Taking AN ADULT child with a disability to a brothel

[DowagersHump]

They are talking about this on Women's Hour now. I wonder if parents with a daughter feel that she needs to be taken to a sex worker? Or is it only male children that 'need' sex?

"Sex isn't actually a need Birds. People can survive quite well without it"

But when we are planning for a disabled person, we count in leisure, emotional needs etc, not just the basics, so sex should be a part of the planning to be 'holistic', that includes the privacy to masterbate.

You would have to have experinced how the life of a disabled person can quickly become the total remit of those looking after them, as in the old system of having shared bathrooms and bedrooms and hourly checks,with no right to request privacy.

To understand how oppressive life can be when you are disabled, which could be any of us, at any time, as most adults are disabled through car accidents etc.

Having worked with HIV positive people there is a sorrow around thelose of unprotected sex, for both partners. It shouldn't be an aspect of life that is overlooked for disabled or elderly people, by those doing the planning.

"If my adult child wanted to do it, it's their choice, and I guess it would be up to a carer to assist"

The problem is that each charity/organisation have their own guidelines and that is what is needed, clarification, people are set individual budgets, it's whether they do have true automony over what they spend it on, that the 'dilemma' lies in.

This shouldn't just be about men's "need"

What about women?

'The problem is that each charity/organisation have their own guidelines'

That's the case with just about ANY service for disabled people. You have to 'shop' around until you find the services that do meet your needs.

"My question is are you advocating prostitution use for disabled men if they decide that they are entitled to do that"

We are supposed to act according to human rights and ethics, but allow for automony, unless the service user is at risk, so they are the factors, not an individual opinion on the use of prostitutes, but that doesn't happen, because disabled people are treated as less human than the non disabled, by having some of their needs ignored in planning or service delivery.

That is what those parents have made up for, the lack of a true 'holistic' service.

This could also cover the buying of masterbation aids, for both male and female. The service given at present, isn't truelly 'needs led', as professed.

since when is it an either or situation Dittany, why should the emotional health of some disabled people be less important than the safety and abuse of other disabled people.
I started commenting on this thread becouse this is the type of argument we always seem to get, some posters like LRD and Birds are talking about human rights that most of us take for granted. All women consider it a human right to choose who and when to have sex. Rape is as much about the infringement of women's human rights as it is about an attack on the person.

For some disabled people they do not have the power or the means to masturbate, now this may be considerd "tough" on them but what birds and other has said is that unless all of humanity stops having recreational sex, then it sets up a situation where those who can and do get to enjoy that part of their life are seen to be telling those who cannot that they should expect to never experience that part of their life. This applies to female and male alike, and should exclude using prostitutes.

However as birds has said it raises other issues about those being paid to provide arse wiping, feeding, dressing which by nature are very intimate and personal taking on a new level of care. That is where we should be discussing as it is for feminists to contribute to that discussion not to be demanding that sex be limited to those who dont have to ask for help.

I need to disengage with this for now, but am v. interested by the points on the home page: www.tlc-trust.org.uk/services/index.php

Haven't read the other areas on the site.

I really dont agree with you at all birds, you are putting the human rights of the disabled person over the human rights of the sex worker. I find all to often and it frustrates me as a sw that people missinterpete legislation and law surrounding disability and human rights and place thee disabled persons needs and desires well above everyone elses in society, because it is perseived as the correct thing to do. I would not be comfertable to care plan someones use of a prostitue and I certanly would not do it. That for some may be an ethical dilemna for me it would not be. I would not advocate the harm of another over the needs of the person I was responsible for care planning as this falls inline with my interpretation of professional values.

so many of those 50 points may also be relevent to the sex worker aswell I dont understand why is it ok to prioritse the needs, difficulties and life experinces of the disabled person over the needs of the sex worker.

I have real issues with anyone using prostitutes.
I don't think disabled people using them is any worse than non disabled though.
This issue has been debated for years.
There is a club called the Outsiders for people with disabilities. It seeks to enable sexual relationships and dispell the myths around disability and sexuality.
The fact is, there are still plenty of people who think disabled people having sex is disgusting and they do not have sexual feelings. If they do they are abnormal and should be discouraged.
It's one of the reasons disabled parents get such a hard time.

There is nothing in the HRA that says anyone has the right to sex.

Mrsdev you have just summed up the debate very nicely including all the relevent points I agree 100% with whjat you have just posted, I like the idea of the outsiders group far more represntative and empowering for people to seek appropriate and meaningfull realtionships.

I have not had a long term sexual rtelationship for longer than I can care to remember, I canot think of anything more degrading and demoralising for my self or a sex worker if those where considered my only options by care planners.

Dangerous: You seem to be fixated on the use of sex workers, which as you say I doubt any professional or any person involved in carrying out personal care could be compelled to go along with. Indeed I would imagine any person who does not want to facilitate or be associated with disabled people using sexworkers have a range of options before them. In particular they could use the same human rights legislation that those of faith used to make the point that they are opposed to performing duties incompatible with there beliefs.

However I find it hard to see evidence for what you claim Birds is saying, you say that the human rights of disabled people are being given preference, how? What Birds is talking about is person centred planning a widely recognised best practice that takes the view that the disabled people has the right to lead their life in what ever way they choose. What birds and I point out that the two main barriers to this are financial, and that to some extent other people will need to facilitate the activities, which brings us back to the point I covered above.

Most troubling though is that you have addressed only a small number of disabled people, a fairly large number live with out the need for a care plan. They either live independently with only a little amount of support. Or they live with Family, or in households that they share. This would bring us back to the main point of this thread, what is acceptable for female and male impaired people in terms of having unromantic sex the same as all those with out impairments are free to enjoy.

Their 'rights' are the same as everyone else. No one has their right to have sex with a sex worker or otherwise enshrined in law.

Point where I or anyone else said they did?

This is the problem with liberalism - the only oppression comes from the State. Hence the nonsense about 'choice' and 'rights'. Choice in prostitution is always weighted towards buyers, not prostituted people; disability rights don't include treatment, housing, accessible anything much - but must include the right to die (so brave to accept the inevitable - bollox)

The powerless are always reduced to bodies to produce profit: women = sex, disabled = useless

Im not fixated on sex workers, that is the debate Im controbuting to, I dont think I or anyone would disagree with what you are saying about the general views of some towards disabled people. I dont feel the need to contribute or debate that as i feel everyone here is in agreement about that. As far as person centred planning and personal budgets goes yes you are correct that finance may affect such activity as well requiring someone else to facilitate that. I have already pointed out my view on this with regards to the use of sex workers. But in faciliting anyother activity that would support needs wishes and desires would and does have the same barriers. But that is not the basses of this discussion. it is an elimaent that features and you are more than welcome to bring it to the forefront and I will agree with you.

As far as the fairly large nunmber who live without care and support, I would view as I would anyone that i dont think it is ever OK to use sex workers or prostutes, as I have said previouse, The rights are as anyone elses. There is not in my opinion a right or need to have sex. It should aslo be recognised many people disabled or non disabled experience barriers in a seeking a sexual relationship, romantic or otherwise.

In terms of care planning the use of sex workers through personal bubgets etc is where I believe the needs for disabled people would be set above that of others. I have witnessed this in other areas, rather than planning appropriate levels of support and education people are supported in activities that carry alot of unessesary risk, people missinterpreting HRA and disabilty rights regulation and so over see the real needs and areas of support that would better fulfill peoples lives.

We are all agreed then?

Using sex workers is wrong if you do not have disabilities.

Using sex workers is wrong if you do have disabilities.

The extra challenges that having a disability may bring does nothing to mitigate against the wrongness of using sex workers.

And it is wrong in all cases as you are exploiting those (mostly female) sex workers

Julie, I agree with you and particulalrly your point on liberlism The "but" here is only that the discussion of rights is often posed as a "my rights" are better than yours.

A friend of mine now thinks that the disability rights campaign of the 80's which she was a very active member was fighting the wrong battle. Instead of fighting for equality whic is always something of a moving target as well as a hostage to fortune, she argues that a clear understanding of human rights that would form a baseline for every human so that no one vested interest could be played against the other.

Norman; In line with what I just said I agree with your summation, it is always wrong to abuse or subjigate others for any reason. That said and here I want to just be certain of what you are saying, would you also say that society in the general sense has an obligation to redefine sexuality, and what is acceptible in terms of interpersonal relationships.

Is there any need for the attitude leith?

There have been references to the Human Rights of people with disabilities etc.
Human Rights most usually refers to the Human Rights Act. I dont remember the term being used a great deal before the HRA was introduced. Much is made of how the HRA means that people have to have this or that. It doesnt.
That is what I was clarifying.
If that is ok?

As dangerous put better - people misinterpret the HRA on a fairly regular basis.
It would not be unusual for a young, inexperienced care worker to feel they had to facilitate an activity or risk violating somebody's HR.

something else I have been thinking about to throw into the mix...

What about the exploitation by a care worker, driving the need and support for someone they support to make use of sex workers, for thier own personal sexual gratification and perversion thus exploiting the individual they are suposidly supporting. this is an area that could never fully be regulated to safeguard vulnerable people.