Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:31:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife  (Read 5677 times)
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:34:57 PM »
« edited: August 18, 2014, 04:11:34 PM by Former Moderate »

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/18/iowa-gop-rep-arrested-for-having-sex-with-incapacitated-wife-after-judge-told-him-not-to/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, these family values so-con types don't believe in the sanctity of life or the importance of the family or any of that nonsense; they believe that women should be treated as men's property.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2014, 04:36:09 PM »

Hopefully, a write-in campaign will be mounted to replace him, or they'll simply vote for the Democrat.

Sadly, I suspect most Republicans will prefer to vote for a rapist than for a Democrat.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2014, 04:48:35 PM »

Hopefully, a write-in campaign will be mounted to replace him, or they'll simply vote for the Democrat.

Sadly, I suspect most Republicans will prefer to vote for a rapist than for a Democrat.

You wouldn't be wrong.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2014, 05:07:16 PM »

Hopefully, a write-in campaign will be mounted to replace him, or they'll simply vote for the Democrat.

He was retiring at the end of this term anyway.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2014, 05:29:16 PM »

Hopefully, a write-in campaign will be mounted to replace him, or they'll simply vote for the Democrat.

He was retiring at the end of this term anyway.

No. He was reelected in the primary this year.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2014, 05:51:07 PM »

Sadly, I suspect most Republicans will prefer to vote for a rapist than for a Democrat.

They can always justify it by saying that it was his wife so it wasn't really rape.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2014, 06:05:46 PM »

Sadly, I suspect most Republicans will prefer to vote for a rapist than for a Democrat.

They can always justify it by saying that it was his wife so it wasn't really rape.

Yeah, so it wasn't, you know, legitimate.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2014, 06:51:54 PM »

Hopefully, a write-in campaign will be mounted to replace him, or they'll simply vote for the Democrat.

He was retiring at the end of this term anyway.

No. He was reelected in the primary this year.

Ok, but he abruptly withdrew from the race earlier this month.  The GOP already found a replacement candidate for him last week.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2014, 10:55:29 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2014, 11:11:35 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2014, 11:12:13 PM »

Do as I say, not as I do.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2014, 11:25:25 PM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

A court had already ruled that her Alzheimer's had left her mentally unable to consent.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2014, 12:05:00 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2014, 05:15:21 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2014, 05:57:32 AM »

I'm sorry, the legalese to justify this... it actually turns my stomach.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2014, 06:06:58 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.

Well, for him to have hired a prostitute would have been illegal...
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2014, 06:57:39 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.

Thank you for speaking to how deeply, deeply horrifying that viewpoint is so that I didn't just come in here and rant incoherently.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2014, 07:07:05 AM »

Suppose as a hypothetical:

1. Someone executes something akin to a living will, providing that in the event they become demented, they wish their spouse to still have sex with them if, as a condition precedent,  by the preponderance of the evidence, medical science supports the idea that in their situation at the time, sex will do them no harm, and/or still provide them with physical pleasure, and

2. Medical science in fact so supports meeting such condition precedent.

In short, I see the arguments on both sides here, and don't find this to be a Manichean proposition.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2014, 07:32:37 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.

I wasn't worrying about his right to engage in sex, but hers.  I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not if you were able to come up with the above reply.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2014, 07:34:05 AM »

Are you able to preemptively declare your consent to something to cover a case where you're later incapable of either giving of rescinding consent? Does that even make sense?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2014, 07:45:54 AM »

Are you able to preemptively declare your consent to something to cover a case where you're later incapable of either giving of rescinding consent? Does that even make sense?

We already do it in the case of declaring whether or not to receive medical care which can be a literal life-or-death decision.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2014, 07:57:09 AM »

I really hate to say this, but is there any evidence that the late wife would not have wanted sex with her husband?  I know young people tend to think us olds have no interest in woohooing or worse, that it is disgusting if we woohoo, but that is a form of ageism.  Certainly, nursing homes would rather not have to deal with people in their care engaging in woohoo, as it creates difficulty for them, so certainly are biased against the practice.  However, if we are going to be so hyper protective as a society as to make it the default that old people can reach the point that they won't be allowed to woohoo with those they were woohooing with, then we should be able to have documents similar to a living will detailing who we want to be able to woohoo with once we are legally unable to give consent.

I don't know US law, but in Canada, the courts repeated many times than "advance consent" or something similar has no stading in law and is completely opposed and incompatible with the idea of continuous consent. The person may remove its consent at any point during the activity. Your idea is pretty much like allowing spousal rape on senile people. We could easily run in issues in case where the person isn't recognising people anymore (it would be like being raped by a stranger for the victim).

I can understand the reasoning, and in general support it, but the right to engage in sex when one wants to engage in it seems so fundamental that until a person reaches the state where it would be impossible for them to derive any enjoyment from it or to express a desire to stop, there ought to be some mechanism for those who have lost the legal capacity to consent to pre-consent.

This is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this forum, with it having been made more disturbing by who typed it.

Seriously, is there no reason why he couldn't have taken care of himself or gotten a prostitute to help him? Try to help me understand.

Are religious people so screwed up in the head that they'd rather rape an Alzheimer's patient than (God forbid!) touch themselves or pay someone to do it with them?

Is a contract consenting to sex beyond the point where they could normally consent really the solution? You couldn't just take care of it yourself or pay a prostitute? How far does this logic extend? If your wife is sleeping and you're really desperate to do it, do you just stick it in without asking? What if you're estranged from your wife but still married? What if she says no? Hey, if the right to engage in sex when one wants to is so fundamental that it could trump consent, then is rape morally ok? What the f is wrong with people.

Well, for him to have hired a prostitute would have been illegal...

Another reason to legalize it.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2014, 08:08:25 AM »

Are you able to preemptively declare your consent to something to cover a case where you're later incapable of either giving of rescinding consent? Does that even make sense?

We already do it in the case of declaring whether or not to receive medical care which can be a literal life-or-death decision.

Is there precedent for extending that to sex? Because end of life directives concern basically a specific moment. Blanket consent would basically mean that this person can have as much sex with a person unable to consent as they want.

Also, we're glossing over how completely gross it is for somebody to WANT TO have sex with someone no longer able to consent.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2014, 10:21:26 AM »

How horrifying. Hopefully this monster will rot in jail for a long time.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2014, 01:25:00 PM »

Personally I think that the right to not have sex if you don't want to is more fundamental than the right to have sex if you do want to, and the existence of rape as a crime and conceptual category bears this out. Is sex something that anybody has the obligation to provide to you? If not (hint: It's not), in what sense is it a right? This isn't the same as there being a negative right not to have genuinely agreed-upon sex acts interfered with by third parties.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 12 queries.