By Ruth SmithOur feature on using direct payments to buy sexual services is bound to provoke controversy. But, before moral panic sets in, let's take a step back. Our sexuality is part of being human, but too often sensible debate about this is brushed under the carpet.
Disabled people have a right to
a sex life just like everybody else, but sometimes they need a bit of
extra help.
Department of Health guidelines state that direct payments should help "increase opportunities for independence, social inclusion and enhanced self-esteem".
Enabling a disabled person to have sex is consistent with this, so it is perfectly reasonable for sex to form part of a client's assessed needs and be a legitimate thing on which to use personal budgets.
Of course, social workers must ensure that no-one is being exploited or breaks the law, but safeguards to ensure this does not happen are much more likely to be enacted if we stop being squeamish about sex.
Department of Health guidelines state that direct payments should help "increase opportunities for independence, social inclusion and enhanced self-esteem".
Enabling a disabled person to have sex is consistent with this, so it is perfectly reasonable for sex to form part of a client's assessed needs and be a legitimate thing on which to use personal budgets.
Of course, social workers must ensure that no-one is being exploited or breaks the law, but safeguards to ensure this does not happen are much more likely to be enacted if we stop being squeamish about sex.
hi i have a wight problem and im disabled just got a direct payment awarded and what you say above sound great but can we use it towards it its bin 6 years since i had anything like that please any help would be good thanks mick
The issue has nothing to do with morals or being squeemish about sex. Having a sex life is not a human right. The "sex and personal budgets" only discussed male service users, implying that only men have the right to sex.
Of all the ways to "increase opportunities for independence, social inclusion and enhanced self-esteem", I certainly don't agree that bending a prostitute over is the most fitting way to make a disabled man feel socially included; it will only consolidate their ideas of male privilege. I wonder if Community Care has ever bothered to explore how "socially included" prostitutes feel? Male ejaculation clearly features far higher on the agenda than women's basic human rights.
How can social workers "ensure that no one is being exploited" when the majority of female prostitutes were either in care or sexually abused before they even became prostitutes? What does that say about the UK Care system and their approach to women, equality and the institution of prostitution?
What does it say about Community Care? That you don't really care much about women, only gratifying male sexuality, disabled or not.
Futhermore, just received your newlsetter entitled : "Improving multi agency approaches to child sexual exploitation", ha! So you're not just misogynist, but also hypoctites.