Guardian article on sex workers and disabled people

[fllowtheyellowbrickroad]

m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/sex-workers-disabled-people

Has this already been done? Will put together something literate soon. An currently choking and splitting too much.

To add to The range of useful links that Theoldlady has given I will add www.scot-pep.org.uk not just one voice but a umbrella group that speak for many sexworkers. Incidently despite Goths assertions about organisations started and run by pimps (Turn of the blue lamp) which in that instance looks to be true, the English collective was actually started by a marxist group as a off shoot from wages for housework campaign. Like scotpep and other organisations they do speak for and with women and mean doing sexwork,

Have to at Denis McShane talking about statistics.

But yes, of course it's hard to figure out what the true numbers are, so why the repeated parrotting of "it's more likely than not that she's trafficked/abused/a slave"? I can believe that some trafficked (and indeed, homegrown) women want out, and of course there must be help available for them. But if we only look at stats provided by people who are providing that help, we're not seeing the full picture.

The fact is that "happy hookers", whether a minority or majority, are extremely unlikely to come to the attention of anyone counting.

Whilst agreeing that trafficking in human of any gender and age is wrong and should be condemned, it appears that as a main plank of the anti sexwork case so often that it skews both the participants and the case for how to get rid of it. For example saying that stopping the sex trade would end trafficking is not true as people are trafficked for many reasons, it would also not address those that choose to pay to be smuggled then enter the sexwork business as they find no other viable employment yet they need to make money to pay off the debt they owe the smugglers.

It also denies a discussion about those people who are born in this country who are sexworkers, irrespective of the reason or motivation for doing so. In short it's a catch all argument used to close down those who would like a proper debate about how we end slavery and sexwork.

It is also nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the central issue that this thread was started on, which was about the supplying of sexworkers to people with physical impairments. This in it;s self led to the discussion about how should disabled people best be facilitated to experience a part of every day life that abled bodied people take for granted, and feel entitled to deny others of.

Dennis McShane was indeed pwnd by paso and The rep from the English collective. But thats what happens when you rely on dodgy stats.

Some interesting posts on this thread, shame some of them are based on extremely ill informed opinions.

Before I go any further I have to say that I know the best part of a hundred escorts on a personal level. I speak to many of them on a daily basis and would like to say to the poster who has a sister that works with prostitutes and has only ever met one that did it out of free choice (can't remember who the poster is) but I have to assume that his sister is working at street level if this is her experience of the industry.

Mine is very different, the vast majority of the women I work with actually work from homes. They are your average housewife that do the job for a whole host of reasons that can vary from financial pressures to just simple boredom. A large proportion of these women earn an average of around £120 an hour, but can get as much as £500 and do pay tax on that. They have websites that they pay for and pay for a large amount of advertising too.

These women run their business like any other business, they work discretely in the privacy of their homes, privately rented accommodation or hotels and could be in your own street without you even knowing they are there, in fact there could possibly be more than one. They could be your sisters, mothers, cousins, neighbours or friends, you would never know because they become masters at hiding their true identity from clients and their working identity from family and friends.

These women (and their clients) police their industry in a very effective way. They use the internet to share information on dangerous clients, pimps and other undesirables that they may not want to come into contact with. They share information this way with regards to sexual health issues and possibly the most important aspect to their policing, is the fact that these women are going to find out about and help trafficked, abused and girls at risk, long before the police or other bodies are likely to.

A huge number of these ladies do come from caring backgrounds looking for a way to boost their income, so with that in mind, it stands to reason that they can and do cater for disabled clients quite comfortably. As to whether it's morally right for them to do so is neither here nor there. As consenting adults they legally have to right to do so.

On a personal level I'm a bit perplexed at the moralistic arguments on here with regards to sexual rights. I totally agree that nobody has the right to force anyone into having sex against their will, that goes without saying, but I also strongly believe that nobody has the right to sit in moral judgement and tell another what they can and can't do with their own body.

I wonder how many women here would start shouting if they were told that masturbation was immoral or that vibrators were being banned from sale (bet most of you have them). Orgasms are not a human right but we all chase/expect/enjoy them. We are all sexual beings and to deny that for somebody that may not be able to do it for themselves because of disability, IMHO is just plain wrong. I admire the ladies at TLC and other places that can accommodate these people.

I would still like to know what is the view taken of me paying for a male prostitute.

Does the 'celibacy rather than prostitution' argument still apply? Is a male prostitute seen as 'propping up' and condoning the sexual exploitation of young girls?

The problem with trying to answer this issue with statistics is that first you would need a comprehensive understanding of what the overall demographic is before you can even begin to construct a representative sample of the experience of the group. This is impossible with prostitution for a number of reasons - either they are "happy hookers" who don't come to the attention of social services or the police (for once I agree with one thing OLKN says), they are abused/trafficked/hidden from social services, they have stopped doing it and want nothing more to do with it and there are also issues of cognitive dissonance. This issue has become bogged down in unreliable statistics for years. Based on people I know who have been involved at various levels, two prostitutes did it to support a heroin addiction, four lapdancers with abusive relationships and one lap-dancer who was a pro-sex feminist and lasted two days. From their experiences told to me as a friend, not a professional or punter, I believe most women are abused before or after or have mental health, drug or addiction problems. Incidentally, in discussing various aspects of their experiences, no-one ever mentioned shame and abuse from feminists as an issue they faced - because it's fucking laughable to suggest such a thing is even real.

This issue is ultimately a political and moral issue. I am opposed to prostitution for the political reasons outlined by LRD above and the ethical / moral reasons outlined by NiceTabard and others. Just because one thing (e.g. masturbation) used to be considered wrong and is no longer, doesn't mean nothing should be considered wrong. That argument is not even logical.

As for agency, there is no such thing as complete free agency in a society governed by the rule of law. We are all subject to restraints on agency. I cannot agree to work for £3 per hour even if I could live off that. I cannot use heroin even if I could manage my health and life while doing so. My DH and I can drive with just under .8 blood alcohol even though I would be incapable before that level and he would be fine after it. I can't drive at 120mpg on the motorway although some people could do this safely.

So yes, in my view, celibacy rather than prostitution does still apply.

Good post promqueen.

I don't think the masturbation argument at all illogical. The Victorians condemned it as immoral and disgusting and tried to argue that it caused physical and moral harm to the masturbator, even that excessive masturbation could lead to death.

Because they didn't like a practice they made up arguments about how harmful it was even though it should be an individuals choice what they do with their body.

I thought SGB link to the blog of a sex worker really interesting, particularly re flora foxes comment that sex workers never face shame and abuse from feminists. Did you read it?

FoR those who blithely say celibacy rather than prostituion, think on this. I am 42 years old. Luckily for me I have a very low libido. But others in my position may not. Thats probably 20 or 30 years of trying to shut down your sex drive.

If you prohibit down legal and safe ways for sexual expression, is there not a risk that people may still attempt to meet their sexual needs and desires? And thus operate outside state regualtion and protection?

Forcing prostitutes on the streets has done nothing to end prostitution, just made it more dangerous and unpleasant for the really vulnerable and allowed criminal gangs to take over a large part of the market.

It's like the 'just say no' campaign re drugs. People will always want to take drugs. All we have done now is handed over responsibility for the manufacture and supply of dangerous substances into the hands of criminals.

It is illogical because the two are unrelated. We believe that all sexual activity between adults and children is wrong and between two children is wrong. We define children as those under 16. This has not always been the case in the UK and is not the case in every other country. There are people who believe that sexual activity with children is not necessarily harmful to children and this was part of the civil rights movement in the UK in the 70s, which seems quite unbelievable now. I believe we, as a society, are much more against child sexual behaviour than we were in the past (and quite right, in my view). I'm making this point to show that just because values and attitudes change about one aspect of sexual behaviour, it doesn't mean that we are not allowed as a society to form views about behaviour and set laws to create the sort of society we want to live in. We do this all the time both socially and commercially with a multitude of laws and regulations that govern how we deal with each other.

I did read the blog linked by SGB and did not see any complaints of shame or abuse by feminists. Not sure what you were reading Spero.

As for celibacy, many, many people live with it for long periods. They do so for many reasons - some because they don't fancy the people who would willingly have sex with them (that goes for men and women) and they wouldn't overcome the lack of consent of a person who would not willingly have sex with them by paying for it.

The route of legalising prostitution has been tried in a number of places including the Netherlands. So far, the outcome does not seem positive. I would favour criminalising the purchase of sex but not the sale of it.

More pro-pimp lies. That Guardian article was amended as you can see from the bottom paragraph and the Guardian published this:

www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/mar/11/corrections-and-clarifications

That is not a joke.

HTH

I wonder why threads like this always attract absolute twats like that.

Actually, that was a rhetorical question.

Yes as seen above plenty of female escorts are happy and willing. If we stop that ability to earn we are anti women in my view and we are reducing not improving women's rights.

FF not everyone believes 16 should be the age of consent. I would lower it to 14 as long as your partner is no more than say 3 years older. That is a children's rights issue but absolutely no one on mumsnet which has no topic at which it is more censorious than the idea that children may have sexual feelings - it is the hot topic of our age.

So ok lets think about how this celibacy rule would be explained to disabled people.
"Sorry X as all brothels and women who sell sexual services live on the top floor, you are banned from having a sexworker visit your home."
"What's that you say?" "Able bodied people can climb the stairs, pay there money and get on with it"
Ah well see since your disabled and there fore unable to get up the stairs it's far easier to impose a celibacy rule on you than it is on the able bodied population."
"No X we are not doing this to pick on you as you have a disability, we are doing this because we are protecting women, I am sorry if that makes you feel that your life is shit."

All we need is to train social workers to have that chat, or possibly some volunteers could be found.

Eh?

Bloody hell Xenia that is an awful idea. Those laws are there to protect children.

Lowering the age of consent will put more children at risk.

yes, under-16's have sex, we know that and there is already some leeway in the law for over 13's for what an abuser can get prosecuted for and when the ages of two protagonists are very similar

but lowering the AOC will whittle away at the lower limit even further

that is why, despite my misgivings about successive UK govts, they have never ever entertained the idea of doing such a dangerous thing

awful, awful, awful

Flora, I was thinking particularly of paras 12 a and 12 b of the link posted by SGB.

I am intrigued as to how a discussion on whether the disabled should be allowed to purchase sex from a trained professional in a safe environment has somehow segued into child prostitution. Not really seeing the link I must confess.

As the saddest irony of all, by shutting down consideration of how the purchase of sexual services could be safe and regulated you almost guarantee - if what you say of the likelihood of trafficking and exploitation is true - that the people sought out to provide paid for gratification will be working on the margins of society, desparate and unrecognised.

Yet I and others like me must chose celibacy otherwise we are direct players in the game of exploitation and rape?

This is what I am finding really hard to take. That the blame is on me for maybe having a perfectly natural urge that someone might be willing to help me with in return for money (hey! Maybe I could buy him dinner! Cos that's ok isn't it, thousands of women chose to do that)

Instead of going after the lonely and desparate with the easy moral certainties of the privileged, why aren't we going after these criminals who treat women as less than human? Why are we so intent on shipping trafficked children back to their country of origin without any proper safeguards as to what they go back to?

After a quick google it seems that the AOC, is widely spread though out the EU. Two notable countries that have 14 as their age is Germany and Italy, Spain opts for 13. Ireland is 17 where as Malta and Turkey are the highest at 18.

Do you think AF that our society is the main reason that lowering the AOC would endanger children, in terms of more people would abuse even younger children. It seems Spain, Germany, and Italy may have far diffrent and possibly better attitudes to young people (i.e. not raping or abusing them.)