Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Monday, 16 May 2011

Sex And Power




Power and sex is a heady mix but the arrest of Dominque Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF is, without doubt, the stuff of conspiracy theorists.  He has been accused of the sexual assault of a New York hotel chambermaid.

Strauss-Kahn is thought to have been considering a bid for France's 2012 presidential election so it's perfectly obvious he has enemies who would wish to see him humiliated.

In my youth I had a career in hotel management which I practiced in England, Switzerland and Germany.  It wasn't unusual for housekeeping staff to make complaints against guests and many, when investigated, were substantiated once the threat of police involvement was threatened.

There are some - usually men - who think, when they reserve a hotel room, they are entitled to abuse the staff as well as benefit from the usual services offered.  These folks are transparent within minutes of their arrival in the building.  The words 'please' or 'thank you' never cross their thin lips and their self-importance is highly visible.  Little do they know that experienced staff suss them out immediately and can have great amusement at the expense of their arrogance.  They are people who feel a hotel should feel privileged to have a 'VIP' guest such as themselves.

Now and again staff would have a titter at the exploits of the married man away from home who felt, if he ordered more towels for the bathroom, he was entitled to the company of the chambermaid who delivered them.  If only they realised how well trained the staff were not to explode into laughter when they saw the room resident emerge, pathetically naked, from the bathroom to accept the fresh laundry. I've always suspected they wished their middle name was Adonis.

It wasn't only pitiful married men who fostered a desire to looking for excitement; on several occasions international figures attempted more complex ways to ensure a female member of staff would enter their domain.

Never, in my years in the industry, did I hear of a court case connected with improper conduct being brought, by a hotel employee, against a guest. The issues were quickly resolved without the law being involved.

But Mr Strauss-Kahn's case is different.  There's no cover-up and the law appears to have been speedily engaged. Society has changed since my youth but I suspect there's more to this than a complaint from a chambermaid.

Of course it's humiliating for the boss of the IMF, who struts the world as the saviour of fiscally naughty countries, and the US law enforcers may decide his public abasement is enough of a punishment, although if the case does reach the law courts he may well be labelled as 'suffering' from satyriasis and be compelled to attend one of Patrick Carnes' clinics.

His arrest comes at a critical moment in French politics. France's Socialist Party, the main opposition party, holds a 'primary' contest to pick a runner for the residential race and candidates have to register soon.  Strauss-Kahn was widely expected to declare his intentions by late June.

Whatever the outcome of his arrest, his position of power looks distinctly much weaker than it did a week ago.

If I were a believer in conspiracy theories I would suggest that Mr Strauss-Kahn will be quietly removed from his post in the next couple of months.  Few would notice and what does it matter to joe public anyway?

As a non-believer I would like to see the man brought before his peers, if there is a good enough case against him.  Too often have I been aware of men, in positions of power, abusing female hotel staff in the anonymous environment of a hotel room then using their money and power to buy silence.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

Be Safe. Ensure You Have Evidence of your IQ Before Sex



I trust I'm not treading on the toes of my fellow blogger, who has professional experience in these matters, but I was angry when I read an article in the Telegraph this morning. 'Court bans man with low IQ from having sex' states the headline.

The Court of Protection, that little-known authority whose proceedings are secret, has judged, on a 41-year-old man with an IQ of 48, that he 'should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions'.  Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Court of Protection judges have the power to make life and death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves.

The man named as Alan, had been in a sexual relationship with a man with whom he lived and told officials "It would make me feel happy" for it to continue. However, his local council disagreed and decided his 'vigorous sex drive' was inappropriate because of his IQ and he did not understand what he was doing.

Alan lived in a home provided by the council and was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists' surgery and on a bus, although no police action was taken.

In June 2009 the local authority began court proceedings to restrict his contact with his friend on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity and an interim order was made to that effect.  "Since then Alan has been subjected to close supervision to prevent any further sexual activity on his part," except when he is alone in his bedroom.

So masturbating doesn't carry health risks according to the judge.  I have a retired nursing friend who worked in A & E most of her career and she would firmly contradict that statement.  She could keep anyone enthralled for hours with her accounts of the amusing and more serious cases of male masturbation she treated in her days in the front line.

More seriously, surely if Alan was told he must use condoms that was all that was needed, but to deny him a sex life is appalling.  By all accounts he wasn't putting himself or the other person involved at any risk and the judge had obvious difficulty finding a reason to enforce this order.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the 'mechanics of the act'.  How many people, stoned out of their minds on a Friday or Saturday night, have a clue about the mechanics of the act?  But, because they have a higher IQ than Alan, they're exempt - for now. It won't be long though before this becomes commonplace.

It wasn't so long ago a bonny girl was stopped, by Fife social services, from marrying her boyfriend because they judged her 'too stupid' to understand the vows.  They didn't give up there though.  When she was breast feeding her three day old son Ben in the maternity ward, they came and took the child into care because they 'feared she lacked the intelligence to be a good mother'.  Of course this case was child kidnapping wrapped up in lies. Fortunately their story has a happy ending but it's not always so.

source

Sunday, 7 November 2010

The Nurse and 'Service User A'



There's nothing like a good Daily Mail story to brighten the day.

A psychiatric nurse, who gave a patient topless massages during a four-month affair, has been struck off.  The 42-year-old patient, who was injured in a motorcyle accident and suffered from depression, said the nurse was a 'big girl' and he was frightened of her.

He had once been her landlord and they met again when he was referred to North-West Shropshire's Community Mental Health Team in May 2007 suffering from depression.  'Service User A' also stated he 'didn't find her attractive'.

The panel chairman Lesley White said Roger-Hughes actions with the patient impacted not only impacted on 'Service User A' but his family and partner. 'The registrant has sown little insight into the impact that a sexual relationship would have on the health and wellbeing of a vulnerable patient and his family.

'This is not an isolated incident, the relationship was maintained over a period of months.

'Moreover, the behaviour was deliberate'.

Roger-Hughes, who left her post in January 2008, referred the case to the NMC herself.  She did not attend the Central London hearing and had previously written to the regulator saying she no longer wished to be a nurse.

I'm wondering why it took Service User A four months before reporting the sexual relationship, especially since he didn't find her attractive and also why the chairman mentioned the 'behaviour was deliberate'.  Surely a four month affair is deliberate.  Am I missing something?  No sniggering please.
Related Posts with Thumbnails