There is so much wrong with this story that I don't quite know what to say (or that Ann hasn't already said) which is why I've been retweeting her blog piece rather than writing about it myself. However, this thread on Mumsnet has concerned me because it is being dominated by pro-'sex industry' people who don't seem to be considering quite what actually happened in this case; at least, as it is presented in the news.
There are several competing issues at play here:
1. Is sex a basic human right?
2. The legality of prostitution and the concept of therapeutic sex.
3. If the patients who were groping members if staff would be classed as legally responsible for their behaviour, then why were they not charged with sexual assault? Being "frustrated" is not an excuse for sexual assault; to claim otherwise is to minimise sexual violence.
4. If they were competent to make the decision to sexually assault staff, then why were they basically rewarded for committing a crime?
5. If the patients were not legally responsible for their behaviour, then why did the care home not look into better procedures to protect it's staff?
6. If they were not legally responsible, then how could they possibly consent to engaging in sex with a prostitute?
7. If the patients were not legally competent to consent, then surely the care home is now complicit in their sexual abuse?
I genuinely don't know what to say about this case. This is just so wrong on every level and the idea that this case is about the legalities of prostitution seems to be deliberately misrepresenting what actually happened.
* I want to be very clear here that this is about the structural and political legalities of the purchasing of sex.
0 comments:
Post a Comment