Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Sexual Services for the Disabled

By AxelBoldt in Culture
Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 06:18:50 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

When the taboos of prostitution and sex of the disabled meet, there's bound to be plenty of controversy. In Germany, the Dutch prostitute Nina de Vries stands at the center of this debate. She offers erotic massages to mentally retarded clients and trains others to do the same. Recently she attempted to create a network of sexual caregivers in Zurich and was rebuffed.

The article describes her work and the issues involved.


The work of Nina de Vries

Nina de Vries (born 1961) has worked as a caregiver and educator in therapeutic institutions in the Netherlands and (since 1992) in Berlin. In 1994 she started to offer erotic massages to regular clients, beginning in 1997 also to the disabled. Since 1999 she has worked exclusively with mentally disabled men; she appears to be the first prostitute in Germany to do so. In 2001 she began to train other sexual caregivers, together with the physically disabled psychologist Lothar Sandfort.

A typical session with Ms. de Vries proceeds as follows: she prepares her room with candles and perfumes, undresses, massages and caresses her client, and lets him touch her. Often, the massage culminates in her masturbating the client to orgasm. She does not offer sexual intercourse or oral sex. Her clients are normally accompanied by a caregiver or relative; these chaperons wait next door and afterwards discuss the session with de Vries.

Typical clients have Down's syndrome or suffered brain damage after an accident. Some of them are so severely limited that they cannot do much more than smile or frown.

The price is 80 Euros per hour. Normally the clients pay from their pocket money; occasionally the welfare agency has paid for destitute clients. De Vries rejects the proposal that health insurers pay for her services; she does not consider the desire to have sex to be a medical condition, quite the contrary.

Nina de Vries does not reject the label "prostitute"; she herself uses the term "sexual caregiver" (German: Sexualbetreuerin).

In April 2003 she joined an effort to build a more formalized network of specially trained sexual caregivers for the disabled in Zurich. These attempts faltered when the sponsoring organization Pro Infirmis encountered resistance and suffered a considerable drop in donations. In November 2003, a separate organization was founded to pursue the project.

The issues involved

In recent years, attitudes towards sex of the institutionalized disabled have changed in Europe. Many institutions allow and even encourage sexual relationships among their residents. In Germany, the disabled are in this regard at the mercy of their institutitons and custodians; in Denmark and the Netherlands, the law charges custodians with the sexual well-being of their protégés.

Obviously, only a small minority of the disabled can find suitable partners. The others lack social skills, lack access to potential partners, aren't intelligent enough to initiate or maintain a relationship, are physically disfigured, or cannot move. Hence the need for services of prostitutes.

There are of course two standard arguments against legal prostitution:

  • Prostitution is inherently immoral adultery and should therefore be outlawed.
  • Prostitutes are by necessity exploited victims who are forced into the profession by impoverished conditions or ruthless pimps and suffer from devastating working conditions.
The first argument has little traction in the secular countries of northern Europe; with respect to the second argument, the majority seems to believe that the working conditions of prostitutes would worsen if prostitution were outlawed and pushed into the underground. Indeed, prostitution is legal in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Denmark; at least the first two countries have recently undertaken to normalize the legal status of the profession.

While sexual services for physically disabled persons are not very visible in the red-light scene of Germany, they are readily available: since 1995 the agency Sensis in Wiesbaden has connected clients and providers. However, Sensis stops short of endorsing the services of de Vries to severely mentally retarded clients: they argue that only persons who can clearly and intelligibly formulate a cogent will should be served.

Ms. de Vries goes farther: she claims to be able to correctly interpret the often very subtle communication attempts of her severely limited clients, when aided by their caregivers. Many people counter that persons who have the mental status of a small child should be treated as a small child: without the right (or need) to engage in sexual behaviors.

In Zurich, a different kind of opposition arose from the disabled themselves: the de Vries model of no-sex erotic massages by specially trained therapeutic prostitutes was rejected as discriminating, as creating a sex ghetto. While normal persons can buy all sorts of sexual services from all sorts of providers, the disabled are patronized and are supposed to choose only from certain providers and certain services. This, it was argued, goes against the overarching goal of integration.

Further Reading

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Your opinion:
o Prostitution is always wrong, no matter the client. 9%
o Severely mentally retarded should not have sex. 6%
o Sexual services for the mentally retarded are not ok. 4%
o De Vries is not needed: the disabled should employ regular prostitutes. 18%
o De Vries provides an important service 61%

Votes: 145
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o online version (German)
o initial plan
o opposition by disabled
o halting of project
o Also by AxelBoldt


Display: Sort:
Sexual Services for the Disabled | 223 comments (223 topical, editorial, 8 hidden)
red rocket (1.09 / 51) (#1)
by fae on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:21:12 PM EST

red rocket. RED ROCKET. RED ROCKET.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
Oh Great... (1.42 / 28) (#3)
by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:07:12 PM EST

...we have prostitutes calling themselves caregivers taking money from retards and raping them. I think Corky can spank his own monkey. Unless you're going to give the boy head or let him tap that ass, I can't have any respect for you as a 'professional'.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
whee! I agree with Thelizman! (none / 2) (#7)
by livus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:44:11 PM EST

Yep.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Feel No Shame (3.00 / 9) (#11)
by thelizman on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:07:01 PM EST

...even a stopped clock agrees with me twice a day.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
what? (none / 1) (#23)
by Redemption042 on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:44:15 PM EST

You give your opinion of the time?

[ Parent ]
Relativity (none / 1) (#51)
by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:08:48 AM EST

That's all a clock is - someones opinion of the time. We just all happen to agree for simplicity's sake.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I wish I could get Windows and Linux... (none / 0) (#112)
by skyknight on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:31:56 PM EST

to agree on the time. I'm dual booting on my laptop, and can only manage to get one OS to have the right time at any given moment. Windows is insistent on treating the hardware clock as the local time. Linux lets you treat it as either, but I want to specify my timezone as being EST5EDT, and that gets screwed up if you tell it that the hardware clock is stored in local time. GAH!

I have, for the moment, just settled on having the clock be wrong in Windows because I hate Windows anyway. It serves it right for being so inflexible. I don't know what the hell the answer is... Greenwich Daylight Savings Time? What the fuck!



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Linux Bios Access? (none / 0) (#132)
by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:43:40 PM EST

My Linux desktop likes to change the time. Sometimes I'll be off by hours. I think - but I haven't checked this - it's because the kernel is using a 24 hour clock synced to GMT, but KDE is translating to 12 hour format, and my bios is in one or the other, but not both.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
You should... (none / 0) (#189)
by skyknight on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:37:05 PM EST

take a look at the man page for hwclock. It's remarkably informative, as compared to man pages in general.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
system time (none / 0) (#141)
by jnana on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:32:41 AM EST

I think the issue is what your system time is set to (in the bios). I used to have Linux time set to UTC, and it seemed that the system time was set to local. Windows would be correct, but Linux would be wrong.

The solution under gentoo was just to change CLOCK="UTC" to CLOCK="local" in /etc/rc.conf, but that probably doesn't help you much if you're using a different distribution. A quick google finds that this has instructions for Red Hat, and this should give you some results for other distros.

[ Parent ]

As a matter of fact... (none / 0) (#188)
by skyknight on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:33:38 PM EST

I am using Gentoo, my BIOS clock is set to GMT, my /etc/rc.conf has CLOCK="UTC", and I have the symlink /etc/localtime -> /usr/share/zoneinfo/EST5EDT. Everything is just peachy in Linux Land now, but alas Windows is now five hours ahead of the time I want it to display. This would seem to be the result of Windows insisting that the hardware clock is set to local time. If I were to actually make the hardware clock be local, and specify CLOCK="local", then wouldn't that preclude using a timezone file, which would in turn screw up being able to have the clock adjusted properly for daylight savings? Feh, this is really annoying. Why can't Windows play nice?

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
-0 anal sex is for sexist pig dogs (1.83 / 6) (#25)
by auraslip on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:51:47 PM EST


___-___
[ Parent ]
It isn't just us though... (2.00 / 3) (#57)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:06:13 AM EST

I understand that many non-sexist pig-dogs enjoy it as well.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Nice. (none / 1) (#111)
by awgsilyari on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:29:13 PM EST

That totally explains why my girlfriend begs for it sometimes.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]
Actually, no. (none / 2) (#135)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:12:21 AM EST

That would be because your girlfriend is a slut. HTH.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

I'm happy the woman does this. (2.31 / 16) (#4)
by xutopia on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:42:22 PM EST

why should sexually frustrated handicapped people be frustrated at all? Isn't it hard enough that they are handicapped?

I suspect that you're not thinking this through (2.50 / 8) (#15)
by mstefan on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:04 PM EST

Reverse the situation and you'll see what I mean. Just because she's female and her "clients" are male doesn't automatically make it appropriate.



[ Parent ]
Mentally disabled women (2.88 / 9) (#19)
by AxelBoldt on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:18:25 PM EST

Do you think mentally disabled women should not be allowed to have sex under any circumstances?

[ Parent ]
think about this (none / 2) (#156)
by xutopia on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:47:53 PM EST

I worked as a volunteer for handicapped people for 7 years during my youth. Once, in a special home for challenged people, I over heard two "nurses" saying that two of the people in this special home shouldn't be "dating" or having an affair. I was there with my mother to pick up two challenged people, bring them home and show them how to cook some rice crispies square.

Two handicapped people weren't allowed to hold hands because of their silly rules. I pipped up and asked what was wrong with them loving one another. One woman dressed in a white blouse told me I didn't understand, and the other explained to me that it was "harder to manage". My mother then asked "should your rights be repressed just so you are easier to manage?", the woman didn't know what to say. My mother wasn't liked by this team so much as she was liked by the handicapped people. She was seen as heretical for letting handicapped people use a stove!

If you ask me to take a stance based on sexual stereotypes I'd tell you it's BS. If a woman is sexually frustrated is she any less or more frustrated than a man who is sexually frustrated?

If a man or a woman, no matter how challenged want to use the services of another person to relieve their sexual frustrations I'm for it 100%. Next you'll tell me we have to have an IQ test to make sure that the prostitutes aren't "taking advantage" of us. Give me a break.

Today in Quebec there are people getting organized and showing that handicapped people are perfectly capable of taking up a job and functionning in society without as much help as we thought they would need. There was this show just a couple nights ago showing how they could do valuabe things for society while being happy and feeling good about themselves. These are the same people that used to be in mental institutions, bunkers of sorts because society thought they were "easier to manage" when they were out of sight.

If we have any respect for these people we should give them the right to take advantages of services readily available to you and me.

[ Parent ]

The whole issue is about informed consent (2.00 / 4) (#168)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 08:05:49 PM EST

I am all for the mentally disabled living full, rich lives. That means living independently, working, falling in love, having sex, getting married and having children. However, they need to have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of their behavior and the decisions that they make.

I've said this before: if it is determined that an individual does not have the mental capacity to make decisions about their own legal and medical affairs, that they cannot be held responsible for their own actions, cannot enter into contracts, and so on then that would also mean that they lack the ability to engage in consentual sex -- because they do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. And absent that capacity, no one has the right to make sexual decisions for them on their behalf.

The "services" being proposed moves us down a legal slippery slope, and needlessly exposes the severely mentally disabled to further predation and abuse.



[ Parent ]
you are a scary scary person (none / 1) (#171)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:08:47 PM EST

Can you not allow for multiple ways of living full, rich lives?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

once again (none / 0) (#186)
by xutopia on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:19:02 PM EST

I wished it didn't come down to you seeing yourself as the only person being capable of making informed decisions.

Handicapped people have signed contracts before and they are considered valid. There have been cases where there was abuse but this occurs with all kinds of people.

Handicapped people should be allowed to get any service they want if they want or require it. We shouldn't judge that they are incapable of making the decisions. We should allow them to make the decisions instead of seeing ourselves as Gods that know better.

[ Parent ]

cant they order escorts like everyone else. (1.58 / 17) (#5)
by noogie on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:52:51 PM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
Thing is.. (2.50 / 8) (#26)
by Psychopath on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:59:09 PM EST

..they probably have special needs, even concerning their sexual needs. If a "usual bitch" comes to visit and fuck them - both of them wouldnt know what to do. The prostitute wouldn't know how to handle a client who's that passive, the client perhaps wouldn't know how to handle a woman with great expectations.

Just my ideas.. - I'm not a prostitute nor a disabled person.
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
[ Parent ]
they should have a choice (2.40 / 5) (#35)
by livus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:28:40 PM EST

you're right, but on the other hand, I bet these trained sensitive new age caregiver types wouldn't know what to do with, say, a disabled bdsm scat enthusiast.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Who says they don't? (none / 2) (#93)
by Elkor on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:56:48 PM EST

The article only talks about the people who do use her service. Quite possibly there are other people who do use conventional sex services.

Being in the sexually repressed US of A, I'm a big fan in anyone who wants to do all they can to assist in the sexual liberation of individuals.

whatever their mental state.
"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
I'm sure they do, but in all fairness (none / 0) (#115)
by livus on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:59:21 PM EST

legislation/regulation should reflect that. I'm not conversant enough with the laws about prostitution and caregiving in those countries to know how they affect it. Who knows, peraps it's already an almost ideal situation.

I think though that those of you who live, as you say, "in the sexually repressed US of A" occasionally tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, thinking that anything sexually permissive must be good, whether it is or isn't. The legalisation of prostitution over here (nz) brought with it industry regulation and tougher laws (for example increased penalties for underage sex traffic). I think that if you're going to do something you should do it right.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Oh dear (1.56 / 23) (#6)
by aldjiblah on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:43:12 PM EST

Obviously, only a small minority of the k5'ers can find suitable partners. The others lack social skills, lack access to potential partners, aren't intelligent enough to initiate or maintain a relationship, are physically disfigured.

No, only you... (2.12 / 8) (#9)
by Stick on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 05:05:04 PM EST

The rest of us barely have 5 minutes where we aren't shagging something.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Your hand does not count (1.37 / 8) (#17)
by ShadowNode on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:13:32 PM EST

Sorry.

[ Parent ]
Yeah right... (none / 2) (#27)
by D Jade on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:59:14 PM EST

Of all the swinging places on the internet K5 goes off the most... Yeah right. The last few years have seen users of the site turn into up-tight losers! And he's right... hands don't count!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Yeah.. (none / 3) (#54)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:57:26 AM EST

Even if it is only our hands...

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
str8 lolin <nt> (1.50 / 4) (#29)
by vedas on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:42:39 PM EST


I'm hot for pb and BadDoggie
[ Parent ]
this should be regulated or something (2.66 / 33) (#8)
by livus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 04:56:33 PM EST

There is such a thing as "informed consent". Think about it, if prostitutes were the ones who get to say when/if we want to do them, we'd all be being raped all the time. The poor blokes who are too disabled or paralysed to consent are being assaulted by this Nina woman, which is especially bad given that some of them probably (statistically speaking) suffered sexual abuse as children.

To illustrate my point, imagine it if it was a male escort and the disabled were women. "Ja, ja, I know she really wants me to fuck her, she drooled a certain way". This is the kind of thing some men go to jail for, only they don't expect their victims to pay them.

I also completely agree with the Zurich opposition, as handjobs really suck. And I could do without the stupid hippy massage too. If people are paying for sex they should at least get to pay for the sex they want.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Exactly (2.58 / 12) (#14)
by mstefan on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 07:30:12 PM EST

After getting over the initial absurdity of it, this was the first thought I had as well. If this was a male arguing that he should be paid for "servicing" mentally handicapped females, he'd be rightfully accused of rape and sitting in a prison cell right now.

If it's wrong for a man to be doing this to disabled women, it's just as wrong for a woman to be doing this to disabled men.



[ Parent ]
Incorrect. People have right to have sex. (2.42 / 7) (#49)
by Saad on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:01:19 AM EST

Just because it feels wrong doesn't make it wrong.

Humans have sexual needs, and disabled also have them. Sex is healthy, and in general it's the best drug you can come up with. Better is this then nothing.

Do you imply that women do not have sexual desires, and that a man who is ready to fulfill them is a rapist? What's wrong with satisfying sb. needs? Fat ladies over their 50'ies have needs like all other mammals. It is their own tragedy that nobody is interested in them, why do you support that?


"POST COITUM OMNE ANIMAL TRISTE EST."
[ Parent ]
Need does not translate to "right" (1.75 / 4) (#74)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:20:07 AM EST

Humans have sexual needs, and disabled also have them.

Just because you have a "need" doesn't mean that automatically translates into an inherent right. Hell, I have a need for a Maserati; in fact, I would say that it is downright essential for my emotional health and well-being to own a red convertable with leather bucket seats. So, can I count on your financial contribution towards the exercise of my right to have my needs met?

Fact is, human beings do not need sex to live long, productive lives and there is no such right to get laid.



[ Parent ]
Sex is healthy and normal. See links. (2.20 / 5) (#80)
by Saad on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:21:45 PM EST

Sex is a natural need of a human being. If you are not familiar with Maslov's Pyramid, I suggest some reading.

Sex is needed for a healthy psyche as also for healthy body .

Sexual needs, or phantasies are neither right or wrong, as we do not have ways to eliminate them, despite what fundametalists say. It's hard-coded in our brains. Our ancestors who managed to overcome it, died out, and we are the descendands of those who didn't manage to eradicate sex from their lives.

Handicaped need it, and have a right to have it, there is nothing wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody, and no one is forced to do it.


"POST COITUM OMNE ANIMAL TRISTE EST."
[ Parent ]
Hard of reading? (2.00 / 4) (#82)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:37:02 PM EST

I never wrote that sex wasn't healthy or normal. I wrote that we don't have an inherent right to sex. If you don't agree, start commanding other people to heed your innate right to sexual congress and service your urges; I'm curious to see how far you get.

Sexual intercourse is appropriate between two (or more) adults who are in full control of their faculties, understand the consequences of their behavior and consent to it; anything short of that is abusive and probably criminal.



[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 3) (#129)
by wji on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:51:41 PM EST

If you don't agree, start commanding other people to heed your innate right to sexual congress and service your urges; I'm curious to see how far you get. Funny, that seems to be how most guys do get it. But then I'm 17 years old and in high school; maybe it changes later on. But probably not.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
Let's keep going (none / 3) (#134)
by SageGaspar on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 01:01:57 AM EST

A right to have a service performed in the sense of the word being discussed does not translate into a right to demand that service of the government or anyone else. You do have a right to that convertible - as far as I know, no government is stopping you from purchasing it (except, perhaps, in a few countries). However, you do not have a right to demand that the dealership or the government provide you that convertible.

In the same way, you have the right to freedom of expression. However, you do not have the right to demand a convertible from the government to set on fire as some sort of demonstration.

In general, rights not specifically abridged are considered rights granted to you. I would certainly count sex among them.

In addition, I would pose the question, how are we allowed to interact with the mentally handicapped? Should con men who hoodwinkle your average Joe be penalized further for extracting money from them? Are ads that appeal to sexuality targets for lawsuits because they're unfairly appealing to that disadvantaged portion of the population along with the target audience? Can an item or service ever be provided to them, or is that an impossibility since you might always be trying to "exploit" them? Can they ever be allowed to have sex or marry? If so, with whom? Since we're going by mental age, what if someone with a mental age of 10 and a physical age of 50 has consentual sex with a 12 year old? Is it rape?

[ Parent ]
Exploitation (none / 2) (#145)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 12:59:29 PM EST

Can an item or service ever be provided to them, or is that an impossibility since you might always be trying to "exploit" them?

All of marketing is about exploiting the emotional needs of people in order to get you to buy things. And there's already laws on the books to deal with fraudulent practices. The problem in this area that I see are people who attempt to get a severely mentally disabled person to agree to something binding (a contract, etc.) when they are clearly not capable of understanding what it is that they are agreeing to. This is really no different than the fact that a child cannot enter into a legally binding contract. So I think those sorts of issues can be easily resolved.

Can they ever be allowed to have sex or marry?

If they have the mental faculties to understand the consequences of their choices, then yes. However, if it is determined that they cannot, then no. A marriage is a legal and social contract with wide-ranging ramifications for both parties and should not be something that is entered into by people who don't really understand what it is. It's the same fundamental reason that we don't allow 10 year old children to be married.

Since we're going by mental age, what if someone with a mental age of 10 and a physical age of 50 has consentual sex with a 12 year old? Is it rape?

The problem with your statement here is that the law does not recognize the ability of 12 year olds to be able to grant consent. A 12 year old child cannot consent to sex, regardless of what comes out of their mouth, because at that age we know they don't truly understand the consequences of the decision that they're making. So yes, it is rape, regardless.



[ Parent ]
What does that have to do with it? (none / 0) (#83)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:38:37 PM EST

I don't understand the relevance of this statement.  I could see what you mean if you were required to pay for this service, or if all prostitutes were required by law to service disabled people or something, but that is not what is going on.



Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
And by "you" I mean.... (none / 0) (#84)
by Dephex Twin on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:40:46 PM EST

If you personally were asked or required to contribute to some sort of fund or something for this.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]
Right vs. need (none / 0) (#91)
by AxelBoldt on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:06:00 PM EST

Just because you have a "need" doesn't mean that automatically translates into an inherent right.

Agreed, but we provide many amenities to the disabled in nursing homes that they don't have a "right" to. They certainly don't have a right to watch tv, a right to a walk in the park, a right to paper and pencil for drawing, a right to a shower every day, a right to dessert, a right to video games, etc. All of these are paid for by taxpayers, even though one can life a perfectly fine, long and productive life without them.

The only question at hand is: should we add "erotic massage" to the above list of amenities. Your talk about "rights" and "taxpayer money" is besides the point.

[ Parent ]

Maserati (none / 0) (#142)
by Djinh on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:06:26 AM EST

And you do have the right to a Maserati. I doubt that anyone would stop you from going down to the Maserati dealer to buy one.

Just as everyone has the right to sex. And if they can't get any for free, no one should be able to stop them from paying for it.

--
We are the Euro. Resistance is futile. All your dollars will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

A tangent (none / 2) (#144)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 12:38:07 PM EST

Although this is really going off on a tangent, there is no right to own or operate a vehicle; at least in the United States, driving is a privilege that can be revoked at any time for a wide variety of reasons.



[ Parent ]
Not to nitpick, but... (none / 0) (#147)
by skim123 on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 01:34:18 PM EST

Driving on public property is a privilege. I assume that there is no legal forces stopping someone from buying a car and driving it on their own property, even if they've had their license revoked or whatnot.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Hmmm. (none / 0) (#197)
by dipipanone on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:31:13 AM EST

Fact is, human beings do not need sex to live long, productive lives and there is no such right to get laid.

I take it you're speaking from personal experience here...

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Informed consent is given (2.66 / 9) (#16)
by AxelBoldt on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:06:49 PM EST

are being assaulted by this Nina woman

But they are accompanied by their custodians, who presumably are the ones charged with giving informed consent.

[ Parent ]

Informed consent (2.75 / 8) (#30)
by mstefan on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:45:44 PM EST

Are you kidding me? Lets get this straight. Sexual gratification is not a medically necessary procedure, nor would I say that it is a emotionally satisfying experience for those who are so severely mentally disabled that "they cannot do much more than smile or frown".

Simply put, if you aren't in a position to ask for sex -- and I really mean ask for it, not have some projected need asserted by a so-called guardian -- then you shouldn't be having sex. Period.

Not to mention that there's problems with the idea of a guardian offering proxy consent for sex in the first place. What about parents who agrees to let a number of men have sex with their semi-comotose daughter for a hardcore porn video in exchange for money? By your example, they could simply claim that they "knew" that their daughter wanted some group sex. Does the fact that the cash flows in one direction or the other really make a difference to the person who's actually having this forced upon them?

Personally, I believe that if the people themselves are intelligent and lucid enough to ask for sex and they have the money, then they should be able to pay for all the prostitutes that they want. What happens between two consenting adults (and I stress consenting, with no third parties) is their own business. But there is no universal right to get laid and there's no way in hell that taxpayer money should be used to fund these "massages".



[ Parent ]
How do you know what they want? (3.00 / 4) (#47)
by AxelBoldt on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:39:57 AM EST

nor would I say that it is a emotionally satisfying experience for those who are so severely mentally disabled that "they cannot do much more than smile or frown".

How do you know what they like or want? I would assume that the people who work everyday with them, i.e. their custodians and caregivers, are best able to interpret their wishes. And these people do that all the time: they decide what the disabled would like to eat, what music they would like to hear, whether they would like to sit up or lie down, where they would like to go for a walk etc. Having sex is just another item on the list.

[ Parent ]

Informed consent (variant) (2.00 / 6) (#52)
by fhotg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:21:12 AM EST

Are you kidding me? Lets get this straight. Eating good food is not a medically necessary procedure, nor would I say that it is a emotionally satisfying experience for those who are so severely mentally disabled that "they cannot do much more than smile or frown".

Simply put, if you aren't in a position to ask for tasty food -- and I really mean ask for it, not have some projected need asserted by a so-called guardian -- then you shouldn't be eating the fruits of a highly developed cuisine. Period.

["think of the children !!" - paragraph left out]

Personally, I believe that if the people themselves are intelligent and lucid enough to ask for their favorite eatstuff and they have the money, then they should be able to pay for all the chefs that they want. What happens between two consenting adults (and I stress consenting, with no third parties) is their own business. But there is no universal right to eat professionally prepared specialities and there's no way in hell that taxpayer money should be used to fund these "meals".
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

Food and sex (none / 3) (#69)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:46:56 AM EST

Eating good food, where good is defined as nutritious, is certainly medically necessary. However, are the mentally handicapped entitled to a Chateaubriand from La Scala, complete with a nice red wine and desert, at taxpayer expense? No.

And I'm sorry, as enjoyable as sex is, it's not necessary to live. You can't go without food for very long. You can live a long, full life without ever having had sex; we know this because people have done it.



[ Parent ]
Chateaubriand (none / 3) (#97)
by fhotg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:14:05 PM EST

There is a general consent that ressources from a civilised society at large are allocated to mediate the handicaps of disabled members of that society to a certain extent. [AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE, YES. I, personally, am proud and satisfied when I see some of the 45% of my gross-income spent on making people around me happier, but that's another topic]

You can attack that consent, but you then better start by questioning wheel-chair ramps.

Sex is a basic requirement for a happy life, as is the ability to access good food. The fact that some choose a lifelong diet of burgers and coke or chastity (I wonder if these groups overlap) doesn't invalidate this.

So if a caregiver who prepares and feeds a tard who can't directly ask for his favorite yummystuff, ocassionally puts extra hours / money into serving something special, she might as well take him to a sexworker to get a nice experience.

You "TAXPAYER blah ..." argument is a straw man. A hand-job or decent fuck isn't that costly. We're talking neither about Chateaubriand nor daylong orgies with many models and heaps of cocaine. To what extent the TAXPAYER is involved is a minor detail of implementation which appears to be brought forth here by people who seem to suffer from moralyrrhea.

personal note: Since you compare sex with a meal that can only be enjoyed by quite rich people on a regular basis, I hope you are rich.
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

By what standards? (3.00 / 6) (#65)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:09:16 AM EST

Simply put, if you aren't in a position to ask for sex -- and I really mean ask for it, not have some projected need asserted by a so-called guardian -- then you shouldn't be having sex.

I'm guessing that you don't have much experience of people with learning disabilities. I worked with people with moderate to severe disabilities for a couple of years, and they don't seem to have any trouble at all asking for -- and getting -- sex with each other.

So while it's clear that at least one of the pair wants sex, this causes all manner of problems. How do you know that one isn't being manipulated or coerced? What do you do about contraception? What sort of impact does this have on group homes?

It seems to me to be far more sensible to buy these people a hand job than to allow them to fuck each other senseless in an uncontrolled manner.

Not to mention that there's problems with the idea of a guardian offering proxy consent for sex in the first place.

Not as big a problem as you might think. I remember when I first started on the job as a naive young boy of 18 or so. On my first week, I wandered in on a sixty-odd year old man, sodomizing a thirty year old man with Downs Syndrome in a toilet.

On my second week, a young woman with severe Downs Syndrome sat on her bed and told me she had tummy ache. When I asked her where it hurt, she took my hand as if to show me, and then grabbed it and clamped it to her pussy, and then clung on relentlessly.

A few weeks later, one of the residents had to be sterilized, because she had a habit of finding random men to impregnate her. Sterilization seemed less harmful than repeated abortions.

So I rather suspect that there'll be no shortage of uptake for such a service wherever its available.

What about parents who agrees to let a number of men have sex with their semi-comotose daughter for a hardcore porn video in exchange for money?

What about it? It's clearly exploitative, but I don't see what it has to do with this issue outside of your fevered imagination.

What about a person who has always enjoyed an active sex life, but has suffered a severe accident that leaves him (or her) severely mentally and physically disabled? Their carers are made clearly aware of their desire for sex, either through gesture, action or some other form of communication. Why shouldn't they act on their behalf to acquire a service that they clearly desire -- just as they would with any other service?

The only thing that I can see that's different about buying such a person sex, as opposed to some other desired good or service, is your moralistic desire to interfere in the process.

By your example, they could simply claim that they "knew" that their daughter wanted some group sex.

Leaving aside the fact that such comatose people are highly unlikely to want or get this service -- what would be the point -- this is why we have social services departments - to investigate and prosecute this kind of abuse.

But are you seriously suggesting that this is anything like the norm? That devoted carers who effectively give up their own lives to devote for their disabled dependents are likely to abuse them in this manner? I honestly don't think it is and I think your suggestion to the contrary is contemptuous.

Does the fact that the cash flows in one direction or the other really make a difference to the person who's actually having this forced upon them?

You don't have any basis for saying that this sex would be 'forced upon them'. Again, this is just another product of your hyperactive moralistic imagination. When it comes to grown men, it's extremely difficult to force sex upon them

Personally, I believe that if the people themselves are intelligent and lucid enough to ask for sex and they have the money, then they should be able to pay for all the prostitutes that they want

Right. But anyone who *isn't* like you, shouldn't be able to have it at all, because the very idea turns your stomach... Perhaps you'd rather we started a new eugenics programme so that we didn't have to face such difficult questions ever again?

Here's a hint: when you've walked even half an inch in any of their shoes -- carers or patients, your views might have some purchase. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, your views are just an expression of plain old bigotry...

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Reality (none / 3) (#72)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:12:18 AM EST

That devoted carers who effectively give up their own lives to devote for their disabled dependents are likely to abuse them in this manner? I honestly don't think it is and I think your suggestion to the contrary is contemptuous.

And according to AARP statistics, it's estimated that somewhere between 3-6 million of those disabled dependents will be abused by so-called professional caregivers; people who are paid to care for the disabled or elderly. The exact statistics for sexual abuse aren't known because, like rape, it's a significantly underreported crime; the number could be much higher. So climb down off that might tall horse of yours and accept the fact that not is all virtuous amongst those who provide services for the disabled. It's not exactly like sexual abuse of the infirm is unheard of or even rare (and as a side note, any facility that is so lax as to allow their charges to sodomize one another is also abusing them). Legitimizing this sort of thing only swings the door open wider for abusers and makes it more difficult to prosecute them.

Having sex is not medically necessary, and I find this whole justification for foisting prostitutes on the severely mentally disabled "because they really want it" to be morally and ethically bankrupt.



[ Parent ]
statistics vs reality (none / 0) (#113)
by speek on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:40:00 PM EST

Lots of disabled people are abused, many sexually. It is disturbingly common.

But, the poster you replied to speaks truly - many disabled people are downright desperate for sex, and many have none of our usual shyness about it. It is also hardly "morally and ethically bankrupt" to help people learn about and decide if they are interested in it. I don't know if you've ever met someone with Down's syndrome, but a large number of them are entirely capable of engaging in sex, and taking it away from them is something we do for our own convenience, because of moralists like yourself who seem to be in the majority. These people are not allowed displays of affection they clearly feel comfortable making, because it would get their caregivers a heap of trouble with the law. It's a shame is what it is, and your heavy-handed morality doesn't help.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Impulse control (none / 3) (#117)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:10:12 PM EST

I don't know if you've ever met someone with Down's syndrome, but a large number of them are entirely capable of engaging in sex...

The reason that many of the more severely mentally handicapped are highly sexual is because they simply lack impusle control; for them, sexual intercourse is almost purely a physical act. It is in our base nature to want to have sex, it is how our species propagates itself after all. The problem is that there is little (or in some cases, I'd suggest no) emotional context for them outside of their own pleasure, and they certainly don't understand the more complex social and moral implications of engaging in sexual intercourse with another person.

Sexual relations between people should be more than simply the mechanical ability to insert tab A into slot B. It should be a choice made by two people who are in full control of their faculties and can make an informed choice.

Some of you seem to have reduced the act of sex between two people to having the moral equivalent of deciding what vegetable you want to have with your meatloaf for dinner. The choice of whether to have sex and with whom is a deeply personal one that third parties should not be able to make for you, regardless of how good their intentions are.

To make it clear, I'm not against the disabled having sex; as long as they are able to responsibly make that choice, have a willing partner and understand the consequences of their decision, then that's fine. But if they are so disabled that they can't be reasonably held as responsible for their own actions, then they have no business having sex.

The bottom line is that a sexual act between two people is more than just a biological function. There is a wider range of moral, ethical and legal implications than many here seem willing to admit; I, for one, have no interest in seeing us go down that slippery slope of sexual consent by proxy for the severely disabled.



[ Parent ]
How big of you... (none / 0) (#196)
by dipipanone on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:28:23 AM EST

To make it clear, I'm not against the disabled having sex; as long as they are able to responsibly make that choice, have a willing partner and understand the consequences of their decision, then that's fine.

That's very generous of you. Now when do you think we'll start holding those people who don't have a learning disability or other mental impairment to the same standards?

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Still confused? (none / 0) (#195)
by dipipanone on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:24:05 AM EST

So climb down off that might tall horse of yours and accept the fact that not is all virtuous amongst those who provide services for the disabled

Do try and stick to the point, won't you? Nobody is arguing that sexual abuse and exploitation of anyone isn't a bad thing.

What you're arguing (and I'm rebutting) is that people with learning disabilities should *not* have the right to sexual services -- specifically because they are inherently abusive.

Yes, some professional caregivers physically abuse their charges as well. If we followed your line of reasoning, we'd be leaving them all to rot in the gutter because it was preferable to running the risk that paid carers may slap them around a bit.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
would you say the same thing (3.00 / 4) (#34)
by livus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:25:52 PM EST

if they were children?  

I understand what a proxy is but there are some decisions that need to be made by the individual.

I'm not saying it should be banned out of hand, simply that only those who can give their own informed consent should be subjected to it.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Children vs. retarded (2.50 / 4) (#48)
by AxelBoldt on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:45:17 AM EST

Would you say the same thing if they were children?

No I wouldn't, but they aren't. But I understand (and mentioned) the very common argument that people with the mental status of children should be treated like children -- I just don't agree with it. Conversely, you would then also have to treat children with the mental status of adults as adults.

[ Parent ]

that's not right (none / 2) (#63)
by Timo Laine on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:57:46 AM EST

Conversely, you would then also have to treat children with the mental status of adults as adults.
That is incorrect. It is perfectly possible to have two conditions for adulthood: to be an adult, you would have to be older than 18 (or something like that), and you would have to have the mental capabilities of an adult. If either one or both of these conditions are unsatisfied, the person does not qualify as an adult.

[ Parent ]
In many states of the US anyway... (none / 1) (#114)
by randyk on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:41:11 PM EST

this can in fact happen. It's called emancipation, and depending on the locality, can happen automatically given certain conditions, or it can be specifically requested.

I imagine many other countries have similar things.



[ Parent ]
That's not logical, and you misinterpret my query (none / 2) (#116)
by livus on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:05:24 PM EST

I do not equate the mental state of any adult disabled with that of children. I'm not entirely uneducated about this issue.

I mentioned children because you seemed to be saying that if someone's will is in the power of caregivers then the caregiver's consent makes it right for them to have sex, even in the absence of their own consent.

I see childern as another case where someone's will is subjugated to that of their caregiver.  

As for your statement about treating children like adults, that's neither logical nor rational, merely odd, and I hope that neither you nor I agree with it.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Children vs. mentally retarded (none / 0) (#179)
by AxelBoldt on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:19:51 AM EST

you seemed to be saying that if someone's will is in the power of caregivers then the caregiver's consent makes it right for them to have sex, even in the absence of their own consent.

Well, that wasn't what I was trying to say. Here's my current opinion, copied from another post on this page:

If a mentally disabled adult communicates a desire to have sex and their custodian/legal proxy believes that sex would be in their best interest, and it is in fact in their best interest, then the custodian may give informed consent on their behalf.

Without this rule, we would in effect impose a life sentence of "no sex" on the mentally disabled. Considering the importance of the sexual urge in humans (including the mentally disabled), this would be inhumane and arbitrary.

I don't think it matters much whether we apply the same rule above also to children or not; most juries would probably agree that for children, having sex is never in their best interest.

[ Parent ]

I agree, but the rub is here: (none / 0) (#208)
by livus on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 09:27:18 PM EST

"If a mentally disabled adult communicates a desire to have sex.

Big if. All I am doing is agreeing with those who say that this communication must happen, beyond reasonable doubt, before the sex should be allowed to take place.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is too strong (none / 0) (#209)
by AxelBoldt on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:13:10 PM EST

this communication must happen, beyond reasonable doubt, before the sex should be allowed to take place.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is way too strong, in fact I find it almost impossible to meet. The law should say "if the person communicates a desire to have sex", and a prosecutor, who claims that this communication was not present, then has to prove *that fact* beyond reasonable doubt. After all, the guardian is the one who is in legal danger, and it shouldn't be required of him to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. For example, if I'm accused of having raped someone, then I don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they gave informed consent-- the prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not give informed consent.

[ Parent ]

that doesn't follow. (none / 0) (#211)
by livus on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 12:29:47 AM EST

I was using the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in its literal meaning. Obviously in a court of law the caregiver would be inocent until proven guilty, and the prosecutor in this case would have to prove that the communication was not clear enough, i.e that a reasonable person would not think that the communication was clear.
I'm not advocating the entire upheaval of the justice system.

The guardian may be in legal danger but it is the handicapped person who is in physical/emotional danger. There are very similar laws proposed in connection with all sorts of things, eg euthanasia, marriage, or even the making of wills and proxies. A person has to be of sane mind, etc. What's so abberant about expecting a standard of communication here?

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Dangers (none / 0) (#219)
by AxelBoldt on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 06:18:50 PM EST

it is the handicapped person who is in physical/emotional danger.

That's true. There are two dangers: that the person has to spend their life without sex against their true will, and that sex with a prostitute is forced on them by their guardian against their true will. The law should take both these dangers into account.

What's so abberant about expecting a standard of communication here?

A danger to be avoided: that many mentally disabled persons will never be able to rise to the required standard of communication, no matter how hard they try.

[ Parent ]

well, that indicates (none / 0) (#224)
by livus on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:48:38 PM EST

that the standard of communication required should reflect that. I agree that the law should take both dangers into consideration.

I think that as you yourself have said, a great many mentally disabled people are perfectly capable of communicating that they want to have sex. My call for regulation would not even affect the majority.

Look, I am not anti prostitution. I live in a country where it is legal. I'm also conversant with some of the issues surrounding sex and the handicapped. I am not against handicapped people enjoying sex. However I am against anyone being abused, and I think there is a tendency to overreact to one danger at the expense of protecting against the other danger. There must be a happy medium.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Male sexual care givers (2.91 / 12) (#18)
by AxelBoldt on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:13:43 PM EST

imagine it if it was a male escort and the disabled were women.

The plans in Zurich involved (and still involve) male sexual care givers.

[ Parent ]

poor guys (1.36 / 11) (#24)
by auraslip on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 08:50:38 PM EST


___-___
[ Parent ]
what's informed? (2.77 / 9) (#28)
by speek on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 09:15:02 PM EST

If a person can communicate the desire to engage in sex, does that not constitute informed consent? I mean, what is there that's so complicated for the person to consider? Either they want to get off with the ho or not. Having worked with the disabled, I can confidently say it is not so hard to find disabled people who are entirely able to give this type of consent (and many Down's Syndrome people would easily qualify). Those who can't, can't, and they indeed shouldn't be candidates for this.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I half agree (2.83 / 6) (#33)
by livus on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 11:19:51 PM EST

but informed consent has two parts to it. You need to be able to communicate what you want and youalso need to be able to understand the meaning of and implications of what you are asking.

If you are unable to understand that asking for sex with a sexually diseased person carries a level of risk of contracting the disease, for instance, you are not informed.

In general though I agree, there are plenty who can, but I think it needs to be regulated and monitored to protect those who cannot.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Informed consent redux (2.25 / 4) (#119)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:41:15 PM EST

If a person can communicate the desire to engage in sex, does that not constitute informed consent?

In short, no. The ability to communicate a desire is not the same as understanding the consequences of one's choices and agreeing to participate in some action. By your definition, a 10 year old girl could "consent" to sexual intercourse with an adult because she is curious about the activity. But reasonable people would agree that she cannot give consent because she doesn't understand the consequences of her behavior and her emotional development is not sufficient to make those sorts of decisions. Society also agrees that those decisions could not be made by proxy on behalf of her guardians; for example, her parents could not decide to grant consent on behalf of their 10 year old daughter. Such permission would not only result in the arrest of the adult, but also the parents or guardian who permitted it to take place.

And, the fact is that regardless of their physical age, many of these mentally disabled people have the intellect of a 10 year old (or younger). Someone else posted a very important point that is related to this. If you go down the slippery slope of allowing the severely mentally retarded to "consent" to sexual intercourse, you also open the door for "consentual" sex with children. Because when a 35 year old man has the intellect and emotional maturity of an 8 year old boy, he is for all practical purposes a child. And it is appropriate and necessary for society to treat him as such, which means providing for him and protecting him from others who would abuse him, as well as from actions he would wish to take himself that would harmful to him.

If someone can explain to me why it is acceptible to have sex with a 30 year old woman that functions with the mind of a 10 year old, but not acceptable to have sex with a 10 year old girl, I'd love to hear it. As it is, I believe that both acts should be considered equally morally repugnant.

PS: If you are so perverted and utterly devoid of humanity as to believe that sex with children is acceptable, then don't bother replying. Just do society at large a favor and terminate yourself.



[ Parent ]
not all in the mind (none / 2) (#127)
by speek on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:05:57 PM EST

A 10-year old generally doesn't have desires to engage in sex. His/her body hasn't developed those aspects fully enough for that. A 30-year-old with the intellect of a 10-year-old still has the body of a 30-year-old, and thus has generally developed certain sexual aspects. And there you have the important, relevant difference between child and disabled adult. But, it was a good try conflating the two.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Desire and consent (none / 2) (#146)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 01:07:55 PM EST

A 10-year old generally doesn't have desires to engage in sex.

I hope you realize that you're essentially making the argument here that once someone has reached puberty, they have a de facto right to engage and consent to sexual activity. According the rationale that the "desire to engage in sex" equals the right to pursue those desires, every hormonal pre-teen and teenager out there is fair game as far as you're concerned. Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to have sex with a menstruating 12 year old girl who claims she wants to have intercourse?

Fortunately, society has decided that this is not the case. And finally, the issues are indeed conflated because the mental capacity to grant consent and understand the consequences of that consent are central to them.



[ Parent ]
of course I realize (none / 2) (#150)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:40:30 PM EST

Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to have sex with a menstruating 12 year old girl who claims she wants to have intercourse

I'm not rising to this bait. You are specifically selecting extreme cases and then generalizing up to your comfort level without further critical thought. If that's how you want to argue, fine, but I'm through responding. I will say that for those poor souls trapped in adult, sexual bodies with hindered mental capacity, some of the risky consequences of sex (disease, pregnancy) can be filtered out by their care-givers without eliminating entirely their sexual activity options.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

The luxury of optimism (none / 2) (#151)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:51:32 PM EST

I'm not rising to this bait. You are specifically selecting extreme cases and then generalizing...

I would submit that you're deluding yourself if you think that an example of sexual intercourse with a 12 year old female is an "extreme case" these days. I would submit to you that not only is it not extreme, it is far too common.

It would seem that you are arguing from the position that this is a human need to be met, and that because people by nature good and well-intentioned, that need can be met with the reasonable assurance of safety by the responsible actions on the part of caregivers and society at large.

And I am saying that this position shows a staggering amount of naivete and unfounded belief in the fundamental goodness of human beings. Your views, while admirable in the goal of caring for those who are mentally disabled, would only truly serve to increase predation upon those very same people, as well as making it more difficult to punish those who would abuse them.

Bottom line? When in doubt, it's always safest to assume the worst in human nature.



[ Parent ]
assuming the worst usually guarantees it (none / 0) (#152)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:16:41 PM EST

if you think that an example of sexual intercourse with a 12 year old female is an "extreme case" these days. I would submit to you that not only is it not extreme, it is far too common.

Firstly, it is extreme. Regardless of how common the occurrence is or isn't - the extremity has to do with you deliberately selecting a border case of someone just entering puberty and 99.999% likely to be experiencing primarily confusion rather than clear desire, and characterizing my position as being in favor of much older people being free to seduce him/her.

Secondly, it (non-forcible intercourse with 12-year-old girls) is not common.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I think you'd be surprised (none / 2) (#153)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:28:10 PM EST

Secondly, it (non-forcible intercourse with 12-year-old girls) is not common.

Unforunately, you're wrong here. First, having intercourse with a 12 year old, "forcible" or not, is abuse. Period. And the US Dept. of Health and Human Services statistics show that the highest rate of sexual abuse of females is in the 12-15 age group, followed by females in the 8-11 age group. Google is my friend.



[ Parent ]
I should clarify... (none / 1) (#154)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:29:23 PM EST

That's the highest rate of abuse of females under the age of 18, not all females regardless of age.



[ Parent ]
well, that explains a lot (none / 1) (#155)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:32:32 PM EST

Do you see sex and forcible rape as equivalent, or are you looking to mischaracterize me as being in favor of legalizing forcible rape?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Simple (none / 1) (#163)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:59:41 PM EST

Yes, anyone -- even another minor -- who has sex with a 12 year old is engaging in rape, regardless of whether or not the victim is supposedly "asking for it".

Since you seem to be missing it, I'll state it more clearly: there is no such thing as consentual sex with someone that young because, as a matter of law and moral consensus, they cannot consent. Period. I would argue that the same standard should be held to those who may be physically older, but with the same limited mental capacity and lack the ability to truly understand what they're doing, therefore being unable to make informed consent.



[ Parent ]
sigh (none / 1) (#164)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:17:13 PM EST

Since you're having so much trouble following the thread, let me help you out.

  1. you: Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to have sex with a menstruating 12 year old girl who claims she wants to have intercourse?

  2. me: You are specifically selecting extreme cases and then generalizing up to your comfort level without further critical thought

  3. you: you're deluding yourself if you think that an example of sexual intercourse with a 12 year old female is an "extreme case" these days. I would submit to you that not only is it not extreme, it is far too common.

  4. me: it (non-forcible intercourse with 12-year-old girls) is not common.

  5. you: First, having intercourse with a 12 year old, "forcible" or not, is abuse

Thanks for the public service announcement (see #2 above), but I fail to see what that has to do with your apparent claim regarding the common-ness of 12-year-old girls claiming to want intercourse and getting it.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Tying it together (none / 2) (#166)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:28:31 PM EST

1. As a society, we agree that it is wrong to engage in sexual intercourse with a 12 year old child, even if that child verbalizes a desire for sex.

2. The reason that a 12 year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse is because they do not have the experience or intellectual capacity to understand the consequences of their decisions. In other words, they do not have the emotional and/or intellectual capacity to give informed consent to sexual activity.

3. A parent or guardian cannot give consent by proxy for someone to have sexual relations with their 12 year old child. Consent can only be given by the individual themselves, and only when the law agrees that they have the capacity to make that decision.

4. A person who is physically older, but with the same limited 12 year old mental capacity, should be held to exactly the same standard. If they, because of their mental defect, do not have the emotional and/or intellectual capacity to give informed consent then they cannot do so. Simply put, if someone is so severely retarded that the law considers them unable to make their own legal or medical decisions, then they similarly lack the ability to engage in consentual sex because they in fact cannot consent as a result of their disability.

The whole 12 year old child thing was admittedly a tangent, but it does tie together. The same rationale used by society to explain why children should not be able to consent to sex should apply to those who have the mental capacity of a child.



[ Parent ]
another public service announcement (none / 0) (#170)
by speek on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:54:22 PM EST

gee thanks. I got it already, and had stopped talking with you about that quite a while ago. Surprisingly, you can't convince people who don't agree with you by simply repeating your beliefs ad nauseum. Bummer, eh?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

12-year-olds vs. people with that mental age (none / 1) (#178)
by AxelBoldt on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:25:31 AM EST

A person who is physically older, but with the same limited 12 year old mental capacity, should be held to exactly the same standard.

This is your belief that you keep repeating over and over on this page, yet you fail to give an argument in favor of it.

It's perfectly possible to treat 12-year-olds and adults with the mental status of a 12-year-old differently. In fact, the law often does exactly that. I'm sure you know lots of examples; I don't have to list them here.

One could formulate the following rule: if an adult with the mental status of a 12 year old communicates a desire to have sex, and their proxy believes it to be in their best interest, and it is in fact in their best interest, then the proxy may give informed consent on their behalf.

This rule would clearly be different from the rule applying to 12-year-olds. The rationale for the rule is the inhumanity and arbitrariness of imposing a life sentence of "no sex" on retarded people, since the desire to have sex is (maybe after the desire to eat) one of the strongest urges of human nature.



[ Parent ]

good rule (none / 0) (#184)
by twi on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:15:41 AM EST

I'd consider this to be a very reasonably rule. Should I ever be in such a handicapped state I hope to have people with your attitude around me ;-)

All the best, rob

[ Parent ]

can't compare that (none / 1) (#183)
by twi on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:13:20 AM EST

---you said----
4. A person who is physically older, but with the same limited 12 year old mental capacity, should be held to exactly the same standard. If they, because of their mental defect, do not have the emotional and/or intellectual capacity to give informed consent then they cannot do so. Simply put, if someone is so severely retarded that the law considers them unable to make their own legal or medical decisions, then they similarly lack the ability to engage in consentual sex because they in fact cannot consent as a result of their disability.
----

a. they can also not make an informed decision wether they should eat or not. Let them starve? Forcefeed them? Or at least try to find out if they are hungry and if so, what they would like to eat?

b. what information does the handicapped person need to make an informed decision about sex? I'd say it is this: will I get pregnant? Can I (in this case of prostitution) afford it? Do I like it? The first two questions can be taken care of by the person who also cares for the legal- and medical-stuff. The third is so very simple that a lot of people, who had zero chance of getting sex on their own, could answer it for themselves and for others very clearly. Am I missing something? There realy isn't a lot to decide about sex. It can absolutely not be compared with the decision about ones medication.

All the best, rob

[ Parent ]

too easy (none / 0) (#182)
by twi on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:02:18 AM EST

> Your views, while admirable in the goal of caring for those who are mentally disabled, would only
> truly serve to increase predation upon those very same people, as well as making it more difficult to
> punish those who would abuse them.
>
>Bottom line? When in doubt, it's always safest to assume the worst in human nature.

With this argumentation you could also prohibit any sex at all. That way no rapist could go free with the "she wanted it"-excuse. Then any sex would be rape and the question would only be: does the woman go to prison too.

All the best,
rob
 

[ Parent ]

Re: Informed consent redux (none / 1) (#159)
by drsmithy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:35:56 PM EST

And, the fact is that regardless of their physical age, many of these mentally disabled people have the intellect of a 10 year old (or younger). Someone else posted a very important point that is related to this. If you go down the slippery slope of allowing the severely mentally retarded to "consent" to sexual intercourse, you also open the door for "consentual" sex with children.

No, you don't, because the the concept of "age of consent" is based on the age of the individual, not their mental state (perceived or otherwise). There is no slippery slope, because your base assumption is wrong. We don't allow 12 year olds to have sex because they're only 12 years old, not because they have the mentality of a 12 year old (not all of the mdo). Similarly, we allow people older than $AGE_OF_CONSENT_IN_YOUR_LOCALE to have sex because they are older than that magic number, not because they have the mental abilities of someone older than that number (because, obviously, some of them don't).

In short, age of consent is based on physical age, not mental age.

[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 3) (#165)
by mstefan on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:17:30 PM EST

We don't allow 12 year olds to have sex because they're only 12 years old, not because they have the mentality of a 12 year old...

The fundamental reason why we have an "age of consent" is because we, as a society, had to pick a number. The very fact that there are different ages in different states and countries shows that it's not merely a matter of physical development; if it were, then the age of consent would be based on the individual reaching puberty.

Different societies pick different numbers, but those numbers represent the point at which the people think that the average person is capable of making informed consent -- an intellectual and emotional decision about their own sexual activity. It is the same general reason why minors cannot also marry or enter into legally binding contracts. And it should be noted that the severely mentally disabled are also prevented from making legal, medical, etc. decisions on their own behalf exactly because they don't have that capacity regardless of their physical age. If the law says you don't have the mental capacity to agree to a legally binding contract, you sure as hell don't have the capacity to provide informed consent to sexual activity.

In other words, you're wrong.



[ Parent ]
Re: Wrong (none / 2) (#167)
by drsmithy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 07:47:52 PM EST

The fundamental reason why we have an "age of consent" is because we, as a society, had to pick a number.

No, it's because there are significant puritannical sections of society who find the concepts of "sexuality" and "children" (really just the "sexuality" part) so disgusting they've have spent hundreds of years imposing their morality on everyone else. *That's* why there are ridiculous legal principles like "statuatory rape".

There's nothing "age of consent" laws do that other, more generic laws (rape, assault, etc) couldn't do as well (and probably better).

The very fact that there are different ages in different states and countries shows that it's not merely a matter of physical development; if it were, then the age of consent would be based on the individual reaching puberty.

Except for the differing ages of puberty across the world and historical influences...

And it should be noted that the severely mentally disabled are also prevented from making legal, medical, etc. decisions on their own behalf exactly because they don't have that capacity regardless of their physical age. If the law says you don't have the mental capacity to agree to a legally binding contract, you sure as hell don't have the capacity to provide informed consent to sexual activity.

Decisions which are, instead, made for them by their carers. So why should sex be any different ? Are you trying to imply a carer irresponsibly allowing their charge to get a handjob is more likely to have greater negative repercussions than that same carer writing themselves into their charge's will as the sole beneficiery ?

When a carer can make decisions for their charge with regards to life or death medical situations, or concerning their entire financial world, the decision whether or not their charge can blow a load is pretty insignificant.

[ Parent ]

RTFA much? (1.66 / 6) (#43)
by Koutetsu on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:37:16 AM EST

Often, the massage culminates in her masturbating the client to orgasm. She does not offer sexual intercourse or oral sex.

So you see, there is no 'fucking' going on here, unless it's the caregiver's hand being fucked. While it could still technically be called rape, it's not doing anything sexually for the rapist.

. . .
"the same thing will happen with every other effort. it will somehow be undermined because the trolls are more clever and more motivated than you
[ Parent ]

sexual "things" (2.85 / 7) (#66)
by danharan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:12:33 AM EST

There are some people that get off with scat, or want to be tied up, flogged, blindfolded, cuffed, farted on, pissed on, slapped, whipped, cursed, waxed, dressed up, seen in public having sex, have sex in public without being seen, or jerk off to ruby red shoes, porn (het or homo), make out in the bathtub, swap partners...

In other words, given the extent of weird kinks out there, it's not totally inconceivable that this woman is getting some pleasure giving handjobs to mentally disabled men.

I think if I- as a single white male- decided to offer erotic massages to disabled women even without including a hand-job, I would get pilloried. All the more so if I claimed to be able to interpret their wishes.

[ Parent ]

huh? ummmm (none / 1) (#172)
by livus on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:10:36 PM EST

do you really think that the only thing which does anything sexual for anyone is when they actually fuck?

With a theory like that, you must think all sorts of assaulters, voyeurs and kiddy fiddlers are not getting anything sexual out of their behaviour.

To be honest, whether the "care"giver likes it or not isn't really the point. If someone wants to stick a bottle up your ass do you really think that whether or not he enjoys doing it is what determines whether or not it is assault?

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

Handjobs suck? (2.25 / 8) (#58)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:09:41 AM EST

handjobs really suck

Surely your objection is that handjobs *don't* suck? If they did, they'd be headjobs.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Legalised Prostitution (2.43 / 16) (#31)
by famanoran on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:54:17 PM EST

I'd just like to point out that New Zealand has recently legalised prostitution as well, to increase the legal protection of prostitutes and ensure safe working conditions etc.

Singapore too. (3.00 / 6) (#38)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:40:28 AM EST

Allowed in two localities only though, Geylang and Duscker Road, and even there, they aren't legally allowed to approach potential customers. The customer approaches the pimp or the sexual worker, not the other way.

India (or at least liberal Indian cities such as Hyderabad and Bangalore) are on the verge of doing so. Guess there's no choice really; the AIDS epidemic back home is fast ballooning out of control.

Only problem is that the ruling politicians there have cultivated women's groups very carefully and thorougly, to the point that the groups are now setting the agenda and are obviously way too caught up in their propaganda to even consider acknowledging the fact that the cities have historically had a legal red light district until 50 or so years back. Which, incidentally, is also the reason why all bars and pubs (in Hyderabad at least; Bangalore is still sane) have to close at 11:30PM or so; the women's groups don't like the idea of Hyderabadis partying immorally till dawn.

But then, you have heavy-duty donors like the Melinda Gates Foundation who are deep into supporting AIDS control measures, so you never know.

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

India (none / 1) (#40)
by splitpeasoup on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:45:34 AM EST

Hyderabad and Bangalore are on the verge of legalizing prostitution? What is your source? Do cities even have jurisdiction in this matter?

AIDS is chiefly concentrated in Mumbai, Tamil Nadu, and the Northeast. Whatever Hyderabad and Bangalore do is not going to significantly affect India's AIDS problem.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

AIDS in Andhra Pradesh. (3.00 / 4) (#46)
by Akshay on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:33:59 AM EST

Hyderabad and Bangalore are on the verge of legalizing prostitution? What is your source? Do cities even have jurisdiction in this matter?
I can't comment on FWBT's sources, or even the legalizing bit, but I can say this:- states, and by extension cities, have more leeway than you can imagine. Especially AP I might add, what with the CM, Chandrababu Naidu's pull in Delhi. Consider, for instance, how he hijacked a central scheme, the DWCRA, to his own political benefit. (Nothing wrong with it, mind you, just pointing out an obvious example)
AIDS is chiefly concentrated in Mumbai, Tamil Nadu, and the Northeast. Whatever Hyderabad and Bangalore do is not going to significantly affect India's AIDS problem.
First of all, you don't want to lump all of the North East into one group; states like Arunachal Pradesh have little or no AIDS cases, while other states like Manipur have higher rates. Mostly, we're told, because of the porous border with Myanmar (Indian and Myanmarese citizens can enter each other's territories to a distance of 20 km without visas) which in itself has a huge AIDS crisis on its hands.

But to answer your assertion on Andhra Pradesh. Perhaps you want to take a look at this document here. In particular, consider the map and this quote here:-

For example, four large states have registered HIV rates of over one percent in pregnant women and over five percent in high risk groups. They are: Maharashtra, with a population of 98 million; Andhra Pradesh, with 76 million; Tamil Nadu, with 62 million, and Karnataka, with 52 million. (Figure 1)
Note that a mere eight years back, AIDS prevalence in AP was zero cases. That's right, there were none in 1994. Nada. Zilch. And now we have one of the fastest growing AIDS populations in India, so much so that the policymakers are already quacking in their shoes; CBN, again, is already on record saying how we shouldn't go the Botswana way, where I believe close to 20% of the population is AIDS-affected.

Yup, that's right; the handling of AIDS in AP is one of Indian healthcare's greatest tragedies.

[ Parent ]

Gee, thanks. :-) (none / 1) (#78)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:06:51 PM EST

Fancy meeting you here on K5 on this particular thread; didn't quite expect it. We had umm, a pact, remember? :-)

Sources.... well (I'm sure you have guessed this already, but for others) it's first-hand, live and direct from someone involved in the high-profile AIDS campaign last year in Hyderabad. Ure right on calling the AIDS crisis as a failure of Indian healthcare, but as always, the untold story is more about politics rather than the administration per se.

Policies such as that for AIDS need not just political leadership, but more critically, political imagination.

Which is to say, the doctors and medical policy experts knew what to expect way back in 1993-94 itself, when the first few cases came out; I don't want to take names on a public website, but at least one government hospital in Hyderabad was ready to instutionalise ELISA testing for all in-patients, no matter what the cause was. What's more, they even predicted the exact manner in which the epidemic would grow, although to be fair, they got the exact districts wrong (I believe, and I could be reallly reallly REALLLY wrong here, they expected districts such Krishna district to have bigger AIDS populations and more sparse districts such as Anantapur to have less; the current situation is the exact opposite, Anantapur and its neighbouring districts in percentage terms have greater AIDS populations)

Unfortunately, and this is where the real tragedy lies, the plan fell through. The political masters du jour just didn't understand the dynamics involved, and this is a comment on everyone in power in the last decade, but perhaps more on the INC goons rather than the TDP ones; instead of, you know, taking real measures, decided to limit themselves to lameduck television campaigns on the state-run channel, Doordarshan, which nobody watches anyway. Basically, they needed the money to be channelled into all those politically-wonderful agricultural and power subsidies, as also experiment with an economically ruinous Prohibition.

(Which is not to, of course, suggest that throwing more money would have arrested the problem, just that seeing where the money goes tells you a great deal about people's priorities)

PS:- Glad to see your fixation on ArP and Myanmar coming through. ;-) Still on about that trip of yours?

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected (none / 2) (#79)
by splitpeasoup on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:17:35 PM EST

I see I was wrong. AP and Karnataka rival Maharashtra and TN in HIV statistics. TN and Maharashtra do have many more AIDS cases than AP, but that's probably because they've had HIV for a longer time.

Scary.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi
[ Parent ]

No, it's not you, (none / 0) (#136)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:13:26 AM EST

it's the general public apathy vis-a-vis AIDS.

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]
New South Wales (2.50 / 4) (#44)
by Cackmobile on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:09:19 AM EST

Its legal here in the state of NSW in Australia. Only in brothels though. Streetwalking is illegal.

[ Parent ]
Almost (none / 0) (#95)
by Tatarigami on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:20:31 PM EST

New Zealand has decriminalised prostitution, rather than legalising it. I confess I'm not sure what the difference is, but the government seems to think it's important.

Our local councils are now busy drafting new bylaws to zone prostitution out of existance, thus proving the saying that the best way to control a vice you can't successfully outlaw is to regulate all the fun out of it.

;)

[ Parent ]

True, fair enough! (none / 0) (#140)
by famanoran on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:40:44 AM EST

I'm not holding my breath for them to decriminalise marijuana though, but that's another story.

[ Parent ]
No, 80 Euros. (2.50 / 6) (#36)
by Zerotime on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:22:32 AM EST

That's, like, a hundred US.

---
"You don't even have to drink it. You just rub it on your hips and it eats its way through to your liver."
Again, this may be a good idea. . . (2.00 / 7) (#50)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:40:34 AM EST

. . . but it's a good idea that becomes better, the fewer people know of its existence.
 --
Fashion is the sister of Death
     --- Giacomo Leopardi
and why... (none / 1) (#55)
by skoop on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:02:48 AM EST

and why would it not be possible to discuss this? why would it become better if people were just silent about it. often I feel our whole world seems to evolve around sex, just looking at TV, the Internet, and what more... why wouldn't their world not be allowed to also evolve around that? the problem is that they'll have a much harder time actually getting it. and so this is a topic that may need to be discussed.

[ Parent ]
Well, for one. . . (none / 2) (#60)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:47:29 AM EST

. . . I wouldn't have to cut off my head to get rid of the images.

Besides that, human nature means that this should be implemented, silently, without debate or ballyhoo.

We have all of these High Standards that everyone is supposed to pay lip service to when they're in front of witnesses. Grown-ups recognise that there may well be times and places where the standards meant for the public eye need to be bent. This may well be one of those situations.

Were it simply arranged that these people's needs could be accomodated outside the public view, all would be well. Once the existence of the plan becomes public knowledge, a persistent if undesirable segment of the population will feel an uncontrollable urge to step forward and ask all of those Important Questions about "informed consent," "sexually transmitted diseases," or "the laws of God," depending on which particular hair they have up their ass. Were it simply being done outside the public eye, no one would need to be troubled by any of these matters; and those who are doing this would not have to answer to those persistent and pesky people. The minority that cares would have nothing to care about.
 --
Fashion is the sister of Death
     --- Giacomo Leopardi
[ Parent ]

No, you can't (1.00 / 11) (#53)
by bg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:33:01 AM EST

Or at least you don't quite understand that, although Down's syndrome is an accident of sorts, it is mostly genetic.

- In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.
Smart? (2.60 / 5) (#56)
by dipipanone on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:03:48 AM EST

i bet she does it slow as hell too.

Well, according to the article, 80 euros gets you an hour -- which is about the same rate as a plumber gets in these parts.

Which seems somehow appropriate given that both are unblocking people's pipes for a living. It's also much less than a psychotherapist would charge.

If I had 'learning difficulties' (the modern PC euphemism for such people) I know which I'd prefer to spend my money on.

--
Suck my .sig
Masturbation of Retards (1.93 / 15) (#61)
by Jumery on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:53:54 AM EST

I don't see were all these anti 'sexual caregiver' comments are coming from.  If you have an arguement as to how this woman, who masturbaits retards who want it done, is harming you give me your arguement.

Behaviour that does not harm other people should be legal.

Wrong answer. (1.60 / 5) (#139)
by tkatchev on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:18:22 AM EST

There is no such thing as "behaviour that does not harm other people".


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

HA! (none / 0) (#210)
by Jumery on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:07 PM EST

How about me having sex with someone else in the privacy of my own house.  How does that harm you buddy boy.

[ Parent ]
Thanks a lot. (none / 0) (#213)
by fenix down on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:41:54 AM EST

Now you've warped his innocent little mind with your filthy ideas.

[ Parent ]
Forgot one... (1.78 / 19) (#62)
by trimethyl on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:57:15 AM EST

You only listed two objections to prostitution, and forgot perhaps the most important reason:

Prostitution strips the dignity of the individuals involved by reducing the act of sexual intercourse from an intimate, loving exchange to merely a business transaction.

A fundamental aspect of the enjoyment of sex is the exchange of love; without it, the act becomes a rather pointless relief of bodily fluids, much the same as defecating. Prostitution specifically denies any love between the parties involved. That's why its wrong. If you're going to have sex, at least do it right!

How many little girls dream of being "sex workers" when the grow up? How many women would want to become prostitutes? How many who have actually become prostitutes would want to admit such at a dinner party or other formal event? They know its wrong and undignified, but do it because they feel they have no other choice. If prostitution was indeed respectable or good, the term "prostitute" wouldn't be considered an insult by society at large.

Thus, to degrade a woman by reducing her to being a prostitute is not progressive; to allow such to go on does not help society at large. If anything, it further reinforces the myths that a man is both unable to control his desires, and the satisfaction of said desires is more important than the personal dignity of a woman. Legalizing prostitution is a de facto admission that a woman's primary purpose is to provide sexual pleasure for a man, nothing more. Prostitution improves the condition of neither the prostitute nor the jon.



sex and love (2.80 / 5) (#67)
by Timo Laine on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:15:06 AM EST

A fundamental aspect of the enjoyment of sex is the exchange of love; without it, the act becomes a rather pointless relief of bodily fluids, much the same as defecating. Prostitution specifically denies any love between the parties involved. That's why its wrong. If you're going to have sex, at least do it right!
Right, so because you think people want to do things in a certain way, that should be the only legal way to do it? I enjoy doing things the wrong way, for example I like to read books I don't understand. Should that be illegal as well? Also, the "love" argument applies to many other things as well. For example, one of the most important things in a good hand-made chair is the love a skilled artisan has put into making it. Should mass-produced chairs therefore be illegal?

Besides, defecating is one of the only things a person can do that have immediate relevance to him. It is by no means pointless, but an immensely pleasurable act. Perhaps you are just uncomfortable with your body or some of its functions?

[ Parent ]

argh (2.00 / 6) (#70)
by Battle Troll on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:48:38 AM EST

Hey, Timo, I thought you said you were sick of the technocratic conformist left-reflexive groupthink in Finland.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
uh (none / 0) (#75)
by Timo Laine on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:25:45 AM EST

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please explain.

[ Parent ]
I remembering you commenting a couple of months (none / 1) (#89)
by Battle Troll on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:57:32 PM EST

back that you were unhappy with the uniformity of public opinion in Finland. I recall you saying that people there were so surrounded by the state that it had a dampening effect on dissent.

A secular, liberal welfare state must inevitably tend to support such things as sexual services for the mentally handicapped; they are a working-out of the attitudes implied in the words "secular," "liberal," and "welfare." So dissent is necessarily connected to challenges to the legitimacy of those three terms. Accusing a dissenter of being driven by disgust is to miss the point, because if the dissenter is sufficiently disgusted to dissent politically, her disgust must be sufficient for to cause her to rebel against secular, liberal, welfare ideology. If she really swallowed that ideology, her disgust would be less than her essential acceptance of the premises and thus not find significant expression.

I think you underestimate the political importance of disgust. Most people hold their political opinions as emotional attitudes rather than as rationalistic, coherent systems [themselves an increasingly outmoded idea, by the way.] Why shouldn't disgust be a legitimate basis for dissent?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

um (none / 1) (#106)
by Timo Laine on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:09:40 PM EST

I recall you saying that people there were so surrounded by the state that it had a dampening effect on dissent.
Yeah, I remember I did.
A secular, liberal welfare state must inevitably tend to support such things as sexual services for the mentally handicapped; they are a working-out of the attitudes implied in the words "secular," "liberal," and "welfare."
Well, the welfare state we have here is not secular. And no welfare state can ever really be liberal, expect in a very loose sense of the word "liberal". (The prevailing ideology, with which I'm not satisfied, could be characterized as social democratic conservatism.) I am not sure if you know that our government may likely follow Sweden's example and make purchasing sexual services illegal for everyone.
Why shouldn't disgust be a legitimate basis for dissent?
Of course it is (after all, what would illegitimate dissent be in the first place?). But in a debate it is not enough to say you are disgusted with the other person's ideas to refute those ideas.

I'm still not sure I got your point, though. Are you accusing me of something? Are you saying I am accusing someone else of something?

[ Parent ]

Rebuttals (3.00 / 15) (#68)
by virg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:34:28 AM EST

> Prostitution strips the dignity of the individuals involved by reducing the act of sexual intercourse from an intimate, loving exchange to merely a business transaction.

Nice of you to decide how everyone else should be having sex. Last I checked, your choice of "good" sex doesn't define it in general. There are plenty of people who like one night stands.

> A fundamental aspect of the enjoyment of sex is the exchange of love; without it, the act becomes a rather pointless relief of bodily fluids, much the same as defecating. Prostitution specifically denies any love between the parties involved. That's why its wrong. If you're going to have sex, at least do it right!

See above.

> How many little girls dream of being "sex workers" when the grow up?

It's easy to use your own moral code to say that little girls don't think about sex at all, so there's no way they could imagine being sex workers.

> How many women would want to become prostitutes?

How many would want to become garbage haulers, or a clerk at a seedy motel?

> How many who have actually become prostitutes would want to admit such at a dinner party or other formal event? They know its wrong and undignified, but do it because they feel they have no other choice.

I know a lot of people who lie about what you'd define as perfectly legitimate jobs because they feel embarrassed about it. I know a fellow who wouldn't admit to his friends that he was a janitor because he felt it was shameful. I've also known a number of sex workers who weren't ashamed of their profession, but didn't bring it up in most settings because people like you would come down on them for it.

> If prostitution was indeed respectable or good, the term "prostitute" wouldn't be considered an insult by society at large.

The term "heretic" used to be a grave insult, and now it isn't. I suspect as our society progresses, "prostitute" will lessen in severity as well.

> Thus, to degrade a woman by reducing her to being a prostitute is not progressive; to allow such to go on does not help society at large. If anything, it further reinforces the myths that a man is both unable to control his desires, and the satisfaction of said desires is more important than the personal dignity of a woman. Legalizing prostitution is a de facto admission that a woman's primary purpose is to provide sexual pleasure for a man, nothing more. Prostitution improves the condition of neither the prostitute nor the jon.

Time to make your world a little bigger. Not all prostitutes are women. Not all johns are men. And not all prostitutes and johns are of differing genders. Most importantly, though, you're still stuck in your own definition of what sex is for. A man who patronizes a prostitute is not a good example of being unable to control his desires, except in a very strict religious framework. A rapist would fit that definition better. Also, legalizing prostitution is by no means an admission that a woman's primary role is pleasing a man sexually, any more than legalizing maid services admits that a woman's primary role is to clean stuff.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Heartwarming (1.00 / 11) (#76)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:26:11 AM EST

There are plenty of people who like one night stands.

How charming that terminal sexual diseases haven't completely turned liberals from their moral relativism and mantra of "if it feels good, do it".

You'd make your brothers and sisters from the 1970s proud.



[ Parent ]
Go Warm Your Own Heart (none / 2) (#86)
by virg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:50:05 PM EST

> How charming that terminal sexual diseases haven't completely turned liberals from their moral relativism and mantra of "if it feels good, do it".

I resist the urge to say something offensive to you, because you're trying too hard. Instead I'll respond, how charming it is that moral relativism seems to apply to anything you personally find immoral, whether or not those involved in this agree with you, and whether or not it actually involves you at all. Do you lay into those around you for moral relativism when they don't have their hair cut properly? You need to learn that everything that fits in the "none of your business" category is not automatically "moral relativism".

> You'd make your brothers and sisters from the 1970s proud.

And you make your brothers and sisters from the 1500's proud.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Moral relativism? (none / 1) (#88)
by nkyad on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:54:53 PM EST

When did moral relativism com into play here? That is, unless you think one very definite set of moral values should be enforced on society, people should have every right to do whatever they want if they are not harming anyone else - no one is forcing you to participate in one night stands or engage in sex with disabled people (who, by the way, usually have guardian who would obviously have a say in it).

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
Where's the CASH? (none / 0) (#206)
by grendelkhan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 01:07:53 PM EST

Dude, where's the money in that?! Hell, you can fit it on a 3x5 card, or maybe a well-scribed tattoo. You don't need some guy in a dress to wave and point at you. Hell, you can't even instill valuable pants-wetting guilt unless someone does something actually wrong!

How the heck are the bluenoses supposed to get paid with that?!

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

hint (none / 1) (#102)
by fhotg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:37:39 PM EST

use your raincoat.

Es wird niemals so wie frueher, ohne tripper, ohne aids, ohne syph, und ohne gummiueberzieher.
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]

you are very well-spoken (none / 3) (#103)
by Baldrson Neutralizer on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:43:03 PM EST

but still a fucking retard.

Based on your comments below, I am starting to wonder if your wife is in fact raping you.


Modern life, in EVERY ASPECT, is a cult of mediocrity.-trhurler
[ Parent ]

The universality of prostitution (2.87 / 8) (#71)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:59:25 AM EST

Prostitution is something that is made more or less inevitable by the differing economies of human sexuality. Eggs are limited in number, and a woman eventually runs out of them. Sperms can be replenished indefinitely, and while he yet breathes a man never really runs out. Female sexual selection is therefore the name of the game; a woman has something a man wants, and he therefore must pay.

The moral enforcers of the code that condemns "prostitutes" act like a classic cartel. They want the price of sex to remain artificially high, insisting on "commitments" that inevitably must be paid for in cash: buying houses and building nests. The prostitute and the one-night-stand threaten to devalue what they're selling, so many women go RIAA on the prospect and see it as a threat.
 --
Fashion is the sister of Death
     --- Giacomo Leopardi
[ Parent ]

not bad (none / 0) (#101)
by fhotg on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:33:49 PM EST

it runs deeper though methinks. What institutions are the primary enforcers of that code ? Aren't they predominantly run by men ? If you determine the acceptable ways how a (or The) basic human driving force is expressed, you have bigger fish to fry than to keep the price for sex high.
~~~
Gitarren für die Mädchen -- Champagner für die Jungs

[ Parent ]
Wow! (none / 1) (#109)
by randyk on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:28:30 PM EST

An Austrian/Chicago school economic argument that compares sexual mores to a mercantilist economy. That's cool, and I'm jealous that I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.

That might even explain why it's illegal but mostly tolerated expect for the occasional "clean up a neighborhood" project. By making prostitution a black market good, the costs are still kept artifically high by the regulation. Legalization would be like removing a price floor.

There's a paper in that with some more rigorous thought.



[ Parent ]
Biology, not economics (none / 1) (#128)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 09:10:53 PM EST

This is actually a translation into human economic terms of a fairly standard viewpoint from evolutionary biology. Female sexual selection is at least as important as survival in determining which members of a population reproduce; and in species that feature investment from a male parent, sizing up that investment is a typical feature of female sexual selection.
 --
Fashion is the sister of Death
     --- Giacomo Leopardi
[ Parent ]
Not a reason for outlawing (2.40 / 5) (#77)
by AxelBoldt on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:52:55 AM EST

Prostitution strips the dignity of the individuals involved by reducing the act of sexual intercourse from an intimate, loving exchange to merely a business transaction.

I agree that one can make that objection; I didn't give it in the article since I was only trying to list the reasons given for *outlawing* prostitution. Your argument above hardly works for this purpose. "Hey! You're a prostitute! You strip your dignity! You reduce the value of the loving exchange that is sex! I will therefore now proceed to throw you in jail like a dog."

[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 2) (#162)
by trimethyl on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:29:00 PM EST

There's still a big one for outlawing it: public health.

Statistics have shown that the most successful people come from two parent families. Given that there's a negative correlation between strong families and crime, reducing crime becomes a matter of not just locking up the bad guys, but keeping them from becoming a criminal in the first place. It could be argued that to reduce crime, one needs to keep the traditional family intact. And to keep the family intact, prostitution needs to be illegal. Many divorces have been brought about because of a husband's unfaithfulness, and prostitution is the easiest way for a husband to be unfaithful.

Not that it will stop all prostitution. But the illegality of the act will keep the prostitution restricted to only those who specifically seek it out, rather than the weak-willed men who can't resist temptation.



[ Parent ]
Except... (none / 0) (#212)
by fenix down on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 09:39:21 AM EST

Then we have to outlaw beer and the NFL and condoms and motels and bars and sexy clothing. And divorce court, I guess. And porn, and business trips. And I guess we need burquas, too, if we're trying to protect weak-willed men who can't resist temptations.

[ Parent ]
Could you be wronger? (none / 3) (#90)
by nkyad on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:02:03 PM EST

Intimate loving exchange my ass (no pun intented) - if the sex is good, why the hell should I care if the other(s) love me or not. Get a grip - in the real world sex is many things, including a loving and intimate exchange between lovers. But it is so many other things in so many other ways that reducing sex to this is just a way to justify the imposition of a sub-group morals upon the rest of the population.

And by the way, if prostitution is such a bad thing, why does it persists even in societies where the government will feed, clothe and harbour you for your whole life even if you feel like doing nothing at all? Yes, because the progressive countries legalizing prostitution are the ones where welfare is so advanced you don't even have to work...

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
Thanks. (2.60 / 5) (#108)
by awgsilyari on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:26:58 PM EST

Prostitution strips the dignity of the individuals involved by reducing the act of sexual intercourse from an intimate, loving exchange to merely a business transaction.

Gee, and all this time I hadn't realized that the purpose of sex has been preordained for us. Thanks for clearing that up.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]

I agree !!! (2.80 / 5) (#110)
by phred on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:29:00 PM EST

I know, as I was in a "profession" that tore away my self esteem, just to sell immorral temporary thrills to intoxicated, disrespectful clientel. I felt abused, exploited, and cheapened as a human being.

Yep, you guessed it, I was a convenience store clerk selling alcohol, but heck, thats legal.

[ Parent ]

status quo != moral right (none / 1) (#118)
by jimjamjoh on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 05:45:55 PM EST

If prostitution was indeed respectable or good, the term "prostitute" wouldn't be considered an insult by society at large.

Before the Compromise of 1850 galvanized anti-slavery sentiment in the North, the term "abolitionist" was considered a slander by society at large

[ Parent ]

Pay attention people (2.50 / 6) (#123)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:06:04 PM EST

This is the correct way to troll a site full of trolls.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Who's right? (none / 1) (#124)
by alt on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:19:32 PM EST

What gives you the right to decided how I choose to express my sexuality? What gives you the right to decide what is right and what is wrong? Why are my rights to express myself subject to your repugnance at my desires? Why is your definition of "sex" right and mine wrong?

As long as the act is between to consenual adults, then why does it matter that money changes hands?

Aside from the monetary exchange, how is utilizing the services of a prostitute or escort any different from a one night stand?

(Note: this in no way implies that utilize the services of prostitutes or escorts. However, I also don't believe that should I decide to utilize those services that I should be denied because someone else thinks that it is morally wrong. It's my body, it's my choice. Co-incidentally, it's her body and her choice too.)

[ Parent ]

Please, grow a brain someday, ok? (2.85 / 7) (#133)
by Kasreyn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 12:27:07 AM EST

First off, to smash the two arguments against prostitution that he raised:

Prostitution is inherently immoral adultery and should therefore be outlawed.

Inherently immoral? Says who? You? Pff. And yes, it's adultery. Tell me again why adultery should be outlawed? Or even why it's bad? Oh, right. A 2000-year old book that a certain vocal, belligerent subset of the population believes in? Yeah, that's a great basis for secular legislation.

Ok, idiot argument #1 down. That was too easy. This one's harder:

Prostitutes are by necessity exploited victims who are forced into the profession by impoverished conditions or ruthless pimps and suffer from devastating working conditions.

This is, of course, completely reversing cause and effect. Prostitutes are exploited and forced BECAUSE it is illegal. They could not be exploited or forced if they could turn to a policeman for protection. Pimps and Johns slap whores around because the whore can't get them sent to prison for 5 to 10 for battery. Period. The devastating working conditions, such as violence, STD's, and proximity to drug use, are ALL due to the whore being thrown in with other outlaws. If she was able to ply her trade legally, she could turn to the government for protection (which her taxed income would cover, of course). Since she is an outlaw, she is FORCED to turn to gangs and pimps for protection, with predictably horrendous results. Finally, "impoverished conditions" is so much bullshit. 99% of the people in this world are "forced" into working all day at jobs they hate because otherwise they would fucking starve. The other 1% who are celebrities, prodigies, or born rich, don't have to. This isn't something that applies to only whores.

Which brings me to your stupid brain-fart of an argument, you ignorant twat.

Prostitution strips the dignity of the individuals involved by reducing the act of sexual intercourse from an intimate, loving exchange to merely a business transaction.

Strips the dignity of the individual? I can name a dozen professions off the top of my head that do that. How about Jism-Mopper? SOMEONE has to clean crusty semen out of peep show booths. You think ANYONE wants to do that? You think anyone shows up at a Parent-Teacher Association meeting and proudly says, "Hi, I'm Timmy's dad: I'm a Jism-Mopper"??

As to sex being an intimate, loving exchange: are you living in the 1800's or something? Please, get real, you moron. I'm sure we'd all like that sex always be a loving thing, but it isn't. Most people these days - not counting naive prudes who post paper-flimsy anti-prostitution arguments on k5 - have sex for dumb animal pleasure, and no other reason. So are you saying we should outlaw one-night-stands, too, since there's no love involved?

How many little girls dream of being "sex workers" when the grow up?

And how many dream of being telemarketers, or janitors, or heaven help us, jism-moppers? I'll tell you how many: NONE. But the jobs have to be done, and if you're too untalented or stupid to do any other kind of work, then that's what you get to do. Surprise!! - CAPITALISM AT WORK, NIMROD. Prostitution is like any other lousy job: it's something for lazy or untalented people to do to stay alive, since they can't seem to find a BETTER JOB.

So before you go trying to legislate mandatory love with every act of sex, try thinking a bit first. And try to face facts occasionally, in an adult manner, rather than childishly hiding from them. Fact: Prostitution is the oldest profession on the planet Earth. It will probably be the last to die out (after WWIII puts us in a second Stone Age). It will ALWAYS BE HERE. Get used to it, because calling the women doing it names and throwing them in with outlaws and monsters is not going to solve anything. All you'll do is destroy those women in a variety of horrible ways - STD's, violence - and then a fresh generation of women will step right into their shoes. You can never get rid of them with your idiot laws, all you can do is TORTURE THEM.

Legalizing prostitution would send the clear message that the government has decided to stop interfering in the private lives of consenting adults; that it is no longer attempting to stupidly legislate an outmoded concept based on an ancient and thoroughly self-contradictory religious text; that it has decided to extend police protection to a group of battered, victimized, hopeless women who desperately need help rather than stigmatization; that it has, in short, wised up.

The question is, will YOU ever wise up? Have a heart. The question is not whether there will be prostitution: it will always be there, and always in about the same amount (the demand is pretty stable). You're free to try to hide from it, by crushing prostitutes under harsh laws, so that you can go on living in your fantasy world while they suffer. Or you can realize that everyone's gotta live, even whores. Heck, even dumbfucks like you.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Good one... (none / 3) (#143)
by trimethyl on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 12:32:32 PM EST

Wow. That was some impressive trolling, whether you intended it or not - your post has the classic elements:

  • name calling
  • SHOUTING
  • implying the parent poster doesn't think, or is an idiot...
  • setting my straw man on fire... (I didn't argue for mandating love in every sex act).

But you did mention something that bears addressing:

I'm sure we'd all like that sex always be a loving thing, but it isn't.

I know things aren't always the way they should be. But a woman who settles for sex without love will probably never find the fulfillment of married life. Generally speaking, men who use women for sex don't marry them, and those men interested in settling down and raising a family want to marry a virgin. A woman who gives herself away to win the affection of a man has very little chance of gaining a lasting committment. The kind of man who chooses women based on their sexual characteristics will easily move from one woman to the next as he becomes bored with them; his current mate must constantly improve his sex life or risk being replaced by someone who will.

Unfortunately, I see this a lot. Women don't seem to understand that as a man grows older, his wealth and status make him more attractive to women, as his desire for them wanes. The end result is that a man's ability to find his ideal mate increases with age, where a woman's fades.

Another thing occurs to me. Suppose that prostitution does become legal, and that society at large accepts it. Inevitably, a woman's body would have a monetary value attached to it. Suppose that a young college student is unable to repay her student loans, and finds herself in bankruptcy. Would the court order her to have sex with her creditors to satisfy the debt, since it is her only remaining asset with monetary value? Could a bankruptcy liquidator auction off a woman's body in the same manner as her house? If a man declared bankruptcy, could the court require his wife be sold into prostitution?

It is a very dangerous thing to legalize prostitution. It could very easily pave the way for a society in which rape is a mere misdemeanor, where a rapist need only to pay restitution to the victim at the "prevailing wage" for the "services" he stole from her.



[ Parent ]
Consent (none / 3) (#148)
by alt on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:02:46 PM EST

QUOTE: It is a very dangerous thing to legalize prostitution. It could very easily pave the way for a society in which rape is a mere misdemeanor, where a rapist need only to pay restitution to the victim at the "prevailing wage" for the "services" he stole from her.

You failed to understand the underlying concept of "consent". Even in contracts, both parties have to consent to the exchange, be it goods and/or services for money or goods and/or services for goods and/or services.

If a thief steals something and then pays the victim market value for the item, has a crime still been committed? Yes.

If a woman is raped, then she has not given consent. If she has not given consent, then she has been robbed and a crime has been committed.

There is no danger that legalizing prostitution will devalue women. The women that would never be prostitutes or escorts would still not work in that "career" and the women that would would now be legally protected from pimps and gangs.

The only danger is that the "morally superior" (spit!) would become offended. I personally have no problem with that.

[ Parent ]

Big problem, though... (none / 3) (#161)
by trimethyl on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 06:17:25 PM EST

Yes, rape will still be a crime, but consider this: if prostitution is legalized, a court may very well find that rape is nothing more than stealing "goods and services" from a non-consenting person. Given that no one consents to being the victim of any crime, it could be argued by the rapist's attorney that the rape victim should be compensated no more than a prostitute would have charged for such a "service". So, in recompense for losing her ability to enjoy sex, a rape victim can look forward to a payout of anywhere between say, oh $20-100. The rapist will pay a fine, and its back to business as usual.

If, OTOH, sex is thought of as something sacred, invioble, with lasting emotional consequences, then the crime of non-consensual intercourse becomes much more serious. A person's dignity doesn't have a "going rate". In order for rape to be seen as a true crime of itself (as opposed to merely theft of services), sex must be thought of as something emotional, spiritual, and sacred. If it is merely mechanical, then it can be reduced to a dollar value.



[ Parent ]
You're Stretching It.... (2.75 / 4) (#176)
by alt on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:47:56 AM EST

Seriously. The violation of a woman violates her human rights. Any time a woman is deprived of her right to choose who she shares her body with, it violates her human rights. Her body, her choice.

For the same reason that you cannot force a woman to have or not have an abortion, you cannot force a woman to have or not have sexual intercourse. It's her body and it's her choice. Not yours.

There is no civilized country in the world that would ever consider that rape is just "theft of services". It doesn't matter that there happens to be a going rate for sex. It's still the sex worker's right to decide who she has sex with.

Even when a prostitute is raped, it's still rape.

If a prostitute was raped while not working or a regular Jane Doe was ever raped it would never be classified as a theft of service. Even if a prostitute was raped while working it would still be rape.

If a prostitute has sex with a John and he doesn't pay, she still did give her consent (there's that word again) then now - and only now - is it a "theft of services" issue.

Anytime our right to choose what happens with our bodies is denied, we all are demeaned and devalued. That includes a woman's right to be paid cash in exchange for sex and a man's right to pay cash to have sex.

Your straw man doesn't hold up. There is still that "right to choose" which you conveniently ignore. Just like I have the right to choose what I eat, where I eat and what I pay to eat, the woman has the right to choose who she has sex with, where she has sex with them and how much she gets paid and how she gets paid. Either way, it is none of your business.

And your assertion that prostitutes and escorts don't enjoy sex because the are sex workers is specious. Have you ever asked one if they enjoy sex? Are you 100% positive that because these women are sex workers that they don't enjoy sex?

Some of these women have long term partners with whom they are intimate with and they only "turn tricks" to make ends meet. Some of these women even *gasp* enjoy sex not only with their long term partners but with some of their clients!

Either way, what gives you the right to tell them or anyone else how they should use their bodies?

[ Parent ]

Not true (none / 3) (#180)
by trimethyl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:44:48 AM EST

Even when a prostitute is raped, it's still rape.

Actually, it's not, at least according to the Florida courts. In Florida, a woman was executed for murder - her crime? Killing a jon. She claimed that the man raped her and then tried to kill her, but the jury didn't buy it. The prosecution successfully painted her as a prostitute who killed a jon after he refused to pay.

Now, if she hadn't been known as a prostitute, I doubt she would have even been prosecuted. But her status as a prostitute denied her the ability to claim that the sex wasn't consensual. It was assumed that because of her profession, she didn't consider invasions of her body to be particularly unpleasant.



[ Parent ]
Details of the case (3.00 / 5) (#181)
by AxelBoldt on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:12:54 AM EST

Maybe you should have mentioned the somewhat relevant detail that the woman had confessed to having murdered six men over a two month period.

[ Parent ]
Who? (none / 0) (#200)
by grendelkhan on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:03:54 PM EST

That would make a difference. Who was this person, anyway?

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

Personal Freedom (none / 0) (#204)
by virg on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:11:49 PM EST

> Yes, rape will still be a crime, but consider this: if prostitution is legalized, a court may very well find that rape is nothing more than stealing "goods and services" from a non-consenting person.

It's also true that a court could find that someone climbing into my car and putting a gun to my head, and demanding I drive them somewhere, only stole taxi services from me, and would let him walk away after giving me $1.30 a mile. It's just vanishingly unlikely.

Your argument is stupid. Repeating it doesn't make it less so. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do is a crime. Even if I was a cab driver by trade, the above scenario would be a crime. Give it up.

> In order for rape to be seen as a true crime of itself (as opposed to merely theft of services), sex must be thought of as something emotional, spiritual, and sacred. If it is merely mechanical, then it can be reduced to a dollar value.

Again you're wrong. In order for rape to be seen as a true crime of itself, personal freedom of action must be considered sacred. Not sex, or any other action at all.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Gosh, you are REALLY from 1800's, right? (none / 3) (#149)
by WeddingSinger on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 02:11:52 PM EST

But a woman who settles for sex without love will probably never find the fulfillment of married life.

Untrue. I know many stories of women in these conditions that have married their customers, and have found this "fullfillment of married life".

Generally speaking, men who use women for sex don't marry them, and those men interested in settling down and raising a family want to marry a virgin.

The interesting point of your reasoning is that you don't say nowhere that this "virigin woman" should require that her future husband is virgin himself. Don't you think that your way of thinking just emphasize a behaviour where the man "conquers the world" and the woman just stays at home, caring for their six children?

I agree that "loving sex" is one of the best things we can have. Also I can say that some of my best sex was no-loving sex.

his current mate must constantly improve his sex life or risk being replaced by someone who will.

"Improve" is not the word. I think that creativity is essential to life. As sex is part of life, creativity is essential to sex, too. And I can say, as a man, that in general men LACK sexual creativity and after some time don't give a damn on what her partner wants. Fortunately it's not my case.

Another thing occurs to me. Suppose that prostitution does become legal, and that society at large accepts it. Inevitably, a woman's body would have a monetary value attached to it.

The body (and not only women's) does already HAVE a monetary value attached to it. It's already the case of top models and actors/actress. So again, on this matter, you are way behind of our time.

The other point of your phrasing seems to implicate that prostitution is women's matter only. Well, you should know better that nowadays there is also MALE prostitution that would be automatically protected as well as female prostitution. Again, welcome to 20th century.

Would the court order her to have sex with her creditors to satisfy the debt, since it is her only remaining asset with monetary value? Could a bankruptcy liquidator auction off a woman's body in the same manner as her house? If a man declared bankruptcy, could the court require his wife be sold into prostitution?

I'd like to get the same you smoked here. Just substitute "prostitution" with some other lousy job and the situation is no less degrading, perhaps equating slavery - which is already banned throughout the world. Prostitution would be a job like any other. It would become just another way to pay the bills. And it's up to the people decide whether they want live this way.

It is a very dangerous thing to legalize prostitution. It could very easily pave the way for a society in which rape is a mere misdemeanor, where a rapist need only to pay restitution to the victim at the "prevailing wage" for the "services" he stole from her.

Your view of raping is really disturbing. I don't know whether it is really sick or just blatantly wrong.

AFAIK, "rape" occurs whenever somebody has sex with other person who doesn't want to have it. Rape occurs whenever one of the parties didn't consented on having sex and were forced often by violent means to have it. This is the subject of rape accusation, not if the rapist has or hasn't "paid the fees".

If the two partners consented and one of them (the customer) didn't pay the fees then really it's just a case of stealing or non-payment for due services.
Oh, and BTW, I was on Amsterdam and nobody told me (or my girlfriend and present spouse) that she risked to be raped there, since prostitution was legal and she had a "face value" (no pun intended) that would be reimboursed should somebody would have non-consented sex with her.

Wise up,

[ Parent ]

Live a little longer. (none / 3) (#160)
by trimethyl on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 05:58:13 PM EST

you are way behind of our time.

Oh - that's it. I guess if I just "got with the times" my opinion would be right? Or am I allowed to offer the opinion of one with experience?

I think anyone who equates slavery and prostitution with working a degrading job has experienced neither. There is a very real, substantial difference between working hard for a meager living and offering up your dignity for the sake of someone else's good time.

Slavery is just an extended form of prostitution. For the price of a meal, a man gets to own a prostitute for a limited time. For the price of food and clothing, a man gets to own a slave. The fundamental relationship between the two is no different - a person is seen as a means to an end, nothing more.

And your views about a woman's body having monetary value really do trouble me. If indeed, a woman's body does have monetary value, then rape can be viewed as a property crime. Just as the shop keeper doesn't consent to a thief taking his goods, your wife might not consent to rape. Will it reassure you to know that should the sex thief be caught, you would be $100 richer? (or however much that particular "service" would cost). I'm sure your distraught wife would be overjoyed...

Now tell me, why should I see it as anything different? Your 21st century ideas about the monetary value of a woman's body destroy the very ability of you to show the harm of rape - that is, harm beyond lost financial revenue. What makes your wife so special that she can't just "relax and enjoy it"* like the other prostitutes in Denmark?

If you think about it long enough, you'll understand that sex is more than just a mechanical act. Sex does have permanent emotional consequences, and it is for this reason that rape is a crime much more serious than a mere loss of property.

* - yes, this was actually said by a Texas politician concerning rape.



[ Parent ]
Live a little longer... (none / 0) (#187)
by wankelwankel on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:27:42 PM EST

.. said the 94 year old prostitute, coughing and looking sad, while she redresed to go in search for her next date in the quest for loving sex..

[ Parent ]
Bad Premises (none / 0) (#205)
by virg on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 12:57:10 PM EST

> I think anyone who equates slavery and prostitution with working a degrading job has experienced neither. There is a very real, substantial difference between working hard for a meager living and offering up your dignity for the sake of someone else's good time.

Then you've never been a birthday clown, or a concierge. All kidding aside, though, you still can't move beyond the idea that sex workers necessarily give up their dignity. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't make it universal.

> Slavery is just an extended form of prostitution. For the price of a meal, a man gets to own a prostitute for a limited time. For the price of food and clothing, a man gets to own a slave. The fundamental relationship between the two is no different - a person is seen as a means to an end, nothing more.

This is wrong on multiple levels. First, when a man hires a prostitute, he doesn't get to "own" her any more than he "owns" a plumber just by hiring him. This simply leads back to your own badly mistaken sense of what sexuality is. A prostitute can agree to or not agree to any part of the act, with only the possibility that she won't get paid for her time, or get repeat business. To say that a man hiring a prostitute has a right to force any act he chooses on her just because he paid for sex is equivalent to saying I can hire my plumber to fix the kitchen sink and then force him to redo my bathroom pipes whether he wants to or not. The only reason so many sex workers get forced into such things is specifically because it's illegal, so they have no recourse to legal protection. Where it's legal, the prostitute has recourse to the law for being forced to do stuff she doesn't want to do.

Second, a person as a means to an end is inaccurate to apply only to sex workers, insofar as the only reason I'd hire that plumber is to fix plumbing that I can't fix myself, so I could just as easily argue that I see him only as a means to the end of working plumbing, and nothing more, since I'll have no emotional attachment to him when I'm done. Your myopia only stems from the fact that sex is involved.

> If indeed, a woman's body does have monetary value, then rape can be viewed as a property crime.

Again, wrong on multiple levels. First, as a sex worker, it's her services that have value, not her body, just like a painter's hands do the work, but it's his whole person performing the action that makes for the value. Therefore, rape cannot be considered a property crime in this context, any more than my kidnapping the painter and forcing him to paint my kitchen at gunpoint is a property crime. In both cases, it's a violation of personal freedom, which is an entirely different stripe of offense.

> Just as the shop keeper doesn't consent to a thief taking his goods, your wife might not consent to rape. Will it reassure you to know that should the sex thief be caught, you would be $100 richer? (or however much that particular "service" would cost). I'm sure your distraught wife would be overjoyed...

Oh, that's right, when a shopkeeper is forcibly robbed, and the thief is caught, the thief pays for the stolen goods and then walks away. Oh, wait, that's not right. He has to serve time for assault as well. Gee, your comparison is faulty. Who'd have thought?

> If you think about it long enough, you'll understand that sex is more than just a mechanical act. Sex does have permanent emotional consequences, and it is for this reason that rape is a crime much more serious than a mere loss of property.

No, it's not for that reason. If you think about it long enough, you'll see that rape is a crime for an entirely different reason than sex. You might also get outside your own head long enough to see that "permanent emotional consequences" is not something you have the ability or the right to judge for others.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
The worls is not absolutes (3.00 / 4) (#158)
by drsmithy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:22:41 PM EST

I know things aren't always the way they should be. But a woman who settles for sex without love will probably never find the fulfillment of married life.

You need to stop thinking in absolutes. Just because the odd sex act here or there (or, heck, even a majority of them) isn't a deeply intimate and loving experience, doesn't mean either party can never experience it. If you think loving husbands and wives never have a quickie in the shower before going to work just for a bit of physical release, you're either naive or stupid.

Generally speaking, men who use women for sex don't marry them, and those men interested in settling down and raising a family want to marry a virgin. A woman who gives herself away to win the affection of a man has very little chance of gaining a lasting committment.

I get the impression here you're trying to say the only people who are seeking loving, long term relationships are those who remain chaste until marriage. If that is what you mean, then you may as well stop reading now, because you and I are never going to agree.

Suppose that a young college student is unable to repay her student loans, and finds herself in bankruptcy. Would the court order her to have sex with her creditors to satisfy the debt, since it is her only remaining asset with monetary value?

No more than they could "force" someone to take up any occupation if they didn't want to.

Could a bankruptcy liquidator auction off a woman's body in the same manner as her house? If a man declared bankruptcy, could the court require his wife be sold into prostitution?

Your argument is reaching the point of desperate hyperbole. What you are talking about is slavery. So, yes, if a fundamental shift in human rights were to occur along with the legalisation of prostitution, then this scenario is feasible. Of course, so is the scenario of the man being forced into the arena to fight for his life in front of a milllion bloodthirsty people, but I'd be fairly sure you don't want to criminalise WWF.

It is a very dangerous thing to legalize prostitution. It could very easily pave the way for a society in which rape is a mere misdemeanor, where a rapist need only to pay restitution to the victim at the "prevailing wage" for the "services" he stole from her.

Only if such legalisation were accompanied by fundamental shifts in the legal system with regards to property rights, human rights, assault and, well, just about everything. Your assertion is pure, outlandish, speculative scaremongering.

[ Parent ]

Replies. (3.00 / 7) (#175)
by Kasreyn on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:05:42 AM EST

Trolling is aimed at a group of people. My reply was for you alone (as is this one), I could give a shit who else reads it. The proper term is "flame". Next time, avoid using terms you don't fully understand.

  • name calling
  • SHOUTING


Well, yes. It's a flame, and you were being an idiot, so I think a certain amount of venting is justified. In fact, YOU'RE STILL BEING AN IDIOT, you dippy bitch.

  • implying the parent poster doesn't think, or is an idiot...


Oh, shit, I'm sorry. Implying? I thought I was being more clear than that. Let me try again: You ARE an idiot, and you clearly don't think.

Better?

  • setting my straw man on fire... (I didn't argue for mandating love in every sex act).


I was merely pointing out where your position logically leads to. Calling it a strawman attack doesn't change the fact that, since you can't legislate loving intercourse (if you have a brain), then some acts of sex will be loveless, and that (gasb) this is O.K.!!

But a woman who settles for sex without love will probably never find the fulfillment of married life. Generally speaking, men who use women for sex don't marry them, and those men interested in settling down and raising a family want to marry a virgin. ... The kind of man who chooses women based on their sexual characteristics will easily move from one woman to the next as he becomes bored with them; his current mate must constantly improve his sex life or risk being replaced by someone who will.

God. The concentrated stupidity in that paragraph is enough to etch granite. Where to begin?

First off, not every woman WANTS "the fulfillment of married life", hmmkay? Does it shatter your rose-colored glasses to know that some women just want to sleep around and never marry, some despise men, some prefer women, and some just despise human beings in general. NONE of these types of women would take your dream of married fulfillment, even if it was offered to them by Prince Charming himself. Your choice of language reveals how one-sided your viewpoint is.

Generally speaking, men who use women for sex don't marry them, and those men interested in settling down and raising a family want to marry a virgin.

So, your secret crime-fighting alter ego is Captain Obvious?

The kind of man who chooses women based on their sexual characteristics will easily move from one woman to the next as he becomes bored with them; his current mate must constantly improve his sex life or risk being replaced by someone who will.

The question is, if she wants a romantic man, what is she doing with a man like that in the FIRST place? Why should she MIND him moving on? I get the feeling your mental age is about 14, since you don't seem to understand how men and women date and wrangle out an agreement on the sort of relationship they want to have together.

Women don't seem to understand that as a man grows older, his wealth and status make him more attractive to women, as his desire for them wanes. The end result is that a man's ability to find his ideal mate increases with age, where a woman's fades.

You have successfully defined the double standard which has been common knowledge in the entire universe for longer than any of us have been alive. I agree that double standards are bad. However, I fail to see what fucking relevance ANY OF THIS has to the issue of prostitution. Aside from your transparent "won't you feel sorry for the poor women" approach. Look, sure, things could stand to be improved for women, no lo contendo there. But this has nothing to do with prostitutes, who are just doing a job. Try feeling sorry for ME for a change, I have to work overtime this Saturday and I don't want to. Help help! I'm being oppressed! :-P Yes, I'm *GASP* making light of the plight of oppressed women!! The more it annoys you, the more I laugh. I love that transaction.

Suppose that prostitution does become legal, and that society at large accepts it. Inevitably, a woman's body would have a monetary value attached to it. Suppose that a young college student is unable to repay her student loans, and finds herself in bankruptcy. Would the court order her to have sex with her creditors to satisfy the debt, since it is her only remaining asset with monetary value? Could a bankruptcy liquidator auction off a woman's body in the same manner as her house? If a man declared bankruptcy, could the court require his wife be sold into prostitution?

Oh boy! I love this game! Let's suppose more things. Suppose tiny purple tunas in precious pink tutus came flying out of my ass, singing "Hail Britannia" while juggling Fruit Loops! Suppose Jim Carey gave Mickey Mouse a rim-job in the ruins of Baghdad as the USAF rained flower petals on the joyous multitudes in night-scope green! Suppose you stop supposing impossible things that make you look like a prattling nincompoop in public?

To rebut with a little less hilarity: If a woman's SERVICES (not her body; no one has said a THING about buying BODIES, you amazing nitwit) are stolen, that's one thing. But forcing a penis into a vagina should be considered violent assault and battery. In fact, today it's unfortunately in a grey area by itself, because of misty-headed wishful thinkers like you, making it harder to prosecute rapists for their true crime: bodily invasion and assault. Your attempt to cloud the waters with biblical bullshit only proves your abject ignorance of how the mechanism of the law works: sure, they might make the rapist pay the woman for theft of services. They would ALSO throw him in jail for life for rape. See, we can do this amazing thing called charging a person with multiple crimes for a SINGLE action!

Not that I think anyone in a position of authority would be so crass and stupid as to think monetary compensation could be a proper punishment for bodily assault. I suppose you suggest the idea because it makes you sleep easier at night believing there's someone out there dumber than you.

It is a very dangerous thing to legalize prostitution. It could very easily pave the way for a society in which rape is a mere misdemeanor, where a rapist need only to pay restitution to the victim at the "prevailing wage" for the "services" he stole from her.

See my original arguments, etc. Rape has nothing to do with prostitution. Apparently you would like it to, however, since you want to prevent prostitutes from being able to press charges if raped. Good job helping those poor things out. I think your motives have been made clear enough: you want to be able to continue to feel superior to any woman who's poor or horny, and to feel superior to all men. Enjoy living in your dream world.

In closing, you are a complete fucking moron. I'm not even kidding or joking any more. Apply to an assisted living home as soon as possible. Hopefully the other Mongoloid idiots can teach you not to drool on yourself. And please, avoid operating heavy machinery - you might hurt someone smarter than you, since everyone is. Good day, and good bye.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Interesting (none / 0) (#193)
by ChefQuix on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 05:54:00 AM EST

I think the problem with your argument is that you still use ad hominem attacks in order to emphasize your points. The thing is though that you don't need to rely on personal attacks to get your perception across. I think you make many valid arguments against sexual cloisterism as suggested above, however I think that 'belittling' him just takes away from the effectiveness of your arguments. I am worried though that you see sexual encounters as merely a service to men. Surely you yourself can take some pleasure from these activities?


Polluting the Internet since 2003...
perceptionalism.com
[ Parent ]
The way I see it, (none / 0) (#201)
by Kasreyn on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 10:34:45 PM EST

as long as my logic is sound, which it is, then throwing in sentences with mockery in them doesn't affect the logic. Oh, it may affect the perceptions of readers who are unable to remain detached, but so what? Fuck them. As I said also, I don't care who else read it. It was an "educational flame", if you will, for trimethyl alone, patterned after the flames of a guy I once knew online, kind of also as a personal exercise.

If a reader overlooks my logic and assumes I must be wrong just because I think trimethyl is a pathetic little goon, then they don't know the first thing about rational thought. Logical argument doesn't care what cuss words are standing to its immediate left or right; the logic retains its inevitable correctness regardless.

As to "sexual encounters being only a service to men", I must reiterate what others in this debate have said, but what I did not because I considered it too obvious to be worth mention: Not all prostitutes are women, and not all "johns" are men.

Nothing is "only a service". If I pick my nose, that's not a service, but if Bill Gates hires me to pick his nose at 10 million a year, that's a service. If I give my girlfriend a back massage, that's a gift, and possibly you might call it a free service, but if I get a job as a masseuse and charge some woman I don't know for the same action, it's definitely a service. What do nose picking and back rubbing have in common? They're physical actions carried out by humans.

So is sex. If I have sex with a woman I love voluntarily, it's an action, possibly a gift, and possibly a service, all depending on your definitions. If I have sex with a woman I don't know in exchange for $1000, that's a service. I fail to see why sex should be considered different from any other physical activity humans can perform in exchange for compensation.


-Kasreyn

P.S. as for myself "taking pleasure": to answer your veiled question, no, I do not buy prostitutes. I have fairly low libido, plus am in a monogamous relationship with the most wonderful woman alive (IMO :-). However, there are many things I don't choose to participate in, which I nevertheless feel others should be allowed the right to do. Buying and selling sex is one of those.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Why Adultery Is Bad. (none / 0) (#199)
by grendelkhan on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 09:43:48 PM EST

Tell me again why adultery should be outlawed? Or even why it's bad?

Because it's lying. Because it's a breach of a contract. If you can't understand why the former is immoral and the latter is illegal, then I wonder what you do consider immoral.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

You Want Another Try? (none / 0) (#203)
by virg on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 11:49:03 AM EST

> Because it's lying. Because it's a breach of a contract.

What if it's neither? If a man and woman decide to get married, but then he has sex with another woman, why do you assume it's lying, or breach of contract? What if she knows about it, and condones it? Since she knows, it's not lying, and since it's their marriage, they can change the contract by agreeing. But still he's labelled an adulterer.

So why should it be outlawed? Why is it even bad? You can outlaw lying and breach of contract, or consider both of them bad, and you're already covered. So why adultery, separate from the other two offenses?

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Look closely. (none / 0) (#207)
by grendelkhan on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 04:13:58 PM EST

You're changing the argument. It was originally about adultery; now it's about open marriages and/or polyamory. Sheesh.

Pick one and stick with it.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

One and the Same (none / 0) (#214)
by virg on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:09:03 AM EST

> You're changing the argument. It was originally about adultery; now it's about open marriages and/or polyamory. Sheesh.

I've never met a priest or minister who didn't define an open marriage as adultery. Care to disprove that analysis? For the vast, vast majority of Christians, they're one and the same, which is why I point out in my post what you seem to know already.

Sheesh.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Rats. Hit Post Too Fast. (none / 0) (#215)
by virg on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 10:17:51 AM EST

So, the original question stands. Why criminalize adultery separate from lying or breach of contract?

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Those Wacky Christians. (none / 0) (#220)
by grendelkhan on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 12:29:35 AM EST

And what exactly do Christians have to do with the American legal system? Aren't they supposed to be two disjoint groups?

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

What Indeed (none / 0) (#222)
by virg on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 09:40:13 AM EST

> And what exactly do Christians have to do with the American legal system? Aren't they supposed to be two disjoint groups?

Why, yes, they are supposed to be.

Oh, you're arguing that they are disjoint? Then why is it not legal for me to buy beer on Sunday morning? Why is polygamy a crime? And back to the original question, why does adultery need to be illegal? If the adultery is based on deceit, then the afflicted party can address it in civil court as breach of contract. If it's not, why is it anyone's business at all?

If you're going to argue that the legal system should be separate from Christians, then what ground do you stand on to make adultery a criminal offense?

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Why not (2.72 / 18) (#73)
by LittleStar on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:12:58 AM EST

I think that this sounds like a really good idea, particularly knowing that mentally disabled people are often highly sexual (as any aid worker could tell you). I think that like all people, mentally handicapped people should be able to have tension release that is only available through orgasm. OF course, this would not work for all individuals, and I suppose the difficult part here would be how to tell if they "like it"/"want it" when there is little ability to communicate. Although, no doubt, their body lets the prostitute know.

Just to also comment on the "prostitution is bad" string. DUH! I am a chick, I don't want to be a prostitute, I personally think it is degrading; but I am, by no means, all women. I know a number of woman who have worked in the sex/porn industry (generally on the internet masturbating or having sex with other women or men) who were very happy with their chosen profession. Women who really like having sexual play as their job, cause they just like having sex. (Yes, yes, you all want to meet these woman, I know.) To me it is very similar to the abortion debate. I personally would not have an abortion, but that is me. It would not be my right to stop any other woman from doing that, who am I to make their decisions for them, and their bodies.

Regarding the comment about prostitutes being people forced into the area because of lack of skills and opportunity; there will always be prostitutes right? It is the oldest profession. It is sad that this is the way the world works (born into poverty=less chances at life), but it is. So, if prostitution were legalised and regulated there would no doubt still be woman forced into the work by circumstance (as there is now) but at least the woman forced into it would have a regulated job with benefits (if they had a union for example) so that the job would be MUCH less dangerous.

That is my three cents.

littlestar
Twinkle. Twinkle. Twinkle.
3 cents! (none / 2) (#85)
by poopi on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:42:38 PM EST

Crap! When did the price go up? Used to be 2 cents. Damn inflation!

-----

"It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - Parent ]

the body isn't a good judge (3.00 / 9) (#100)
by BlackStripe on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:32:40 PM EST

I suppose the difficult part here would be how to tell if they "like it"/"want it" when there is little ability to communicate. Although, no doubt, their body lets the prostitute know.

Having known several and worked with a lot of rape victims, I can tell you that the body does not have *anything* to do with the level of consent. One huge issue for the rape victims who experience it is having an orgasm or even any feeling of sexual pleasure whatsoever during an assault. Young boys will get hard from manual / oral stimulation, even if that stimulation is from a forty year old woman or man who does it against their will. Women who are able of orgasming from sex will often have at least some pleasure and even actual orgasms during rape. You don't have to consent to or enjoy what is happening to your body for your body to react in a way that goes against your will.

Isaac

[ Parent ]

finally someone says it, though i didn't expect it (2.80 / 5) (#137)
by Norkakn on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 03:15:08 AM EST

at least not here

I'm glad that someone said it; I have heard the statement (often from radical feminists actually.. not steinmen definition) that women cannot rape men because they have to have an erection and that means that they want it, and you know that men are always horny anyways so they are just given what they want and they just say they were abused for the attention

*sigh* this world scares me

[ Parent ]

yes, I think this is the stumbling block (none / 2) (#173)
by livus on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:18:05 PM EST

for many people here. An erection doesn't necessarily mean a male wants sex any more than a moist vagina necessarily means a female wants sex.

I have never heard of a woman who experienced any pleasure during rape however, probably due to tissue damage and vaginismus causing cramps, etc. However there does seem to be the perception out there that rape of erect men isn't rape.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

True (none / 1) (#190)
by LittleStar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:08:46 PM EST

You are right here. The body would not be a good judge. This just means it would be even harder to know how to make this decision.

And, by the by, I agree that it is bizzarre that "men can't get raped, they need an erection" it falls into the same camp as "ha, ha, HE was abused by HER?". Riduculous. As though only men have the capacity for inflicting pain.

littlstar.
Twinkle. Twinkle. Twinkle.
[ Parent ]
Prostitution should be legal. (1.72 / 11) (#81)
by HanzoSan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:22:30 PM EST

Its funny how selling guns is ok but prostitution is now. Our laws are either based on morals or they arent. People need to make up their damned minds.

I think the Bible endorses guns (none / 2) (#92)
by nkyad on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 01:06:13 PM EST

Or at least it would if there were guns at the time it was written - it certainly endorses swords, sticks, catapults and a whole host of advanced weapons of mass destruction (the ones capable of bringing down large walls or putting whole cities to fire). As for prostituion, the Bible does not seem to like it very much (regardless JC's best girl friend, but one shouldn't linger on this point - people get nervous).

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
sex in the bible (none / 2) (#99)
by wrax on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:24:07 PM EST

The bible seems to not like anything that brings pleasure as a whole, unless its worshiping god or holding up your faith as a justification of why you're better than everyone else.
--------------------

I don't know whats worse, the fact that people actually write this crap or the fact that people actually vote it up.
[ Parent ]

have you actually read the bible? (none / 0) (#130)
by zorander on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 10:33:38 PM EST

The bible has a whole book (the bible is divided into books...I don't remember exactly how many...more than seventy, less than a hundred, perhaps?) about the joy of sex. In fact, in the old testament times, one was not allowed to read it until the age of 30. The Bible also instructs its followers to "shrug their shoulders and move on" if someone rejects what they believe in, citing that God's justice will make things equal in the end. Note, I didn't say the justice meted out by believers in Christ. The Bible makes no claim of the superiority of believers, who are viewed more as fortunate discoverers of treasure (as per parables in the book of Mark) than "enlightened ones." All in all, the apostles were a pretty lowly crew and certainly very human, as were many other Bible characters. Moses was a murderer eith a stutter and a fear of public speaking, Rahab a prostitute. Among the Apostles were Crooks and Tax Collectors, but they found their way to heaven nonetheless, beating the odds. It is more a book about "the last coming first" than the superiority of people who put their life into it. In fact, it is a recurring theme in Paul's letters to the early church (The books Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Phillipians, Collosians, 1,2 Timothy, Hebrews, and certainly others that I am forgetting) that believers should not put on a show of their faith, etc. Yes, Christians are supposed to derive joy from their worship. Could they be expected not to? I fail to see your point on this one. Did God EVER acknowledge that the church was always right? No. Not for the "big" church (the set of all people who believe in Christ) or the "little" churches (congregations around the world). In fact, in the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible), he has harsh words for many of them, particularly to the last church mentioned, the Laodecians. The Bible continuously deals with the imperfections and tendencies to deception in humanity, including the members of the church. Note that God has much much harsher words for those who call themselves Christians and are hypocrites than those outside the church. Keep this in mind next time you run into a Christian hypocrite, if indeed they are the source for your misconceptions. Brian
---- Want to get into Linux? Cheap systems available now at eLinuxBox.com.
[ Parent ]
What are morals? (none / 1) (#107)
by skyknight on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:25:06 PM EST

Can you explain what morality is?

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Oh Please... (none / 1) (#131)
by thelizman on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 11:41:09 PM EST

...I can handle getting shot, but watching my pecker rot off is incomprehensible. Yeah, prostitution should be legal, and in some places it is. Just like with marijuana, if you legalize it, it'll put the amatures out of business and allow corporate megachains (of whore houses) to move in.

You know, once I had an idea for butt-nekkid restaurant. You could get chicken wings, a beer, and a lap dance. I'd bury Hooters.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
The Trials and Tribulations of HanzoSan (1.20 / 5) (#192)
by Death To HanzoSan on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 03:13:23 PM EST

Dana Edwards was feeling a little disheartened. It had been nearly a week since he'd contacted Peacecorp and applied for a tour of duty in the Congo. He had hoped all week that his weight problem, chronic acne and asthma would not discount him from the program. Dana had been in some financial strife for a couple years now, with those tuition fees from Massachusets Bay Community College piling up. This was particularly stressful for him because, despite having taught himself to read and posessing an impressive intellect, he could not find a decent slack-off job with internet connection that would support his slashdot posting habit. Dana belched while he tapped his cordless phone and stuffed his hand into a bag of Cheetos. Dana, a Jack of All Trades had also been unsuccessful for several years in his attempts to get a night DJ position at a local AM radio station within walking distance of his mother's house. This distressed him, because being a DJ would be such a natural part-time job for him, being a skilled musician on the side. Alas, he waited still and finished the last fluid ounce of his Mountain Dew.

Peacecorp was going to change that. Where his business sense would have failed him in the Merchant Marines and his poor physical condition were not up to snuff for the military, he felt Peacecorp would welcome him with open arms and take his student loan burden off his hands.

"Education equals genius. Genius is good for society. I'll show them, I'm going to buck the status quo. I'm going to make a difference, I'll show them what a poor kid from the ghetto is capable of." Dana thought to himself.

Dana had not shaven for five days, but his greasy facial hair never became very thick, even after weeks of neglect. It grew in a thin, spotty Fu Manchu pattern. Best described, his whiskers resembled soot smeared on his greasy jowels. He scratched at his armpit and pulled the tightening fabric of his pajama pants out of his groin and sighed with relief.

"Aaaah."

Dana was glad that the weekend had finally come around. His Computer Repair Fundamentals and Sociology classes were starting to really dig in. He blamed the teacher for sucking, and was utterly convinced that his superior intellect would reward him with first in his graduating class of 40. He was certain that the same outcome would happen if he got into MIT, but that would never happen. The rich bastards would never give him a fair chance on a level playing field. The MIT bastards hate nerds, just like everybody else. That was alright though, Dana already knew he was superior to most of them anyway. Their facilities were only useful to the superficial.

Dana loosened up a bit by putting some music on the 'juke. He got a free MP3 jukebox from his mother and slapped an "RIAA SUCKS" bumper sticker on the side of it. Dana was vehemently opposed to the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, especially music. Dana downloaded all his favourite Pink Floyd tracks off the internet and onto the jukebox, and this brought a small amount of joy to his empty life.

"Damn the man!" he exclaimed, raising a fist as his gut flopped out of his oil-stained ThinkGeek t-shirt.

Ice T and Fred Durst alone had practically paved the way to justified downloads of all music ever created and served up on KaZaa. And so, Dana sat in in front of his monitor listening to The Wall, waiting for a reply from Peacecorp.

His mother slipped in to his room briefly to set down a balogna and cheese sandwich in front of him while he fired up a beta version of Transgaming on his Pentium 166 with MMX.

"Mom, why don't you hate the RIAA?"

She shrugged, rolled her eyes and closed the door to his room on the way out.

"She forgot to cut off the crusts." Dana held back the tears and ate the sandwich anyway.


[montemplar] wuzzup hanz0?

A privmsg came up on his IRC client. Dana had adopted the "handle" HanzoSan after his Japanese classmate Ohta nicknamed him something that could be most closely translated to "Orphan Pederast", not exactly vulgar but hardly flattering.

[HanzoSan] not much, just chillin on the North end.
[montemplar] cool man, never give up the fight against the evil RIAA
[HanzoSan] information (music) wants to be free! latez oppa!

Dana played Commander Keen on his Linux machine through the night. He had totally forgotten about Peacecorps for now because he had gotten the powerup, and he was going to win the game. He became bored and jacked off till his pillowcase was covered in a couple pea-sized drops of cum. What a great weekend. HanzoSan passed out on the pillow, with Cheeto stains on his dick.

[ Parent ]
it's a very simple issue (2.00 / 10) (#87)
by dh003i on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:52:52 PM EST

As an extension of one's property right in one's own body, one should have the right to prostitute one's self. Anything else denies self-ownership over your own body. If you think it's immoral, fine; don't engage in it, don't associate with those who do, or who are prostitutes' clients. In short, prostitution is no-one's business but that of the client and the prostitute.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

you are completely missing the point (3.00 / 6) (#98)
by BlackStripe on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:23:01 PM EST

As an extension of one's property right in one's own body, one should have the right to prostitute one's self.

If that's true, then one should also be free from being sexually assaulted without consent. Even if prostitution is not a crime, paid rape is not prostitution. If a man hired someone to rape his wife we would be appalled, yet if he hires someone to rape his mentally retarded wife we think it's okay? I have spent enough time involved with traumatic head injury patients to know there is a WIDE range of disability, but when you are discussing "clients" whose desires must be interpreted through mLs of drool or frequency of blinks, something is fucked up.

Isaac

PS - The downrating wasn't because I disagree with you, it's because this incomplete point has already been raised and dumped a half dozen times already. It's a waste of time to address it again, but I didn't want to rate it without replying.

[ Parent ]

You don't have "property right" (none / 3) (#169)
by steve h on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 09:50:07 PM EST

over your body. Bodies cannot be "owned" nor can they be bought or sold, at least since the abolition of slavery.

Rights over your body are fundamental human rights that take precedence over concepts of property. To frame human rights in terms of property rights will lead to slavery and serfdom. The poor will be forced to sell their bodies (or organs) to the rich to feed their families.

[ Parent ]

Too Much Potential for Abuse (2.13 / 15) (#96)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 02:21:54 PM EST

Salesman: Your disabled vegtable of a son really WANTS this In-Synch lunchpale and if you get him one he can be just like all the normal children.

Custodian: Really? I'd like it if he could enjoy the same things normal children do.

Salesman: He can. Look! See, he just drooled. I can tell that means he WANTS it.

Custodian: You Can? Ok then, I guess if you're sure he really wants it.

Salesman: Oh, I am, I am. That'll be $80 please.

If the above scenerio happaned we'd be calling the salesman a sick, manipulative bastard. Yet we change it to "sexual caregiver" and people start crawling out of the woodwork to defend the angel of the redlight district. I'm as socialy permisive as the next person but if a person can't CLEARLY ARTICULATE what they want and have the CAPACITY to UNDERSTAND exactly what it is then there is way too much potential for abuse and exploitation with this sort of thing.


Yeah (2.80 / 5) (#105)
by greenrd on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 04:07:27 PM EST

You can't be for this without being for sex with children.

Sorry, but it's that simple.

(I'm not talking about the case of physically disabled but mentally-OK people, of course, that's completely different.)


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Children don't have hormones. (none / 1) (#122)
by fenix down on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:02:54 PM EST

And teenagers can't have sex with adults because it is too likely that they would be exploited, due to the inherent power imbalance between a minor and an adult. If you're providing prositutes for retarded people, it seems to me there are fewer possibilities for abuse. It is qute creepy though, I'll admit that.

[ Parent ]
Wait (2.50 / 4) (#126)
by mstefan on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 08:20:32 PM EST

You're asserting here that there isn't an inherently exploitable power imbalance between a severely mentally disabled person and someone who is gratifying (read: abusing) them sexually?

I think you need to rethink that position. If you can, answer the question I asked here.



[ Parent ]
Wrong target (none / 3) (#157)
by drsmithy on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 04:03:40 PM EST

If the above scenerio happaned we'd be calling the salesman a sick, manipulative bastard.

You might be, I'd be calling the custodian an irresponsible twit.

I'm as socialy permisive as the next person but if a person can't CLEARLY ARTICULATE what they want and have the CAPACITY to UNDERSTAND exactly what it is then there is way too much potential for abuse and exploitation with this sort of thing.

That's (allegedly) why there are caregivers - to articulate that _for_ them.

[ Parent ]

Five blind men and an elephant (2.80 / 10) (#104)
by Tatarigami on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 03:46:22 PM EST

I think the question of sexual services for the intellectually handicapped needs to be opened up a bit more. There are different degrees of intellectually handicapped, and some of them are almost certainly capable of making an informed decision on whether they want sex or not.

In cases where they're not capable of communicating their wants in normal ways, we rely on caregivers to interpret, which is fine as long as you can be confident the caregiver is able to give an accurate accounting of the disabled person's wishes, and that there's no malice in the relationship. I think we'd all agree it's better for the patient to get no sex than to get some they don't want.

I also think we need to examine why a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of the disabled having sex -- I think it's to do with the prospect of procreation. A lot of people are uncomfortable around the disabled, but by and large we don't mind having them among us. On the other hand most people, even if they don't admit it, dislike the idea of disabled people creating little disabled people of their own. We secretly resent the investment of resources needed to care for the disabled, and think that increasing their number would be presuming too much on society's generosity. I'm not innocent of this, and I doubt many people are.

procreation and intellectual disabilities (none / 2) (#120)
by kartar on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:44:02 PM EST

Whilst I have ethical issues with this sort of activity the procreation issues are not quite that dramatic. It's predjudice not science. Firstly a lot of intellectual disabilities are not genetically transmitted - they result from chromosonal abnormalities, illness, trauma, metabolic disorders or are socio-cultural in nature (violence, abuse, mental trauma). People with intellectual disabilities like this are no more likely than anyone else to have a child with an intellectual disability. With the genetically inherited disorders like Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) the chance of the child having Down Syndrome is higher (some clinical research suggests 35% of women with Down Syndrome give birth to children with developmental delays or pass on Trisomy 21). It is not a guaranteed outcome though and with suitable genetic counsuelling people with intellectual disabilities should have the same reproductive rights are anyone else.

[ Parent ]
Because: (1.00 / 7) (#121)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 06:44:52 PM EST

Retards are real good at raising children.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Ignorance (none / 3) (#125)
by kartar on Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 07:28:03 PM EST

Again simple ignorance and predjudice. There are differing levels of intellectual disability with differing levels of functional ability. Some parents with an intellectual disability would obviously require more support than others. Some people with a mild intellectual disability would require little or no support. And on the subject of bad parenting? Plenty of people without intellectual disabilities are terrible parents. Anybody who works in social welfare or child protection can tell you that and the often appalling consequences of that. From my experience of people with intellectual disabilities I find many qualities in them that would make them better parents than some of the so-called 'normal' parents I meet.

[ Parent ]
Another thought - sexual orientation (2.62 / 8) (#174)
by livus on Thu Jan 15, 2004 at 10:44:49 PM EST

Imagine being too severely retarded to point out that your sexual orientation wasn't the same as your caregivers assumed it was, and being too disabled to do anything to escape.

For heterosexuals, imagine if homosexuality was the standard prostitute service. And vice versa. Not all men are going to want a 42 year old woman tugging on them.

Yet another reason to agree with Sensis.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

A valid point. (none / 0) (#225)
by dmw on Sat Jan 24, 2004 at 07:22:49 PM EST

That's a very valid point, and open for discussion. One would assume that in a society where sexual services to the disabled was regulated, such provisions would be made.

I'm at dire risk of getting flamed the life out of for saying this, but personally I believe homosexuality to be a condition created as a result of extreme experiences in a person's life.

Of the homosexuals I have known, all were victims of male oppression (bullying), had been raped as children, or had been abused within their own families (both sexually and non-sexually).

It is entirely possible that the circumstances under which a homosexual mindset is created could happen to a handicapped person, however I believe the human homosexual condition to be an intellectual reaction to the being's environment. As such, I suspect that a mentally disabled person may be less likely to be affected by it, and more drawn towards instinctual urges.

I wasn't going to post the above, as it sounds like bullshit, but who am I to censor my own output.
-dw
[ Parent ]

strawmen all over K5 (2.80 / 5) (#177)
by slaida1 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:59:05 AM EST

Every other comment against this idea pulls out strawman defence by going to the extreme example of total vegetable. Time to wake up, descend from moral highgrounds to the firm solid surface that is logic and reason.

It's the good old in-out trick we're talking about here, no mighty love gods with high standards for righteous lovemaking techniques, or rosy bullshit examples that ooze out of telly. All our lives are different and we all see world differently and we all have different standards. That means even if one feels sex without weallyweally deep feelings is wrong, it sure as hell doesn't mean that others should be forced to agree.

I'm enraged that in a country where we supposedly have religious freedom, I'm still forced by law to live by moral teachings of the bible. Prostitution, doublestandards regarding mind altering and addictive substances, nudity/sex, etc. etc. What kind of religious freedom is this? Bullshit, I say.

I'm dylexic, (1.28 / 7) (#185)
by jago25 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:53:39 AM EST

do I get a discount? ;)

Takes All Kinds (1.00 / 9) (#191)
by ShiftyStoner on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 02:13:19 AM EST

 I guess it's pretty fucking noble of her, but what a sick bitch. I wouldn't let her touch me with a 10 foot pole if I was fully dressed to take a bath in nuclear waste. BTW why call her a prostitute if she isn't having sex with the tards?

 If all this tard sex is being encouraged they should be doing a lot of neutering. Hitler would roll over in his fucking grave it he heard this shit.  
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

You're a moron... (none / 0) (#198)
by Morimoto Masaharu on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 08:53:53 PM EST

While I don't know what my standing on the issue is, I am not going to even start explaining why your response has established you as a stupid piece of human excrement.
«This is Mr. Yoshida on your favorite vegetables.»
[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0) (#202)
by ShiftyStoner on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 03:41:16 AM EST

 What was the point in your post? You must have just had some name calling you needed to get out of your system. If you can't even decide were you stand on an issue as black and white as this, you must be a moron. Calling names with no explanation, and nothing logical to say to back it up at all is the act of a child. Or someone who thinks like one, moron.
 I'm not one to change my beliefs just because people think of me as subhuman because of them.
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler
[ Parent ]
I have to agree (none / 0) (#218)
by speek on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 05:20:42 PM EST

with the other guy - you're a moron.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Then (none / 0) (#221)
by ShiftyStoner on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:04:16 AM EST

 I would have to say you're just as fucking moronic as him. Acctualy lower than him, at least he was thinking for himself.
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler
[ Parent ]
Hitler would roll over... (none / 0) (#217)
by hansel on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 03:58:49 PM EST

And that's bad how?  Hell, it recommends it to me.  Do you often go through your day asking yourself "what would hitler do in this siutation?"

[ Parent ]
Reality check from the front-line (none / 3) (#216)
by Pope Discordia The Fifth on Tue Jan 20, 2004 at 11:53:11 AM EST

Disclaimer:  Names and details have been changed to protect the confidentiality and dignity of service users.

I am a Learning Disability Support Worker in the UK, and I have to deal with the issues under discussion on a day-to-day basis.

Reading through the thread of discussion, I am saddened to see so many damaging assumptions being made about learning disabled people.  Saddened, but not surprised: I encounter them all the time.

My present employers (and I do consider them as my employers... read on and you'll find out why) are a group of severely / profoundly learning disabled middle-aged men who share a household in a rural community.  Here are some examples of what they can and can't do.  Most of them are non-verbal, and the rest can only manage a few simple utterances (e.g. "Hungry" or "Go-for-walk").  They can all operate a lever-type door-handle, about half of them understand the function of toilets, one of them can do up his flies, and none of them know how to operate a simple bolt lock.

But they ARE NOT passive recipients of care.  Far from it... they all have decades of experience at getting the most from their care workers!  They can laugh with you, or laugh at you.  They can participate, or refuse to play ball.  They can smile, frown, shout, scratch, hug, push or self-injure.

My favourite example of this involves John.  I consider John to be the most disabled, and also the most easy-going of the people I work for.  The only vocalisations he can manage are grunts and groans.  He's getting on in years and has limited mobility.  His favourite activities include sunbathing and hugging people.

John once sacked somebody.

The person he sacked was a new guy sent by the agency as temporary cover.  As soon as John saw him he took his hand, marched him straight to the front door, and left him there.  He kept doing this for about half-an-hour, until the rest of us got the hint: John didn't want this man in his house.  We sent him back to the agency.

Now you know why I consider John to be one of my employers.

Nobody knows why John acted this way, and John can't tell us.  Perhaps this man had abused John in the past?  Perhaps John just didn't like his aftershave?

Another possibility (unlikely, but impossible to discount) is that we misinterpreted John's wishes.  Discovering the preferences of the people I work for is one of the most important and difficult aspects of my job.  Sometimes it's impossible, but over time much can be achieved.  One man likes country walks, whereas another prefers going to town and watching the world go by.  One man likes jogging trousers and sweatshirts, whereas another prefers jeans and printed T-shirts.  One man likes dance music, whereas another likes the Beatles.  Etc.

Since the men moved out of institutional care in the early nineties, their lives have been transformed.  Although it was a good institution, everything was "one size fits all.  Now, they have staff who can learn exactly what their preferences are and adjust their environment accordingly.  The results are impressive... people who knew these men from a decade ago are astounded at how much happier and more settled they are.

So what about sexuality?  At the risk of sounding platitudinous, I believe that sexuality is part of the richness of human experience, and this applies just as much to people with learning disabilities as it does to a Mathematics graduate like myself.  (If I tried to pretend otherwise, my employers have ways of letting me know that I'm wrong....)

So far as I can see, the biggest problem with offering more "hands on" services is the issue of INFORMED choice.  Speaking for myself, if the only kind of sexual relationship I was aware of was the one offered by Nina de Vries, then I'd probably be a regular customer at the local massage parlour.  But I know that there are alternatives, and I prefer to hold-out for a real girlfriend.  How can I explain these options to my employers?

Sexual Services for the Disabled | 223 comments (223 topical, 0 editorial, 8 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!