Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

Responding to this quote instead of the other one:

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.

What is the reasoning for the jump from 1) to 2)? I can see very good reason for bioethicists to oppose any such reasoning which would allow for the acceptability of 1).

Specifically, there's a bizarre reductionist logic in 1). In arguing that conditions in 1) is sufficient to show allowance of consent, you're reducing reasons for consent to the fulfillment of pleasure and a special relation with the other agent. In this form people can accuse you of sexism more directly. One reason why we believe continuous consent is necessary is that we do not want to restrict the possible reasons, some unknown to the other party, that women and humans ought to be treated.

In other words, do you really think women say "no" mostly because they're not satisfied by sex? What about a sense of security and expectations about how this changes the special relationship she thinks she has with someone else? And, bare in mind, those reasons go through the heads of more than just those above the age of consent...

I don't really follow much of the above very well, but suffice it to say, I personally would have no problem with the idea that I can agree in advance while sentient to give consent to my spouse to have sex with me while demented assuming medical science supports the idea that it will not be doing affirmative harm to me while in the demented state. It is similar to the notion really that I can execute a living will, stating I want to be offed in I descend into a vegetative state (to the extent otherwise legally permissible). 

[Torie]

I don't really follow much of the above very well, but suffice it to say, I personally would have no problem with the idea that I can agree in advance while sentient to give consent to my spouse to have sex with me while demented assuming medical science supports the idea that it will not be doing affirmative harm to me while in the demented state. It is similar to the notion really that I can execute a living will, stating I want to be offed in I descend into a vegetative state (to the extent otherwise legally permissible).  

Maybe I would too, but two gay men's opinions does not make it right.

I'll try to be clearer. The first big problem I have is the comparison with a living will. Then you can argue that, because we allow that kind of legal solution for ending one's life, we can allow that solution for everything with lower stakes than ending one's life. But I disagree, because signing away my life and signing away my ability to consent involve two different rights.

Signing away my life affirms a right to the body (not a lawyer, but this should correspond to something legal). Signing away my ability to consent does not affirm any right to the body. Instead, it involves a right of surrendering my body to someone who wants to use me. I doubt many people believe this right exists, and would be outraged if someone used it to justify assault or rape.

Of course you can oppose that interpretation and say that oversight exists, through medical instruments that can test whether the incompetent person is in pain. But you cannot say the only reason we have to refuse consent is when we are in pain. We can refuse consent when we expect that having sex will lead to negative consequences. I believe we cannot come to agreement about how these expectations ought to be measured, so this oversight is ineffective.

That is all fine, but the weight you put on the horrors of signing away one's consent to sex in this context, such that one simply should not have the right to do that, even with one's spouse, is way in excess of mine. It does not bother me at all, actually. Frankly, once I am demented, the least I can do is still offer some pleasure to someone. Of course, in my case, if I know I am going the demented route, I will commit suicide, thus mooting the issue, but I digress.  Anyway, the weight you put on the giving up of consent in this case, to me (and I don't mean this personally), is nanny statism gone wild. If I were a juror, and a case like this came up for rape, involving one's demented spouse, with a document giving advance consent while the spouse were sentient, I would take great pleasure in engaging in jury nullification, and be pleased to brag about it, and tell the prosecutor to his face that he was an ahole.

Have a good one, Foucaulf.