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.

Prom: I know this is a very long thread and it would take a long time to trawl through it, but no where have I or Spero said that disabled people should be using sexworkers AT ALL. This is the result of the moral certantity that the only paid for provision of intimate hands on services must mean prostitution. Spero and I have argued that a "surrogacy" model would be the way to go. We were then advised that since this is still going to lead to the trafficking of women and children that we should have a situation that those disabled people unable to make use of sexworkers in the standard way, they would then be forced in to celibacy not as a result of choosing it, but as a result of the inability to get someone to facilitate it.

On the financial issue, 3 thoughts.

1. Those who are the most severly disabled will have both DLA, and some will have the new PIP. This is specificly awarded to impaired people to use as and when they like for what ever they like. However as the new benefit is harder to get it would leave more people unable to afford it.
2. If we were to as you say have a diffrent type of service which is more along the therapeutic model, that might be aforded either by state funding, or charity funding.
3. Since the system would need to be regulated and those surrogates who choose to do so will need specific training in handling, lifting, understanding advanced techniques in communication and emotional issues. It could be that these surrogates may be able to charge different less expensive rates, but since they are more regulated and better trained they would be more likely to have regular work. Plus it might be that those attracted to this type of work would not be motivated by money alone.

NT, as you say, referred to in that disgusting story was that one of the excuses the care staff gave for calling in sex workers was because they were fed up of being groped, mauled and otherwise sexually assaulted by the residents

you can see the thought processes "hey, let's get some women in to substitute for the staff as sex objects and blow up dolls, cooool"

it's akin to the idea that the presence of sex work establishments reduce sex crimes in the area

perhaps they do...but what sort of fucked up thinking is that ?

it simply kow tows to the idea that some people cannot control their sexual urges and really, they can in most cases

the alternative and correct and solution, of course, is obvious to people who do not rationalise and excuse sexual assaults

SGB:

I consider a pedicurist, tarot card reader, counsellor or any other service provider who turned someone away because of their ethnicity/sexuality etc. to be a disgusting bigot, regardless of whether they are allowed in law to do so.

I consider applying the same standards to the provision of sex - that a person should have sex with person A because she (or he) has had sex for money with person B, to be repugnant.

Because sex is different.

Moncup: That kind of defines the problem, people with disabilities who use mainstream sites feel they need to identify that they have an impairment for many reasons. It should make no difference but I assure you that if it is not said upfront the chance is better than even that on meeting someone the other person is likely to say something like "Oh your a disabled person". Not great for self confidence.

You did remind me though that their are specialised dating sites for people with impairments I have no knowledge about them so I dunno who uses it, or how people negotiate meeting up. My main point is, if you have a hidden disability you can go most places when you want. Start chatting and maybe pull. Then back to someone's where at some point if a conditions sever enough, inhalers, tablets, injections. Panic attacks, tourets, the issue of the impairment will be broached and negotiated. Sometimes it wont matter some times it's the door.

For those with a very obvious disability, or learning disability, they cannot even start the process with out a huge logistical hoopla, which for some is just to much hassle or dispiriting when no contacts are made. These are the practicals

Flora, you will get people arguing that sex is actually exactly the same as providing a service like a manicure, or a haircut

LL: firstly, I think you've been fairly clear on a number of threads that you are generally in favour of legalised prostitution. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, you're splitting hairs somewhat in your response to Prom.

Secondly, if you are not generally in favour of legalised prostitution, it is nonsensical to argue there can be a legal "surrogacy service" available for disabled people but no equivalent for the many, many other people who are not inundated with offers of sex from attractive partners.

Thirdly, your financial arguments are very odd. You want specially trained regulated providers who will charge less? Economics don't work that way.

Perhaps ALL prostitution could be replaced with this utopia of "sex surrogacy" ?

That'll drive the prices right down. What with there being no "danger money" involved'n'that.

As I said upthread, there are some people who want to take up sex work because they consider it a vocation and themselves as therapists. What's so terrible about that?

Also, WRT the sex workers who were asked to attend clients in a care home, it's unlikely that these particular sex workers would have been trafficking victims. Traffickers generally want to keep their victims indoors, not let them make calls to customers, as that might give the victim the opportunity to ask for help or escape.

Prom: The two posts above mine prove the point spero and myself were making. I am sorry if I was short with you, again as the above posts demonstrate we spero and I have spent a huge amount of time making our case clear only to have to confront the same accusations all over again

No Flora I have not argued for legalised prostitution, in fact I have argued against prostitution. The reason you still cannot grasp that is connected to your inability to conceive of any service provided by someone that involves sex as anything other than prostitution. The splitting hairs as you call it is a difference in philosophy, it is not a difference in end result.

As for economics, forgive me for wandering in to capitalism 101, but I always though you charged what the market could stand? If in a city the size of London their was only 100 surrogates, the need to charge huge amounts would be negated by having a very large number of clients so ensuring no shortage of work and only minimal competition. The market then may not have much disposable income but the service provider would have access to large amounts of potential customers.

See my earlier response to mooncup as to why I am indeed saying this should be on offer to disabled people and not fat unattractive, smelly, able bodied people.

Whenthe red: Would you trust your child to someone with out any training at a nursery? I suggest you readjust your able bodied privilege and go and learn more about disabled people.

There is a range of situations between trafficked and vocation.

The people in the BBC report upthread were not at either extreme, which is where I suspect the majority of people who work in prostitution in the UK lie.

There is nothing terrible at all with people doing a job they love and earn enough at. The problem comes in that is not the case for so many people involved in this work that looking out for the people who are not there through vocation / genuine choice etc has (for me) to take priority.

The few things I have read and seen about disabled people (and they were always men) paying for sex (and it was always with women) were accessing the same pool of prostitutes used by the rest of the population (or going abroad to access them there) rather than seeking out ethical free-range type services.

Not to say that's always the case, but.

It's about the right of all people (usually men) to access prostitutes (usually women).

The rights of the women engaged in this work, their stories concerns backgrounds etc never seem to be even touched on.

It seems all one or the other, which is where the arguments come in.

Incidentally I know a bloke who told me about paying for sex on stags etc and when I asked him why he said it was due to his disability meaning he was too embarrassed to go to bed with a woman he wasn't paying. Bollocks, I thought at the time, this is an excuse. And now he's married and no worries there. For some people at least this is a justification. The vast majority of situations where this is arising, is not situations where people who are incapable of finding relief otherwise are finding it with people with a vocation for their work. That is all utpoia-ville and it's just not where we're at now.

AF: What would really drive the prices down, in fact what would drive prostitution to be less exploitative is for the whole of society to be much more open and honest about sex. You post a lot on the relationship boards in support of women who partners have been shagging someone else. We know that women, probably not as many, also have affairs, we know young people these days tend to have multiple partners and will if they do not form a pair bonding go on having multiple partners. We know from history that infidelity happened. My point here is that despite what we wish would happen humans seem to have a very hard time being monogamous.

Maybe as a society we need to think about that, and also about what we expect from each other given that we have a long history of both men and women choosing to have sex with people they are not supposed to. This though is a digression.

LL: so are you saying only disabled people should be allowed to pay for sex but it should be illegal otherwise? How bizarre.

Regulated markets function differently from unregulated ones due to the cost of compliance. Regulated services will always cost more than unregulated ones in the same general market. This also creates a demand for an unregulated/illegal cheaper market. Even aside from that your example is the wrong way round. If there was no unregulated/illegal activity to meet the demand, the cost charged by the 100 "surrogates" would be far higher. Low supply + high demand = higher charges.

But the very notion that you are dreaming of women being in a position of having to charge less but have more customers is really yuk TBH.

You are right about one thing though. Sex provided for money is prostitution.

There have been lots of digressions on this thread.

Indeed there is a long history of men and women choosing to have sex with people they are not supposed to.

However, this is where I take issue, and you apparently would disagree with me.

Multiple partners, infidelity, a hard time being monogamous still requires mutual, uncoerced consent

I do not, and never will, believe that cold hard cash exchanging hands is true consent

I could not ever, no matter what difficulties I had attracting a sexual partner nor whatever physical restriction I had in completing a sex act, pay someone else to perform it for me or to pretend to enjoy it so I could get my rocks off. The whole idea is a contradiction in terms for me.

There you go Flora nicely demonstrated, your lack of ability to even apply the simple logic of the market in relation to a specalist market means yours is a dogmatic anf fixed point of view, not interested or capable of thinking from diffrent perspectives.

One example and I am out of here.
"Regulated markets function differently from unregulated ones due to the cost of compliance. Regulated services will always cost more than unregulated ones in the same general market."
There is no general market because many people with a range of impairments cannot access it, just as I have said many times. This means ONLY the surrogates would operate in the market, not all sexworkers will want to or even can become surrogates, reducing the number and keeping the two markets seperate. No general market means your whole thesis fails apart. If you even thought about what you were saying you would realise that people who would use the surrogates would not have a need for any illegal activity so again your thesis fails, the market will pay what it can afford, nothing stopping surrogates from changing from one market to the other if they just want to make loads of money.

Agree with AF post there. Esp about cash changing hands not equalling real consent. Exchange of money means you agree to have sex that you would not otherwise consent to (in vast vast vast majority of cases before anyone nitpicks). That is not the same as the usual meaning of consent ie you want it because you physically want to have sex with them at that time. Esp in a one-time type scenario.

Leithlurker, arf at you trying to insult my logical abilities. It's economics, not dogma. If there is no illegal unregulated market, the price for the regulated one would be even higher. You're too busy dreaming of shagging all these cheap prostitutes you can't do the maths.

Are you now saying there would be a legal non-surrogate market? Try to keep your position consistent. It's getting tiresome with all your twisting.

Leith

1. It is not illegal to pay for sex in the UK.
2. At the moment the "general market" is being used to supply sex fairly widely across the entire community. the inclusion of a small number of people who want to pay for sex and cannot at the moment (or whose parents / carers want to pay for sex on their behalf which is another can of worms surely) will make zilch difference to prices
3. You say "the market will pay what it can afford" - you think that people with disabilities are more wealthy non-disabled clients?
4. "Nothing stopping surrogates from changing from one market to the other" - indicating that a surrogate isn't a specially trained type of professional as indicated upthread but simply that people who sell sex to disabled people will have a more "acceptable" name than people who sell sex to non disabled people??!!???
5. "If they just want to make loads of money" - surely if you can "just make loads of money" by having sex with disabled people then all prostitutes would do that as everyone will choose more money over less. Unless you think that women selling sex would be less inclined to have sex with disabled men (majority of transactions) just...because? Because what, exactly? You claim to be "on the side" of disabled people but you're not half coming out with some nasty stuff.

Interesting that there seems to have been no direct comment on the post by Bonita12 - does it say something you don't want to hear? That the vast majority of women DO enter the industry with their eyes open.

And try this link....
thehairpin.com/2013/05/my-brother-my-mother-and-a-call-girl-named-monique?src=longreads