His right to marital sex?

[AhhhHereItGoes]

Am I just being not picky here or is the implication the Justice Hayden is saying that he's entitled to sex with his wife?

Don't get me wrong in usual circumstances the law getting involved in a consensual and loving relationahip sex life would be stepping the mark but honestly, if there is a realdoubt...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/01/judge-rule-whether-man-can-have-sex-wife-years-amid-concerns/

Sorry unsure how to link.

Sorry it is coming up as a link now.

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

"I think he is entitled to have it properly argued."

Seems pretty clear. He really can’t think of any more obviously fundamental human right? Not perhaps, say, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy?

I've not read the article, but surely a Judge should know that marital rape is illegal, so he does not have the right to sex in marriage.

How can sex in a marriage he a "fundamental right" if it is contingent on consent? That argument doesn't work.

"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," he said.

OMG.. Is this for real?! Handmaid's Tale right there.....

Wtf?!

I read it and wondered if I'd gone back 50 years.

Massive trigger warning for all us women who have been raped by our husband.

Under his eye.

I have concerns about that judges mental capacity.

Sex is not a human right.

I think I read marital rape was made illegal in 1991.

No-one has the right to have sex with anyone.

I'm trying to be charitable and wondering if the issue is whether the couple have the right to have sex when the carers aren't satisfied that she has the capacity to give consent. We don't know that she doesn't want it and isn't initiating it.

It sounds like it could be a very complicated situation which isn't necessarily about a husband wanting to help himself to his wife's body against her wishes. It could just be that the judge, who sounds like a misogynistic arse in that sound bite, has just expressed himself very clumsily.

Has anyone read any more than the sound bite and could shed more light on the facts of the case?

@Goldmandra Ah yes I'm not in any way blaming the husband. With the very little information I could find he seemed more than willing to listen to what the professionals had to say.

She may very well (the wife) feel she does want to but where do we set the bar for consenting?

The judge may have been Columbus but as a judge in the public eye I'd be careful with how I word things.

She may very well (the wife) feel she does want to but where do we set the bar for consenting?

The optimistic part of me hopes this will be explored very carefully and sensitively. It would be hard to deny someone the right to have sex for the rest of their life simply because they can't be proven to have given consent.

It sounds like a messy and distressing situation.

If she can and does consent surely they should go ahead. So I assume the case is to decide is she able to consent?

If she cannot consent of course he cannot have sex with her and there are laws on that already.