to think it is acceptable to smack someone if they touch your body, even if they have dementia? Part 2

[haleey]

Continuing from previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5534178-to-think-it-is-acceptable-to-smack-someone-if-they-touch-your-body-even-if-they-have-dementia

I visit my grandad in a care home regularly and sometimes male residents will touch women unexpectedly. I’ve had my waist touched, boobs grabbed and one man touched my privates while smiling at me. I know they are ill and confused, but honestly I think people act as though women are supposed to just tolerate it because “they can’t help it”.

Part of this for me is that I have been assaulted before, so my reflex when someone suddenly touches me unexpectedly is to hit out before I even properly think. It is an automatic panic response.

Recently one resident suddenly grabbed me and I instinctively smacked his hand away. One of the staff immediately told me off and said “he can’t help it”. I understand that dementia affects behaviour and judgement, but I found it upsetting that the focus instantly became about him rather than acknowledging that I had just been touched without consent and panicked.

I’m not talking about beating vulnerable elderly people or deliberately hurting confused residents. But I also don’t think women should be expected to quietly accept unwanted touching because the person is elderly or cognitively impaired.

I have, very sadly, a lot of experience of people suffering with dementia. If someone finds themselves routinely hitting people with dementia, because of the sufferers behaviour, I would have to suggest you change your behaviour so it doesn’t happen.

Meeting your father in his room? Meeting in a quieter place in the care home? I’m sure there are solutions here that don’t result in disabled people being hit.

No, but maybe the poster was saying that the assault is similar to the consequence of not adapting to surroundings , so the traffic accident.

I would absolutely swat away the hand if I was inappropriately touched.

While I understand that the other person may have dementia or learning difficulties, my body remains my own regardless.

If I appear heartless, so be it.

Women have far too long been encouraged to be kind or think of others, to our own detriment.

Hasn’t it just. The idea that assaulting a disabled person is perfectly okay if they act according to their disability is held by a worrying number of posters.

Would you hit a disabled child? If not, why not?

(Do bear in mind here that the OP is knowingly going into a care home where it is very obviously going to be full of disabled people)

Neither me nor the OP are referring to children so your attempt to vilify me has fallen flat.

No I’m just trying to work out what kinds of disabled people you’re happy to hit. Bearing in mind you’ve gone into their home.

Well again, no one is talking about children but you.
Like I said the first time I posted on this thread, I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m heartless.
And for what it’s worth, I would not be “happy” to be put in such a situation - you do use odd words you know.
Anyway, you have no need to try and work out anything about me.

So what? Does the discussion need to keep going until you’re told you were in the right?

Exactly! This isn't binary- put up with it or smack the person. Protect yourself from unwanted attention without hurting a vulnerable person. Understandable that you lashed out when you were startled, but you can be prepared next time.

Well it’s an interesting discussion when some seem to have the view of either
-you should expect to sexually assaulted in some locations
-if you are, it’s your fault
-if you are, you shouldn’t react and there’s nothing you should do to defend yourself?

I think the issue in the specific scenario in your OP is that all 3 people involved were acting on instinct. The man grabbing, you hitting and the care worker calling out to protect her patient. We all have instinctive reactions but we also have the ability in most circumstances to not act on them. The only person who didn’t have that ability was the man with dementia.

Send a male carer in. See if they are still touchy feely

It’s not sexual assault when the person doesn’t have capacity

The OP has gone in there voluntarily though. The patient with dementia quite probably is not there voluntarily. Therefore surely it’s up to the OP to try to mitigate the circumstances - meeting in a separate room, meeting in her Dad’s room and shutting the door, asking a member of staff to accompany her etc.

I could maybe understand hitting a dementia patient once if you were somehow unaware of the condition. More than once though? Sounds like they need protecting from the OP?

It’s also quite impossible for someone with no capacity to sexually assault someone else.

Is that legally correct? So if your child was sexually assaulted by someone who lacked capacity, you’d say “no you weren’t”? You can absolutely be sexually assaulted by someone who lacks capacity.
From both a personal, human standpoint and a legal perspective, the impact of an unwanted, non-consensual sexual act remains exactly the same. However, how the situation is handled legally or institutionally depends heavily on why the person lacks capacity.
So while there may be no criminal repercussions or mens Reaus-guilty intent , the actus rea -guilty act still exists.

As above, if the disabled child touches me inappropriately I would also swat their hand away.

Yes it is legally correct. Sexual assault is not a strict liability offence therefore the prosecution must prove that the “offender” intended to commit the crime.

Firstly, it’s mens rea and actus reus.

Yes there may well be a “guilty act” in the touching, but the prosecution would have to prove the mens rea. The mens Rea for sexual assault in England and wales would be that the defendant intentionally touches the victim, knowing the touching is sexual, and either knowing they don’t have consent or not reasonably believing that they have consent.

Under Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, consent is defined as a person agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

Thus, they would fail the legislative test and would not have committed an offence.

But the act still happened.

Irrelevant. The act is not legally sexual assault.

Is it unpleasant? Yes. Is it upsetting? Potentially. But I also think that people should be able to understand that the intention behind it isn’t to assault them and so they should be a little more understanding. Hitting someone isn’t appropriate, taking their hand and redirecting it while saying no is probably better for all parties.

Ah, ok you’re someone who puts being sexually assaulted into “unpleasant” and “potentially upsetting”…
while legally there would likely be no consequences, I think it quite disappointing you describe a sexual assault as so, as if the victim’s response and feelings and the affect on them should be altered.

No, I have been assaulted myself.

This is not sexual assault, as I’ve explained to you. Legally, it cannot be as both the MR and AR need to be present. As per the Sexual Offences Act 2003, this is not sexual assault.