Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

[StealthPolarBear]

words fail me

So who has really brought this case and why? We know that strategic lawsuits have been seen as a good move elsewhere.

I think this is a key question.

And yes, I know. Never has a poster been more in need of an edit function than I. Every.Single.Time.

@Glasstabletop

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

There is a right to do whatever you want within the law. Why is this man not allowed to do what every other man can? Nobody has the right to go horse riding or go the pub or sit for 8 hours at an airport watching planes but all those things may be part of a care plan because they are perfectly legal activities that the average person can participate in if they wish.

Buying sex is immoral. It's horrifying, it is not morally comparable to any of the above activities but it is legal. It is an option for all other men.

This man can’t do what he wants without assistance. It is completely wrong to expect other people to be complicit in this behaviour. All kinds of men can’t get girlfriends, his attitude to women and children is the issue here, not his disability. It reads like classic incel stuff. Revolting man can’t form relationships yet feels entitled to sex, and wants others to facilitate this. I wonder what sex his carers are ? How much of this is enjoying having power to control them too?

Whilst it can be true in law that a disabled person asking a carer to arrange a prostitute may not be illegal, surely any carer who objects to this very unusual and non-standard job request has the right to refuse? It is illegal to force a professional to participate in your sex life without their consent.

Some men don't have the money to pay for a prostitute - there is no right to a prostitute.

I just hope those carers involved with this man know how to say 'no'.

There was nothing about a risk assessment for the women. Nothing about whether they were advised that he was sexually inappropriate and had a thing for throttling. Nothing acknowledging that the women might themselves be vulnerable.

This case has strategic written all over it for me.

Hayden discusses the personal risk assessments of those who provide services via TLC (The Outsider). Hayden also discusses risk assessments for the man and sex workers. Hayden's final line is:

I will have in mind that it will never be in C’s interest to put himself or others at risk.

The whole area has been rather romanticised by films such as The Sessions and Helen Hunt's role in that (based on a true story).

www.imdb.com/title/tt1866249/

It will never be in an LA's interest to put sex workers at risk. However, from the discussion of the present state of play in the judgment and the contribution of knowledgeable and experienced posters in this thread - it is an area where the law needed to be clarified to some extent and it doesn't touch the topic of sex work as such (there is some discussion of prostitution and sex workers that acknowledges there may be a lack of volition).

Are the sex workers in fact willing to enter into contracts with service users who have known risk factors?
Yes, some are, and will either indicate such on their profiles or discuss risk and boundaries individually.

[quote balloonsandboobies]@highame there are an awful lot of people on this thread who've asked how disabled people or those with LD would even know about sex / prostitution. That level of Ignorance and lack of understanding is quite depressing really. [/quote]
No - one person said that actually, not 'an awful lot'.

This is why we need the Nordic Model. Paying for sex needs to be criminalised.

I think it’s yet another example of using disabled people to cloud issues and nothing to do with their lives and safety. I am so tired of “what about disabled people?” Being used in this way. How can you possibly think that someone who lacks capacity to procure a woman’s orifices has the capacity to understand the ramifications of doing so?

@5zeds

I think it’s yet another example of using disabled people to cloud issues and nothing to do with their lives and safety. I am so tired of “what about disabled people?” Being used in this way. How can you possibly think that someone who lacks capacity to procure a woman’s orifices has the capacity to understand the ramifications of doing so?

The relevant information is on this thread and extracts from the judgment have been quoted.

There is a discussion of his understanding that is detailed in the document: this covers conversations over some time with his advocate friend in addition to an interview with J Hayden.

What is your wider apprehension?

What is my apprehension surrounding using vulnerable people to normalise the abuse of women?
What is my apprehension for the women the disabled man or his carers?

I see absolutely no merit in this for anyone concerned.

It occurs to me - and I don't think we can guess the answer from the information we have - but if he is given access to sex via paid "workers" might this (to put it in an old fashioned way) feed his desires? Is he able to distinguish between those women who are there for the purpose and those who aren't? Maybe his carers are all men but what I am getting at is that may this not put any female carers at increased risk?

With regards to the strategic part a feminist lawyer collective (legalfeminist on twitter) points out that

Certainly memorable. It's quite a leap from "Article 8 extends to a person's sexual life" - which is obviously true - to "access to prostituted women is within scope" - which is horrifying.

twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1387827572596215809?s=19

Maybe his carers are all men but what I am getting at is that may this not put any female carers at increased risk?

This is a good point.

I personally wouldn't want to work for any man that used prostitutes as I think it displays a level of misogyny (buying a woman, women are 'lesser than') which would be harmful to me, as a woman, in the workplace.

I hope that any female carer is appraised of the facts around this individual before they are left alone with him.

I suspect if they bothered to do a risk assessment it might reasonably conclude that he should only have male carers.

There's a lot of stuff about dignity at work and harassment. Honestly, how can any woman carer have dignity at work if knowing the person she's working for sees women as commodities to be bought?

I cannot imagine how vulnerable a prostituted woman must be to be in a position where they are procured by a man who is unable to get a consenting sexual partner, and have a background of violence and violent sexual fantasies, and for the woman to think that it is a worthwhile risk for her to agree to letting that man have access to her body, while alone, in exchange for a small sum of money.

These women must be some of the most vulnerable women in society, yet we are allowing them to be put in this harmful situation, because for some reason the man takes primacy.

I agree that it will impact care going forwards and relationships going forward. Even putting aside the distaste you might feel to an individual employing prostitutes, how will that impact how he perceives and interacts with women going forward?. Limiting someone’s already limited life by reducing who can care for them, possibly who they can socialise with and their future sex lives while putting them at risk of exploitation and those around them at risk is misguided and utterly irresponsible.

I don't know the legislation in question, but if it's a case where the language of the law sounds like it might prevent an action, "assisting prostitution", but this specific type of case is substantially different to the kinds of cases that parliament likely had in mind, and they weren't focused on this specific kind of case when they made the legislation (it probably never even occurred to the people drafting and then voting on the legislation), then I would have sympathy that the judge made a correct decision.

There is nothing to stop parliament passing an amendment to say, "actually, we did mean to ban that also".

And of course they could just make clear, that as a matter of policy, they don't support carers doing it, even if it doesn't violate a particular law on prostitution.

I keep seeing the phrase, 'men's needs'. This is about men's wants, not needs. It seems that a great many men don't like being told 'no'.

I always laugh when I hear about ‘men’s needs’. What about priests and Monks? It’s so ridiculous.

@PearPickingPorky

I cannot imagine how vulnerable a prostituted woman must be to be in a position where they are procured by a man who is unable to get a consenting sexual partner, and have a background of violence and violent sexual fantasies, and for the woman to think that it is a worthwhile risk for her to agree to letting that man have access to her body, while alone, in exchange for a small sum of money.

These women must be some of the most vulnerable women in society, yet we are allowing them to be put in this harmful situation, because for some reason the man takes primacy.

They aren’t being forced into it. It’s a choice! They make a decision to do a job. One most of us would never want but it’s a job. I doubt the sum of money is small either.

What about priests and Monks? It’s so ridiculous.

To be fair, some priests, very rarely, have very slightly misbehaved.

I have worked with people with learning disabilities and autism for years, including on relationships and sexuality. I have never come across a case of a woman with LD who is is considered to have sexual desires that need to be 'accommodated' in this way. It's always men. I wonder why....

mermaidsariel if it was a choice, a truly free choice, then these women would be doing it. These women are not in the industry by their own free choice, they are usually trafficked, or exploited, or living in poverty and this is their only way to feed themselves.

It's always the women who would never ever consider having to suck the cock of some smelly sleazy creep who keep telling us this is a choice that all these happy hookers make of their own free will.

I've spent a busy morning on twitter posting this link in reply to anyone who gushes about how sensitive and wonderful the judgement is

@mermaidsariel : this an extract from the article Pota linked to upthread:

'The whole point of paid sex is that it must be paid. It is not mutually desired by both parties — one party is there unwillingly, in exchange for money, or sometimes other goods like drugs, food or shelter. The person being paid (almost always a woman) must ignore her own lack of sexual desire, or even her bone-deep revulsion. She must suppress her most self-protective instincts in the service of another person’s sexual pleasure. There is a reason that this industry usually attracts only the poorest and the most desperate women. It is the same reason that the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines explicitly address prostitution as “sexual exploitation”.'

I asked earlier about smoking, gambling, drinking including to excess.

These things are all legal so should they be facilitated.

A man could want to pay for sex more than once a day. For example. That then would be facilitated in that? A man could after all do that for himself.

What about gambling? That's legal. A man could spend all day in the bookies. They do- I used to work on one. They get into debt. It's addictive. I can't imagine that sex when you want it gives you want less of a similar brain reward thing.

The thing is I think the perspective of many people would be that gambling is not good and not the same as paying for sex. But, on this thread many have argued that morality etc should not come into it, if it's legal it's legal end of story.

@StillWeRise

I wonder about 'he knew he would probably never find a girlfriend' and 'he asked his carers if they could find him a sex worker' .....if he is so disabled how has he reached and expressed these ideas without input from the carers? why would he probably never find a girlfriend? wouldn't it be better for him if the carers put effort into helping him form and sustain relationships that might become sexual ones? Help him understand what a mutual and respectful sexual relationship is? I don't believe the notion of 'a sex worker' is one that would spontaneously occur to someone with an intellectual disability, so who gave him that idea and why?

It's not clear (in the articles I have personally read, anyway, there might be others) whether this man does have an intellectual impairment. He has a diagnosis of autism. He might well have a high IQ and be perfectly articulate, so why would he not have heard of and expressed those ideas? Many autistic people (however clever in the qualification sense) struggle hugely with relationships, esp romantic and sexual ones. And I daresay this is a problem encountered by the appellant.

Yes, what would be much better would be for him to have support in understanding and conducting relationships. He should have received this help anyway, whether or not he wants a sexual partner, but often it doesn't happen. My hunch we have ASD in our family)is that among other difficulties with dating his understanding of mutual consent is poor. And his understanding of THAT is hardly going to be helped by carers, or anyone else, procuring a sex worker for him!

I agree with all the posters who say this decision is all about the assumption that men are entitled to sex. What a messsage to give to this young person....and to lots of other men. ("If you can't have a relationship with a woman, you can always buy one, with our help.")