Posted on Apr 22, 2015
When is a previously consenting spouse no longer mentally-capable of consenting to sex?
4K
13
10
1
1
0
Just WOW!!
I don't know what to say about this. I would like to know what some of y'all think. Is the GOV getting TOO involved in people's personal lives?? They were married for Christ Sake. IDK.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NURSING_HOME_ASSAULT_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-04-22-15-14-19
I don't know what to say about this. I would like to know what some of y'all think. Is the GOV getting TOO involved in people's personal lives?? They were married for Christ Sake. IDK.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NURSING_HOME_ASSAULT_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-04-22-15-14-19
Law
Marriage
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
We've established pretty clearly that simply being someone's spouse does not provide consent. Simply being married doesn't nullify your right to refuse or the necessity of consent. This complicates situations like this when dealing with people who can't legally consent to anything.
The whole thing kinda freaks me out though. Old people, advanced Alzheimer's and sex. I think I'm too young to be able to process that with any sort of valid rationale. haha
In any case, it seems like a case of over-zealous caregivers reporting something, the government doing exactly what it was supposed to do in reported cases of sexual assault and the jury rightfully deciding the whole thing is just silly.
The alternative being that the government doesn't treat sexual assault reports seriously, or we go back to ye olden days when men could rape their wives w/o fear. I have daughters. don't like that option very much.
The whole thing kinda freaks me out though. Old people, advanced Alzheimer's and sex. I think I'm too young to be able to process that with any sort of valid rationale. haha
In any case, it seems like a case of over-zealous caregivers reporting something, the government doing exactly what it was supposed to do in reported cases of sexual assault and the jury rightfully deciding the whole thing is just silly.
The alternative being that the government doesn't treat sexual assault reports seriously, or we go back to ye olden days when men could rape their wives w/o fear. I have daughters. don't like that option very much.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
As someone who has the possibility of coming down with Alzheimer's... if I am married, I would absolutely allow my husband to be with me. I mean, I would be glad. At least he isn't and doesn't want to be with anyone else. And with his position in GOV., he might've been able to with ease. It's a very interesting case but I am glad the jury found him not guilty. I think the GOV gets too involved in matters that aren't any of their business.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I never said that. If I say no, I mean no. But like I stated, the victim did not complain about the act... A third party did. I would think this elderly gentleman would've done what his wife would say. It's okay that you misinterpreted. I don't think his wife was totally unconscious. It was the last moments of her life. He said he just held and kissed her. I believe that is all he did.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
It all started with a private citizen reporting something. We deal with this all the time at the hospital I work at. The government is doing nothing but reacting to our report. They DO have certain criteria (very reasonable) that when met, require us to report, but none of this happens in without a private citizen deciding something bad occurred and reporting it.
It's kind of a catch-22 - report it and get raked over the coals for over-reach. Don't report it and get raked over the coals for negligence. Fun fun fun!
It's kind of a catch-22 - report it and get raked over the coals for over-reach. Don't report it and get raked over the coals for negligence. Fun fun fun!
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Right SGT Jeremiah B. ??? Sounds like a lose lose situation. This is a very complicated issue.
(1)
(0)
How about it depends, and to answer I would need a lot more info.
If it was a non consent that include a traumatizing event ..Id say WRONG, convict of sexual assault.
If it was a legal standard only being applied, but the act was consensual between two long time partners, both of whom enjoy the act, even if one partner can only remember who the other partner is 50% of the time Id say no assault was committed.
So if as this one sounds, this is a third party observer who knows of sexual relationship but no actual assaulting actions... and is tossing about the term sex assault because of a legal decision on competency I'd say piss off.
This only applies with two consenting adults in an existing committed relationship, where neither feel abuse is taking place.
If it was a non consent that include a traumatizing event ..Id say WRONG, convict of sexual assault.
If it was a legal standard only being applied, but the act was consensual between two long time partners, both of whom enjoy the act, even if one partner can only remember who the other partner is 50% of the time Id say no assault was committed.
So if as this one sounds, this is a third party observer who knows of sexual relationship but no actual assaulting actions... and is tossing about the term sex assault because of a legal decision on competency I'd say piss off.
This only applies with two consenting adults in an existing committed relationship, where neither feel abuse is taking place.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You know, especially since they were consenting all ready. The gentleman stated that he didn't have sexual intercourse but did hold her and kiss her. The "victim" didn't make the complaint... Like you said, a third party did. I think it was wrong. Glad they found him not guilty
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Marital rape was addressed, this is the logical next step. We can't hold conventional freedoms to unconventional situations. If the love of your life gets to the point of thinking you are an unknown rapist when it is snuggle time, how is that love? Are your old urges so powerful that you find this situation arousing? If it is time to commit someone to a special home because they have no idea who you are, than so be it. If you have to stay home and take care of your spouse all by yourself, that is just being married. Having sex with your spouse who suffers and believes you are a stranger is cruel, immoral, and no bueno. If you got married for sex whenever you want, not only are you wrong, but you are the brunt of many comedians.' jokes.
"Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts"..... (Jeff Foxworthy)
"Getting married for sex is like buying a 747 for the free peanuts"..... (Jeff Foxworthy)
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Well the "victim" in this case didn't make the complaint. You know, I have a good possibility to come down with Alzheimer's, I wouldn't want someone to make that choice for me. I guess I will have to write a "If this happens to me" note. But, he also stated that he didn't have sex with her, but laid there and held and kissed her. Someone jumped to conclusions in my opinion.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google