english judge says man having sex with wife is fundamental human right

[Lad_Bloche]

https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

 

Discuss. Discuss this man and his opinion.

[Guest]

In the article it says:

 

Part of that comment was seized on by the the Labour MP for Bristol West, Thangam Debbonaire, who tweeted: “This legitimises misogyny and woman-hatred. A judge stating ‘I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife’. No man in the UK has such a legal right to insist on sex. No consent = rape.”

 

I agree with what Debbonaire said.

[Guest]

He needs to be disbarred for feeding into narcissistic entitlement and rape culture.

 

There is no such thing as a right to have partnered sex, let alone with any specific person. It's not only not a "fundamental right"; it's not a right at all. It's a privilege - and not receiving a privilege is something people can be expected to just learn to suck it up already and get over it. The legal system especially has to drive this message across in no uncertain terms.

[SithLord]

Sex isn't a right as it involves other people. The other party must consent. This judge is either thinking too specifically and did not mean what he said in greater context, or he's a terrible person. 

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

The wife at the centre of this debacle is learning disabled and has recently become less mentally able, sooo....

 

What would be the pleasure in assuming someone of limited mental capacity could consent, then carrying on regardless?

[SithLord]

13 minutes ago, chandrakirti said:

The wife at the centre of this debacle I'd learning disabled and has recently become less mentally able, sooo....

 

What would be the pleasure in assuming someone of limited mental capacity could consent, then carrying on regardless?

I imagine it would be easy to say "Well, she used to say yes, so she would say yes now." 

[Scottthespy]

The entire quote is baffling...I feel concerned and confused by a person who cannot think of a more fundamental right than something sex related...how about the right to live unmolested? The right to exist as you are without things outside of your control dictating laws about you? I have to assume the man spoke without really considering...people constantly use extreme language in mild situations...think of every bored teen who's 'literally died' in a boring class. But the second part of the quote is even more confusing..."and the right of the state to monitor that"? First of all the way that's worded makes it sound like it's a fundamental personal right to have the state monitor our actions, which sounds more like it would be a right for the state than a right for the individual. Secondly that paints a terrifyingly dystopian picture, a world where every detail of our personal lives are monitored by the state. I don't think the state has any business monitoring the sex lives of most people, I think they should only step in in those extremely rare cases like this, where the couple is still together but something is preventing normal function of the relationship or the people in it.

 

All in all, by the whole article, I think this judge simply chose his words very poorly. It sounds more like he's trying to consider the options this man has to continue getting something important to him in a very unusual situation. I wish the article gave more details about the wife's condition...how bad must it be that they don't think she can't make decisions for herself? That's something that doesn't take a lot of faculty for most adults, knowing whether they do or do not want to be doing something. If she's so deteriorated that she can't do that, I have to assume she's not capable of taking care of herself. So the situation could be that the man is taking care of her, still loves her or at least isn't enough of a dick to just leave her like this, but still has that sexual need that most adult humans have. Its a hard situation...does he cheat on his wife? Divorce her and leave her to be some one else's problem? Is she aware enough to be hurt by these things? Is she aware enough to talk about these things openly? Should the man be punished for trying to do the right thing by his wife in caring for her despite her deterioration? Its a lot to consider, and its not an easy answer. The judge didn't outright say 'she still has to give him sex', he said he wanted to consider every aspect of the case, assumedly  to try and work something out that works for both parties.

[Bruce Wayne]

I also agree with Debbonaire. The judge virtually states that the man can rape his wife... That is disgusting.

[uhtred]

Depends on how you interpret it. 

 

If it is saying that a man has the right to rape his wife, then it is horrific. 

 

If instead, it is saying that  a man has the right to leave a marriage, or have sex with other people if he can't have sex with his wife, that is different. I don't know if the laws there on divorce and adultery already allow that. 

 

[Galactic Turtle]

I don't agree with the judge but unfortunately this was what I heard all while growing up. Part of the my job as a married person was to be available sexually for my husband and to deny him that would somehow be interfering with god's intention for marriage. Sex was always spoken about as something men enjoy whereas women would only enjoy it because it made men happy. I didn't even know women could orgasm until I went to college. Married = sexually active, unmarried = not sexually active. I hope this sentiment goes away sooner rather than later and more cultures take a healthier approach to sex education. If it weren't for the resources and knowledge I gained in college along with AVEN and similar online communities, I might've made some very destructive choices not knowing any better. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

If instead, it is saying that  a man has the right to leave a marriage, or have sex with other people if he can't have sex with his wife, that is different. I don't know if the laws there on divorce and adultery already allow that. 

Adultery is not a crime in the UK, it's however one of the accepted grounds for divorce.

 

As for divorce on grounds on not being allowed to have sex for a considerable length of time... I'm not sure if that would rate as valid grounds in UK law. Though I do think it should qualify as such (and I generally think divorces should be much easier to get / marriages and c.u.'s easier to dissolve).

[everywhere and nowhere]

The way it is worded, it reminds of the time (which, actually, is still "current time" in some countries) when marital rape wasn't recognised as a crime, because a spouse (and first of all the wife...) was believed to be obligated to consent, or to have consented once and for all by entering the marriage.

 

I believe - and this thoughtfeeling is even stronger because of my own sex aversion - that, given the intimacy of sex and the psychological harm potential which results exactly from this intimacy - it's better to err on the side of caution. Rape culture still exists, victims are being blamed - sometimes even those in "tween" age (a case of a judge saying that a girl - somewhere like 13 or 14 years old - was supposedly "older than her chronological age"). But in perfect circumstances, a lot of groundwork has already been laid for assuming non-consent as a cautionary measure. Think how inebriation is now considered an aggravating factor. Essentially, it means that the law should assume that if the inebriated person would have been able to clearly express their feelings about the situation, they would have said "No". This is also how I understand the idea of "statutory rape": that - on the side of caution - we assume a minor to be incapable of fully understanding the consequences of sex. That it should be decisive even if the sex act was consensual, because had they been more mature and better able to understand, they wouldn't have consented. It's possible to object to more radical attempts of such reasoning - one could say that it's paternalistic, that it deprives people of agency. But I believe that consent should never be assumed and that it's safer to assume lack of consent when there is doubt.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

In the medical world, mental capacity is assumed unless an enduring power of attorney has been made by legal means with the independent assessment of clinicians specialising in this area.

However, it appears that in this case the mental and intellectual deterioration is a result of the original learning disability.

Some folk with Down's syndrome or some types of epilepsy can go on to have early onset dementia you see.

 

Imagine if you had a spouse who was fine intellectually but then went on to get Alzheimer's disease....would you still be comfortable having sex with them if they weren't able to communicate?

[SorryNotSorry]

2 hours ago, chandrakirti said:

The wife at the centre of this debacle is learning disabled and has recently become less mentally able, sooo....

 

What would be the pleasure in assuming someone of limited mental capacity could consent, then carrying on regardless?

Uhh, that sounds like outright morophilia (the desire to have sex with people of subnormal intelligence), usually a man wanting to have sex with a mentally handicapped woman. Sick, sick, sick, and if it isn't explicitly illegal, it ought to be.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

2 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

I imagine it would be easy to say "Well, she used to say yes, so she would say yes now." 

Sorry...my above post was in answer to this quote.

[everywhere and nowhere]

25 minutes ago, Woodworker1968 said:

Uhh, that sounds like outright morophilia (the desire to have sex with people of subnormal intelligence), usually a man wanting to have sex with a mentally handicapped woman. Sick, sick, sick, and if it isn't explicitly illegal, it ought to be.

It reminds me of something I have read. It was not primarily about consent, it was first of all an anti-prostitution text. See, sex positivity tends to force the belief on us that every true feminist should be "pro-sex-work" and I just want a space for anti-prostitution feminism to remain. Anyway, the text was written by a young woman who used to work as a receptionist in an "escort" agency, believing that "this is work just like any other", and what she experienced made her change her mind and decide that prostitution is wrong. I think it was in the Netherlands, where prostitution is legally regulated. She mentioned the problem of sexual rights of mentally disabled people. On the one hand, it was, and in some places still is fairly commonplace to sterilise women with mental disabilities. If such women live in a nursing home, where the personnel can monitor their everyday life, usually no attention is paid to their possible sexual feelings, the predominant belief was that they shouldn't have sex - not necessarily for reasons I would agree with ("if they were in full mental capacity, would they have decided to have sex?"), but rather to avoid problems with pregnancy and/or STDs. However, men with mental disabilities were treated in a completely different way. It was believed that men's sexual needs are so strong that it's inhuman to deny them release, also if they are unable to make such decisions. So nurses would take these men, from time to time, to a brothel, even supervise them during sex to make sure that they aren't abused by the women due to their disability... Some of these men were really severely disabled. Their bodies were able to react, but there was very substantial doubt about whether they understood what was happening.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

@Nowhere Girl that wouldn't be allowed to happen here, as the person would have undergone the mini mental assessment test( which isn't so mini) and it would have been ascertained that they hadn't enough comprehension to make decisions in their own interest.

As a nurse manager I was involved in a ton load of these multidisciplinary team decisions and this kind of thing wouldn't have been a consideration.

 

It's legal for people with learning disabilities to marry if both parties have mental capacity , so normal sexual relationships aren't ruled out in that case.

[Member131995]

This makes me angry. No consent, NO CONSENT = rape

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

So is indefinite lack of a sexual relationship, as it's generally accepted to constitute unreasonable behaviour which can cause irretrievable breakdown (which is the basic state that UK law requires to grant a divorce).

Ready to take your word for that. I didn't find anything quickly to specifically confirm that as acceptable grounds for divorce in UK law... but as I already said above, this is one of the rare cases where I agree with you. I think it's perfectly valid reason to end a marriage/c.u. over, and if UK laws sees it that way too, I say more power to them.

[Snao Cone]

Holy shit, the kinds of things that can come out of judges' mouths...

 

Sex requires consent every time, and being married does not imply consent. If a person is unable to provide consent due to physical or mental limitations on their ability to understand, communicate, or move, then any sex can't be consensual. Thinking of sex as a right in terms of a person's freedom to seek sex with consenting adult partners is fine; that's about a person's right to their own sexuality and expressing it in a way that doesn't remove the autonomy of others. Thinking of it as an entitlement to sex from a specific person is very, very much wrong, on a fundamental level. It's granting one person the right to claim ownership of another person's sexuality. Fucked up. 

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

54 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Ready to take your word for that. I didn't find anything quickly to specifically confirm that as acceptable grounds for divorce in UK law... but as I already said above, this is one of the rare cases where I agree with you. I think it's perfectly valid reason to end a marriage/c.u. over, and if UK laws sees it that way too, I say more power to them.

What kind of person dumps their wife as soon as she becomes more seriously ill though? This lady was already learning disabled when the partnership started and now, as she declines in mental capacity, she's no use for sex any more.... so divorce her. Harsh? That kinda implies her main function all that time was for sex.

Aroace or not, I'd like to think she was loved once.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, chandrakirti said:

What kind of person dumps their wife as soon as she becomes more seriously ill though? This lady was already learning disabled when the partnership started and now, as she declines in mental capacity, she's no use for sex any more.... so divorce her. Harsh? That kinda implies her main function all that time was for sex.

Aroace or not, I'd like to think she was loved once.

Eh, I'm not into shaming people for ending relationships, for any reason they want to. Every conceivable reason to end a 'ship/marriage is valid enough. If you want to leave a partner over their illness, or over them "not putting out"... I may not personally agree with those reasons, but I will staunchly defend your right to leave a partner over them. That is a fundamental right - not to stay a second longer in a partnership you don't want to be in, whatever the reason may be for you wishing to leave.

 

And likewise, I'll tell the one left behind to learn to deal with it - just like having sex, being in a relationship is also a privilege, not a right.

[uhtred]

The question of mental competency and sex is extremely difficult.  Saying that beyond some level of disability, someone cannot consent to sex, is the same as saying that beyond some level of disability someone is not *allowed* to have sex. 

 

Usually incompetent people are protected from doing things that will harm themselves or others.  Sex though can be positive or negative. 

 

Not wanting to get too explicit, but is a mentally incompetent person allowed to masturbate?  Is that different from them having someone else stimulate them?

 

 

There is deep water here. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Is that different from them having someone else stimulate them?

Very different. 

 

It's their body. Not yours. 

 

It's like having sex with a woman who is highly intoxicated to the point of loss of consciousness.

 

Stimulate her body, and odds are she will be receptive to it. Doesn't mean she wants it. Her having an orgasm doesn't mean it was good for her. 

 

To me this issue is that she would now always be in the mood if incapacitated. It's like stating that this is her consent. Her lack of an ability in providing one o_O

 

She no longer can convey illness. Can't tell you she is having her period, has cramps or whatever logical reasoning any woman would have to wanting to postpone sex with you for an evening. 

 

So you're now asking a horny guy to make that judgment for her? Fairly? 

 

Some cultures will admonish a woman withholding sex. Mind you same cultures would likely stone her to death for cheating, yet praise the guy who should have been serviced by her. 

 

You dont respect a woman if her consent is irrelevant to you. 

 

To me you're doing something wrong if you have to force her to have sex with you, vs her wanting to. 

[-1=e^ipi]

Don't worry, men also get fined for not having sex with their wives!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html

[Tyke]

The judge's ruling is ludicrous, of course.

 

But what if the wife had a history of enjoying and consenting to sex. Wouldn't it be somehow cruel to her to deprive her of sex completely because she is no longer able to consent? That's a minefield of course.

 

But just to reiterate - the judge's statement (as reported - I haven't read it through) is ludicrous

[uhtred]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Very different. 

 

It's their body. Not yours. 

 

It's like having sex with a woman who is highly intoxicated to the point of loss of consciousness.

 

Stimulate her body, and odds are she will be receptive to it. Doesn't mean she wants it. Her having an orgasm doesn't mean it was good for her. 

 

To me this issue is that she would now always be in the mood if incapacitated. It's like stating that this is her consent. Her lack of an ability in providing one o_O

 

She no longer can convey illness. Can't tell you she is having her period, has cramps or whatever logical reasoning any woman would have to wanting to postpone sex with you for an evening. 

 

So you're now asking a horny guy to make that judgment for her? Fairly? 

 

Some cultures will admonish a woman withholding sex. Mind you same cultures would likely stone her to death for cheating, yet praise the guy who should have been serviced by her. 

 

You dont respect a woman if her consent is irrelevant to you. 

 

To me you're doing something wrong if you have to force her to have sex with you, vs her wanting to. 

Would your opinion change if the genders were reversed? Should a severely mentally disabled man not be allowed to have sex with a consenting partner?

 

(btw - I don't have an opinion on this, to me its a very tricky question) 

[Skycaptain]

I can see this going to a higher court. 

If you read the whole of the text, it's a preliminary hearing, and "fundamental right to have sex" is one of the points to be considered at the main hearing, along with the woman's rights, can she consent etc. 

[Duke Memphis]

I wonder what the judge would think if the husband and wife were in each other's shoes.

[Philip027]

On 4/3/2019 at 11:19 AM, uhtred said:

Depends on how you interpret it. 

There isn't really any room for "interpretation" there.  It's just plain wrong and promotes rape culture.

 

If he meant that other thing (which is vastly different from the words that came out of his mouth, and if he didn't recognize that right away he honestly should not be presiding over a courtroom), he should have said that other thing.