"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?

But we already have Deprivation of Liberty or DOLs as it's known.

DOLs includes putting a safety belt on a person in a wheel chair because to to this means restraint.

Why is the fundamental right of a man to have sex with his wife even an issue?

Why is the fundamental right of a man to have sex with his wife even an issue?

Pardon?

I struggle to understand what the judge could possibly have said for this to be acceptable even if take out of context or just a partial quote, but the media need to stop reporting shit.

I came on to find this.

Justice Hayden was wise and compassionate during the Alfie Evans case, and when he removed the boy from his mothers care who she was forcing to live as a girl. This may have been awkwardly worded but I’ll wait and see how things play out until I call for him to be flayed.

I think it is highly likely that this has either been misquoted or quoted out of context - given the nature of the case it seems highly unlikely that he would have said this as a bald statement.

It is an area that does need legal clarification but it is also really very tricky area that needs really careful handling.

It's a horrible phrase, and a case which bears watching. I can't think it is as the reporting makes it appear, though. I think long, complicated proceedings with SS have been summarised as 'can he have sex with his incapacitated wife'. And the judge's 'let's take this fundamental part of marriage seriously, folks' has been reduced to 'man should be able to have sex'.

Why isn't this archaic fucker of a judge being kicked out of a job.

How do they even get away with this level of wrong! And illegal!

I think judge needs to be succinct in this. This waffling is insufficient if it can be so badly misconstrued

I thought exactly the same thing when I read it OP!! I was shocked!

It doesn't say fundamental right to rape his wife, it says to have sex. This is not the wife saying no, this is council officials. So yes taking awayn the right for married couples to have sex is a huge deal, it just so happens it applies to a man and is worded as such.

Why isn't this archaic fucker of a judge being kicked out of a job.

I think you've misunderstood it, as others have said.

Mr Justice Hayden has written some really thoughtful and humane judgements. We shouldn't rush to hang, drawn and quarter him on the basis of one short quote which was probably taken out of context.

It's a much more fundamental human right to be able to refuse sex if it is not wanted. I'm disgusted by the way that judge phrased that comment

If you don't have the ability to consent why would someone want to have sex within someone who can't consent - wholly abhorrent, and yes, I would call that rape.

Would any woman want to take advantage of man this way, not knowing if he wanted to because of lack of capacity. How awful

It's not that clear cut.

A competent adult who enthusiastically consents at the start of marriage can become an equally enthusiastic but no longer competent adult. Then what?

Pleased to see this thread because I was gobsmacked when I heard that sentence on the radio "cannot think of a more fundamental human right than for a man to have sex with his wife".

When I heard that the husband has volunteered to sign an Order saying he won't have sex with her, but the judge wanted it to be tried anyway, I had an uncomfortable feeling of perversion and intrusion.

But I don't think it's that anymore. I think it's that the judge recognises that this is a ticking time bomb of an issue that needs to be established. His comment to me sounds like he is saying that, if the Order is signed, the man and his wife will no longer be able to enjoy consensual sex if they both want to, and that does not sit comfortably with me either.

Irresponsible reporting in my view to intentionally report this one sentence without any context, knowing how it will sound.

You can lack capacity for many reasons including memory loss and severe OCD, it doesnt meat that you shouldn't be allowed to have sex with your husband of 20 years.

This is a ban also for her. It would need to be properly evaluated to apply such draconian restraints to a married couple.

In south Carolina a man may avoid statutory rape by marrying the underage girl!!
It's actually called a 'rape marriage'
Many states categorically refuse to raise the legal age despite all attempts to raise it.
So, much changes, heh, when it comes to protecting underage girls

This must happen a lot (ie one person in a couple loosing capacity for reasons such as dementia amongst other things). I wonder why this case went to court, I would have thought it must be due to DOLS/social services involvement escalating the situation which really makes me wonder why they felt the need to do that in this particular case.

I assume it's because the social service involvement has elevated the case to the Court of Protection.

The husband in this case has offered to give an undertaking that he will not have sex with his wife. The importance of the legal judgement is how it will affect situations when the sexual partner of someone who lacks capacity to make this decision doesn't agree to this undertaking.

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, sex is an 'exempted decision' - no-one can make a 'best interests' decision on behalf of someone who lacks capacity. This case will test at what point and on what terms that stage is reached and, when if at all, the capacity decision can be remade (ie the person recovers their capacity). It's a notoriously complex legal and practice area, and it's important that the legal system tries to establish some clarity and practical frameworks.

How can this person consent to legal marriage even (which is what enables and facilitates unconsensual sex which he was already having?)

That makes no sense Smother. What is it that you are asking?

Anwoman that's not capable of competing to sex, or not, is also not capable of competing to a marriage (which is enabling and facilitating sex without consent).

How can that ever be policed though? This happens a lot to disabled women.

• A woman that's not capable of consenting to sex