OAP home allows residents to book sex workers

"And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities . "

Yes, exacly. And it's OK because the women are getting paid. No, they're still being exploited.

"This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women. " YY

Well Beach that knocks the whole "well other residents don't have to know, it doesn't affect them" argument into a cocked hat. Not that just because someone doesn't know what is happening is a reason to allow it to happen.

And WTF at this?

On one occasion, local strippers were invited into the home to perform a ?special show? for residents.

Anyway, what is interesting about this care home is this;

Bosses say many physically and mentally disabled people have no other sexual outlet - and become so frustrated they often resort to GROPING staff.

In other words the residents are sexually harassing and assaulting the staff. And in order to solve the problem, the sexual assault target is being outsourced - to prostitutes. But that is OK because these men are old and have disabilities .

This particular case just highlights what the dynamics of prostitution are - the outsourcing of male entitlement to sexually access and assault women.

I disagree. Just because someone has a low intelligence doesn't mean they are ignorant to the concept of sex and consent to sex.

Have you met or worked with people with really low intelligence. (ie. not the bottom set at your local comp, but someone who is disabled by their lack of cognitive function. Such people cannot live independently or manage their money. They would not be able to organise a prostitute to come on their own. It is not unusual for some people with substantial learning difficulties to really struggle socially with basic friendships. (Ie. lack of theory of mind, the imagination to predict the future, ablity to read facial expressions, to tell when they are being exploited/ bullied, anger management)

For example someone with severe autism may struggle with the idea that the prostitute is providing a service and doesn't actually love them. If the prostitute decides that she no longer wants to service that client then it will cause a complex pychological mess. I am sceptical that the use of prostitutes increases someone's long term happiness.

Rather than organising a prostitute, I feel that care homes need to think what someone's true needs are. Everyone likes a hug, to feel needed, mentally simulated and the warmth of another's human touch. This is very different to having a shag. Rather than employing a prostitute prehaps care home need to employ more carers so that they can chat to clients and meet their social needs.

If someone with major learning difficulties is lucky enough to have a proper sexual relationship then that is very different. In that kind of situation the two people having sex are equal in the relationship and them making love is a beautiful thing. There is no exploitation of anyone.

"women who feel that they have not lived a full human existence because they have never had children" is the line I found full of male privilege and misogyny. It is the patriarchy that tells women that they have not lived a full human existence if they can't/haven't had children. It is the patriarchy not treating them like full human beings. Because obviously women are just walking reproductive systems . It is really horrible that you are comparing the traumas and feelings that some women go through to have a baby with wanting access to another human's body because you want to have sex.

However wtf this has got to do with feeling entitled to have sex with a prostitute I don't know. Maybe you just wanted to have another go at women in general?

Not really understanding what you mean by the line:

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Just because you say it isn't commodifying doesn't make it true. Because you are wanting to buy sex, so that automatically makes it a commodity. You can't separate the sex from the woman you have it with. It is incredibly misogynistic to try and do that.

LL I wasn't commenting on your posting style - I was commenting on your argument which struck me a convoluted way of saying that you think men have a right to sexual access to another human being whilst trying very hard not to say those actual words.

I wasn't commenting on grammar, etc - I was commenting on the convoluted mental gymnastics.

Please stop telling me I'm missing your point just because I don't capitulate. And please stop telling me what I think.

I have no interest in a conversation which compares female reproductive capacity and its role in patriarchy to thinking one has a right to sexual assess to others. It's making me feel a bit sick.

Oh you LOLing women, but if you can stop self congratulating yourself and each other for how clever you are, and how you can answer all mens by ignoring and belittling what they say in a reverse macho attempt to show how big and entitled you are in what you perceive to be your own space, you will find that you both have again missed the entire point and the context of what not just I but solid and others have said.

No buying sex: No commodifying. No abuse. No expectation to have access to other peoples bodies.

Since it is fine to pass comment on my literacy and the argument I have put forward, then I am entitled to suggest that your emotional and logical processes perhaps even your cognitive process especially if you have to ask a question starting with WTF shows both a lack of ability to grasp different ways of thinking, and the maturity to be able to debate with out goading.

Interestingly though, the idea of women not having the right to have children being acknowledged and accepted, but then turned to be the fault of patriarchy seems somehow twisted. You agree with the patriarchy then. Or you would enforce that part of the patriarchy so that women could reclaim their reproductive systems that oppress them, only for some of those women to be unhappy and unfulfilled that they are not feeling or being treated like full humans as they are not able to have children. Mmm go over to the assisted conception boards and see how that fly's.

Oh and I'm not a rad fem. HTH.

I am LOLing at the man telling us we are not stoopid so we must surely agree with him.

Does that make us stupid if we disagree then?

I wasn't deliberately missing the point

I think your point is crap. I disagree with it.

I'm not arguing that people don't have a (personal) right to experience sex (although I don't think they do other than mastubation as bodily autonomy). I'm arguing that people (or let's face it, we actually mean men ) don't have a right to sexual access to another human being .

Having children is not a right either. (And a lot of people would be a lot happier if society stopped pushing the message that women haven't lived a full human existence unless they have had a child.)

Anyway comparing women having children in patriarchy, to men having sexual access to women in patriarchy, is beyond crass and positively bursting with male privilege and misogyny. (Clue - women are oppressed via our reproductive capacity and due to our reproductive capacity, women are also oppressed by rape culture and the misogynistic idea that men have a right to sexual assess to women.)

WTF is 'therapeutic' sexual access to another human being? Is that just rape culture with special pleading?

I haven't insulted you have I? You want to be able to pay for a woman's body. That is treating her as a commodity. Why would that be an insult to you?

Well admittedly, I may have misunderstood as your argument isn't that coherent and pretty irrelevant, but you seemed to be implying that we think women have a right to have children, for some reason?

Ok Abigail, you repeat back to me EXACTLY what I said but include an insult and an assumption about what I "think"

Perfect example of why trying to have a conversation with radfems is like hearding cats. I told beach she was not stupid either you are, or you choose insults as a debating tactic which is a little bit shit really.

Nobody has a right to have a child LL. I don't know where you got the idea that they did. You can experience sex without using a prostitute.

You really do see women as a commodity don't you. And more importantly you think it is OK to treat them as one.

Beach you are not a stupid person do not try and deliberately miss the point, having ivf, or having children in any way including adoption is not a right either. So if your arguing that their is no right to experience sex which is what both solid and I have suggested is not a right but part of being human, it follows that you are then happy to accept that women who feel that they have not lived a full human existence because they have never had children should also just accept that this is how it is as they have no right to do have children, even though our society in provides assistance and help for women to do exactly that.

As to your point about access to sex being a right, I have stated several imps that my stance is that I think it perfectly possible to reframe the idea away from sex work and in to a therapeutic one. This would remove any and all abuse, all the safeguards that badinage is on about would be on offer including crb checks. Tax would be paid, although I am not sure of those earning at the higher earning side of sex work that tax is always avoided. This is not the same as legalising as it would be pretty specific clients and overseen by the state so not just a free market situation.

Thanks to the syntax and grammer police for pointing out how crap my writing is, I am glad that your far larger brains and egos managed to not explode with the confusion.

Red sock at night prossie out of sight eh! I doubt the red sock idea was down to the the sex worker more like a care home policy, and not a very good one. Although what we do not know is if that room could also serve other purposes that require other staff and residents not to go in whilst it is in use. It could be a treatment room, a visiting space for confidential advice sessions, somewhere that residents can have privacy with someone with out it being in their own quarters.

Prostitutes are very discreet- the other residents won't even know when a prostitute comes and leaves for all they know it could be someone's family member.

Really? So how come the article and story to which this thread relates, states that the sex took place in a 'special room' which had a red sock placed over the door handle to signify to other residents and staff that a prostitute and resident were having sex and should not be disturbed?

Not just that, you don't treat a grown adult like a child regardless of capacity or IQ. Maybe a cat or a puppy would be more appropriate ffs

"Frankly I don't think someone with an IQ of 50 should be allowed sex"

I disagree. Just because someone has a low intelligence doesn't mean they are ignorant to the concept of sex and consent to sex.

"Part of that risk assessment is whether the presence of the service provider would cause discomfort and generate objections from other residents."

Why would it? Do you think the prostitute is going to service her client in full view of every other resident? Prostitutes are very discreet- the other residents won't even know when a prostitute comes and leaves for all they know it could be someone's family member.

And as I keep pointing out, the policies that were so wilfully ignored in this instance cover every trade entering the premises, including mediums, hairdressers - anyone at all in fact who is invited into what is a shared home. So if residents objected to a medium operating in their midst or even in the next door room, those objections would be factored into the risk assessment.

If the council or the care home management got further involved and actually started to procure these services and making decisions about who got the right to trade and do business in the homes, then they must follow proper procurement procedure which requires chosen businesses to have proper policies and evidence of fiscal propriety, including the requirement to pay tax.

You cannot at all be comfortable badinage or else you are able to claim full knowledge of every resident, their politicle, religious, and moral beliefs.

I struggled a bit with the syntax and grammar there, but I think what you're alleging is that I'm claiming to know every care home resident's belief system.

I am not. I don't know the belief system of all the residents of the care home featured in this story.

But neither, it appears do the people who run it.

Because they didn't consult the other residents, or the council, or the safeguarding and procurement policies.

The only people they consulted were the male residents asking them to procure sex, the prostitutes they booked - and eachother in the naive and dangerous belief that their personal safety would improve if they contracted out the danger posed by sexually aggressive men to some other woman.

LL all I can make out from your post is that you do think having sexual access to another human being is a right.

WTF has childbirth got to do with men thinking they have a right to women's bodies?!

No but the the ability to make your own choices and lead an independent life free from coercion is a right. This is should not be about piting one person's rights against another save for the illegal. Its easy to get in to the grove of arguing that no one has the right to buy sex or the right to have sex, but as Solid said earlier people do have a right to be seen as human beings. Writing of peoples need to thrive, to be touched, to experience all parts of being human is to as good as cut them off from being a full member of the human race.
Again one groups desire for something in order to feel fully human or to have lived a full life could be extended in to areas such as child birth, is that up for debate as what is permissable to refuse as it is merely a wish rather than a right.

I think its repugnant to get a prostitutes in because a patient is groping a member of staff.

I imagine that supplying prostitutes to someone with learning difficulties would encourage such behaviour rather than nip it in the bud. Frankly I don't think someone with an IQ of 50 should be allowed sex. They have the level of responsiblity of a six year old and should be treated as such. If they want someone or something to love then maybe a cat or a puppy is more appriopiate. (No I do not mean beastiality)

If someone who is physically disabled (without learning difficulties) wants a sex worker then there should be nothing to stop him. However the idea should come from the client.

If people in a care home want to have sex with each other then thats fine. The role of a careworker would be to make sure that they use contraception and limit risks of STDs. Ie. provide condoms and offer the woman a hormonal injection.

Clearly care has to be taken to make sure that no one is being sexually exploited.