Family values Republican state rep. arrested for raping his wife

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

There is no grey area here, if a person is not mentally capable of consent, there is no debate to be had.

Then you're condemning that person to being cut off from what for most people is a significant part of their life.  You're condemning them to being a living corpse unable to fully partake of life's pleasures.  Frankly, if as a society we decide to condemn them to involuntary celibacy in such circumstances, then I would consider such a status a valid reason to allow the person to have decided ahead of time that if they ever do permanently reach such a state, they'd rather be euthanized.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, are you talking about this particular case or a general concept that people have a non-ending right to consent? I don't know you as a horrible person so I'll assume the latter..

We limit the beginning of a person's right to consent based on age and awareness, etc.. why not the end if the situation is quite similar?

In general, since I don't have any knowledge of how incapacitated the wife was in this particular case.  The relevant difference here between the beginning of life and the end of life is that is impossible for a person to make an informed consent of future actions before the beginning of their legal awareness, but it is possible to do so before the end of their legal awareness.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If I didn't know better I'd swear Ernest is trolling.

Well, it's not as if I didn't have some idea of the reaction I'd get when I initially posted in this thread. And I fully acknowledge that when it comes to striking a balance between the extremely legitimate concerns that the mentally incompetent not be abused and my concerns that society tends to want to lock up those receiving care in a chastity belt and throw away the key without much thought about whether they would have wanted to be stuck in a chastity belt just because they are stuck in care facility, well striking that balance would be difficult even if it were not contentious.  Even with pre-given consent, I'd want the balance to call for erring in favor of the chastity belt if there were the least sign of distress on the part of the person.

This is a really strange thread.

Perhaps it is best to understand it as unconscious performance art.

Groan.  However there is nothing in either the OP or the linked article that suggests that the woman was unaware of her surroundings, just that she was not competent to legally give consent.