Government Funds Prostitution Trips For The Mentally Disabled
August 19, 2010 3 Comments
Sex is a human right.
There is a government program to pay for mentally disabled people to have sex with prostitutes.
Is this going too far?
The theory is that people who are mentally or socially disabled have a hard time find sexual partners. By providing them with a willing (and paid for) sexual partner, the government is allowing them to fulfill themselves as people.
This is all happening under Britain’s “Putting People First” program which allows social workers to provide funds for people to promote their own needs. But Bel Mooney doesn’t think some things should be covered:
And it seems that many councils, through their social workers, are using the Putting People First money to fund visits to prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs, sex courses, subscriptions to internet dating sites and holidays in places such as Tunisia.
Sex is not enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but I think it should be added. Adults have the right to have sex with any cheerfully consenting partner(s) they can find, without interference from the state. They also have the corollary right to reject sex with anyone they please.
But the government is not obligated to provide that sexual partner to each and every citizen. There are lots of people out there who would like to have sex but find it impossible to find a partner — shy and lonely people, workaholics, jerks.
In addition to it being financially unfeasible, the program would potentially trample the sexual rights of other people — the prostitutes.
What I find so disturbing about these sexual jaunts is that there is no guarantee that the prostitutes are enthusiastic participants. Even in Amsterdam, there are many people who are trafficked into sexual slavery.
Sitting in their office in London, how could a social worker properly vet the working conditions of a prostitute in Tunisia? How is someone who is mentally disabled expected to make that determination?
And it is not like being mentally disabled disqualifies you from having sex. Many people manage to find long lasting relationships which can even lead to marriage. These funds would be much better spent on building up social skills.
After all, if you give a man a sexual partner, you satisfy his needs for a day, but if you teach that man how to find a lover, you satisfy his needs for a lifetime.
[Please note: the shirt is not making a reference to the linguistic ability of mentally disabled people, it was just meant to illustrate a horny person]
I work with people with profound developmental disabilities. Carers beliefs prejudices seriously warp the opportunities of those people in our care.
But how do we judge what is ok? We understand that where someone has less mental function or shows any distress at someones sexual advances that behaviour is to be stopped. We are allowed to ask people to masturbate in a socially acceptable place (bedroom or toilet only). But once we get actively involved in enabling someones sexual needs as we perceive them things can get weird and wrong real fast.
Take the example of giving someone who we know masturbates pornography. Some consider this normal, others see this as extremely deviant. Is this a benevolent act or is it a predator grooming this vulnerable person for sex? Are we creating a serious problem for the future by stimulating or encouraging their sexual behaviour? Someone who may not have the intellectual development to understand or care about consent?
I know that sexual health is an important part of someones general well being. I have seen men and women in care find comfort in each another’s company. But at what level of disability do you start bring pro’s around? If I know a man has taken comfort with another man can I make it a male pro and still have the wider community knowingly smirk good naturedly?
Empowerment, deviant development, carer’s bias, and societies expectation of maternal care for people with disabilities. It’s a prickly topic I don’t think my country (Australia) is ready to seriously publicly debate.
Thanks for that very insightful comment.
I was worried it was too much of a rant.