Judge says man having sex with wife is a human right

[banana chewits]

That's the thing though.........how do they know if they are having sex or not?

they might have asked the wife or the husband, or they might have just assumed & decided for themselves.

Maybe it came out in the washing, so to speak?

social workers sniffing the sheets?

[measurer]

Dunno about sniffing, but who might be doing their washing? Or did the woman complain?

Guess we'll need to stay tuned to find out these details.

[Dinkydoobie]

You'd kind of expect that having sex with your wife and vice versa was a fundamental human right and that the details of it should be considered by the judge if there is going to be interference by the state - which is presumably what his comment about fundamental human rights was about. The right to family life without interference by the state except where it's necessary.

[measurer]

I have no doubt whatever the judge said has been taken out of context. It is not a fundamental right to have sex with anyone even if your spouse. Remember, you can be divorced for not "consummating" a marriage, but you can't be "forced" to have sex with your partner.

It shall be interesting to see how this case came about.

[Uly]

Where did I say it was?

I implied it from your post. Apologies if I made a mistake.

[measurer]

Where did I say it was?

I implied it from your post. Apologies if I made a mistake.

You did but apology accepted.

[LordRaven]

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-right

I can see this causing ructions, and not without good reason

We live in a thouroughly modern world, but in this case I think imposition on another ought to apply.

[Dinkydoobie]

It is not a fundamental right to have sex with anyone even if your spouse. .

Of course it is and it's just as much of a right for his wife as it is for him. I'm not aware of an exception to article 8 of the human rights convention that says sexual relationships are exempt from being a (qualified) right.

[Bessie]

It is not a fundamental right to have sex with anyone even if your spouse. .

Of course it is and it's just as much of a right for his wife as it is for him. I'm not aware of an exception to article 8 of the human rights convention that says sexual relationships are exempt from being a (qualified) right.

Nobody has a right to have sex with me.

[Dinkydoobie]

Nobody has a right to have sex with me.

Really? Where is the law that says people can't have sex with Aunt Bessie?

[Guest]

Nobody has a right to have sex with me.

Really? Where is the law that says people can't have sex with Aunt Bessie?

On the back of the packet, underneath the list of ingredients and the cooking instructions, obviously. Where else do you think it would be?

[HobbitFeet]

It is not a fundamental right to have sex with anyone even if your spouse. .

Of course it is and it's just as much of a right for his wife as it is for him. I'm not aware of an exception to article 8 of the human rights convention that says sexual relationships are exempt from being a (qualified) right.

well yes, you absolutely believe in your fundamental right to have sex


I'm sure you won't mind me lifting this from DS, and it's just a snapshot from your very many dubious posts about consent

........ that when in the midst of i don't know...an erotic encounter? that sometimes no means perhaps or maybe and that in the heat of the moment the only thing a guy will pay attention to is stop... not no, which might mean a slight reluctance and that perhaps sometimes no doesn't necessarily mean no.

oh and article 8 also says that the rights must be in accordance with the law, therefore if consent is not given and it is not lawful, then it is not a human right

[Guest]

What a fucking creep.

[measurer]

It is not a fundamental right to have sex with anyone even if your spouse. .

Of course it is and it's just as much of a right for his wife as it is for him. I'm not aware of an exception to article 8 of the human rights convention that says sexual relationships are exempt from being a (qualified) right.

It really isn't. Ask those spouses who thought like you do and decided to force their spouses, but you can't, they were jailed...
I suggest you read all of Section 8.

[Dinkydoobie]

........ that when in the midst of i don't know...an erotic encounter? that sometimes no means perhaps or maybe and that in the heat of the moment the only thing a guy will pay attention to is stop... not no, which might mean a slight reluctance and that perhaps sometimes no doesn't necessarily mean no.

oh and article 8 also says that the rights must be in accordance with the law, therefore if consent is not given and it is not lawful, then it is not a human right

Lifting quotes out of context always provides for some juicy tidbits but I believe i may have been talking about persuasion. Like if you ask your girlfriend/wife for a blowjob and she says no or if you're trying to fuck some random and they say no because 'they don't know you that well' and don't want to appear like a slag who fucks randoms on nights out even if they might actually want to. In short haired lesbian land I imagine if you end up in some birds house and ask her for a suck and she says no that should be the end of it but reality isn't always like that and even if she initially said no then it isn't always rape or nefearious coercion by a potential rapist.