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.

[Leithlurker]

Mooncup please have a look at the articles I linked to, you will see that disabled women and men are not stupid they know that having sex with a prostitute is not the same as a loving relationship. That is why the issue is far deeper and more complex than this focus on prostitution we always have. Look at all of spero's posts on this thread, as a disabled woman she speaks for herself and the experience of many disabled women as again highlighted in the articles I linked to.

[Spero]

Mooncup - I think we have all accepted that paying for someone else to hold you is a pretty poor substitute for the 'real thing' i.e being held and carressed by someone who really loves you. But as I said, it seems that some people wish to deny disabled people even a poor choice.

I found Tabard's responses really unhelpful, just knee jerk dismissal by claiming that people were saying things they weren't saying. I particularly disliked how she/he characterised one of my comments as 'just men trying to shag people out of their league' or something similar or that I was claiming sex as a 'right'.

Maybe it is my fault for going on too much about ejaculation, but a lot of posters were simply writing about (and condemning) men for wanting sex.

Its not just about men! I haven't posted about any experiences of women buying sex because I haven't done that (yet) and no one has been brave enough to ever admit to me they have done it. But maybe when my daughter is older and I have more time I will seriously want to consider it. And I would like to explore those options. Not be told that no one is ever allowed to enter into a commercial transaction because that is prostitution and that is evil male construct of the partiarchy.

For all the many reasons we have explored, that is not always true and reveals a paternalistic attitude which concerns me.

[MarianneM]

Leith, the point is that no-one, regardless of circumstances, has the right to another person's body.

Disability does not give you special rights over other people.

[Spero]

No one is saying that anyone has a right to anyone's body!

Of course they don't!!

The argument is about whether or not sex surrogates ought to be available to disabled people. Whether or not two consenting adults can enter into a commercial transaction to buy sexual contact.

Some people seem to think not, because they think it is just about men wanting to 'buy' an attractive woman they couldn't otherwise get.

And that massively pisses me off because it is just lazy, knee jerk responses.

[MarianneM]

I'm not sure that that you can really separate sex surrogates as "two consenting adults" from prostitution - which as a concept is totally wrong.

It is still, regardless of the circumstances, reducing another human being into a commodity.

[Spero]

Well this is the nub of the debate isn't it?

A pity it becomes obscured by posters contemptuous of male sexuality or the sexuality of the disabled - as I say I think it was both.

I do think it unnecessarily paternalistic to say to a grown man or women - you cannot use your body to earn money in a way you are happy and comfortable with.

Have you read the link about the author who went to a sex surrogate? Do you think she was degraded in her work and did not genuinely consent to what she was doing?

Did you read about the profound and positive impact this had on the author?

do you not think there is more to this argument than simply stopping dead at the thought 'you cannot treat a human as a commodity?'

[Leithlurker]

So address the issue that we have spent so much time talking about on this thread, instead of the one we have spent fairly little time talking about Mariaa. Do you think that as a result of having a disability and therefore being substancialy less likely to be able to have sex with a lover, that women and men should be forced in to celibacy?

[Leithlurker]

So in not reducing another human in to a commodity, you reduce other humans in sexless beings unable to give or receive a basic human experience. That sounds like women being more worthy of human status than disabled people.

[LinusVanPelt]

Leithlurker: "these discussions always have this prostitution focus"

Well, yes, in case you hadn't noticed, the linked article is about the use of prostitutes by residents of a care home.

So people who are opposed to prostitution, on feminist / ethical / human decency grounds, are going to be opposed to that.

And yet it was implied of posters who expressed those views early on that we were using our objection to the exploitation of prostituted women, to mask our disgust at the idea of disabled people having sex.

That's why I gave up posting and possibly why others didn't bother to start. If you expect people who are educated about the realities of prostitution to just ignore the implications of exploitation for fear of being accused that what we're really doing is using able-bodied privilege (and Leithlurker, you were very quick to assume that of a poster who has since said that she herself is disabled), it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the topic of the thread. The thread is about prostitution.

If this were a thread about the broader question of how people with disabilities should be better supported / facilitated in meeting their sexual desires, I'd imagine that possibilities might be discussed, including surrogates, sex therapists, match-making services, whatever. And the extent to which any of those options might blur the lines into prostitution might come up as a point of debate, and hopefully that could be discussed respectfully between people with opposing viewpoints who could agree that 1. it's perfectly normal and healthy for people with disabilities to desire sex and 2. exploitation of other people's desperation in order to access their bodies is a line that should never be crossed, regardless of who the 'client' is.

This thread was started about a particular article, and that article is about the use of prostituted women (I didn't see any mention of men, did you?) who, by the absence of any indication to the contrary, appear to be part of the general population of prostitutes in their area. They're not described as sex therapists, or surrogates, or volunteers.

Spero, you've been very balanced in your posts and have said that you'd be concerned about exploitation. But prostitution is exploitative by nature, and there's certainly nothing in article linked in the OP to suggest that there's anything other than exploitation going on there. The care home staff don't like being "groped", so they help the residents buy in prostituted women to get groped instead . The "happy hooker" myth is just that. It's a myth. It is very, very unlikely that these are carefree, empowered businesswomen, taking part in a mutually beneficial transaction with no cost to their human dignity or their sense of self.

[MarianneM]

Spero - I think you've got to draw the line somewhere, and I don't think prostitution, is any shape or form, is ever right.

Even allowing that there may be some sex workers who "use their bodies to earn money in a way you are happy and comfortable with", it does not mean that the sex industry isn't fundamentally an exploitative one. Which it is.

There are lots and lots of people, not necessarily disabled, who cannot or choose not to, for compelling reasons, to have sex. They have to or choose to live with it.

It really is not a right.

Do you think people in celibate marriages have the right to see prostitutes? What about people who just can't pull? (I am not trying to be "goady" asking these questions.)

[LinusVanPelt]

Sorry for length of that. Didn't realise until I hit 'post'!

[MooncupGoddess]

I have read the articles, which I found quite confused. The author argues that sex is a right (which I disagree with) and that disabled people should be able to pay for sexual services, but then quotes various disabled men who have paid for sex but found it emotionally upsetting and dissatisfying for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. There are no quotes from women who have paid for sex or considered paying for sex.

Many of the quotes are wrenchingly sad and I don't think anyone on this thread would dispute that we as a society should change our attitudes to disabled people, and indeed to physical appearance generally.

[Spero]

Marianne, you again talk of 'rights' - I repeat, I have never and would never say anyone has a 'right' to sex or use of another's body.

But I disagree with the proposition that prostitution is simply inherently wrong in all circumstances, ever.

I completely agree that it can involve disgusting explotation and degradation, usually of women. I am well aware of these realities as for some years I worked in the asylum law field where trafficked children were a very sad reality.

But as we have discussed below, transactional relationships are very common - what about the Sugar Daddy website for eg?

I think a trained and professional sex surrogate is far less morally questionable than a women seeking an older man over the internet who will pay for her college fees while she provides him with sex or a bit of arm candy.

[MarianneM]

Do you think that as a result of having a disability and therefore being substancialy less likely to be able to have sex with a lover, that women and men should be forced in to celibacy?

Yes, I think that if the options are prostitution or celibacy, then celibacy should be the answer, always.

And please remember that disabled people are really not the only ones facing this.

That sounds like women being more worthy of human status than disabled people.

Similarly, do you think disabled people should have special rights over women and their bodies?

[Spero]

Ok, you want to keep talking about 'rights', I really don't know why as this is not what anyone is arguing for.

So my choice is simply celibacy - even if I found someone quite happy to have sex with me for money?

So you deny both me and him/her that choice?

Why?

Because sex is such a profound and mystical experience that no one can genuinely be ok with doing it for money? Seriously?

[MarianneM]

But as we have discussed below, transactional relationships are very common - what about the Sugar Daddy website for eg?

It doesn't mean that they should be accepted. You don't think these "Sugar Daddy" scenarios are exploitative, on both sides?

You cannot separate isolated experiences from what is essentially an exploitative industry. By justifying it/engaging with it you are validating it.

[Spero]

But I come back to my point - how is something exploitative if both people in the transaction are willing and comfortable?

What you are saying quite clearly is that any relationship involving the buying and selling of sex can NEVER be consensual and the 'happy hookers' are in denial.

I think this is wrong. You should not be able to prohibit an adult using his or her body in a way she or he wants, even if you personally find it morally questionable. This used to be the argument against homosexual relationships.

[MarianneM]

So my choice is simply celibacy - even if I found someone quite happy to have sex with me for money?

Spero - you are really not unique in that. Do you think everyone who is unable to have sex should be able to have access to sexual services?

So you deny both me and him/her that choice?Why?

Because I think prostitution is fundamentally wrong.

[Spero]

Well, you don't have to be or use prostitutes.

But I find it hard to accept why YOUR moral certainties should dictate the choices of others.

[MarianneM]

Spero

As I said, I don't think you can separate an isolated, potential, hypothetical "happy hooker" scenario from an exploitative sex industry. By using its services you validate it.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Ok, finally caught up. Ish. Still no idea what leith was referring to but dead chuffed you think my post (whatever it was) was 'pertinent'. Another time, it'd be lovely if you'd PM me or quote the post as to just observe I didn't show up for debate with you makes me feel creeped out.

Anyhow.

We're talking as if these rights are parallel - the 'right' to have sex/ 'feel human'/whatever you call it, and the right not to be abused for money.

They are not parallel.

It is really offensive to disabled people and sex workers to suggest they are remotely comparable.

**

At this stage in the game, I believe traditionally we segue into the 'happy hooker' debate. So I'll pre-empt. Yes, true, some sex workers are apparently very content with what they do. Whoopie doo. But, since many others are trafficked and abused, and since every time we legitimize one lot we legitmize the whole practice (which I strongly believe we do), this is beside the point.

If someone is genuinely happy to have sex with someone else, I believe you'll find we have a system for that already, one that doens't involve payment and involves plenty of disabled people.

All this focus on getting prostitutes for disabled people is not only damaging to prostituted women (and men), it's also avoiding the real issue - how to give support to disabled people and their partners to have a loving sex life. And how to educate people to understand that disabled people deserve said full and loving sex life.

**

There we go, I knew it'd be sad and disappointing if I only commented once.

[Spero]

No. That isn't an acceptable argument.

By buying a barcardi breezer in the supermarket I am not 'accepting' or 'endorsing' alcoholism.

I can consume alcohol responsibly. others cannot. For others it is a path to degredation and misery. Same with selling sex.

[Spero]

My comment was to Marianne - I agree that much more could be done about helping and supporting disabled people. Just talking about it would be good. I cannot remember a single person who sat down with me as a child or adolescent and just talked to me.

I had to figure it all out for myself. And it has taken a long time with a lot of mistakes and misery on the way. Such a waste.

[MarianneM]

Spero, that is just rubbish.

[Spero]

But, LRD I am not talking about 'rights'. I didn't think LL was either.

I am talking about 'opportunities'.