The last taboo - Page 4
From Griffith REVIEW Edition 22: MoneySexPower
© Copyright Griffith University & the author.
Written by Charlie Stansfield
IN THE DECADE PLUS SINCE I worked with J, anti-discriminatory and other human rights-based legislation has improved access to employment, accommodation and recreation for people with disabilities. In the big picture, pursuing rights in these areas has tended to push sexual rights lower down on the agenda. Other than the important work on uncovering stories of sexual abuse of people with disabilities, the field is quiet on the issue of sexual rights. Fourteen years on, J would have had to face similar barriers. Sexuality, and more specifically the use of sex workers, remains an unresolved, uncomfortable issue for some of the larger agencies supporting people with disabilities.
Most agencies point to the legal situation as the reason for their unease – specifically, a section of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 that relates to procurement, where the wording is ambiguous and open to various legal interpretations: ‘whosoever procures entices or leads away any person (not being a prostitute), whether with that person's consent or not for the purposes of prostitution either within or without NSW, shall, notwithstanding that one or more of the various acts constituting the offence may have been committed outside NSW, be liable for imprisonment for seven years.'
The procurement law – initially developed as ‘anti-pimping' legislation – does not take into account that some people with disabilities require some form of assistance to make and then keep an appointment with a sex worker.
Agencies that are historically parent driven, well established and have a high profile for the charity dollar have adopted conservative legal advice in this matter. They are the agencies that cater for people like J, whose backgrounds attest to a lifetime of environmental and social disadvantage. No one knows of a case where procurement law has been tested, and most staff are very doubtful there would be circumstances where a consumer may want to take legal action. However, no agency wants to be the ‘guinea pig', fearful of the publicity that might surround the issue.
The New South Wales Disability Services Act 1993 creates an obligation to meet the individual needs of consumers, including those relating to the expression of their sexuality. Sadly, it is an aspirational piece of legislation, and standards cannot be enforced by any civil action. This prevents a consumer from suing for ‘breach of contract' if they cannot be provided with a service that meets their needs for a sexual relationship.
It does seem that, while initial fears centre on protecting a consumer from any emotional or physical harm while pursuing paid sex, a significant underlying concern is actually about protecting the agency and its staff.
A service provider put it this way: ‘We do what we can. We provide sex education to consumers. We allow staff to represent us on lobby groups like "Touching Base". We run groups on forming friendships and relationships for younger people with disabilities. We support them to participate at SEXPO and Mardi Gras. But when it comes to giving approval to our staff to take people to a sex worker or a sex surrogate, or to directly assist two consumers with a sexual act if that is what they want, the policy is clear: they cannot be permitted to do that.'
WHEN I CONFESS TO SEX WORKER Saul Isbister that my concern all those years ago was more about whether or not J would get ripped off, his response is generous: ‘A recent study on trustworthy professions showed that sex workers were ranked only two places higher than politicians,' he laughs.
It could be said that sex workers suffer from similar stigmatisation and misunderstanding to that faced by people with disabilities. Both groups are vulnerable to being perceived solely in terms of their sexuality (or lack thereof), while also being shamed for being sexual. Both are more likely to experience sexual assault compared with other professions or groups of people. People with disabilities dependent upon personal carers have reduced opportunities to set boundaries. Sex workers are often perceived not to have any boundaries at all in relation to sexual activity. Both sex workers and people with disabilities challenge our myths of ‘naturalness'. In order to cope with any discomfort they might provoke, we push them to the fringes.
Saul and a small group of colleagues established the non-government agency Touching Base (www.touchingbase.org) in 2000 after recognising their own needs for training in providing services for people with disabilities. Touching Base was developed as a pragmatic response to the needs of both groups, as Saul said: ‘While training in sexual health counselling, I started to see that there could be issues with communication and consent and also recognised that practical skills such as the best way to assist someone with a spinal cord injury could assist me. The alarming statistics regarding high rates of sexual assault of people with disabilities made me want to ensure that people I saw would receive a service that did not in any way replicate any abuse they may have previously experienced.'
In a world where perfect bodies, youth and beauty are seen as the only prerequisites to a good sex life, someone frequently perceived as an object of care or pity faces huge challenges in developing a positive self-esteem and a healthy sexuality. Of course, it is not necessary to have sex in order to be sexual. There are plenty of sexy celibates. But there's nothing sexy about enforced celibacy, when the odds of ever falling in love and having a relationship are stacked against you. People denied opportunities to come to know their own bodies or to experience their own or another's caress may have a greater need for a direct experience of sex to affirm themselves as sexual beings.
While not everyone would want an experience of paid sex to be the first option to meet the need for a relationship, equally sex workers shouldn't be seen as a providing a substitute ‘normal relationship' (whatever ‘normal relationship' means). Sex workers can provide a different sort of relationship, no less valid than others, that can fulfil the human need for contact on a range of levels. As Saul explained: ‘There are a lot of misconceptions about what sex workers actually do. People think we sell our bodies. They don't know that sex is not the only outcome.'
The question most often asked about J's story is whether it was the right thing to do to help him on this one occasion, knowing that it might be hard for him to organise a repeat. Only J can answer that. My guess is that it would not have been an isolated experience. Someone like J who can express their sexuality repeatedly, tenaciously, in a language frequently dismissed or misunderstood, has a talent for communication. That talent and irrepressible spirit will always be able to cut through the protestations of legislative or policy-speak to find a way to be heard. ♦