Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Guardian article on sex workers and disabled people

408 replies

fllowtheyellowbrickroad · 11/04/2013 21:43

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.

OP posts:
AnyFucker · 14/04/2013 20:08

LL, you are not getting what I am saying.

Respect means sometimes not wading in with a POV that would be quite obvious based on previous exchanges

Silence should not always be taken as a tangible contribution. Which when you look at it logically, is exactly what you did. Which is highly illogical bearing in mind that such shout outs as "well, where is X, Y, Z on this issue then..." is counterproductive

Just get on with it, in your own way. Why do you need the "usual suspects" to argue your point with ? Is it any more or less valid ?

Spero · 14/04/2013 20:09

Thanks for the link.

'I wanted to be held, caressed, valued'.

Yes indeed. That is what it is all about isn't it?

Shame on all of you who have attempted to reduce it simply to male ejaculation.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 20:12

Sorry Spero, you have only now reminded me where I have seen you before, and I have to say that I am an admirer of your work in defending both the principle and the practice of family law, and child protection issues. A bear pit is a good metaphore for these boards at times, especially when the crowd gets up a head of steam. Not just an MN thing but a "human" thing, you do a great job of sticking to your point.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 20:20

A good example AF of us not agreeing, and I respectfully hold to my view and disagree with you. But I will be mindful of what you say and try and adjust my style. It might be my male brain, or maybe just part of my thought processing but I am not sure I could make a post without referencing another post if I thought it was pertinent. I know maybe this comes over as whinny or "poor me" I accept that could be the case. So again I will take what you said and mull it over.

AnyFucker · 14/04/2013 20:22

It's quite simple really, LL

name checking is not cricket

no mulling over required

Spero · 14/04/2013 20:23

It obviously serves some need, like people getting all upset when Diana died. People obviously feel less inhibited about being blunt/rude whatever.
I have noticed some people getting really upset and that is sad. I wonder what goes on in their 'real lives' that this kind of engagement can so profoundly distress them.

Anyway, thanks for the link, I am sorry and surprised I was so ignorant of the man and his writings. This especially
'Why do rehabilitation hospitals teach disabled people how to sew wallets and cook from a wheelchair but not deal with a person?s damaged self-image? Why don?t these hospitals teach disabled people how to love and be loved through sex, or how to love our unusual bodies? '

I am quite sure many of my problems stem from my own script about disability which I adopted at an early age because sadly without exception ALL the adults around me were so utterly piss poor at dealing with it. Nobody wanted to talk about it, everyone was embarrassed for whatever reason. He deals with that very well.

Why can't we just talk to each other and be honest? What holds us back?

Spero · 14/04/2013 20:25

Genuine question. Why is name checking 'not cricket'?

Not cricket in any circumstances? Either to blame or praise?

If it is so undesirable, why are we given the opportunity to create unique user names?

AnyFucker · 14/04/2013 20:32

Genuine reply.

Do you think the name checking in this instance was for useful purposes ?

We have unique user names, granted.

And also a pm function to draw people's attention to a thread if we have genuinely altruistic reasons to draw an individual's attention to a thread.

Naming someone applies un necessary and undue public pressure, and could be described as arrogance in a "my post deserves a reply from this person" kinda way

Spero · 14/04/2013 20:34

Well I really couldn't give a shit either way.

I just don't get this level of angst that attaches to 'some one has mentioned my name! Someone is goading me!'

Sorry, I may be very obstuse or thick skinned but I just don't understand why on earth it matters. Each of us choses the level with which we engage in this site or feel validated by it.

Some people, judging from what I have been reading recently, take it far, far too seriously.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 20:37

I was going to be flippant AF and say that cricket is yet another game we Scots are not any good at. I understand the words and I even understand what they mean, however as pointed out earlier by remarking that x and y have not contributed on a subject that they have done so on many, many threads is not necessaries goady. Context is everything. I was once deleted for thanking someone for having a look at a link I posted, it seems it was deemed to be sarcastic when I was being totally sincere.

If it is not about context, would people who post looking for specific advise, like teens, or legal not be playing cricket when they shout out a particular posters name? I am being genuine by the way absolutely not goady.

Spero · 14/04/2013 20:42

O brave new world.

Given that tone is often quite difficult to interpret or even recognise when one is typing, if we are going to dictate no sarcasm, no goading, no attempts at humour then it is bye bye forum.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 20:44

x posted with you AF: Again I understand the view and I see the logic in it, again maybe its my thought processes that need to adjust but I pretty much type as I think and I would say as part of a conversation, I wonder where so and so is as they would have something to say on this. Or something along those lines. Maybe like spero I do not have the energy for double thinking everything these days. Hard enough making sense of my own life without worrying about others, sigh which I know is another thing I will be mulling over.

AF: Thoughts on "lumping"?

FloraFox · 14/04/2013 20:57

Speaking for myself, I normally contribute to threads about prostitution if I see them and I am an equal opportunity opposer. I've been reading this thread with interest but I have not posted mainly because I'm not comfortable with how some posters on this thread were treated, particularly NiceTabard who, I thought, made some interesting points. I'm opposed to prostitution on feminist / ethical grounds not because I don't want disabled people to have sex. Someone said people are not posting because Spero is a woman. I don't believe that's true. But then any response would just be "repeating the same tired old arguments", wouldn't it?

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:02

Flora how would you approach the issue then firstly do you accept that it is an issue of human experience rather than male ejaculation?

FloraFox · 14/04/2013 21:10

I don't accept that it is either of those things and I don't understand why you have fixated on this concept of it not being about male ejaculation. I agree with NiceTabard's posts above and I don't agree with your responses, either in substance or tone.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:11

I have had a re read of the comments made both by and to Nicetabard, they were in line with asking for a debate about the issue of people with impairments having sex, and the notion that many people who are disabled think of themselves as "unfuckable" as in practice they cannot get one. Both the articles I linked to support that contention. What do you think was unfair Flora?

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:13

Why do you think I have fixated on male ejaculation Flora? What specificly do you agree with Nice Tabbard about?

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:16

I beg your pardon Flora I misread your post, let me rephrase, by not focusing on male ejaculation do you consider that I am being dishonest and what I am really wanting to do is continue male privledge?

MarianneM · 14/04/2013 21:23

It seems that no-one is any longer allowed to express an opinion here without being demanded an opinion on male ejaculation!

I agree with FloraFox and NiceTabard.

No-one has the right to anyone else's body.

FloraFox · 14/04/2013 21:25

"In that case tabard you are not bothering to look at the views and experiences of the people you wish to pontificate about. Your assertions about rights not being rights are just that assertions. You would have read that indeed many people seem to want to define what the right of people with impairements are, few however have to suffer the consequences of having their right to a full and meaningful life denied them.

"Must be nice to live in a world where you can take your own freedom of action for granted. Not worry about bullying or ridicule, never thinking that your not a full human being, always being able to get a shag even a pity shag if you want one, or even just to have someone hold you for a reason that has nothing to do with your inability to function.

"The right is not about sex it is about being human, having sex is part of being human.

If that's in line with you asking for a debate and that's your response to someone who is disabled, it's not surprising some people are choosing not to contribute to the thread. I'm not contributing further for that reason. I just wanted to respond to your post calling out people for not contributing.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:29

"No-one has the right to anyone else's body."
Yep that was the general thinking back on page two Mariaane, what about the rest of the discussion? Especialy how women are being disadvantaged by the focus on male ejaculation?

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:33

Flora that was written before I knew the poster was disabled, even so the point she was making was only her interpretation which is directly contradicted by the articles she refused to read.

MarianneM · 14/04/2013 21:36

No Leith, I would rather focus on how you - or anyone else - think it is justifiable for anyone, disabled or not, to patronise prostitutes.

Hence "No-one has the right to anyone else's body."

MooncupGoddess · 14/04/2013 21:45

I did make a passing reference to male ejaculation at the beginning of this thread, and am sorry if that has offended people. I appreciate that buying sex services is about more than that... though I note that no one seems to have taken me up on my invitation to give examples of women (fully abled or disabled) who have bought sex services.

I have absolutely no problem with disabled people having sex. A poster above has quoted 'I wanted to be held, caressed, valued'... and of course that desire is perfectly understandable. But how can one feel valued when one's paying for a service, rather than engaging in mutually enthusiastic love-making? This is what I don't understand.

Leithlurker · 14/04/2013 21:48

Mariaane, on this thread we have spent a lot of time talking about many issues, one of the first ones we (I can use the collective we as at least four if not five posters have agreed with this point, so stop being goady and inflammatory and making this about ME!) spoke about is how these discussions always have this prostitution focus which prevents the experiences of disabled people, mainly disabled women ever being discussed. For that reason I will not go over old ground about an argument that some people seem to use as a defence against having to consider that they are invoking able bodied privilege over disabled people, again a point not made by me but another poster on this thread.