'Right' to sex for PWD

[emerencemaybehopeful]

dpoa.org.au/joint-position-statement-a-call-for-a-rights-based-framework-for-sexuality-in-the-ndis/

I don't have the words to express why I'm so upset.

There are arguments in every disabilty group I'm in right now. All full of people claiming sex is a right and/or need and that the government should fund it for people with disabilities.

And the organisations that purport to represent us are calling for just that.

I feel really really sick about this.

And I need sane people to come and tell me that I'm not overreacting.

This is a logical consequence of decriminalising 'sex work'.

The insistence is that disability is a barrier to finding a consensual sex partner. that therefore the ndis* scheme that was devised to cover the 'reasonable and necessary' additional costs that are caused by the disabilty should cover costs of using a sex worker (why not just accept that they want a live toy).

There are apparently agencies setting up to train prostitutes to work with this share of the market.

I truly don't think that anyone has thought through exactly where the line goes when deciding if disability is the barrier. But I bet many incels would embrace a diagnosis if it came with free access to women's bodies.

And so many prostituted women have disabilities. But the organisations who represent us don't fucking care. They are too busy wanting a fuck.

• Australian National Disabilty Insurance Scheme.

That's truly disgusting.

Sex is not a right. Access to women's bodies is not a commodity.

The war on women is real.

Let's be 100% clear about this.

This isn't about PWD.

It's about MWD.

Men. Tell me: how many disabled WOMEN would be willing to invite a male in the sex trade into their home and bedroom, even knowing that if he did anything you didn't want, no one would believe you and you'd be seen as having gotten what you'd paid for?

Almost none.

This is yet another part of the new disability activism, in which the people who are mostly advocated for are the people with the most minor disabilities and most comparative privilege. Someone who is severely physically disabled and non-verbal with an IQ of 30 is obviously much closer to the target of "disability activism" of the 1990s. Today, people with severe disabilities are a minor afterthought in the disability rights movement.

Autism is the same way: autism charities are so busy telling everyone that severe non-verbal autism isn't the norm and that plenty of autistic people live amazing and very normal lives, that the people with very severe disabilities that they were originally meant to help are being cast aside. Now, researchers think the definition of autism is so diluted that it barely means anything in research, compared to what it used to mean.

We see the same dilution here. The MEN, not PEOPLE, with disabilities who can benefit from this are fully capable of consent, apparently, which rules out people with really significant cognitive problems. They're capable of physical sex acts, which rules out the most severe physical disabilities. Let's face it, the number of men who would claim "autism" to get access to prostitutes covered by the government would vastly, vastly outnumber the polite, sad men in wheelchairs, the type advocates are hoping you'll imagine when supporting their proposal.

Sex toys for disabled people would be a good idea. Developments in robotics and eye tracking[1] would mean that even the most paralysed person could control a suitably-designed toy.

So why insist that living women are paid to be raped by disabled men? Oh, right, that male entitlement thing again.

[1] Although the user would have to learn to close their eyes during orgasm to avoid involuntary eye movement being interpreted as instructions.

They're capable of physical sex acts

But possibly not self-stimulation. I'm thinking thalidomide.

If someone has a hand and can reach their cock or clit, they can wank. If they don't have a hand, society's answer should be advanced robotic sex toys (and I don't mean lifelike dolls, I mean a Hitachi wand or male equivalent with positional adjustment in three planes, tilt adjustment, etc so you don't need hands to position it or control its intensity).

Autism is the same way: autism charities are so busy telling everyone that severe non-verbal autism isn't the norm and that plenty of autistic people live amazing and very normal lives, that the people with very severe disabilities that they were originally meant to help are being cast aside.

Just wanted to add that it's not only severely autistic non-verbal people who are cast aside in this equation. Autistic people who despite their high IQ are unable to function independently are treated in a similar way, both by other "Aspies" and autism charities. I'm sick of the way they keep extolling the positives of autism and basically imply it's being a socially awkward quirky genius.
Dare to say Aspergers is a disability in certain quarters and you'll get jumped on for it. Of course it's hardly a coincidence that the people jumping on you are mostly self diagnosed or diagnosed later in life adults who have careers and "special talents."
You face similar levels of ignorance from so called professionals, they assume just because you have Aspergers that means you can live independently, work, go to university and drive. For some reason they can't understand that just because one person with AS can do that, doesn't mean we all can.
Sorry, I'm ranting, not really sure what my point was, just felt like I needed to add my thoughts.

I 100% agree that PWD should not have the right to access to sex workers.

Where do we draw the line? Disability friendly sex toys sound great but what about people who are severely disabled and would need help with undressing? Would a carer be expected to position some kind of fleshlight on a cock?

This idea has likely come about after a woman (not man) recently won the right to use NDIS funds for a sex worker. She took the NDIS to court over it as they said no.
I do not agree at all because funds are already stretched & should be spent on genuine supports. I personally don't care if they use sex workers but it shouldn't be paid for by tax payers.
My ASD L2 son was accepted immediately, but they're looking to remove streamlined access for this level so we'll likely lose access soon. It's already a fight to get the funding he needs for therapies. It's not about medical requirements, I was told by an industry insider it's because if money - Apparently they didn't expect such a volume of ASD participants so the bean counters are out to cut costs the easy way. So yeah, it really bugs me people want money for personal pursuits while everyone else fights for genuine assistance! Add to this they've just allowed the therapists to increase prices to ridiculous levels so I've had to cut my son's therapies back & it's really, really making me angry!!

Not everyone needs to have sex all the time - when my children were small I went without sex for 5 years. I didn't miss it at all because I was busy looking after small children and I was very tired. My husband wasn't happy about it but he didn't have to get up most nights or clean,cook and entertain small people so he accepted it.

Disclosure; I have an ndis plan myself, am nominee for my sister and have 1 child in the scheme and another who I should be trying to get in but who has a list c thing so it will likely be a fight and I'm not up for that.

I don't think ASD level 2 will be removed from list A anytime soon. The outcry was too great last time.

And yes to the poster commenting about people with ASD who appear to be able to function, but who actually need a lot of support (but are verbal and can make eye contact).

Yes, this is related to the AAT ruling a while ago. It generated a lot of conversation.

There are many with purely physical disabilities who seem to think that if they can't wank on their own then they should be able to pay someone else to do it for them. Men. Always men.

Though my favourite comment today
was from a woman saying that since being in a wheelchair she's struggled to find someone to date and that she needs sex so of course she should be able to pay for it from her ndis package. Ha ha ha ha ha.

This really makes me angry. Both because sex is not a right and using women this way and normalising it, truly makes me sick.
But also because resources are needed on more important basic needs of disabled people.

Autistic people who despite their high IQ are unable to function independently are treated in a similar way, both by other "Aspies" and autism charities. I'm sick of the way they keep extolling the positives of autism and basically imply it's being a socially awkward quirky genius.

Agreed ^ I am totally sick of people assuming people on the spectrum who are verbal, high IQ or aspergers, don’t need assistance. Most do. Invisible illnesses and disabilities are just as valid. Charities for autistic people are for everyone on the spectrum, not just the ones others deem ‘properly disabled’. It’s rude to speak in this way. I do appreciate and think it’s important to speak of the positives though, because there are many. But to only speak of it that way, to speak of it like a virtue or something, is very odd too. I think it’s contributed to the small trend I’ve seen to ‘identify as autistic’ as if it makes you edgy and smart.

Sorry to derail! I have a real problem with this concept and I’m just amazed at all the organisations listed on that link who endorse that message.

I hope we can get some feminist legal
minds to put forward some analysis of why a "right to sex" is a really ill-founded concept. Something like "freedom for consenting adults to have sex" is a better concept and in line with rights like privacy, right to a family life. Whereas "right to sex" implies someone has a duty to fulfil that right. I'm baffled how we got to this point as a society. Last year I saw that Rightsinfo, who have done good work on other non-feminism related topics produced a video about "is there a right to sex?" which moved seamlessly from one woman's sad real life case where a botched operation left her unable to enjoy sex, to Yogyakarta principles and a sort of general "isn't sex nice" statement, and never mentioned consent or boundaries, or even discussed the question of who should have to fulfil the right to sex. I was left asking myself whether it was sophisticated Men's Rights propaganda or a really poorly supported summer intern project. A "Right to sex" is not the right concept and it's a pain that we need to waste time spelling it out but looks like we need that to happen. Video here if anyone wants to take a look.

The sex industry using disabled people as a human shield is not new. It is deliberate. It reframes misogynistic, entitled, abusive, perverted men who choose to pay to access choiceless women's bodies as vulnerable, sympathetic figures who just need a little of what we all take for granted. It is a constant effort.

Would a carer be expected to position some kind of fleshlight on a cock?

No, what I envision would need to be placed near the genitalia but not in contact, the user would control the final approach after the carer had left the room. The point being that no sexual contact would be needed between carer and user.

Fair point about needing to undress the user first. But don't carers need to undress people anyway for bathing and things?

Of course, some poor sod has to clean it afterwards unless self-cleaning or disposable parts are somehow baked in to the design. But then don't men spontaneously ejaculate in their sleep anyway, and a carer would have to deal with that?

This is just me thinking aloud in problem-solving mode.

Prostitutes have had disabled clients since forever. Disabled men can always access prostitutes if they have the money.

The state shouldn't pay for it, that's ridiculous.

Where would it end? The state pays for disabled men to get prostitutes bc they can't work. What about homeless men? What about men in prison? Will they all be given prostitutes too?

Human rights causes have become men’s rights causes, and in direct conflict with women’s rights.

In terms of the organisations listed endorsing the message.

Have done some digging and it's looking like maybe not all of them are happy to have their name associated with the doc.

Am hoping to get a response document out somewhere in the next short while. I'm angry enough to be contacting people and connecting.

Any further links to why this is shit appreciated.

I think this kind of activism is inherently disablist itself. It posits that disabled people are so fundamentally unattractive that nobody would want sex with them unless they were coerced.

Amazingly, there's plenty of disabled people out there having happy sex lives without raping anyone.

And there's plenty of disabled and non-disabled people out there who have no sex life at all, and want one. Well, tough shit. Sex isn't a right.

I think this kind of activism is inherently disablist itself. It posits that disabled people are so fundamentally unattractive that nobody would want sex with them unless they were coerced.

Yup, this. You've articulated an unease that I couldn't find words for. Thanks.

As a disabled woman I agree with the points of @ArcheryAnnie and @WombOfOnesOwn above

The motion is inherently disablist as it basically says that these MEN and it is men will never be found attractive enough to have sex unless they pay someone and then there's the "My poverty but not my will consents" issue.

Then it's further disablist in that it's clearly aimed not just at MEN but at men with high cognitive function.

As rightly stated a woman would not do this for fear of what she might fall victim to and not be able to prove.

"You?! I don't think so" and that was only when my friends ex tried to force a kiss on me not something worse that happened later and I was told not to go to the police as I wouldn't be believed

There is an evidence base out there to show how disabled women are often sexually abused and at a higher risk than non disabled women of rape.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/18/abuse-disabled-people-sexually-abused-england-cuts-services

This is one such article but there are many

No MWD do not have a RIGHT to sex saying so means saying they have a right to commit sex crime surely?

I am a Community based Carer, and yes I deal with a variety of body fluids daily but I instinctively feel there is a big difference between washing away ejaculated seman from someone's body and positioning/removing/cleaning a sex toy. Rightly or wrongly that feels like being involved in the Service User's sex life and I have encountered many Men who would have enjoyed using that task to make (usually young female) Carers feel uncomfortable. Also, the majority of people who have so little movement they need that degree of assistance are likely to be categorised of wearing incontinence pads.

At present we have clear boundaries and can refuse inappropriate tasks, and remove ourselves from the situation if conversation crosses those boundaries. I can easily see this as the top of a slippery slope whereby requests to "give an extra rub while you're down there" changes from a warning not to be inappropriate to feeling we have to comply because "my human rights.....disability discrimination etc etc"

While I sympathise with people who are not able to indulge in the sex life they desire I believe my choice not to be involved in it trumps their wishes in this.

I don't have much experience with people with disabilities... but someone unable to clean their own sex toy would probably not be able to masturbate by them self.

This is so complex from a care point of view as it also opens up those unable to communicate to abuse, as well as caters themselves

With the sex workers aspect, I agree with whoever said they need to pay for that on their own, bit ideally they wouldn't have to as they'd find a real, loving relationship

I think you are right to be upset. I'm not sure I would put is so much as a men's rights thing, even if it's mostly men who are interested. It comes out of a view of sex that says that all adults need sexual satisfaction to be healthy, that celibacy is impossible and cruel, that a life without sex is sad and unfulfilled. It's also a view that puts no value on a life dedicated to things other than sex or which avoids sex.

Many people believe that and that includes women. My own view is that popular sexual culture now doesn't really offer any alternative way of thinking about our sexual lives, and until it does it's very difficult to argue against this kind of thinking.

Not everyone believes it for sure, but unless they come from something like a religious background which actually offers a different coherent POV, it tends to be more a rejection of sex positivity rather than an alternate narrative about how we can put our sexual urges in their proper place or be full adults without being sexually active. And I suspect that if many people are going to accept living without sex, they need a way to make sense of that in their lives. When all our culture is obsessed with sexuality, images of it, when pictures of sexually attractive people are used to sell everything, it is difficult to escape from the idea that soething essential is missing without it.

ValleyClouds

Men will rape comatose women. And there's a whole genre of amputee porn (content note: graphic images of sexualised violence against women), and it's not the men who are depicted as missing limbs...

Previous thread here, where I shared a lot of information that should be helpful although it is also extremely disturbing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3644524-National-Disability-Scheme-AU-should-pay-for-clients-to-access-prostituted-women