“Man who does not understand consent has right to pursue sex, court rules” in the U.K.

ayeayefitlike · 2019-10-03T09:54:40+00:00

I guess he does have a right to try and get laid. They haven’t given him a license to rape.

Whiteliesmatter1 · 2019-10-03T10:59:42+00:00

I saw an article about a man who had a wife whose cognitive abilities kept deteriorating. The government decided that she was not allowed to have sex. Feminists generally took this as “he is not allowed to take advantage of his wife” but I took is as the government is telling an adult woman that she isn’t allowed to have sex because she doesn’t understand consent.

I looked at her and wondered how I would feel if the government were telling me I couldn’t have sex because I wasn’t smart enough. Seems kind of sick. I don’t personally think the government will ever have enough nuance, context, and detail to be able to make the call who should be allowed to pursue sex or not based on their cognitive abilities.

Kenji_03 · 2019-10-03T09:59:44+00:00

While he has a legal right to it, I do agree with the psychologists that it would be ill advised for him to actually do so.

Really think about this, is the court going to put him in jail for having sex because he doesn't understand consent? how would this be enforced? That is what the court actually ruled on, not if it was a "good idea" for him to engage in sex with others when he doesn't understand what is and is not acceptable.

MrEctomy · 2019-10-03T11:50:08+00:00

In all likelihood, he'll either be having sex with another developmentally disabled person, or a sex worker. I work with developmentally disabled people and they can usually barely initiate conversation, much less charm a neurotypical person into sex.

Point being, what about the other developmentally disabled person? If two people who don't understand consent have sex, have they had consensual sex incidentally, or have they raped each other? Or something else? Many developmentally disabled women might just go along with something not understanding what's happening, but offer no resistance. Is this rape?

nemma88 · 2019-10-03T10:47:19+00:00

This is a bit weird but likely a quirk of law. To rule that someone has the right to pursue sex is not the same as they can not be convicted under law should they then rape someone, these are ultimately two separate issues and steps may be taken by the impeded party to assure consent (in my uneducated view).

Relevant English law:

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.*

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.**

Conclusive presumptions about consent

(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—

(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and

(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.

It seems a forgone conclusion someone who can not understand consent can not reasonably believe someone consents *. However, as it is know this person can not understand it, it's possible it could be satisfactory defense under (2) if steps are taken to asertain B's consent * *. (I don't know enough about the law in practice to really know either way).

I think it would be too erogenous a point in law (To the point the law would certainly be changed if it was found to be a 'license to rape ' as another user put it) to say someone without the ability to understand can never rape someone because they can never reasonably believe consent does not exist.

If you want to muddy the water further, you can try and work out how this interacts with laws protecting people who consent is more grey because of disabilities.

Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual,

(c)B is unable to refuse because of or for a reason related to a mental disorder, and

(d)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder and that because of it or for a reason related to it B is likely to be unable to refuse.

(2)B is unable to refuse if—

(a)he lacks the capacity to choose whether to agree to the touching (whether because he lacks sufficient understanding of the nature or reasonably foreseeable consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason), or

(b)he is unable to communicate such a choice to A.

With laws as written though in practicality there is always a amount of common sense. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Your not going to be able to argue a defense on semantics.

1plus1equal3 · 2019-10-03T11:09:41+00:00

Actually nobody understands this whole consent thing, so now it’s effectively given all men the right to pursue sex without worrying about it.

abaxeron · 2019-10-03T13:15:25+00:00

Two issues.

On a personal level, just give him a doll, you're already a welfare state with 1/3 of GDP collected as taxes.

On a legal level, I'm glad that the country that castrated its war hero for being gay is making progress towards just leaving people alone, BUT if someone is not fine with this course, then they probably should not stop at half-measures, and advocate for sex as a license-able activity strictly for 95+IQ people. Seems a little too dystopian? - Well, my personal disgust threshold is so low that I'm ready to vomit simply over the fact that this case has reached the court.

Obviously, I'm making conclusions based on the information in the article, that says virtually nothing about what exact "behavior towards women" resulted in him getting "softly institutionalized" in 2014.

Rule Land of the Loicense, Land of the Loicense rule the waves!

Eastuss · 2019-10-03T10:36:46+00:00

Get him a sex worker. Problem solved.

rus9384 · 2019-10-03T10:14:44+00:00

Then we hear feminists saying many men, non-autistic men, don't understand consent. Does that mean that in the case mixed signals no man should be convicted?

87AudreyHorne · 2019-10-03T11:31:47+00:00

He has the right to pursue sex, of course. That doesnt mean he would not get charged with rape if he actually ends up raping someone. I agree it's a fundamental right, how can it even make sense to say he should be prevented from consensual sex if the occasion arises.

762Rifleman · 2019-10-03T19:01:30+00:00

ExcuseMeButWhatTheFuck.JPG

Whiteliesmatter1 · 2019-10-03T12:51:55+00:00

To be fair, I am also a bit unclear on consent these days. I have heard so many ridiculous things about consent lately.

I watched that Harvey Weinstein video where he gets real inappropriate with that sales lady. Although it was a textbook example of getting consent, it was still pretty cringy.

Then there is the whole drinking thing. Who decides who rapes who if a man and a woman meet at a bar and go home both drunk and have sex that they both would not have consented to if they were sober?

[deleted] · 2019-10-03T14:23:45+00:00

Muuuuhhhh mustttt stick my pp in her peepee

exit_sandman · 2019-10-03T14:27:16+00:00

Tbh I am curious what exactly led not only to that ruling, but to a court having to decide in the first place.

It's not that they just randomly grabbed an autist.

IHeartDay9 · 2019-10-03T14:50:22+00:00

I'd be interested to know what they've tried to teach him with regards to consent. I mean, the dude has language. He doesn't need to understand the complexities of consent to understand that you can't touch someone without asking first, and that if someone says stop, you need to stop. Has anyone tried to teach him? Did they practice asking permission to hug someone, for instance, or did they just lock him up at the first sign of trouble?

pnadlerlaw · 2019-10-03T15:09:59+00:00

Nobody has a “fundamental right” to “work with” children.

But people do have a “fundamental right” to “pursue” sexual or romantic relationships with other people.

This is analogous to American cases dealing, again, with the mentally ill: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

The famous quote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Buck v. Bell was never explicitly overturned, but it’s practical effect - forced sterilization and lawfully sanctioned eugenics - was held to be unconstitutional: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma

Sex, intimate relationships, and the pursuit thereof, are all protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Liberty” interests, which includes the right to “privacy.”

When someone wants to “work with children,” the constitutional analysis is very different from someone who want to pursue their “fundamental rights.”

Since nobody has a fundamental right to “work with children,” all the state has to do is provide a “rational basis” for any law prohibiting someone from working with children. In this case, the safety of children. An individual would have to counter that point by arguing that there is no rational basis to the law.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

But when a fundamental right is at issue, the standard used is not the “rational basis” test, but rather, strict scrutiny.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

For example, someone who is mentally ill may not be allowed (i.e., prohibited from, excluded) from “working with children,” but may not be excluded from having unsupervised visitation or even custody of his or her own children.

Why? Because matters of the family are protected individual fundamental rights. The state would have to satisfy its burden under strict scrutiny before it could exclude a parent from his or her child.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

Someone who is autistic is not necessarily “immediately dangerous” to the public. We cannot involuntarily confine the mental ill merely because they “may be potentially dangerous.”

Someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic or is manic psychotic from Bipolar I, and is “currently an immediate danger to himself or others,” may be involuntarily confined and sedated.

See: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-4165/12-4165-2014-05-16.pdf?ts=1410919408 (cert. denied by the U.S. Supreme Court).

This determination is transitory and not “permanent.” It may be reassessed an indefinite number of times, by petition by the health facility, a family member, or the involuntarily confined person.

We have a “sex offenders” registry, not a “potential” sex offenders registry.

People are charged for being guilty or murder or attempted MURDER, not probably likely to attempt to commit murder.

Merely “pursuing” a consensual sexual relationship would not come anywhere close to “attempting” any kind of criminal act.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt

So, as a matter of law, there is no constitutional basis for the state, under authority of law, to prohibit such a person from pursuing sex, involuntarily chemically castrate him, or otherwise involuntarily confine his movements in society or involuntarily medicate him.

Teflon08191 · 2019-10-03T15:42:25+00:00

I think it would have been pretty....dystopian had they ruled any other way.

eboy4hire · 2019-10-03T18:39:50+00:00

Is this all based on what the guy says? I'm sure he understands what consent looks like well enough.

Mattcwu · 2019-10-03T19:30:22+00:00

Interesting double-speak. The court said that this man has a

“fundamental right to sex”.

Is that like a "fundamental right to health care" where the state has to provide it if you cannot acquire it yourself?

red-priestess · 2019-10-04T00:26:02+00:00

Hell world if the government ever ever says someone is not allowed to pursue sexual relationships. Besides for the obvious age, unconscious, and people who are so impaired they are equivalent to a child in brain capabilities, the government should not tell someone who "doesnt understand consent" that he cannot have sex.

Slippery slope leading to the government taking away your ability to seek meaningful relationships because you cant pass a consent test.

If he rapes someone, the government wagging their finger wont stop him

Gravel_Roads · 2019-10-03T10:15:58+00:00

I mean... it's not illegal for an adult to pursue sex. There are a lot of social disorders that make it hard for people to understand one another, including things like consent (sociopaths, foreigners with different learned norms ect), and it sure as fuck makes a lot of people uncomfortable to think about, but frankly... that's on us, not him. My little brother has down's syndrome and he's entering his teen years. He is interested in girls in his class. I find it kinda squicky to think of him having sex because I like... used to change his diapers and shit, so I definitely still see him as a child in my mind. But he sure as fuck doesn't feel like a child in his own mind, so it's not really my business.

AutoModerator · 2019-10-03T09:51:22+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.

DOSGAMES · 2019-10-03T11:53:55+00:00

I wonder if a clever lawyer could stretch the definition of ‘cognitively impaired’ to cover temporary states of mind.

For example, a non-impaired man is so horny that it impairs his judgement making him unable to understand consent.

The old adage ‘Think with your head and not your dick’ is oft repeated. It’s often recommended that guys masterbate before making some big decision regarding a girl (Like contacting an Ex), touting the ‘post-nut clarity’ it provides.

Sexual Libido and the associated hormones undoubtedly have an effect on decision making. I just wonder if anyone has tried the ‘I was too horny’ defense.

Shadow_Of_ · 2019-10-03T13:27:31+00:00

If the government one day considered banning certain men from pursuing sex literally none of the women here would complain lmao.

ToraChan23 · 2019-10-03T13:31:02+00:00

Doesn't... everyone have the right to pursue sex? As long as the other party is of age and is also willing? I get why this was considered due to the guy's status, but it's a weird way to word the final decision.

Mattcwu · 2019-10-03T15:09:43+00:00

What happens when/if he has sex without consent?

taylorman8181 · 2019-10-03T16:30:44+00:00

That's just like if someone has downs syndrome and they accidentally killed someone. You can't prosecute someone who doesn't know it is wrong to do such crime.

Doesn't matter what crime it is. Though if they are deemed a threat to society then they would be put in a psychiatric institution.

disposablepurplepill · 2019-10-03T17:05:51+00:00

The philosophical argument that allows this court ruling is the following.

Man doesn't understand consent goes after a woman. The woman happens to want to be involved with the man who happens to not understand consent. No one is hurt and nothing illegal happened.

Bntt89 · 2019-10-03T17:43:50+00:00

They have to though, it's innocent till proven guilty their too right? This is akin to putting people in prison because you think they are more likely to commit crime. The point would be how far would this go if we deny someone this right?

[deleted] · 2019-10-03T22:20:55+00:00

The judge game him freedom to not be restricted by default, not to commit crimes. This is a hard case. On the one hand it's a win for mentally ill people overall, there is a point to be made about allowing people the human space to make their own mistakes. On the other hand, yeah, something bad is likely to come of this. Hard line to know how to draw, but setting the precedent for this guy sets precedent for lots of other people who are far less risky than him or who are at risk for different things that might not affect anyone but the mentally ill person directly.

leftleafthirdbranch · 2019-10-04T03:08:20+00:00

Somehow I don't think he's going to have too much luck getting laid after this

czerdec · 2019-10-05T11:20:47+00:00

It's kinda obvious that you're in a feminist-infected society if a judge's time has to be wasted on such an obvious question.

The issue is: dude wants to offer sex to people. If person consents, the dude is likely to have sex. That's obviously a completely acceptable set of circumstances.

Apparently he has issues with the feminist concept of consent, which could in theory be unfortunate for a person.

In brief: a person might commit a crime because he's unaware of the meaning of the law. It's not that he is planning to commit the crime, it's just a thing that in theory might happen.

For example, anyone here could commit a financial crime because we're not aware of the applicable law.

That question was settled by the law centuries ago: if you are unaware of the law, the court will always assume you were aware of the law. Fundamental principle of civilization.

The other side of the coin is you're free to do things even if you don't understand all the laws that govern the activity in question. You can engage in financial transactions even though your ignorance of the law could lead you to commit a felony because you don't understand the law.

This should never have even been a question.

If he rapes somebody, lock him up. If he doesn't rape anybody, allow him to continue to pursue sex. The scandal is that somebody didn't have the basic common sense to see that, and the poor bastard had to endure a court procedure to decide on the most obvious question imaginable.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-10-03T12:42:59+00:00

This is such a bizarre legal formulation coming from a US perspective, it's hard to comment on

Reading It does, however, make me want to nuke the UK

[deleted] · 2019-10-03T19:21:06+00:00

I agree with the court's ruling. He has the right to interact with other humans and pursue romantic/sexual relationships.

If we said this guy couldn't pursue sexual relations, we'd also have to make it illegal for all convicted rapists to ever pursue sexual relations. They don't understand consent either (or they don't give a fig about it).

I don't think rights should be taken away based on the chance that a person MIGHT break the law. That's not a legal precedent I want to set.

Hopefully he has caretakers who work with him to teach him how to initiate romantic/sexual relations, and closely monitor any budding courtships. This sounds like an individual who needs ongoing social skills lessons.

Autistic_Reeeeeeeeee · 2019-10-03T23:36:26+00:00

Great yet another precedent that will be used to protect grooming gangs and third world economic migrants rape/sexual assault women. Every court case with these men will now look to this precedent set and use it to justify the perpetrators actions.

The women who will be negatively affected by this man and many more to come have been betrayed by meaningless empathy for a single autistic man.

The UK is a mess.

gasparddelanuit · 2019-10-03T12:38:56+00:00

It's the correct decision. No one should be authorised to remove a person's right to pursue legal activities, without it being part of the statutory punishment of a previous criminal conviction, just because they don't believe they think correctly.

Imagine feminists and the institutions they influence having that authority. Recently, the American Psychological Association deemed traditional masculinity toxic and a psychological impairment. The social sciences generally are heavily influenced by the nonsense coming out of feminism. The notion of sexual consent has been expanded to include absurd scenarios, beyond any reasonable person's idea of consent. In the UK they are even considering a misogyny law, in which wolf-whistling would be considered an incident of misogyny and therefore illegal. In the EU they are considering a proposal to recognise anti-feminism as hate speech and ban it.

It gives me the shivers to think what people in feminist influenced areas could do to assault people's legal freedoms without even having to follow the laws they have a disproportionate influence over to begin with. These soft fields and the people in them have questionable credibility and are not to be trusted or given the authority to determine people's rights in contravention of the rule of law.

Title	“Man who does not understand consent has right to pursue sex, court rules” in the U.K.
Author	ayeayefitlike
Upvotes	105
Comments	251
Date	October 3, 2019 9:51 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/dcontp/man_who_does_not_understand_consent_has_right_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to.288378 https://theredarchive.com/post/288378