Employees Getting Sexually Assaulted? Bring In Prostitutes, of Course!

Note: If you pro-porn fools haven’t noticed, I am quoting an article in this post. Just so, you know. If you want to complain about what an awful person I am for having a different opinion then complain to the original author of the article I am quoting. The original is at the bottom of the post.

Because nothing cures the sexual assault of employees like sexually exploiting women!

An investigation was launched today after a care home admitted inviting in prostitutes to offer sexual services to disabled residents.

The street workers regularly meet with vulnerable guests for sex sessions – known in the home as a ”special visit”.

Staff have been ordering the prostitutes by phone who then visit disabled residents at Chaseley, a nursing home caring for 55 people in Eastbourne, Sussex.

Sex workers meet residents in a special room and a red sock is put on the door handle so staff know not to disturb them.

Bosses say many physically and mentally disabled people have no other sexual outlet – and become so frustrated they often resort to groping staff.

Care workers say the ”sex surrogates” are ”therapeutic” and experts claim they are a ”basic human right”.

But East Sussex County Council has launched an urgent investigation into possible ”exploitation and abuse” of vulnerable people.

Sue Wyatt, Chaseley’s manager, has confirmed prostitutes are welcomed at the home but say staff no longer make the calls ordering them directly.

She said a ”third party consultant” was now used to contact the sex workers – and says the disabled guests ”have needs” which the hookers help meet.

Mrs Wyatt said: ”People have needs, so sometimes we might need to be set up a room in a certain way. We are there to help.

”We use a private consultant who arranges everything. They are an independent person who works in the home. She puts people in touch with people.

”We respect our residents as individuals so that’s why we help this to happen.”

The practice at the home was revealed by its former manager Helena Barrow.

She said: ”The fact is, sex workers are allowed by law to sexually enable people but care workers are not.

”So, if someone asked, we would often call in a professional, someone trained to do that. It’s known as the resident’s ‘special visit’.

”If you have a resident who is groping staff, one way of resolving that problem is to get a sex worker in who is trained to deal with that situation.

”But most of the time, these are people who feel frustrated by a primeval need they cannot fulfil.

”So we would help them with the phone, dial the number, or use the computer to contact someone who could help.

”If we refused, we would not be delivering a holistic level of care.”

Mrs Barrow, who now manages another care home in St Leonards, Sussex, insisted residents always paid for the call girls themselves.

She said staff at her former workplace would often telephone sex workers and invite them to the home.

Staff would dial the number and hold the phone to the disabled person’s ear so they could make the call themselves.

She said the calls were welcomed into the building and escorted by a member of staff to a room where a resident was waiting.

Staff would then put a ”special red sock” on the door handle to make sure the couple were not disturbed before checking on them every 15 minutes.

On one occasion, local strippers were invited into the home to perform a ”special show” for residents.

Chaseley is an ex-military nursing home which now houses a mix of residents whose places are funded by private arrangements or by social services.

A spokesman for East Sussex County Council said the local authority had been unaware of Chaseley’s policy of inviting prostitutes on site and ”did not welcome” the idea.

He said: ”We will examine our concerns through the Pan-Sussex Multi-Agency Policy and Procedures for Safeguarding Adults at Risk.

”This has the potential to place vulnerable East Sussex residents at risk of exploitation and abuse.”

But other senior health workers welcomed Chaseley’s decision to actively help its residents have sex.

Denise Banks is director of social care provision at Chailey Heritage Foundation which has been working with the Sexual Health and Disability Allliance, a national group that campaigns for disabled people to be allowed access to sex workers.

She revealed the foundation had contacted Chaseley to help develop a policy where prostitutes could be found for residents if needed.

Mrs Banks said: ”The work they [Chaseley] are doing is certainly pleasing.

”If someone asked us to contact a sex worker for them, we would have to be open to that. If we resisted we would be going against the Human Rights Act.

”We would try to facilitate that somewhere else to protect that individual’s privacy and dignity. It’s a much nicer way to do it. But we need to develop a proper policy.

”We do have to be very careful because when you are working with very vulnerable people you have to make sure they are not being pushed in a certain direction.

”It’s really down to an individual approach. We want to allow people to express their sexuality. It’s completely within the law but of course there has to be boundaries.”

Dr Tuppy Owens, convenor of the Sexual Health and Disability Allliance, said: ”Many disabled people are living in perpetual frustration.

”If someone wants to access a sex worker and they can’t make the phone call then they should be allowed to do that. There’s nothing illegal about it.

”What’s illegal is for disabled people to be denied their human rights.”

But other experts raised health and safety fears around allowing vulnerable people access to sex workers without proper checks.

Nick Tapp, chief executive of East Sussex Disability Association, said he thought it posed ”certain problems”.

He said: ”Allowing them release in this way would appear to be a good thing.

”However, there’s always an issue of risk which is for local authorities and health authorities to look into.

”How do you know the sex workers are not carrying infections? There are certainly safety issues there.”

The Care Quality Commission (CQC), the care watchdog, refused to reveal whether it was aware of prostitutes being invited into care homes.

A CQC spokeswoman said: ”Where an individual care need is identified, we expect care plans to reflect that, and for all the appropriate safeguards to be in place to ensure that the individual concerned and others potentially affected are protected against the risk of abuse.”

The practice of ”sex surrogacy”’ is currently in the spotlight following the release of a new Hollywood film, The Sessions.

It confronts the sexual needs of the disabled and the controversial role sometimes played by surrogates in order to fulfil them.

Article Here


One thought on “Employees Getting Sexually Assaulted? Bring In Prostitutes, of Course!

  1. Missing is the fact it is men who are the ones supposedly ‘living in perpetual frustration’ not disabled women. Note too the claim prostituted women are the ones who might supposedly transmit STDS to the disabled Johns. is a male supremacist myth. It is not prostituted women but Johns who are the ones commonly transmitting STDS to prostituted women and not forgetting Johns are the ones who commit sexual and physical violence against prostituted women. Does this Care Home even consider the fact prostituted women are at risk of being subjected to male sexual violence by some of these disabled Johns? No, instead the claim is disabled Johns’ human rights are being violated if they do not have sexual access to female bodies. This Care Home is endorsing ‘dominance notions of masculinity’ wherein pseudo male sex right to female bodies always trumps womens’ right not to be reduced to mens’ disposable/interchangeable sexual service stations.

    What about womens’ human right not to be reduced to able bodied and disabled mens’ sexual service stations? Why does this Care Home even believe the myth that providing prostituted women to these disabled men will magically resolve the issue of disabled men sexually assaulting female care workers? Oh but I forget prostituted women aren’t human because they exist solely to serve mens’ supposedly insatiable sexual needs.

    Gender neutral language is commonly used by the pornstitution industry whenever it claims ‘disabled individuals have the right of sexual access to prostituted women’ but it is not disabled women pornstitution industry is concerned about, but mens’ pseudo sacrosanct right of sexual access to female bodies. I wonder if prostituted males will be provided so that disabled women no longer ‘live in perpetual sexual frustration! No man ever spontaneously combusted or died from lack of sexual access to females.

    This is just another ploy by the pornstitution industry because disabled and able-bodied men’s rights of sexual access to disposable/interchangeable prostituted women must never be challenged.

    Sheila Jeffreys’ excellent paper analyses why pornstitution industry is using gender neutral language in order to hide real issue is disabled men too demand the same right as their able bodied male brothers and that is male pseudo sex right to female bodies.

    It is interesting that ‘sex surrogates’ are always women never men because men will supposedly spontaneously combust if they do not have regular sexual access to a female body. I say ‘female body’ because this is how Johns view women not as human beings but merely as disposable commodities they can purchase and then throw away after the male has masturbated into the female’s body; sexually exploited her in order to gain sexual pleasure because male sexual satisfaction is essential if the male body is not to explode! Shelia Jeffreys’ paper provides evidence that ‘sex surrogacy is identical to what Johns purchase,’ but euphemise and hide what these male prostitutors are purchasing by claiming it is therapy and hey presto male sexual exploitation of women magically disappears.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s