FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is sex a fundamental human right of men?
Is sex a fundamental human right of men?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
A judge seems to think so.
He made the claim during a case about whether a woman with serious learning difficulties is capable of consenting to sex with her husband of 20 years.
The husband has offered to refrain from sex, and social services have asked for a legal ruling.
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife and the right of the state to monitor that,” said judge Hayden. “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”
What do you think?
Surely a partner in a marriage has no more right to sex than the right of their partner to say no.
It sounds like a throwback to the misogynistic days when a man who forced a woman to have sex against her will could not be charged with r@pe if the woman was his wife. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think it was poor choice of words but he did go on to say a bit more than just that!! But the rest is not sensational enough for the press 
Also sometimes social services are a bit too eager sometimes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So, if she has serious learning difficulties, and has presumably been in this state all her life, I would ask how she got married? Surely if she's not considered aware enough to understand what is meant by consenting to sex how was she was capable of understanding what she was entering into at her own wedding? Or has her condition recently deteriorated? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A judge seems to think so.
He made the claim during a case about whether a woman with serious learning difficulties is capable of consenting to sex with her husband of 20 years.
The husband has offered to refrain from sex, and social services have asked for a legal ruling.
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife and the right of the state to monitor that,” said judge Hayden. “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”
What do you think?
Surely a partner in a marriage has no more right to sex than the right of their partner to say no.
It sounds like a throwback to the misogynistic days when a man who forced a woman to have sex against her will could not be charged with r@pe if the woman was his wife."
The Judge should be retired, this is appalling misogyny  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would like to know how they come to the conclusion that her ability to make informed decisions is deteriorating, that could lead to a lot of problems in such a case and in other parts of her life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
Bit like voting for Brexit then  "
Wrong you make the classic mistake of thinking that the economy had something to do with my vote.I did no and do know the scaremongers will be proved wrong in the main but I voted on the grounds of sovererihnty as I believe we should make are own laws and also I object to there courts having any rights in this country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
Bit like voting for Brexit then Wrong you make the classic mistake of thinking that the economy had something to do with my vote.I did no and do know the scaremongers will be proved wrong in the main but I voted on the grounds of sovererihnty as I believe we should make are own laws and also I object to there courts having any rights in this country."
Emma, the Eu has been at the forefront of gender equality legislation for decades..
surely such laws are to be acknowledged as being positive in our society? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
Bit like voting for Brexit then Wrong you make the classic mistake of thinking that the economy had something to do with my vote.I did no and do know the scaremongers will be proved wrong in the main but I voted on the grounds of sovererihnty as I believe we should make are own laws and also I object to there courts having any rights in this country."
If they can speak good English and refrain from flobbing on people. None of that studd bothers me. And certainly isn't ruining our own country to get away from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge"
As far as I can make out from the article in The Independent, her mental health is deteriorating.
So, here we have a guy watching his wife deteriorate to a point where she can't remember who he is, who she is, who their children are and all the other memories they made over 20 years of marriage and while he's going through this, all people want to talk about is the likelihood of him becoming a sexual predator. Wow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Very shaky ground here...
But my question would have to be what has changed between 20 years ago and now? If the woman was as mentally disabled 20 years ago as now surly the question should be why did an agency of the state do nothing to stop the marriage 20 years ago? And why does an agency of the state feel it should interfere now?
Considering what the judge has been reported as saying I suspect that there is much more to this 'story' than we have been told by the media. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
Bit like voting for Brexit then Wrong you make the classic mistake of thinking that the economy had something to do with my vote.I did no and do know the scaremongers will be proved wrong in the main but I voted on the grounds of sovererihnty as I believe we should make are own laws and also I object to there courts having any rights in this country."
Are you dyslexic?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
Considering what the judge has been reported as saying I suspect that there is much more to this 'story' than we have been told by the media. "
I've no doubt that is true. It sounds like a very sensitive, personal story.
My reason for posting this was to draw attention to the view of the judge, rather than to spotlight the couple involved in the case whose identity thankfully is being protected.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
Bit like voting for Brexit then Wrong you make the classic mistake of thinking that the economy had something to do with my vote.I did no and do know the scaremongers will be proved wrong in the main but I voted on the grounds of sovererihnty as I believe we should make are own laws and also I object to there courts having any rights in this country."
You’d trust judges like this to enact our laws? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You’d trust judges like this to enact our laws? "
Circuit and High Court Judges (or for that matter Lord Justices of Appeal) do not 'enact' any of our laws. They interpret law and follow precedent. Also no trail court sets precedent.
Where there is no law or the law is unclear and there is no precedent then the Appeal Court with a minimum of 3 Lord Justices of Appeal sitting in judgement will make a provisional ruling based on equity, and nearly always they will refer the case (and their ruling) to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You’d trust judges like this to enact our laws?
Circuit and High Court Judges (or for that matter Lord Justices of Appeal) do not 'enact' any of our laws. They interpret law and follow precedent. Also no trail court sets precedent.
Where there is no law or the law is unclear and there is no precedent then the Appeal Court with a minimum of 3 Lord Justices of Appeal sitting in judgement will make a provisional ruling based on equity, and nearly always they will refer the case (and their ruling) to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling."
Ok, I was too subtle...
I responded to ‘we don’t know all the facts, it was hard to judge’, from a Brexiter. My inference is that as we did not know all the facts (none on the Leavers side), it was clearly hard to judge if it would be a success - following this logic, one would have voted remain.
Whilst I agree in this actual case we do not know all the facts, did we have any more on Referendum day? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Without all the facts it is hard to say and we should not judge
As far as I can make out from the article in The Independent, her mental health is deteriorating.
So, here we have a guy watching his wife deteriorate to a point where she can't remember who he is, who she is, who their children are and all the other memories they made over 20 years of marriage and while he's going through this, all people want to talk about is the likelihood of him becoming a sexual predator. Wow. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a terrible thing for a judge to even think and certainly should not be considering that it's appropriate for a man, with a wife who's subject to the Court of Protection. His responsibility, is to consider the 'protection' part of the responsibilities of this part of the High Court.
Whether or not anyone is supervising this man and his wife together: and I'm assuming that this isn't feasible 24/7, the man should be supported in his quest for sexual satisfaction, which may now lie away from him having any sexual contact with his wife, if she's now not able to give consent. It's a terrible situation and a friend's sister has had cancer in her brain, which has left her in a similar situation, whilst her husband was a pest - they've now been separated and she has constant care. It's not a right of anyone to have sex with another, should the other person be unable to understand and consent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Very shaky ground here...
But my question would have to be what has changed between 20 years ago and now? If the woman was as mentally disabled 20 years ago as now surly the question should be why did an agency of the state do nothing to stop the marriage 20 years ago? And why does an agency of the state feel it should interfere now?
Considering what the judge has been reported as saying I suspect that there is much more to this 'story' than we have been told by the media. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its a wrong view from the judge. The sex with lessening capacity is a grey area to me. I look after people with dementia deemed to lack capacity. They often try to get it on with each other and ot makes them happy doing so. Surely if she wasn'y enjoying she would push away. Just because you can't make important decisions doesn't mean you don't know what feels good and what you don't want?? I think if it makes everyone happy leave them too it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
