"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?

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.

@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.

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.

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

FFS.

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.

A judge in the Court of Protection in London - a specialist court which looks at issues involving people who lack the mental capacity to
make decisions - has been asked to consider the case

Besmirching I'm fairly sure that part has been misreported. Hayden J has a reputation for being a careful, sensitive judge and I cannot imagine even a blundering, insensitive one saying that the state has a right to monitor people's sex lives.

Hayden J has a reputation for being a careful, sensitive judge

Yes. Same Justice Hayden who gave the judgement in the court ruling about the mother influenced by Mermaids.

Given this judge also presided over the Alfie evans case - I wonder if he was trying to make the point that social services should not get to make an arbitrary decision on a citizen's sex life and that all the factors should be heard? He struck me as very humane and sensitive in the Evans case so would like to think so, anyway.

Court reporting is a bit of an art. A couple of misplaced words can change the entire meaning of what was said (as I learned many years ago when a local paper reported that "Miss Mipsum, defending, said [something quite alarming which I definitely did not say, but was only out by a few words]")

If he said that sex between a man and wife is protected by fundamental human rights (which it is, by Article 8), but that the state may in exceptional circumstances interfere, then that would be more what I'd expect.

Of course I may be wrong and it's an entirely accurate replication of what was said, which would be disturbing.

What he means is not what he has said.

The husband is not trying to argue that he should have sex with his wife, he is very happy to agree that this never happens.

The Judge is trying to prevent a precedent where SS can decree that consent is not able to be given where, if they are wrong, a consenting couple having sex could land one party in jail.

What the actual fuck?

Funny they should say that as I can't think of any more fundamental right than the right to not be raped.

No enthusiastic consent, no sex.

Mr Justice Hayden, eh? Nope, I’m sure Mr Justice Hayden is completely impartial here and will review the evidence with full consideration for the well-being of the woman in this case.

Honestly where do they find these dinosaurs? It would be ok to say that it is a fundamental right for the husband to experience love and affection, as it is for all human beings, but absolutely not even slightly ok to suggest he has a ‘right’ to expect it from his wife, regardless of her ability to consent. What is wrong with men that they believe they are STILL entitled to the use and exploitation of female bodies, after decades of legal reform and campaigns on consent?

What happened to the UN declared human right to autonomy?

What MyKingdom says makes sense. The context is whether social services are able to intervene and stop a man from having sex with his wife if they think she lacks mental capacity.

What a horrific statement to make. She is not a possession. How dare he!

If the context was the right to have sex with a consenting wife fine. Any other context and claiming it is a fundamental human right to have sex with your wife is basically arguing that rape within marriage should unquestionably be allowed.

I believe there will be court transcripts available? Does anyone know where we could find them? I truly hope it’s a misquote.

Obviously a man does not have a fundamental human right to have sex with his wife. The man in this case denotes owner and therefore ownership of a chattel which is the wife.

The man in this case is reported to not wanting to have sex with his wife. I can't help but think if the sexes were reversed then this would never go to court - wife wants to give generic erectile pill to husband who has learning difficulties post brain disorder. No judge would ever entertain the thought that it is a fundamental right for a wife to have sex with their husband.

It's a WTFFFFF moment for sure. But let's not judge the husband here. He has stated he will forgo sexual relationships. But one has to wonder why this is going to court.

Whether his full judgment /statement moderates that sentence is by the by really. Judges of all people should be able to and required to write sentences that are coherent and accurate. He should abstain from food and water until he decided to revise that sentence.

I heard this on the radio (2 and 4) earlier and was very shocked. Thanks to PPs for clarification and shame on the BBC for such misleading reporting of the case.

Hmm when it comes to quotes I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that they have been misquoted/taken out of context but I really can't believe how with this quote?

how can someone who says this still be allowed to be a judge?

But one has to wonder why this is going to court.

Because this isn't just about the couple in question, its a wider issue of a what point should social services step in, and on what legal basis they can slap a sex ban on a married couple - a growing issue in terms of capacity for decision making, and not one to be taken lightly. It's absolutely right that the court of protection deals with this, and long overdue.