sale in one form or another with prostitution as it's most direct and cheapest purchase that reinforces and loudly declares women's place as the sex class that exists to service men.

being given money to do it bare bones or being given a wedding ring and the promise of avoiding the 'stigma' of single parenthood etc etc. but prostitution as it's ultimate declaration of 'what women are for'.

there's nothing subversive about taking money to let men have sex with you. it's just the ultimate enactment of the power structure.

No, SGB what the patriarchy likes most is women having to be dependent on men for their survival. Prostitution - unlike any other job in the service industry - positions men as the purchasers and women as the sellers. In all capitalist and patriarchical societies, the purchaser has more power than the seller. As long as we have a patriarchical society therefore, it will never be defensible to legalise prostitution because selling sex always invests the power in men.

Quite apart from the ideological and political argument that a society that tolerates people paying for sex is retrograde, unjust and iniquitous with equal treatment, in practical terms legalisation doesn't work.

Societies that have attempted to legalise prostitution without tackling the more strategic picture of patriarchy, capitalist structures, organised crime, money laundering, human trafficking and illegal immigration have found that abuse of prostitutes (as well as other crimes) has thrived and worsened since legalisation whereas more progressive societies like Sweden whose pro-feminist government took a more holistic approach and criminalised the purchase of sex 13 years ago have reported a huge cultural shift in society's attitudes towards prostitution. Public attitude surveys in Sweden confirm that men who pay for sex are now derided in society and regarded as misogynist and criminal. There is also very little evidence of the sinister 'underground' prostitution that nay-sayers pre-1999 (people in the sex industry of course) predicted.

It is naive and blinkered to view prostitution in a vacuum without considering the wider political picture. It's also frankly deluded to describe sex work as 'highly skilled' or to pretend that the seller has the power in the transaction, unlike any other market economy in any part of the world. If there are no buyers there can be no sellers and that is why criminalising purchase works.

Ah yes, the model.

Was that link to a Twitter feed/blog meant to be a serious counter-argument to the laws in Sweden SGB?

"In all capitalist and patriarchical societies, the purchaser has more power than the seller."

Surely that is only true in a saturated market where a lot of sellers compete for few buyers. Unless all my business textbooks are wrong

You're right. There are more prostitutes than punters though and always have been. The 'free market' principle is thriving even more in the internet age, where sites exist for punters to swap 'reviews' on prostitutes and share tips on how to get a woman to do more for less. If she won't, there will always be someone who will and other punters helpfully direct eachother to them. Sex workers also use the sites to compete for trade.

If there are most prostitutes than punters, why do I keep reading here about prostitutes having to service 20 dicks a day?