HobbitFeet wrote:English judge says man having sex with wife is 'fundamental human right' sensible stance or rape apology?
I think it's a dangerous precedent to use words that equate the use of another person's body with a human right, it's an interesting case for sure with lots of elements, the innability to give consent, and the rights of a man to take that as consent - echoes of the too drunk to give consent argument
“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. “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/ap ... uman-rightI can see this causing ructions, and not without good reason
I sincerely hope it does cause ructions. These judges are a fecking menace with cases such as this. Sex without consent is rape! All of these 'grey area' cases are destructive. Changes to legislation regarding 'conjucal rights' were amended to prevent sex being used as Domestic Abuse. Gone are the days that a man/woman, husband/wife or otherwise has the right force a woman/man into having sex against their will, or without consent. Cases such as this will undermine all that has been introduced to 'stamp' out abuse. It will be used as a precedent to pave the way for abusers to avoid consequences.
If this woman is not in a position to give consent,with deteriorating communication measures, then she should not be placed in the position, of engaging against her will. Rulings should be put in place to prevent that, and to protect her from that happening.