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

[Ratatouille76]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-man-wife-judge-court-protection-learning-difficulties-a8849211.html%3famp

Am speechless. Men have the right to have sex with their wives?

Sorry not a click link

Clicky!

And we wonder why rapists don’t get convicted.
That report is one of the most horrifying things I’ve ever read.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-man-wife-judge-court-protection-learning-difficulties-a8849211.html

I saw this too, it's just horrific - the case has gone to caught because his wife doesn't have the mental capacity to consent. Unbelievable.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-man-wife-judge-court-protection-learning-difficulties-a8849211.html

Ah, very interesting case since rape within marriage became illegal.

Whether having sex with someone who cannot consent due to brain damage / learning difficulties rape is a grey area legally.

Obviously the answer is yes it's rape, but the law isn't quite up to speed on this one (for obvious reasons beginning with a "P").

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

Thanks for doing a clicky link. I heard it on the news on the radio and nearly crashed the car. Fundamental human right? What the actual fuck? Absolutely no one has the right to have sex with anyone.

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

"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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. )

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.

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.

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.