All Categories› The Rail

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Who'd be a Judge?

Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 169,576
in The Rail

This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right
· Share on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    Tikay10 said:


    This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

    Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?

    The one and only thing to take out of this is : "Social service officials believe there is evidence that she no longer has the capacity to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex and therefore cannot freely give her consent "

    The concept that a man has the right to have sex with his wife regardless , is insulting and doesn't deserve any place in society.
    · Share on Twitter
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,829
    Judge should have said spouse instead of man
    · Share on Twitter
  • mumsiemumsie Member Posts: 7,995
    If I were incapable of giving consent, I would want my wife to take her pleasure with me.

    I'll tell her when I get home.
    · Share on Twitter
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,771
    edited April 2019
    dobiesdraw said:

    Tikay10 said:


    This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

    Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?

    The one and only thing to take out of this is : "Social service officials believe there is evidence that she no longer has the capacity to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex and therefore cannot freely give her consent "

    The concept that a man has the right to have sex with his wife regardless , is insulting and doesn't deserve any place in society.
    This is not correct.
    This is just some sensationalist trying to make a story out of nothing.

    The FULL senetence was "I cannot think of a more obviously fundamental right than for a man to have sex with his wife-and the right of the state to monitor that"

    Read the article carefully. Social Services were seeking a Court Order trying to prevent this married couple having sex because she has worsening learning difficulties. The Husband had offered an undertaking not to have sex. The Judge was saying he wanted to examine the evidence.

    There are all sorts of laws protecting people who are incapable of giving consent. But life isn't always that simple. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are between the 2 extremes of able/unable to give consent.

    Doctors and other appropriately qualified people are the right people to examine consent-not Local Authority Lawyers. Imagine for 1 second that either you, or your Partner, have early onset dementia. It has become possible that, on any given day, you may, or may not, be able to give consent.

    Tough choices have to be made. Or do you want anyone with any form of mental illness to have to see a doctor before they can consensually make love to their partner? How much suffering do you wish to impose on these poor people? Or do you (until the contrary is proved) allow the 2 people with the best knowledge continue to make their own value judgments?

    The only error the Judge made (IMHO) was to use "man" and "wife", when it is clearly equally applicable regardless of gender.
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited April 2019
    Essexphil said:

    dobiesdraw said:

    Tikay10 said:


    This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

    Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?

    The one and only thing to take out of this is : "Social service officials believe there is evidence that she no longer has the capacity to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex and therefore cannot freely give her consent "

    The concept that a man has the right to have sex with his wife regardless , is insulting and doesn't deserve any place in society.
    This is not correct.
    This is just some sensationalist trying to make a story out of nothing.

    The FULL senetence was "I cannot think of a more obviously fundamental right than for a man to have sex with his wife-and the right of the state to monitor that"

    Read the article carefully. Social Services were seeking a Court Order trying to prevent this married couple having sex because she has worsening learning difficulties. The Husband had offered an undertaking not to have sex. The Judge was saying he wanted to examine the evidence.

    There are all sorts of laws protecting people who are incapable of giving consent. But life isn't always that simple. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are between the 2 extremes of able/unable to give consent.

    Doctors and other appropriately qualified people are the right people to examine consent-not Local Authority Lawyers. Imagine for 1 second that either you, or your Partner, have early onset dementia. It has become possible that, on any given day, you may, or may not, be able to give consent.

    Tough choices have to be made. Or do you want anyone with any form of mental illness to have to see a doctor before they can consensually make love to their partner? How much suffering do you wish to impose on these poor people? Or do you (until the contrary is proved) allow the 2 people with the best knowledge continue to make their own value judgments?

    The only error the Judge made (IMHO) was to use "man" and "wife", when it is clearly equally applicable regardless of gender.
    And you think the whole sentence quoted makes it sound any better ?
    The whole terminology based around a " right" to have sex with their partner/spouse , belongs with the dinosaurs , as does anyone who thinks that phraseology is acceptable!
    Shocking , ugly viewpoint, which only proves that misogyny is alive and kicking and present even in this forum.

    · Share on Twitter
  • madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,458
    dobiesdraw said:

    Essexphil said:

    dobiesdraw said:

    Tikay10 said:


    This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

    Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?

    The one and only thing to take out of this is : "Social service officials believe there is evidence that she no longer has the capacity to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex and therefore cannot freely give her consent "

    The concept that a man has the right to have sex with his wife regardless , is insulting and doesn't deserve any place in society.
    This is not correct.
    This is just some sensationalist trying to make a story out of nothing.

    The FULL senetence was "I cannot think of a more obviously fundamental right than for a man to have sex with his wife-and the right of the state to monitor that"

    Read the article carefully. Social Services were seeking a Court Order trying to prevent this married couple having sex because she has worsening learning difficulties. The Husband had offered an undertaking not to have sex. The Judge was saying he wanted to examine the evidence.

    There are all sorts of laws protecting people who are incapable of giving consent. But life isn't always that simple. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are between the 2 extremes of able/unable to give consent.

    Doctors and other appropriately qualified people are the right people to examine consent-not Local Authority Lawyers. Imagine for 1 second that either you, or your Partner, have early onset dementia. It has become possible that, on any given day, you may, or may not, be able to give consent.

    Tough choices have to be made. Or do you want anyone with any form of mental illness to have to see a doctor before they can consensually make love to their partner? How much suffering do you wish to impose on these poor people? Or do you (until the contrary is proved) allow the 2 people with the best knowledge continue to make their own value judgments?

    The only error the Judge made (IMHO) was to use "man" and "wife", when it is clearly equally applicable regardless of gender.
    And you think the whole sentence quoted makes it sound any better ?
    The whole terminology based around a " right" to have sex with their partner/spouse , belongs with the dinosaurs , as does anyone who thinks that phraseology is acceptable!
    Shocking , ugly viewpoint, which only proves that misogyny is alive and kicking and present even in this forum.

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    madprof said:

    dobiesdraw said:

    Essexphil said:

    dobiesdraw said:

    Tikay10 said:


    This is a really difficult case, one which it's easy to see both sides.

    Not much fun being the Judge in such a case though.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?

    The one and only thing to take out of this is : "Social service officials believe there is evidence that she no longer has the capacity to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex and therefore cannot freely give her consent "

    The concept that a man has the right to have sex with his wife regardless , is insulting and doesn't deserve any place in society.
    This is not correct.
    This is just some sensationalist trying to make a story out of nothing.

    The FULL senetence was "I cannot think of a more obviously fundamental right than for a man to have sex with his wife-and the right of the state to monitor that"

    Read the article carefully. Social Services were seeking a Court Order trying to prevent this married couple having sex because she has worsening learning difficulties. The Husband had offered an undertaking not to have sex. The Judge was saying he wanted to examine the evidence.

    There are all sorts of laws protecting people who are incapable of giving consent. But life isn't always that simple. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are between the 2 extremes of able/unable to give consent.

    Doctors and other appropriately qualified people are the right people to examine consent-not Local Authority Lawyers. Imagine for 1 second that either you, or your Partner, have early onset dementia. It has become possible that, on any given day, you may, or may not, be able to give consent.

    Tough choices have to be made. Or do you want anyone with any form of mental illness to have to see a doctor before they can consensually make love to their partner? How much suffering do you wish to impose on these poor people? Or do you (until the contrary is proved) allow the 2 people with the best knowledge continue to make their own value judgments?

    The only error the Judge made (IMHO) was to use "man" and "wife", when it is clearly equally applicable regardless of gender.
    And you think the whole sentence quoted makes it sound any better ?
    The whole terminology based around a " right" to have sex with their partner/spouse , belongs with the dinosaurs , as does anyone who thinks that phraseology is acceptable!
    Shocking , ugly viewpoint, which only proves that misogyny is alive and kicking and present even in this forum.

    Are you actually being serious with that comment or is it just designed to court controversy and discussion ?
    I appreciate the weather has been warm today and that presents an ideal opportunity for you to spring clean under your rock ...but time for you to crawl back now .
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    Thangam Debbonaire
    ‏
    Verified account

    @ThangamMP
    16m16 minutes ago
    More
    I have written to the Lord Justice in charge of family courts, about a judge's recent comments on a man's "right to have sex with his wife". Words matter. The UK has low rates of conviction for alleged rape, these comments reinforce dangerous attitudes. …


    · Share on Twitter
  • mumsiemumsie Member Posts: 7,995
    Dodie likes a row and will take the opposite view at times to achieve this , imo.
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    As to the above , lets hope the Lord justice, gives the letter from her the appropriate consideration . Good on her !
    · Share on Twitter
  • madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,458
    mumsie said:

    Dodie likes a row and will take the opposite view at times to achieve this , imo.

    Mummy..what do you mean? 'at times?' guffaw guffaw..
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited April 2019
    mumsie said:

    Dodie likes a row and will take the opposite view at times to achieve this , imo.

    If you think my views that the language used by this judge are off the mark or unsupported , then I suggest you look around outside the confines of this little bubble .

    p.s. Spell my name right . whilst you are at it :/
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    I'd also be interested to hear how many of you , think it's acceptable in our modern society to be of the viewpoint that people in a relationship/marriage (regardless of gender) have a " right " to have sex with their partners .
    The whole concept is beyond ridiculous. And a judge saying as much is a disgrace.
    · Share on Twitter
  • mumsiemumsie Member Posts: 7,995
    edited April 2019
    I'm in.

    My Mrs can have me any time she wants.
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited April 2019
    mumsie said:

    I'm in.

    My Mrs can have me any time she wants.

    The fact you post such a stupid comment about such a serious subject , shows you up totally .
    God help the planet !
    · Share on Twitter
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,829
    dobiesdraw said:

    I'd also be interested to hear how many of you , think it's acceptable in our modern society to be of the viewpoint that people in a relationship/marriage (regardless of gender) have a " right " to have sex with their partners .
    The whole concept is beyond ridiculous. And a judge saying as much is a disgrace.

    Isn't it some outdated law
    Why anybody would enter a marriage then decide not to have sex with their partner is beyond me
    I know circumstances change in marriages but once one partner stops it leads to the other going elsewhere which leads to divorce
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited April 2019
    stokefc said:

    dobiesdraw said:

    I'd also be interested to hear how many of you , think it's acceptable in our modern society to be of the viewpoint that people in a relationship/marriage (regardless of gender) have a " right " to have sex with their partners .
    The whole concept is beyond ridiculous. And a judge saying as much is a disgrace.

    Isn't it some outdated law
    Why anybody would enter a marriage then decide not to have sex with their partner is beyond me
    I know circumstances change in marriages but once one partner stops it leads to the other going elsewhere which leads to divorce
    I'm not asking you if it's some outdated law , I'm asking you if you think the principle is acceptable . Unfortunately you seem to have inadvertently answered it and shown what you think.
    It's like an episode of jurassic park on this thread.
    The latest genius post by @stokefc suggests that partners should agree to have sex , if they don't want to , because otherwise it could lead to divorce .....there literally isn't any hope for the next generation ! :(
    · Share on Twitter
  • madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,458
    perhaps dobiesdraws..you're just an easy wind up?
    · Share on Twitter
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited April 2019
    madprof said:

    perhaps dobiesdraws..you're just an easy wind up?

    Perhaps it's a serious subject , that deserves serious answers . Not everything in life can/should be laughed off .
    I'm guessing you're divorced ?
    · Share on Twitter
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,829
    You sound like my missus when she's on the rag Jesus
    So you think it's alright for one spouse to decide not to have sex when the other spouse wants sex?
    And I'm saying all the time not one offs when one doesn't feel like it
    · Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.