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.

Why is it rubbish?

sorry, you'll have to give me a little more than that if you want to dissuade me from my arguments.

Spero - do you believe that people should be allowed to sell their kidneys and blood too? It follows on naturally from your argument. My feeling is that they shouldn't... because although there are no doubt people who could sell some blood occasionally with no damage to their health, a system of blood-selling would attract lots of vulnerable people who would cause themselves long-term damage.

But I imagine you would think that is paternalistic?

Not the same thing, though.

By buying a barcardi breezer, you're not abusing someone or being ok with abuse.

You are equating alcohol - which is inanimate - with a woman's body.

A woman's body is not inanimate. Sorry.

spero - and I am talking about 'rights'.

Because I think the 'right' not to be abused is an important 'right'. Call it an 'opportunity' if you will, but I won't.

If you are supporting prostitution, I believe that you are supporting the right of one person to abuse another, however indirectly. I understand you don't believe that, I do, and I know many people don't believe that, but I'm explaining why I use the term 'right' not 'opportunity' here.

LL - I will tell you why I haven't contributed before now, it's because you are always on the sex industry threads here and you seem desperate to get the women opposed to the sex industry to change their minds and there's something about that I find very creepy.

Spero - Thank you for your contributions to this thread, I have found them very interesting. Although I am only speaking for myself here, while I may think that paying for sex is inherently exploitative, I can understand why someone might do so in these situations.

Also, relating to what you said earlier about what people think about disabled people, whatever the eventual outcome of the Oscar Pistorius case, it is telling that the reaction from quite a few people, particularly in the "less evolved" corners of the internet was that "someone like him" didn't deserve a woman like that, i.e a model like Reeva Steenkamp.

Selling a body part is a little different from allowing a penis up your vagina. The health risks from the surgery and consequent loss of an organ are quite obvious whereas I would imagine the risks from safe sex are pretty low.

So I don't think your example compares. But if there was a scheme of proper regulation to protect the desparate and the vulnerable, then I do tend to the view that adults ought to be allowed to make their own choices.

I am not blind to the fact that desparate or vulnerable people are involved in prostitution. But I fail to see how sex surrogates are either.

Meant your "bacardi breezer" post.

As to your post next post, there are lots of people in the same predicament.

Still, such experiences (not unique, able-bodied people have them too) don't mean you have - yes - the right to sexual services. No-one does.

Quite right women are not inanimate. We are thinking, intelligent beings with moral agency.

Which is why I am so puzzled that it is apparently impossible for an adult women ever to consent to take money in return for offering sex.

I feel the same way, gosh, to be honest.

I don't think I often comment on these threads, anyway, but perhaps I do, if leith thinks I've made lots of comments.

If you read back through the thread Maryann you will see very clearly and very explicitly myself and spero as well as other posters have never, not once suggested the rights of disabled people trump those of others. So that leaves those arguing your side of the fence being the ones who wish to impose celibacy on women and men due to their disability. We have discussed the transactional basis and how that could be resolved, we have even discussed that by looking at both the anti prostitution lobby and sections of the disability lobby both shifting position we could set the surrogacy in to a therapeutic framework. Nowhere though have we suggested that disabled people should have any right to use an unwilling persons body.

Mooncup: I agree the articles are confused but that is the nature of the issue, as you say what comes at the end is a realisation that the thing that people are looking for is not the mechanics, it is the emotional. A point that has been discussed upthread, however and in summery. Young able bodied people learn about love and sex by doing and experience. Using a surrogate offers the same learning experience to those who without it will always be left emotionality incomplete. This sense of not knowing causes mental health damage, and emotional behaviour problems. Increases a sense of isolation and of rejection. That is the consequence of imposing celibacy on a huge number of people. The old asylums were more police barracks than hospitals mainly to stop the two sexes trying to find out about themselves and each other, is that what you want. It would be the only effective way of preventing disabled people buying sex if no other avenue existed.

Linus despite the length of your interesting post which had some good points that I agree with in it, you miss the point of what I said. Yes of course I expected and decryed the focus on prostitution as I and others have demonstrated the piece in the original op was only posted to once again keep the focus on that very point, but we have shown that by doing so the voices of disabled women and men are silenced, the lived experience of many disabled people of being unfuckable is never explored, and the notion that we now have put forward that disabled women and men should be forced in to celibacy if no one would willingly fuck them needs to be explored, not just covered up by saying prostitution wrong and any way its only men tat this topic refers to.

spero - whoever said that?

I've not seen the thread in question - is this whole thing a thread about a thread? If so it explains a lot but I could have done with a link earlier!

Spero, I imagine that there could be some scenario in which transactional sex would not be exploitative.

An agreement between acquaintances, maybe, where you know something of the other person's circumstances and know that they're not doing it to pay the rent. Or a therapist who provides additional personal services but is qualified in a broader area so that physical / sexual contact with clients is not their only recourse to income. Or a volunteer who is happy to exchange sexual favours for his or her own sexual enjoyment in the act.

But what this article is talking about, and what going online and ordering up a prostitute would be about, is the exploitation of desperate people (overwhelmingly women). There is no way for anyone to buy into that industry and not be contributing to the systematic abuse and dehumanisation of human beings (mostly women).

For possibly the 10th time I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYONE HAVING A RIGHT TO SEXUAL SERVICES FROM ANOTHER.

I can only conclude you keep saying this to annoy me. Well done, its working. I can barely concentrate on my new episode of Buffy.

LRD - sorry who said what about what?

I am making probably the rookie error of trying to contribute to a very interesting thread whilst at the same time being distracted by James Marsters.

The psychological risks of prostitution are quite high, though... at least judging from the testimony I've heard/read from prostitutes. That's why I made the parallel. (Of course there are all sorts of physical risks for prostitutes too; I don't know to what extent these risks would also apply to sex surrogates.)

The received wisdom is that it takes an average of five years after leaving prostitution before a former prostitute can give a balanced assessment of its effect on her life. I'd be interested to hear from a former sex surrogate about how she viewed the whole phenomenon.

Linus, I agree, I am not at all happy with the idea that I can order up a gigolo in the same way I would order a Chinese takeaway.

Of course, going down that route makes it almost inevitable that you will be engaging someone who is not willingly offering services but who is desparate and/or being forced by someone else.

But I like your suggestion about a therapist who offers services in a more sexual area. Presumably people would be more reassured that someone with professional training and regulation is genuinely consenting and not exploited in anyway.

I'm often distracted by James Marsters! What are you watching?

I meant this bit: 'Quite right women are not inanimate. We are thinking, intelligent beings with moral agency.

Which is why I am so puzzled that it is apparently impossible for an adult women ever to consent to take money in return for offering sex.'

I don't follow this.

The issue isn't whether or not some hookers are happy hookers. It may be some are (and god knows I'm not about to get into second-guessing because it's pointless). The issue is, some women are demonstrably and obviously not happy being prostituted. They are abused or trafficked and they don't consent. I do not see how it can be possible to support any kind of prostitution while the whole industry condones abuse of women. It is like saying that a little bit of genocide is ok really.

(Ok, that was an extremely angry example, but before you jump on it, you should know I've been reading about women killed in bits of Latin America and it is certainly enough to make you feel there's a war on these women. I know we'd all like to think this is 'off topic', but it isn't.)

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYONE HAVING A RIGHT TO SEXUAL SERVICES FROM ANOTHER.

Spero, when you recount your previous experiences you sound like you think the world owes you something .

There a many, many people, able bodied and otherwise, who have/have had similar issues.

It does not mean you are exempt from the same moral issues/considerations as anyone else.

Leithlurker - the whole idea of people being 'forced into celibacy' is just weird. This really does imply that people have a right to sex (sorry Spero - we all know you don't think this).

Lots of people go without sex for years or decades because they can't find anyone they desire who also desires them. I feel very sympathetic to people who suffer as a result, but they are not being 'forced into celibacy'.

I do think this is the heart of the debate.

It is saying that prostitution is so evil that no one should engage with it ever, even if they are fully aware and consenting and can bring great joy to someone else, who may never otherwise get the experience of being touched sexually by another human.

I don't agree with that. I would rather energies went into regulating and protecting sex workers, hunting down and imprisoning the traffickers and pimps. Trying to educate and change the attitudes of men towards women - look at the appalling Canadian case of the teenager who committed suicide after photos were circulated of her being raped. I don't think prostitution per se is responsible for these kind of neanderthal attitudes.

James Marsters is just declaring his love for Buffy and the fool is rejecting him. I'm over here James!

Mariane - I am well aware the world owes me nothing. Many parts of the world are keen to remind me of this on a daily basis.

What I don't understand is why you think you have the right to dictate to other adults what they chose to do with their bodies.

That is real arrogance. I don't think I have ever displayed anything close to that.

I disagree, but I understand what you are saying and I can certainly respect it, spero.

(And, very nice! Oooh, he has cheekbones you could cut yourself on. Gorgeous. On that note I shall go off to watch something daft with DH!)

the notion that we now have put forward that disabled women and men should be forced in to celibacy if no one would willingly fuck them needs to be explored

No, Leith that really does not need to be explored. Of course someone - anyone - should be celibate "if no one would willingly fuck them." WTF else would you suggest?

For Spero, the crux of the argument seems to be on whether a transaction involving sex and money can still be a transaction between two willing, consenting people. That is an interesting ethical question and one worth discussing.

You on the other hand seem fairly unconcerned with the question of whether a prostituted person is really "willing". And in the quote above, you seem to acknowledge that they're probably not. And yet you still think you have a point to make about how really, using them is okay if you're disabled.

I think I'm done engaging with you on this subject.

I don't think there is anything arrogant about saying prostitution is wrong.

However much individual people might benefit from it or try to justify it.

It is still exploitation.

I have every right to express that opinion.