A British couple may soon have a judge deciding on the sexual relations in their 20-year marriage.
An unidentified British man may be banned from having sex with his wife because social services believe her declining mental health has now affected her ability to consent, Sky News reported.
The Court of Protection in London, which specializes in cases involving those who lack the mental capacity to make decisions, was asked to consider the case in an attempt to ensure the woman is not essentially raped due to her inability to consent to sex with her husband of 20 years.
According to Sky News:
The woman has learning difficulties, and social services bosses with responsibility for her care say there is evidence that her mental health has deteriorated to the point that she no longer has the ability to make decisions about whether she wants to have sex.
Judge Sir Anthony Hayden was asked by lawyers representing social services bosses to consider officially barring the husband who reportedly pledged at a preliminary hearing not to have sex with his wife. The couple was not identified in reports, nor were their ages or the wife’s mental condition revealed.
Before he makes a ruling in the case, Hayden reportedly wants to be presented with all of the evidence and arguments from the husband, social services and the lawyers representing the woman. He noted the difficulty of policing an order like the one the lawyers have suggested, while noting that the husband could be put in a position where he could face prison if he breached his pledge of the court’s order.
“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 — I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” Hayden said, according to Sky News.
“Despite the judge’s remarks, the ability for a man to have sex with his wife without her consent was explicitly banned in 1991 and is punished by the courts as any other rape,” Daily Mail noted.
Hayden was slammed by some on social media for his “terrifying” comments, as many weighed in on the controversial issue.
Rape. It’s called rape. The man wants court permission to rape his wife who can’t give consent, and the judge’s statement on this which entertains this is terrifying.
Once more for the folks in the back: MEN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WOMEN’S BODIES. https://t.co/O2Rl1RYIwp
— Literature_Lady, PhD (@Literature_Lady) April 2, 2019
I yelled out loud when I read that. I want to punch this man. ?
— Skulleigh (@skulleigh) April 2, 2019
If she can’t consent, he shouldn’t have sex with her, full stop. It is about fulfilling his own sexual gratification. Yes, it is sad that this happened to his wife, but my God, using her as a sex object when she can’t consent is a horrifying thought.
— Literature_Lady, PhD (@Literature_Lady) April 2, 2019
I mean, isn’t shit like this obvious??? After reading the story it sounds like the husband & the Judge are the ones who “lack the mental capacity to make decisions.”
— Karen (@Karita_8) April 2, 2019
HORRIFYING
— Lindsay (@LindsayFromBama) April 2, 2019
No man has any right whatsoever to have sex with any woman, whether one happens to be his wife or not, and this is a completely terrifying statement to hear from the mouth of a judge https://t.co/BMMWuMULLh pic.twitter.com/G1NUO7bATf
— Eve Livingston (@eve_rebecca) April 1, 2019
The debate raged on as some Twitter users attempted to provide context and an alternate commentary.
This seems a very complex and pitiful case actually. When one considers that he might love his wife and have seen her mental capacity reduced over time, he evokes compassion. But to have social services involved suggests things not being right. More context is needed I think.
— Jassodra (@JLorna1813) April 2, 2019
An interference by the state with someone’s private (including sexual) life quite obviously does raise human rights questions and does need to be justified though.
— Catriona Gray (@CatrionaLGray) April 1, 2019
I’m worried on how the whole “right of the state to monitor that” part is supposed to work.
— Mr Fatuous (@sickpuppysoftwa) April 2, 2019
I don’t think the judge was suggesting that a man has the right to have sex with his wife without her consent. His comments have clearly been taken out of context to create controversy. Very poor reporting
— Wendy Brown (@marbessa1) April 1, 2019
You are right about that being a terrifying quote. But I assume there really is a danger of authorities deeming that issues surrounding sex life of people with diminished capacities is just too problematic… the state ‘protecting’ her could be just as harmful to her welfare.
— jos cap (@EsSoloUnViaje) April 1, 2019
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.
- Newsom’s wife’s uber-woke films forced on school children, complete with promotional cameos of hubby - January 20, 2023
- DOJ ramps up a ‘mere review’ to full-fledged investigation after latest Biden doc discovery - January 12, 2023
- Texas Rep. Chip Roy calls on Republican House to ‘stop funding’ DHS over botched handling of the border - January 10, 2023
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
