Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

[StealthPolarBear]

words fail me

the idea could come from TV / movies - there are plenty of those around.

@parietal

the idea could come from TV / movies - there are plenty of those around.

Indeed, it is so normalised. There is one episode of Friends were the whole plot involves a prostitute accidentally being hired instead of a stripper.

@Glasstabletop

So should the carers also go and source him some pot?

That's illegal not immoral.

Prostitution is immoral not illegal.

This is the problem.

Actually paying for sex in certain circumstances is still an offence. The fact that no one bothers to prosecute or the punishment is just a fine does not make it any less so.

Street soliciting is an offence.

Having sex with an exploited prostitute, even if you didn't know about it, is an offence.

Just like someone using pot for recreational occasional use wouldn't actually end up on trial or in jail.

Allowed to help or forced to help or lose your job and deregistered for what will be recorded as refusing to do 'your duty', so basically 2 lots of women (as likely the carers will be women) forced into this to satisfy a male.

I've work with people with learning disabilities and I want to digest this a little more and read the judgement without being impaired by the couple of glasses of wine I've had this evening,

but my initial instinct is that this essentially an idea that grew legs due to an over zealous independent advocate with a cause, will most likely end up being a paper exercise in clarifying a point of law rather than something that actually happens in practice and ultimately only clarifies that a care worker who assists the gentleman to pay for sex won't be prosecuted if they do so, but there is no indication that they will be compelled to assist if they don't want to.

However, For those querying if people with LD know about sex/ prostitutes etc. Yes, they do. They watch TV, play GTA, use the internet etc just like everyone else. There's huge variations in learning disabilities and it's probably only the people at the more severe end of LD that wouldn't have any concept of this stuff.

We shouldn't be at the point through where people with learning disabilities feel they have no choice but to pay for sex. Many specialist schools and colleges and local authorities need start accepting that many people with learning disabilities do experience sexual desires just like people without learning disabilities and work with that to encourage safe and consenting relationships within peer groups rather than discouraging it on the basis of 'safeguarding' and treating people with LD like children.

*Actually paying for sex in certain circumstances is still an offence. The fact that no one bothers to prosecute or the punishment is just a fine does not make it any less so.

Street soliciting is an offence.

Having sex with an exploited prostitute, even if you didn't know about it, is an offence.

Just like someone using pot for recreational occasional use wouldn't actually end up on trial or in jail*

Under all circumstances buying pot is illegal.

The same is not true of prostitution.

I believe the above horrible and indefensible, but it is true.

While it is true I don't think it is right to stop disabled men (because it is, of course, men) doing something legal no matter how horribly immoral it is.

You may wish to read this for more details about his past behaviour. Words fail me with this case.

unherd.com/2020/12/men-do-not-have-the-right-to-sex/

[quote Pota2]You may wish to read this for more details about his past behaviour. Words fail me with this case.

unherd.com/2020/12/men-do-not-have-the-right-to-sex/[/quote]
It's not the same person. You don't have to read an article about this stuff, you can actually read the rulings.

I believe there is a website called the TLC trust where sex workers register to say they will see disabled clients.
Some disabled people will never have sex for obvious reasons.
I personally do not see the harm since the prostitutes actively make the approach to provide this service.

@drwitch

I think the issue is that's it's not illegal to pay for sex. Thus the debate has to be about what is in the best interest of the patient. If we had the Nordic model then guess the judgement would have gone the other way

I think this is the fundamental thing too. If we've decided as a society this is legal - well, why would we stop it?

The problem is that it really shouldn't be legal.

You sometimes get people saying that something like this should be legal because of the problems created by prohibition, but remain socially unacceptable. That might work in some societies, but I don't think it works in a society that is basically liberal.

Title and article says "allowed". Lots of people here saying "forced".

Those are quite different things.

@Glasstabletop the author of the article, Louise Perry, has confirmed on Twitter that it’s the same case. She attended the hearing in December. The judgment doesn’t mention that the man had pedophilic fantasies but this was mentioned at the hearing.

Pota2

I apologise it does appear to be the same person.

@StealthPolarBear

This will solidify the 'women as commodities' assumption many people have. And will be countered by "but women could do it too if they wanted to"

Only there’s no such thing as a woman now remember. Menstruators providing sexual services for money?

I can't see a problem with the logic of judgment. If prostitution is legal, then this follows.

Much as you don't like something being legal - you can't fight it by denying access to specific protected classes. That falls foul of anti-discrimination law.

Certainly I would expect there to be scope for carers to refuse on conscience grounds, but I don't know how you draw the line there. Can a vegan carer refuse to buy meat, etc?

@Pota2

I was hoping to post before you did! Oh well.

Those details, while horrible, don't really change anything as there is no law prohibiting an able bodied man with those kind of fantasies buying sex.

Can anybody clarify if registered sex offenders are prohibited from buying sex or are they only bound by the same laws as everybody else?

If so I would disagree with this ruling dependent on if the "inappropriate behaviour" constituted a sexual assault that would potentially get an able bodied man arrested and charged.

It's not the same person. You don't have to read an article about this stuff, you can actually read the rulings.

afaict from reading the CoP judgment I posted, it is the same person and it's the Justice Hayden referred to within it. Interestingly, there is reference within the judgment to someone else with whom this person is confused. TLC is the solution proposed within the judgment.

Unherd: Z has spent several years in a specialist facility, detained under the Mental Health Act, and has told care workers that he has sexual fantasies involving violence…

Buying sex is not illegal in this country, even for men who confess to such disturbing fantasies. It is illegal to keep a brothel, solicit in a public place, or (as of 2009) pay for sex with someone who has been “subjected to force”. So, to get around these legal impediments, Z’s advocates propose that his care workers seek out an escort for him through a charity called the TLC Trust,

His care plan involves him being restricted from contact with children because he poses a risk. I would argue that he probably poses a risk to women too.

It may be legal to use prostitutes but this man cannot do so without assistance. He has no right to demand that others facilitate it. There is no right to sex with anyone and it’s especially worrying where this person has exhibited disturbing behaviour that has influenced his care plan and which has led to him being detained for a number of years.

I wonder how many women with disabilities demand that their carers find them a man to have sex with.

@Glasstabletop

*This will solidify the 'women as commodities' assumption many people have. And will be countered by "but women could do it too if they wanted to*

It's not, its countered by "able bodied men can do it if they want". I hate this ruling, hate it. It's utterly correct though. The issue is the prostitution laws not the CoP ruling.

This. And as another poster has said, we can't expect disabled people to be held to higher standards than able bodied or those without learning disabilities. This ruling does not make paying for sex more palatable or morally correct, but it neither does it make it less so.

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

It's not the same person. You don't have to read an article about this stuff, you can actually read the rulings.

afaict from reading the CoP judgment I posted, it is the same person and it's the Justice Hayden referred to within it. Interestingly, there is reference within the judgment to someone else with whom this person is confused. TLC is the solution proposed within the judgment.

Unherd: Z has spent several years in a specialist facility, detained under the Mental Health Act, and has told care workers that he has sexual fantasies involving violence…

Buying sex is not illegal in this country, even for men who confess to such disturbing fantasies. It is illegal to keep a brothel, solicit in a public place, or (as of 2009) pay for sex with someone who has been “subjected to force”. So, to get around these legal impediments, Z’s advocates propose that his care workers seek out an escort for him through a charity called the TLC Trust,

Yeah I figured it out, I read the judgement but only glanced at the article.

I actually thought the closing part of the judgement about harm was really odd, now I read the article it makes sense and Hayden obviously read that article too.

[quote Glasstabletop]@Pota2

I was hoping to post before you did! Oh well.

Those details, while horrible, don't really change anything as there is no law prohibiting an able bodied man with those kind of fantasies buying sex.

Can anybody clarify if registered sex offenders are prohibited from buying sex or are they only bound by the same laws as everybody else?

If so I would disagree with this ruling dependent on if the "inappropriate behaviour" constituted a sexual assault that would potentially get an able bodied man arrested and charged.[/quote]
No, there isn’t but there is a difference where the person in question needs the assistance of someone else to obtain these services. There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to.

[quote Pota2]@Glasstabletop the author of the article, Louise Perry, has confirmed on Twitter that it’s the same case. She attended the hearing in December. The judgment doesn’t mention that the man had pedophilic fantasies but this was mentioned at the hearing.[/quote]
This is why I believe that this case has been pushed forward by his advocate. I don't for one second imagine that any of the staff involved in his care have ever had any intention of assisting him to buy sex.

I suspect the staff have been declining to assist him to procure sex and that discussing this, talking about it, etc is probably a manifestation of his care needs and will have been being managed by a care plan and risk assessment already.

But the advocate's role is to speak on behalf of the client and the advocate therefore has to push forward his views even if this goes against any careful management of his risks by the staff team supporting him. The advocates job isn't to agree with professional opinion it's to ensure that people have their views heard and their legal rights upheld for they are unable to ensure this themselves.

This judgement doesn't compel any of the staff supporting him to do anything about this, it just clarifies that if he can find someone to help him pay for sex that person won't be criminalised for doing so.

It's absolutely right that the COP should consider this as a point of law, as it's been brought to their attention, but I highly doubt it will change any part of his care plan in practice.

Reading the judgement it's clear that the judge also seems to indicate that they consider it to be a paper exercise rather than a green light or an order for the man's carers to go out and find someone he can pay to have sex with.

I wonder, will it work both ways? Would they help a female client access a male sex worker? And same sex workers for those who want.

Having a sexual fantasy and full blown sex is one thing (but still legal) Where is the line between therapy/physical release human touch that you cannot do yourself? A horny 18y with a constant erection but not the ability to use their hands say. Should they just put up with it for they whole lives? Or when does a massage become a release?

No ones saying forcing women into sex but if some women are willing to assist this “function” for want of a better word to assist masturbation with two consenting adults. That is one issue.

Second issue if as a carer you may be asked to help maybe lift that person into the bed or get dressed after. This is something you would discuss on interview most people need and want to get along with paid carers.

If someone was married you may be asked to help them get dressed after sex or help get them into bed is that all fine? If their disability means they are never going have a GF then helping them get into bed with someone who’s paid to touch them. Is that very different?

As a Disabled person I’m very much it’s down to individuals if they choose to do something that’s legal and willing to find someone who’s happy to assist as sex worker and driver, undresser carer. I wouldn’t myself but then I’ve had plenty of sex before my body broke!

Okay, that’s somewhat reassuring exwhyzed but I am still deeply uncomfortable with the references to autonomy and having the same rights as others to have sexual relationships. There was some mention that the prostituted woman may be at risk (but apparently some prostitutes are fine with that apparently!) but essentially she didn’t really feature in the discussion. It was all about the man and his needs and wants and the woman was just a vessel for him to use to do that. He sounds incredibly disturbed and I hope that his carers keep him away from women. Anyone with violent fantasies that have led to detention is a serious danger.