"I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife’

Nothing the judge said has been reported except for one partial sentence. He could have been taken out of context. He could have been misogynistic. We don't know.

Stop and think about this for a minute.

For example, we have thousands upon thousands of dementia sufferers in the country, many of whom are married. Do we think that carers should be assessing capacity to consent for each of them? Should the point at which a person loses capacity to consent be adjudicated in court every single time? Or do we think that in most, normal, non-abusive marriages, spouses don't force sex on incapacitated partners and the state should only intervene when there are specific safeguarding concerns?

I think we're running away with ourselves here.

FFS.

I wondered if he’d misspoken or it had been misreported because the next sentence is about the right of the state to monitor it.

Which just doesn’t make sense.

news.sky.com/story/judge-to-consider-banning-man-from-having-sex-with-his-wife-of-20-years-11681418

Have just read this and feel quite sick. Was just about to start a thread myself so glad I checked.
I'm glad SS are advocating for the woman.
I really don't know how they'd police it though. I reported my exH for multiple marital rapes and other dv and the police said they couldn't secure a conviction on my video evidence as my word against his and they didn't even bother speaking to him. They pretend to care and say they'll be doing x y z before interviewing him and then due to funding and lack of ability to get evidence apart from the victims account they don't pursue it.
DV seems to be something they make a lot of noise about but do very little to get these men brought to justice.

@GCAcademic this is nothing to do with ruling in the husband's favour. I do wish people would at least read the article. Or the thread.

In tears, in Costa.

There speaks a judge who has not been repeatedly fucked against his will by a marriage partner who hates him. A judge who does not know what it is to lose all sense of your own humanity through decades of being used as a wank-aid. No woman should have the right to say yes or no to sex taken away from her by a judge. He is a rapist in his head- not the husband, the judge - because he thinks the man’s right to sex takes precedence over the woman’s right to physical integrity.

This is dry legal argument that the media is never able to report properly or accurately. Honestly it's not worth getting hot and bothered about. It's an area of law that needs proper legal clarification.

Exactly.

Do all such cases require legal clarification? Or only when carers/others have specific safeguarding concerns? It needs precedent and clarification.

Out of context, Justice Hayden's remark looks fucking awful but I note none of the reports about this case quote anything further than this one phrase from what he said. So you know - could be clickbait jumping on a phrase that looks bad when taken out of full remarks; could be same-old same-old useless misogynistic remark from judiciary. We don't know.

Fundamental human right, my arse. Does this mean that the fundamental human rights of married male prisoners are being breached then? There could be some interesting implications following a ruling in the husband's favour in this case.

I wasn't shocked by the case or the man's actions, it it obvious that millions of people have declining capacity due to dementia, brain injuries, all types of degenerative conditions and so sexual capacity is going to be raised alongside financial/health capacity.

It was the quote of the judge, although in fairness, who knows if he said exactly that.

I heard this on the news as I was cooking and dropped the spoon when ‘ I cannot think of any more fundamental human right than ........’ did not continue as ‘ bodily autonomy, which would include the ability of parties to comprehend and consent. ‘ Just mind boggling .

( DH heard just the phrase and, having missed the context, was equally puzzled about the hierarchy of importance of fundemental human rights apparently bypassing food, water, shelter and the whole not getting killed thing. )

Hellmistress I think that's unfair. He's already offered an undertaking that he will not have sex with her. There's no suggestion that she wasn't previously able to give consent, but that her health has declined to the stage where she is now not able to.

It's not that he wants to have sex with her against her will / capacity, but that the council want to know at what point they should step in. It's likely to have wider repercussions for (e.g.) dementia patients, where a couple want to stay married - at what stage is it the council's business if they were to maintain a sexual relationship?

Spring no, unsurprisingly it's not couched in terms of wives' human rights! The old common law was a legal fiction (I know how MN loves them) that a man and wife became one person on marriage.

The man had the right to sex with the wife (because it was basically having sex with himself) and that was overturned in 1992.

In return, he had a duty to maintain her (because she was his financial responsibility) and that was abolished by s.198 Equality Act 2010.

The old legal fiction persists in terms of spouses not being compellable witnesses against each other (because it breaches the principle against self-incrimination), although this is now in vastly reduced circumstances to what it was.

I think that the reporting is misleading.
My understanding is that they have been married fo9r 20 years and although she has some learning difficulties there has been no concerns.
The issue now is that she is suffering a mental health condition which, combined with her learning difficulties, means that she doesn't have capacity to give consent.
The husband has offered to make a legal declaration that they won't have sex. The judge has said that he would rather try the case. If the husband makes a declaration and then if she gets better and they do have sex he would be would be a rapist (legally, even if she were able to consent and a willing participant), and the judges (ill advised) statement is a reflection of that scenario.
The matter is deserving of testing in court.

This is dry legal argument that the media is never able to report properly or accurately. Honestly it's not worth getting hot and bothered about. It's an area of law that needs proper legal clarification. The judge might well have been better saying that it is a fundamental right of a couple within a marriage to have sex with each other but heck, he's a man and who knows if he was quoted accurately?

That said, since rape within marriage only became a crime in the 1990's there are plenty of mentally able women who have had to deal with their husbands claiming their 'conjugal rights' with no possibility of redress if they wanted to refuse. Let's just be pleased that the law is seeking to clarify something and the husband is being co-operative.

Bloody hell, this is grim. What kind of man and husband can he be, who wants to have sex with his wife's body when she isn't able to give her consent. I think we know

I read that and thought- WHAT?

Also, do wives have a fundamental human right to have sex with their husbands?

In this instance, I understand that the husband was happy to forgo any sex if there was any issues over consent (which the carers raised), but the judge wanted to investigate the 'human right' on a legal basis.

I thought there must be more to it than that. A test case or whatever you call it, to ensure that a situation which wasn't specifically covered by the law becomes covered.
But I've read the article and really not seeing it!

Did the judge actually say this or has it been awkwardly misreported? I so very much hope it's the latter.

There are only three absolute human rights in the ECHR, and none of them are the right to sex with someone who cannot consent, regardless of whether they're married to you.

How do you complain about judges? The most fundamental right is not to be forced to have sex against your will.

"I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need feminism. Because the ABSENCE of rape is the actual fundamental human right.

Wonder if the judge has ever actually tried to list "basic human rights". However, the court has not made a decision in this case yet. Although the verdict should be obvious the judge has asked for more legal arguments from lawyers representing the woman, husband and local authority.

What a disgusting thing for that judge to say. It is NOT A RIGHT!

That poor woman, imagine her fear, confusion and mental state