Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

[StealthPolarBear]

words fail me

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.

It isn't illegal for care workers to help someone with these things. You can light a cigarette for someone with no hands without fear or prison, or push a wheelchair down to the bookies, no problem.

"In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. A man's identity is located in his conception of himself as the possessor of a phallus; a man's worth is located in his pride in phallic identity. The main characteristic of phallic identity is that worth is entirely contingent on the possession of a phallus. Since men have no other criteria for worth, no other notion of identity, those who do not have phalluses are not recognized as fully human."

Andrea Dworkin

@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?

Someone doesn't just have capacity or not. It's far more complex than that. You assess capacity on individual situations and decisions.

@NiceGerbil

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.

Gambling, drinking and smoking are all legal so yes a carer can facilitate those activities.

Thinking on this a little more, what if it were a female with SN, "a mental disorder' who were "sex mad"? I understand that hypersexuality can come with all sorts of disorders. Is sex her "human right" as much as a male's? or would procuring men for her to have sex with be problematic on one or more levels? Would her diminished ability to consent be considered, and if so why not the same for a male in the same position?

Couple of articles. One on the situation in Holland:

dutchreview.com/culture/relationships/sex-care-in-the-netherlands-helping-the-disabled-find-intimacy/

Also, from 2010:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303273/Councils-pay-disabled-visit-prostitutes-lap-dancing-clubs.html

Sigh @balloonsandboobies thanks I would imagine most people are aware of that.

Are you telling me that if a man in the situation of the one in the OP wanted to gamble constantly, smoke 40 a day and drink 6 litres of white lightening then as an man not in his position could do that, it seems reasonable to facilitate it?

Crikey.

Logically it should happen mamna. If a woman with the same issues as the man in the OP wants men brought in to fuck her then yes why not.

In practice i can't see that being seen as acceptable on a number of different levels.

@NiceGerbil

Are you telling me that if a man in the situation of the one in the OP wanted to gamble constantly, smoke 40 a day and drink 6 litres of white lightening then as an man not in his position could do that, it seems reasonable to facilitate it?

Crikey.

IANAL - but I don't see that discussed in the judgment or elsewhere as a logical extension of Art. 8 right to a private life which is what J Hayden draws upon here.

I doubt that any of these would pass a risk assessment and be included in a care plan.

Can everyone who thinks women are orifices to satisfy men (whatever their issues) just get in the bin. Could those women who aren't on the breadline, but who see fit to establish businesses providing women to men, just stop? Because we all suffer from being see as orifices to provide male satisfaction and society can do better by you than seeing you as an object for sale.

Why not?

Gambling costs money.
Paying for sex costs money.
Both can be addictive and I assume get expensive.

It says the bloke has violent sexual fantasies. Some cater to this. I mean someone somewhere will need the money enough. If that was what was to be ordered in. Legal. 'consensual'. AOK?

@NiceGerbil

Why not?

Gambling costs money.
Paying for sex costs money.
Both can be addictive and I assume get expensive.

It says the bloke has violent sexual fantasies. Some cater to this. I mean someone somewhere will need the money enough. If that was what was to be ordered in. Legal. 'consensual'. AOK?

Previous answers seem to be unsatisfactory.

Are you planning to attend the Kings Chambers seminar?

I mean seriously- what is the progressive argument for women being orifices for sale, aside from some women are so desperate for cash we should all be prepared to be seen as a commodity if necessary? Maybe we should just all
Accept -'if in need sell access to our vaginas?

Why was my thread deleted Mumsnet? I questioned a certain jurists fitness as a judge. That sort of discussion takes place in civil society. If it is not allowed, we have a problem

post I mean.

And that's just a bit of sarcasm aimed at putting me down.

It's a valid point though.

Men in general are legally allowed to gamble, run up debt, smoke 40 a day, hang around outside schools at hometime, ogle the girls, drink alcohol to excess etc etc.

The argument made is that a man with disabilities must be facilitated to live his life as far as possible as freely as a man who does not have disabilities.

Men who do not have carers do all sorts of stuff that is legal but fucking stupid.

The argument on the thread is that if it's legal then it's on the table.

I suspect in reality though that's not the case. That everyone including the judge would draw the line somewhere.

What if he wants 3 women at a time and he wants to act out fantasies of sexual violence? That's not illegal.

The argument has been made that if it's legal and men can do it generally then a man who has carers should be facilitated to do it. End of story.

It's a story I find unconvincing when applied to the real world.

And that's just a bit of sarcasm aimed at putting me down.

It's a good faith signpost towards people who might be able to answer your questions from a legal standpoint.

Harvey's interpretation of Art. 8 seems invalid to you and you seem to discount his specific comments about risk assessments and care plans. - I should think it's only an HR expert who could validate or reject your hypotheticals for you in a satisfactory matter.

From the link on the thread that was confirmed as the same man by multiple posters.

'He does not, however, have the capacity to manage his own finances, and his care plan includes restrictions on the films and video games he is allowed access to, due to the risk of triggering “inappropriate” behaviour.'

'I cannot share details on what exactly Z’s “inappropriate” behaviour has consisted of, but I can share facts that have already been reported in the press: that 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 and children, and so his care plan is therefore designed to prevent him coming into contact with children.'

I do not think it is a good idea to facilitate this man in buying sexual access to a woman.

He is barred from certain media due to what he does afterwards. It doesn't say what type but given the following paragraphs it could well be sexually explicit material.

Even without that he has violent sexual fantasies.

The inappropriate behaviour triggered is presumably violent and/ or sexual in nature.

And it's a good idea to stick a prostitute in a room with him? A woman who is being paid to do... What? It's not specified. Will any specific requirements be met? A young woman who looks younger than she is? A more athletic than curvy body type, very small breasts? That sort of thing? Because men who pay for sex choose women that match as closely as possible their desires.

Specialised sex workers have been mentioned on the thread. Those who have read the plan etc, is that specified? Because a few years back when the care homes thing was reported, there was nothing to indicate or even hint that the women were anything other than women who worked generally as prostitutes. I am pretty sure they would have said if these were women who had expertise in this area, as the home did get some bad press. One of the residents in that case had a thing for throttling IIRC. And there was a subtext that if he had an 'outlet' he'd be less likely to assault/ harass the female staff.

This whole thing really worries me.

Sex with another human is not a need, nor is it a right.

Or a person with some common sense and empathy etc.

And it was women on this thread who argued that if it's legal and something men generally can do then it's discrimination not to facilitate it for men in care. And that was that.

Those who made that statement surely can give their views on the situations I have mentioned.

And there was a subtext that if he had an 'outlet' he'd be less likely to assault/ harass the female staff.

Surely the opposite is true? If he's taught that he can treat some women as subhuman I don't think it's going to reduce the risk for the other women he comes into contact with. It doesn't work that way for other men, who tend to escalate.

I'd agree.

It's the old thing of. Men need to be able to pay for sex because otherwise they'll rape. I mean it's cobblers obviously but it's a fairly common idea.

I agree that it could well have the opposite effect and I worry about the women they procure given his behaviour and fantasies.

@NiceGerbil

Are you telling me that if a man in the situation of the one in the OP wanted to gamble constantly, smoke 40 a day and drink 6 litres of white lightening then as an man not in his position could do that, it seems reasonable to facilitate it?

Crikey.

But that is nothing to do with the judgement. Which is the topic of the thread.

A person in a facility of this type has a care plan that is created around the needs of that individual. If the person was inclined to drink until their liver exploded, the care plan would not allow the carer to facilitate that. Though it might require a daily measured dose of alcohol which is not all that uncommon for alcoholics in institutions.

But the guy in the other room who has no problem with alcohol and just likes a glass of sherry before dinner? yeah, a care worker can pick up the bottle with his spending money for him, or pour him the glass or whatever, and won't end up in jail for it.

Do you really think they would?

If someone had private carers, then maybe they would go out to buy them as much alcohol as they wanted to a very unhealthy degree, and it would be legal to do so.

Whether it's a good idea for this particular person to be seeing a prostitute seems like a small point, because presumably the judge is just deciding on a narrow point of law that it's legal in theory; not that it's a good idea in this particular case, or maybe any case. (?)

To say it's legal isn't the same thing as to say it's good/healthy for patients.

And something could be legal to do, and the entire public sector could still refuse to be involved in it. If you have private carers that's different, as I assume you would very likely be able to find staff that would cooperate with your requests.