And another safeguarding one. Autistic woman 'pimped out'

[RedToothBrush]

Allie Hodgkins-Brown@AllieHBNews
Thursday’s TIMES: “Autistic woman ‘pimped out’ in care scandal” #bbcpapers #tomorrowspaperstoday

This is copy of some of the article if you can't read it from the image:

Austistic Woman ‘pimped out’ in Care Scandal.

A young autistic woman was allow to have sex with numerous men because her carers were said to believe that high-risk encounters with strangers might help her to “learn from her mistakes”, it can be revealed today.

The woman 23, who has severe learning disabilities and an IQ of 52 was repeatedly exploited during a court approved, two month trial period this summer in which random men were permitted to visit her Manchester care home between 10am and 4pm each day.

She was also taken to shisha bars and had sex in public on numerous occasions, including in a taxi and at the back of a bowling alley because the care company paid to look after her would not physically intervene. In August carers reported that the woman was “offering her telephone number to any number of Asian males” with whom she came into contact. She “doesn’t always recognise them when they arrive at the door and they sometimes don’t recognise here”.

The sexual activity was brought to an end after two months. Last month, in a report to the court, a psychiatrist warned that allowing her to continue to be exposed to such a “high level of risk” was unacceptable, unprofessional and might lead to “sexual abuse, violence, injury or death”.

I note might be despite what had already happened.

The article then goes on to mention that the woman concerned has been under the Court of Protection whose role it is to safeguard vulnerable adults who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves since she was 18.

And the court report said, she might lead to, as in future tense, sexual abuse.

No, they would not pimp out an autistic man in this way, because women would not be lining up to take advantage - the scenario would just not arise. The issues would be different - an autistic man with an obsessional interest in sex and no idea of clear boundaries would be a danger to women. Whereas the men concerned saw it as all their Christmases come at once.

Although there must have been men who viewed her sexual attentions as unwelcome.

*No, they would not pimp out an autistic man in this way, because women would not be lining up to take advantage - the scenario would just not arise. The issues would be different - an autistic man with an obsessional interest in sex and no idea of clear boundaries would be a danger to women. Whereas the men concerned saw it as all their Christmases come at once.

Although there must have been men who viewed her sexual attentions as unwelcome.*

Spot on.

For the autistic men they bring in prostitutes. I remember one case in the papers maybe last year, where the bloke was a danger to his carers and they finally got an order to bring in a prostitute.

Ok... let me rephrase. Not autistic men per se. . But men with learning difficulties. Apologies... I am not getting the wording right.

For the autistic men they bring in prostitutes. I remember one case in the papers maybe last year, where the bloke was a danger to his carers and they finally got an order to bring in a prostitute.

That’s a whole other thread of issues with regards to the where they’re getting the prostituted women.

"Also, an I.Q. 50-70 would be considered a mild learning disability, not sure why it's been described as severe in the article."

50 is not 70. 70 is the mental age of a 10.5 year old, 50 is the mental age of a 7.5 year old.

Her IQ was 52, that's more than 3 standard deviations below normal, the bottom 0.07%. That's clearly very far from normal functioning, 1 in 1500.

Has this situation occurred because of the conflict between allowing people with learning difficulties to make their own decisions about their own lives but at the same time trying to keep them safe?

I think I've also read about a man with severe physical disabilities requesting prostitutes and having to be facilitated in using them because he has the right to make these decisions and to have a sex life.

Do these same conflicts occur if say the woman had wanted to spend all of her money on something silly but then have no money for food or rent? Would the carers step in to stop that? Where does her agency over her own life begin and end?

How much control do carers have over a person living in their own home?

This case is really shocking and I'm sure we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed but how far should the state interfere in people's ability to make bad decisions in their own lives bearing in mind this lady was ruled to have capacity?

Well, quite. Regarding bringing in prostitutes. Women providing sex to men in both scenarios.
I despair.

The case is entirely that Weetabix, the judge in the most recent hearing said it is about the balance between her freedom and her safety.

The point is that the case throws open wider social attitudes about women as sexual objects, and the men who did not stop to question what they were doing.

The parallel with spending is not the same, really. Shopping would be space and monetary constraints/problems, but not physical risk or harming others, being sexually exploited or sexually exploiting others.

It's disgusting, and whilst I deplore the men willing to use this poor woman as a sex toy, I can understand her desire to have a sex life. If the court was sanctioning her being denied all physical contact for her entire life I'm not sure how I would feel about that either.
I'm sure I read in a different article that she is also married, and both families fully support that?

"The woman married a Bangladeshi waiter last year — and their families say he is devoted to her.

But he was reportedly not informed of the court ruling that allowed her to have sex with men when he was not home and is said to feel "devastated and betrayed".

Found it. Strange families think she can consent to marriage and sex with husband but can't make other decisions.

Where does her agency over her own life begin and end
It begins with the assumption that the lady is able to make her own decisions (good and bad) and ends at the point of any restrictions that are put in place by the court of protection.

There isn't enough detail in the article to make a judgement and it's not up to us to judge. For instance, did all those men have a similar level of learning disability? Details like that are relevant.

In pretty horrified at this.
The woman has been basically being sezually abused since she was a child 'Nothing but abuse which has been happening since this woman was a child “significant concerns arose that [she] had been subjected to sexual activity with men, particularly Asian men”. This included “sexual violations and rapes” while she was still a child."

My parents cared for a foster child who was very sexually inappropriate. She too had been raped as a child .

"There isn't enough detail in the article to make a judgement and it's not up to us to judge. For instance, did all those men have a similar level of learning disability? Details like that are relevant."

Well considering that her level of disability is 1 in 1500 that seems unlikely.

The report says that she had an autistic obsession with men, specifically those from a different ethnic/cultural background.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that these men are in any way developmentally disabled.

Also she was raped when she was still a child by these men.

"From the age of nine, she was reported missing ten times in five years and “significant concerns arose that [she] had been subjected to sexual activity with men, particularly Asian men”. This included “sexual violations and rapes” while she was still a child."

She had very severe needs:

"At home, a carer was always with her; in the community, she was accompanied by two care workers."

She cannot leave the house without two care workers.

She was raped from a young age.

Utterly, utterly appalling. The poor woman. WTF is wrong with people.

It males no sense to say that she can have capacity to consent to sex but has no capacity to distinguish between which men to have sex with or understand risk. That is not consent.

Consent applies to an individual sex partner, and each individual sexual act. Not just the blanket concept of consent to have sex in principle but without any ability to safely discriminate with whom.

Whoever made this decision that allowed this is insane and dangerous. She is a danger to herself and needs protection.

"Pimped out" is wrong. Facilitated the sexual abuse and rape of a young mentally disabled woman is more like it. Horrific.

Better that she lives in a secure home than is allowed be abused this way. They should have called the police each and every time.

And can I just say MANCHESTER and Asian men. Very unsafe times for women up that way.

"Found it. Strange families think she can consent to marriage and sex with husband but can't make other decisions."

She needs full-time care. 24 hours a day. People are responsible for making decisions for her. I don't see that 'yes you can get married' implies 'yes you can have sex with random men every day of the week'.

She has some capacity, but it is limited.

The state is responsible for making MANY decisions on her behalf. This is not the same as someone of normal capacity who is not in care.

FFS it is not freedom if you have no real idea what you are doing, or of the risks and consequences, or if you are harming yourself because of your lack of capacity.

It is merely basic impulses or obsession or mental health issues.

BTW I do wonder about the specifics of her relationship with her husband, as she lived in a care home, and how often they met & what the nature of their relationship was. But I don't agree with the 'don't kink shame' people who think that there is moral equivalence between marriage and essentially being passed around for indiscriminate sex with random men.

I can't get my head around the decision about consent either. Surely who and deciding whether you are safe is a part of consent? Obviously you can decide to be reckless potentially but knowing the risks. The judgement seems to have acknowledged that didn't know.

Quitecontrary. Did she live in a care home, I took it from quote about her husband she lived with him?

"But he was reportedly not informed of the court ruling that allowed her to have sex with men when he was not home and is said to feel "devastated and betrayed".

I'm intrigued at the notion of 'right to a sex life' = having random shags with men who don't care about a person. Because in my view, sex with someone who's just using you isn't much of an 'experience' of sex.

"Quitecontrary. Did she live in a care home, I took it from quote about her husband she lived with him?"

Hmm it's a bit confusing

'The woman, 23, who has severe learning disabilities and an IQ of 52, was repeatedly exploited during a court-approved, two-month trial period this summer in which random men were permitted to visit her Manchester care home between 10am and 4pm each day.'

sounds like a residential home

but:

'Under a court-approved care plan, the council employed a specialist company, Engage Support, to provide her with 24-hour support. At home, a carer was always with her; in the community, she was accompanied by two care workers.'

sounds like a private dwelling

It does say

'The woman continued to receive 24-hour care but the couple were given privacy on the five nights a week when her husband stayed with her. '

and

'Engage Support withdrew from the contract early last month. Its former client has been moved to a different location, run by a new care provider.'

So I read that as perhaps some sort of assisted living facility, rather than a group setting IYSWIM.

"According to court documents, the local authority told the court that a psychologist employed by the company believed that giving her "unsupervised contact with men" was in her best interests. "

I have no words. This is one of the most despicable things I have read in a long time. Where on earth is people's humanity? Utterly deprived, the lot of them: the men who engaged in 'sex' (sexually abused /assaulted the woman), the 'care' agency and the council.

There is no such thing as a 'right to a sex life'.

There is a 'Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence'. There is also a right to 'Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment' and a 'Right to marry and start a family'

Definitely no right to a sex life though. It may be part of a right to marry and start a family or your private life, but in this case its the responsibility of the carers and council, to protect the individual who has a lack of capacity from inhuman and degrading treatment should trump shagging every Tom, Dick or Harry.

Saying people have a 'right to sex' is a danger thing to start saying. No one is obliged to provide sex for anyone. In fact, once again, its a phrase which is at odds with women's 'right to to 'freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment' and the right to 'freedom from slavery and forced labour'.

But there you go. Thats the way current debate is being framed. To erode our understanding of rights.

It's becoming more and more obvious that a sub class of working class and vulnerable women is being created in order to be sexually exploited at will. That was what Rotherham was about, that is why rapists are being housed in women's prisons and psychiatric units, that is why girl guides and other women's groups are being targeted.
Fuck every single person that has ever enabled this. Fuck them to hell.