Learning Difficulties and Sexual Vulnerability: A Social Approach

People with learning difficulties are considerably more likely to experience sexual violence than those without. Within this book, Hollomotz explores the fixed ascription of the term “vulnerable” to people with learning difficulties and argues how this practice may actually increase risk. Hollomotz presents her arguments in a very clear straightforward manner.

She describes how an ascription of “vulnerability” works to segregate and remove adults with learning disability into the realm of over‐protection. This fixed attribution leads to lower expectations from caregivers about the needs for and abilities of, service users to acquire the necessary skills needed for self‐protection. In turn, this leads to a vicious cycle of a lack of awareness from service users and a lack of imperative from caregivers to coach people with learning disability to adequately protect and defend themselves.

“Vulnerability” is a highly contested term and I respectfully suggest the book may have benefitted from drawing from further exploration of this term, particularly from critical theorists. This may have served to situate the well‐constructed arguments about the effects we view from an under theorized utilization of the term “vulnerable” within social care.

However, Hollomotz substantiates her arguments with such ease that I was constantly having to pinch myself that we still support practices which do not work from a strengths based perspective. Hollomotz reveals this within the strikingly obvious statement that service users cannot report what they cannot say (p. 41). In the same vein, I found the section which explored “respondents” understanding of the term “vulnerability” startling inasmuch as I wondered how far practitioners consider this subject necessary for exploration alongside service users. Hollomotz makes the point that service users need to understand the meanings behind the term in order to appreciate why the services they use, are often organized around their protection.

The book is successful at illuminating practices which “bestow” a conditional form of sexuality for adults marked out as “vulnerable.” Clear examples are provided such as limiting the exploration of a sexual identity via denying particular choices of clothing. Also, while support for relationships may be voiced for adults with learning disability, often it is not actualized via practical assistance such as negotiating geographical distance.

The illumination of oppressive practices such as these, are useful for working through any ethical dilemmas readers may hold concerning sexuality and adults with learning disability. The accessibility of the book renders it useful for pushing thinking about this subject area beyond academe to where it is vitally needed.

Hollomotz writes with an authoritative voice – she underpins her statements from a broad knowledge base of her subject area. Her respect for service user voice and humanity forefronts her writing. I was particularly moved and impressed by her ability to illuminate the reality of day center participation (p. 106). Her accounts encapsulate vivid observation impregnated with the minutiae of human interaction. This lifts her research off the printed page and brings it very much to life. I have retained the invoked images and have resolved to distribute these within staff, students and service users – and anyone else, within my teaching practice.

Beyond, the specific premise of exploring the implications of ascribing “vulnerability” to people with learning disability, this book is useful for prompting thinking within current personalization discourse – what constitutes choice? How do we evaluate the choice we offer service users? How far does coercion play a part and how far are we, as workers implicated within these acts? (p. 106). Furthermore, this book serves to firmly situate the voice of the service user as the account we should return to and listen to.

Hollomotz expertly steers the reader toward the need to work holistically alongside adults with learning difficulties from a strengths based perspective in order to acknowledge sexuality in its fullest sense and to seek authentic engagement with issues of self‐determinism. Should we fail to do this and continue to uncritically ascribe the term “vulnerable,” to adults with learning disability, we will merely reproduce the oppressive acts illuminated by Hollomotz within the services set up to assist, failing to assist service users to protect themselves, and furthermore, continuing to deny the right to be adequately served by the criminal justice system.