OAP home allows residents to book sex workers

[Charlezee]

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4767106/investigation-into-nursing-home-for-allowing-prostitutes.html

What do you think?

I wasn't deliberately missing the point

I think your point is crap. I disagree with it.

I'm not arguing that people don't have a (personal) right to experience sex (although I don't think they do other than mastubation as bodily autonomy). I'm arguing that people (or let's face it, we actually mean men ) don't have a right to sexual access to another human being .

Having children is not a right either. (And a lot of people would be a lot happier if society stopped pushing the message that women haven't lived a full human existence unless they have had a child.)

Anyway comparing women having children in patriarchy, to men having sexual access to women in patriarchy, is beyond crass and positively bursting with male privilege and misogyny. (Clue - women are oppressed via our reproductive capacity and due to our reproductive capacity, women are also oppressed by rape culture and the misogynistic idea that men have a right to sexual assess to women.)

WTF is 'therapeutic' sexual access to another human being? Is that just rape culture with special pleading?

I am LOLing at the man telling us we are not stoopid so we must surely agree with him.

Does that make us stupid if we disagree then?

Oh and I'm not a rad fem. HTH.

Oh you LOLing women, but if you can stop self congratulating yourself and each other for how clever you are, and how you can answer all mens by ignoring and belittling what they say in a reverse macho attempt to show how big and entitled you are in what you perceive to be your own space, you will find that you both have again missed the entire point and the context of what not just I but solid and others have said.

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Since it is fine to pass comment on my literacy and the argument I have put forward, then I am entitled to suggest that your emotional and logical processes perhaps even your cognitive process especially if you have to ask a question starting with WTF shows both a lack of ability to grasp different ways of thinking, and the maturity to be able to debate with out goading.

Interestingly though, the idea of women not having the right to have children being acknowledged and accepted, but then turned to be the fault of patriarchy seems somehow twisted. You agree with the patriarchy then. Or you would enforce that part of the patriarchy so that women could reclaim their reproductive systems that oppress them, only for some of those women to be unhappy and unfulfilled that they are not feeling or being treated like full humans as they are not able to have children. Mmm go over to the assisted conception boards and see how that fly's.

LL I wasn't commenting on your posting style - I was commenting on your argument which struck me a convoluted way of saying that you think men have a right to sexual access to another human being whilst trying very hard not to say those actual words.

I wasn't commenting on grammar, etc - I was commenting on the convoluted mental gymnastics.

Please stop telling me I'm missing your point just because I don't capitulate. And please stop telling me what I think.

I have no interest in a conversation which compares female reproductive capacity and its role in patriarchy to thinking one has a right to sexual assess to others. It's making me feel a bit sick.

"women who feel that they have not lived a full human existence because they have never had children" is the line I found full of male privilege and misogyny. It is the patriarchy that tells women that they have not lived a full human existence if they can't/haven't had children. It is the patriarchy not treating them like full human beings. Because obviously women are just walking reproductive systems . It is really horrible that you are comparing the traumas and feelings that some women go through to have a baby with wanting access to another human's body because you want to have sex.

However wtf this has got to do with feeling entitled to have sex with a prostitute I don't know. Maybe you just wanted to have another go at women in general?

Not really understanding what you mean by the line:

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Just because you say it isn't commodifying doesn't make it true. Because you are wanting to buy sex, so that automatically makes it a commodity. You can't separate the sex from the woman you have it with. It is incredibly misogynistic to try and do that.

I disagree. Just because someone has a low intelligence doesn't mean they are ignorant to the concept of sex and consent to sex.

Have you met or worked with people with really low intelligence. (ie. not the bottom set at your local comp, but someone who is disabled by their lack of cognitive function. Such people cannot live independently or manage their money. They would not be able to organise a prostitute to come on their own. It is not unusual for some people with substantial learning difficulties to really struggle socially with basic friendships. (Ie. lack of theory of mind, the imagination to predict the future, ablity to read facial expressions, to tell when they are being exploited/ bullied, anger management)

For example someone with severe autism may struggle with the idea that the prostitute is providing a service and doesn't actually love them. If the prostitute decides that she no longer wants to service that client then it will cause a complex pychological mess. I am sceptical that the use of prostitutes increases someone's long term happiness.

Rather than organising a prostitute, I feel that care homes need to think what someone's true needs are. Everyone likes a hug, to feel needed, mentally simulated and the warmth of another's human touch. This is very different to having a shag. Rather than employing a prostitute prehaps care home need to employ more carers so that they can chat to clients and meet their social needs.

If someone with major learning difficulties is lucky enough to have a proper sexual relationship then that is very different. In that kind of situation the two people having sex are equal in the relationship and them making love is a beautiful thing. There is no exploitation of anyone.

Anyway, what is interesting about this care home is this;

Bosses say many physically and mentally disabled people have no other sexual outlet - and become so frustrated they often resort to GROPING staff.

In other words the residents are sexually harassing and assaulting the staff. And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities .

This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women.

And WTF at this?

On one occasion, local strippers were invited into the home to perform a ?special show? for residents.

"This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women. " YY

Well Beach that knocks the whole "well other residents don't have to know, it doesn't affect them" argument into a cocked hat. Not that just because someone doesn't know what is happening is a reason to allow it to happen.

"And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities . "

Yes, exacly. And it's OK because the women are getting paid. No, they're still being exploited.

Well exactly AbigailAdams. Perhpas they told everybody it was a 'special present from some nieces who had gathered together to give the old dears a special treat'. I suspect the red sock on the handle of the speschul lovin' room for speschul times rather gave things away too.

Thanks for this link JuliaScurr - it is spot on.

That article really brings it in to sharp focus what is going on. Cuts to the chase.

Why are sexual acts the 'buying of a woman's body' when paying for other services that involve the functions of the body (such as manual labour, assisting someone to wash themselves or excrete) or the spending of time (listening to a person, performing tasks to benefit or please the person) are not? Paying someone to engage in sexual activity doesn't mean that you own the person, or the person's body, any more than if you pay to watch the person dance, or have him/her paint your ceiling. The service is rendered, the bill is paid, and the person goes home.

Not everyone would be happy selling sexual services, sure. No one should do it against his/her will. However, some people would find it less morally distressing to sell sex than to work as a bailiff - or to scrub toilets.

There does seem to be an idea that preventing people from having sex is some sort of Good Thing, that it's bad for anyone to have as much sex as s/he would like.

Somehow I get the feeling that even if money didn't change hands and care home residents were joining hookup sites and having visitors pop round for NSA sex, some of you would want that put a stop to on the grounds that it's... Eeew! Icky! Old people/disabled people having sex! Make them stop it.

Quote from Rhoda Grant (MSP who wants prostitution illegal in scotland completely, even among consenting adults).

"Sex with a disabled person is disugsting"

Says it all really. I think the whole "exploitation" argument is just a front. The real reason people want prostitution illegal is all because of morals and because they personally find the idea of sex with old/disabled people "disgusting".

Vitalstats: Well, no, objections to sex work on grounds of exploitation are not 'just a front.' There is serious exploitation and abuse of sex workers, and that's something that needs addressing.

However, prohibition and stigmatizing of sex workers is not the way forward.

That article completely ignores the humanity and autonomy and choices of sex workers.

I'll tell you what's different about someone needing intimate care, their ceiling painted or someone to talk to. Both men and women pay for those services. What's different about prostitution as a service is that men pay for it and women (or men) provide it. It's based on the usual patriarchical model of sex, which is that men must have sex however they can attain it.

As usual, you conflate prurience about sex, with objections to the sex industry. I do wish you'd stop posting as though you're the only person in the world who enjoys sex and that everyone who objects to the sex industry is a prude who isn't nearly as enlightened as you. It substantially weakens your arguments and makes you look very foolish and bigoted.

Can you provide a verified quote please from a parliamentary or news source where Rhoda Grant said that?

The sex of the person selling sex isn't the defining issue here. It's the sex of the punter.

Just because the gutter press dredges up a few shock-horror stories about a few women paying for sex, doesn't get away from the fact that the vast majority of people who pay for sex are men, either with women or other men.

Badinage, that's at least partly because it's only been in the past 50 years or so that reliable contraception -and economic independence - has enabled women to have more choice and more sexual autonomy. Women are still fed vast amounts of propaganda to the effect that they want 'love' (ie to be owned by a man and provide him with domestic service as well as sex) more than sex for the sheer pleasure of sex, and women who pursue casual sex with a variety of partners are still vilified, slut-shamed, blamed if a rapist targets them or at the very least urged to seek 'therapy' (ie someone to drug or coerce them into accepting the ownership of ONE man) to sort out their 'inability to commit'.

Less than a hundred years ago in the UK, women who liked sex, as opposed to accepting it while gritting their teeth, could get locked up in mental asylums and/or have their clitorises removed or damaged by 'doctors'.

I don't disagree with any of that historical summary, but it is precisely because of that patriarchical and capitalist context that there can never be an equivalence between women paying men for sex and men paying for sex. Just as there is no equivalence between lap dancing/ stripping and Full Monty shows. The power dynamic is entirely different. That said, I would support the criminalisation of all sex purchase regardless of the sex of the punter. A woman sex tourist using her privilege to buy sex from an impoverished man in another country is no less abhorrent than a man paying for sex in the same circumstances.

Badinage: anyone buying sex - or domestic service, or handcrafts - from a person who is being exploited and/or controlled by a criminal organisation is in the wrong and should make more effort to buy goods and services from people who have chosen to sell them.

But in a better world, people would be able to buy - and sell - sexual services in the same way that one might buy or sell personal music tuition or couture tailoring or performance art. A perfect world would not be one where people who want sex are expected to 'control themselves' to the extent of accepting that Society has decided for them that they are not entitled to sexual feelings, and most definitely not entitled to act on any sexual feelings they may have.

If that better world wasn't a capitalist patriarchy, that might be a utopian possibility.

But as long as it is, paying for sex just props up the patriarchical model of sex where men's rights to have it are paramount. As long as we have a capitalist patriarchy, as a feminist I can never support that.