Interesting dilemma

TheSuperStink · 2019-04-03T16:04:09+00:00

Human rights end when it requires someone else to do something against their wishes to fulfill your "right".

wekacuck · 2019-04-03T16:15:43+00:00

I'll just say that I don't think husbands have a right to fuck a comatose wife so there are clearly limits.

Maybe this is something that should be covered in an advanced directive.

sublimemongrel · 2019-04-03T17:25:35+00:00

This is interesting to me but I will point out there is a difference between a right that is being restricted versus one the government has to legally hand out to you. In the US “rights” including fundamental rights means the government can’t restrict it (or the restrictions must be limited; see abortion for an example). It does NOT mean the government has to like give things to you.

I would say here the example you’ve given with the British case is tricky. But if she can’t consent she can’t consent. To me that’s not really restricting your rights that’s drawing the line at rape.

passepar2t · 2019-04-03T22:06:17+00:00

Spousal sex is not a human right. It's a precondition for the continuation of marriage. Two totally different things.

disposableboyfriend · 2019-04-03T17:29:59+00:00

A husband is entitled to have sex with his wife. Not entitled in the sense that she cannot refuse. Entitled in the sense that it's a reasonable thing to expect in a marriage (looking at you and your cherry-picked definitions, /u/wekacuck). Absence of sex defeats the entire point of marriage.

As far as this case goes, it's not decided. The judge basically said they need more facts. Everybody is angry at him because he dared to say something that's politically incorrect.

Also, it looks like a bunch of busy-bodies (the social services) sticking their nose into other people's private lives to justify their own jobs.

blackedoutfast · 2019-04-03T20:29:12+00:00

idk how it works in jolly old england, but in the land of the free and home of the brave, even "fundamental rights" can be restricted. the courts just have to use a strict scrutiny standard when evaluating laws that restrict fundamental rights. most of the time laws that restrict a fundamental right get struck down, but i think in this case the law that says you can't have sex with people who aren't competent to consent is probably going to outweigh the husband's right to have sex with his wife.

Mr_Smoogs · 2019-04-03T16:00:48+00:00

Mental issues aside for a second, it's not unreasonable to feel entitled to sex.

The vast majority of women would be upset if her boyfriend took her out to valentines day dinner, brought her home, jerked off into a towel and went to bed. (This would actually be a funny gotcha experiment if you had a feminist gf and you didn't give a shit about the relationship.) Anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for a woman to feel upset about such an act. Most people feel entitled to sex to a certain degree, especially those in a relationship.

How retarded of a wife are we talking here? The article skims over the actual level of incapacity for this woman to think because we probably don't know. Autism is a massive spectrum. I think the argument will boil down to how retarded this chick is, really.

Ercole_ · 2019-04-03T16:19:47+00:00

Ok so I think most people would agree that it is not a fundamental human right to have sex with your wife.

Yeah, getting laid because of a government given right is like one cut above excercising your right to watch porn. Only dweebs want that.

But how do you feel if you had a learning disability and the government took away your right to have sex with your spouse?

Getting laid when the government told you not to is like twice as good as getting laid normally.

kandyapplez · 2019-04-03T17:43:46+00:00

wait, so he married a retard? what's happening here

AutoModerator · 2019-04-03T15:52:24+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Emervila · 2019-04-03T17:38:22+00:00

there's no dilemma... legally speaking judge did well, you need to complete the reading and know a bit of legal before adding to the storm, judge said " “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.” He just said it's his right, this mean state/gov can't interfere or forbid an action/omission without a proper reason also evidence, judge didn't mean he is entitled to his wife body but the fact that " judge said he wanted to examine the evidence in detail – and hear arguments from lawyers representing the woman, the man, and the council involved – before making any decisions"

Judge hasn't ruled anything yet, just pointed he won't restrict a human right without first analyzing the situation and evidence correctly, this is a cautious approach to prevent opening a door to a very dangerous gray area in regards of men being accused of raping their own wives.

note: it's not clear on this unprofessional article if the wife has been already declared mentally incapable (legal) or if she is in the process... seems like not, therefore legally speaking she is able to consent now that's why Judge has to clarify the situation bc this is not sex related but all sorts of consent for any activity might be involved, if she can't consent for sex she might not be able to consent for contracts and stuff... that's why Judge said he wants to hear every single party involved before ruling

goatismycopilot · 2019-04-03T18:08:12+00:00

Wut?

TRP8myfeels · 2019-04-03T18:26:43+00:00

What's mine is yours and what is yours is mine.

I'm sure after 20 years he knows her well enough to comprehend if she's in the mood. There are physical signs and they've been married a long ass time. I don't understand why this is even being spoken about, and how the fuck did it get in front of a judge?

Very difficult thing for him to make a choice on. I feel for the man.

embracingtheredpill · 2019-04-03T18:27:31+00:00

Restoration of conjugal rights and the concept of conjugal rights is very old and well formed in English law.

Title	Interesting dilemma
Author	Whiteliesmatter1
Upvotes	1
Comments	124
Date	April 3, 2019 3:52 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/b8zpj5/interesting_dilemma/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/interesting-dilemma.256443 https://theredarchive.com/post/256443

Comments