RE: Illegal to consent to sex?

RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SourandSweet Or, to put it another way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI I'd forgotten about that! Nice one :)

kiwisub12 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:50:50 AM)
If he can't take care of himself in life, then he obviously can't take care of a child - therefore, regardless of what or who he has sex with, he shouldn't be able to father a child. This particular "right" should be removed from the equation when he hit puberty.

LadyRian -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:09:50 AM)
Competent people make choices. Sometimes they make poor choices. But they are competent to make the choice, and for good or ill, have to live with the consequenses of their actions. In the case of the "incompetent' so to speak, those with severe developmental or cognitive disabilities, for example, it becomes a weird fine line. Is it ethical to preclude such a person from finding partnership? I say no. But then, there's the equally damning question of "How does one protect someone from one (or more) of the predators out there?" And then, this raises the question of "Who is responsible for the protection of someone like this, if they're unable to protect themselves?" No easy answer. Vigilante justice looks tempting at times. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

Sundowner -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:10:44 AM)
FR Assume that I have become a deeply troubled bottom-abuser, with no moral or ethical standards, who gets off on hurting bums. (No GT <sighs patiently> that's a hypothetical example, no matter what your opinion of me). Imagine I ask you if I can push a large dildo, covered with nasty sharp points, up your bum. Chances are you'd say no because you can make a judgement that it would hurt too much. But if your IQ were too low for you to make that judgement, and maybe if the dildo was your favourite colour too, you might eagerly say yes and simply not understand the consequences. In such a case I (now in my previous character as a responsible bloke) would wish you to be protected by the Courts. But assume you enjoy having an erect and pleasing penis slipped up your bum (even though your IQ is still at the rather low level) and assume I were to possess such a penis, together with a strong delight in the bum-slipping-up activity and also a realistic sense of responsibility which prompted me to use a suitable condom and suitable lubricant whenever buggering people. I would be pissed if a Court said I couldn't indulge. One is, as many have said, between a rock and a hard place in making a judgement on the judgement. Glad I'm not a judge.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:40:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kiwisub12 If he can't take care of himself in life, then he obviously can't take care of a child - therefore, regardless of what or who he has sex with, he shouldn't be able to father a child. This particular "right" should be removed from the equation when he hit puberty. thats a very different topic in itself and I have to say is quite often a topic in daily life of adults with learning disabilities and I know quite a few women with learning disabilities who mothered a child. Which comes again to what has been said before, who are we to deny them that aspect? http://www.learningdisabilitywales.org.uk/parents_research.php

LadyPact -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:42:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Palliata Presumably his partners would be of normal IQ - if they are incapable of safe sex themselves aren't they responsible for whatever diseases they might acquire? It takes two people consenting to have sex, after all, and if neither chose to use protection that is far from the business of government. That's not entirely true. While I'm not familiar with the laws in Allan's location, there certainly are places where it isn't just about two people consenting. Should someone acquire an illness, there are states that require a person to disclose conditions, such as HIV status, to sexual partners. Not doing so is a criminal charge, even if the second person doesn't become infected. Now, I realize that's really going out on a limb because nowhere in the two articles provided does it say this is the situation. The problem is, from a legal standpoint, can a ruling be given differently for one person who can't legally consent because they are well as opposed to when they are not? That would seem that it would be discriminatory based on the illness, not the lack of ability to consent. The same goes to the comment that it would be more appropriate if Allan happened to be female and fertile. Can we have legal decisions based on gender? Don't get Me wrong. I still think it's sad. At least the second article mentions that with the decision, the man should be provided with sexual education in the hope that he can gain the capacity to consent.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:50:24 AM)
I haven't seen the verdict on the whole. Only read the article so I'm basing my opinion on that. In spite of agreeing with the judge that this should not take place, I am having difficulties understanding the grounds the judge bases his verdict on. The UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. The right Alan is being deprived of falls under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is bound by. The Article explicitly states on what grounds a person may be prohibited from enjoying that right; it needs to be necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. <Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.> The European Court of Human Rights has already stated in its precedents that a persons sexual life falls under Article 8 and that the Article also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. n interference with the exercise of an Article 8 right will not be compatible with Article 8 § 2 unless it is “in accordance with the law”, has an aim or aims that is or are legitimate under that paragraph and is “necessary in a democratic society” for the aforesaid aim or aims. However, the Court has also stated that the margin of appreciation has been found to be narrow as regards interferences in the intimate area of an individual's sexual life. Forbidding Alan to have sex is in my opinion too extreme, as there hadn't been proven that other more lenient actions could have done the same thing. In my opinion, they should have targeted the person, Kieron, for taking advantage of Alan's disabilities. However, it must also be kept in mind that Alan is a vulnerable person due to his mental disabilities and may therefore be subject to laws under the UK that are to protect the vulnerable ones, so it may very well stand even if the margin of appreciation is narrow. However, it's impossible to say for sure whether the verdict is right or wrong, based on this article. There's way too much information missing, but I would like to go out on a limb and say that I doubt this verdict can stand for the reasons given above and must be criticized on that basis.

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:57:50 AM)
quote: 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. I figure it fits in to the aspects I put in bold. There was another article link kindly posted which gave some further information. Alan is unable to understand the consequences of his actions with regard to his sexual activities e.g. he is believed to have little understanding that sex can lead to pregnancy, or to serious disease. :-)

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:04:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SourandSweet quote: 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. I figure it fits in to the aspects I put in bold. There was another article link kindly posted which gave some further information. Alan is unable to understand the consequences of his actions with regard to his sexual activities e.g. he is believed to have little understanding that sex can lead to pregnancy, or to serious disease. :-) I read the article you provided. In my opinion it is still not enough. As I stated earlier, "the Court has also stated that the margin of appreciation has been found to be narrow as regards interferences in the intimate area of an individual's sexual life. " In my opinion, forbidding Alan to have sex is too prohibiting. The Court could have been more lenient, for example by directing the State to supervise his sexual activities and his sexual partners and circumstances instead of forbidding them, as well as the sex education (which the Court did indeed order him to get) and therefore my criticism stands.

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:30:49 AM)
Indeed, it's a difficult one to call. Unfortunately without all the information we can only make assumptions. One would hope that the Judge did have sufficient facts to justify the unusual decision he has taken. :-)

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:37:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SourandSweet One would hope that the Judge did have sufficient facts to justify the unusual decision he has taken. Given that the judge would have known the degree to which their decision would be scrutinised, I would think they'd have made sure they were very carefully and comprehensively briefed. I also suspect that they would, given the human rights aspects of the case, tend to err on the side of caution when reaching a decision, and only restrict the individual's right to have sexual relations as a last resort.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:46:44 AM)
I remember an old case, it was either a Danish one or a Norwegian one. It was not about whether to forbid the person to have sex or not. However, the person had the IQ of 90 and fucked everything that moved, had already given birth to 3 children that had mental disabilities. Should she have been forbidden to have sex? What about the british guy that has..how many children, 10 children+? all with different women? He's not incapable, he's just a jerk. Should he be prohibited by law to have sex, just because he's immoral about it? The question is, where do you want to draw the line? Making a precedent to prohibit a person to have sex, whether mentally incapable or not, is a very dangerous one and provides a risk of slippery slope in that matter. As I have stated before; in my opinion, the measure taken was not an appropriate one.

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:57:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly As I have stated before; in my opinion, the measure taken was not an appropriate one. And I still don't think we're in possession of all the facts. What will be interesting is what happens once the subject has completed their "education" on the subject ... will they then be given a "license to fuck", or not? If "not", then does it then get kicked upstairs to the European court? And at what expense to the taxpayer? And as for the "serial breeders" yes, agreed; there are some nightmare types out there. At the risk of echoing the Daily Mail, there's one couple with some unspeakable number of kids, neither of whom work, and are together just a £150,000+ per annum drain on the system. But at what stage, if any, does the state have a right to intervene? I wouldn't disagree with you that it should be "later" rather than "sooner", but I doubt they would have chosen to intervene in this case unless they thought there was a pretty compelling reason to do so, given the likely furore that would ensue, and still may well do at a later date.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:06:03 AM)
I already stated quote: However, it's impossible to say for sure whether the verdict is right or wrong, based on this article. There's way too much information missing, but I would like to go out on a limb and say that I doubt this verdict can stand for the reasons given above and must be criticized on that basis. We do not know what measures have been taken prior to this I agree completely. I'm not saying no actions should have been taken, I am simply saying that there might have been more appropriate measures available. There is also a problem with the execution of the judgment. How are you going to prohibit somebody to have sex? If he needs to be supervised constantly to prevent him for having sex, should he be allowed to continue to live on his own? Is he then not subject to living at a special home for the mentally disabled? Based on the verdict he may not being able to function in society and be a health risk to society. Are you really going to argue that it costs the taxpayer to bring a case before the ECHR? Would you rather want there to be an uncertainty in the future? I think this was a cheap shot on your behalf.

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:11:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly I'm not saying no actions should have been taken, I am simply saying that there might have been more appropriate measures available. Since you (and I) don't know the full details, we also don't know what (if any) actions had previously been tried. I'm content for this one to work its way through the legal system, even if the money spent doing so is going to be out of all proportion with the number of borderline cases thus affected. Sooner or later there will be a more concrete set of guidelines available than the somewhat vague texts we’ve seen so far.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:13:47 AM)
Yea. Guess we gotta agree to disagree that if only affects borderline cases. Like I say, allowing this will risk the law going down the slippery slope. ..but hey, we gotta agree to disagree sometimes huh![:)]

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:22:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly Yea. Guess we gotta agree to disagree that if only affects borderline cases. Like I say, allowing this will risk the law going down the slippery slope. But "the law" isn't going down a slippery slope yet, because "the law" hasn't worked out what its final stance on this topic is yet. quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly ..but hey, we gotta agree to disagree sometimes huh![:)] Absolutely! It's what mature and civilised debate is all about. Well ... that and scoring cheap points off idiots [;)] Seriously though, as I said right at the start of this thread, I can't recall the last time I was this conflicted about a topic in discussion ... it really is all too easy to see both sides of this debate as being valid.

LadyRian -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 12:47:46 PM)
This is similar to the argument that's been postulated concerning the legality of the sterilisation of developmentally disabled people, which was something that was unfortunately done to many, against their will, in the state mental hospitals in my area. These hospitals thankfully are now closed. However, when it was made public, to counter the ensuing outcry, the former administrators of said hospitals went on record as saying it was done for the benefit of the patients, whom they could not prevent from having sex. So they medically prevented them from reproducing, because in their opinion these people were "incapable" of being effective parents. Now, that was a slippery slope if ever there was one, but because there was no extant evidence available to the contrary, these people were forceably sterilised, and the law did nothing.

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 1:15:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyRian This is similar to the argument that's been postulated concerning the legality of the sterilisation of developmentally disabled people, which was something that was unfortunately done to many, against their will, in the state mental hospitals in my area. These hospitals thankfully are now closed. However, when it was made public, to counter the ensuing outcry, the former administrators of said hospitals went on record as saying it was done for the benefit of the patients, whom they could not prevent from having sex. So they medically prevented them from reproducing, because in their opinion these people were "incapable" of being effective parents. Now, that was a slippery slope if ever there was one, but because there was no extant evidence available to the contrary, these people were forceably sterilised, and the law did nothing. Note first that I'm not defending what was done in that case. It smacks of eugenics by the back door. However, as a point of law, as it were, if such a person is so intellectually sub-normal as to be incapable of being allowed to make their own decisions, how can anything that is done to them be said to be "against their will"? If they lack the intelligence to understand what the pros and cons of the procedure are, how can they logically exercise a right to reject them? Either they're capable of making their own minds up or they're not, and presumably in those cases the state had already decided that they weren't? To quote Austin Powers: "Oh! I've gone boss-eyed". Fortunately, the Superbowl is on in a couple of hours :)

DesFIP -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 1:26:06 PM)
If someone, whether a parent or the state, has guardianship because the person is incapable of consenting or understanding what it means to consent, then it's legal to prevent pregnancy. More important than the relatively small number of developmentally delayed to which such a precedence may apply, are the rising numbers of elderly with dementia. Are they capable of consenting to sex? Should they be prevented from having it? What if an adult child has conservatorship and is upset that their parent is having relations with another patient? Should they have the right to demand that the nursing home prevent this? Should they morally be justified in moving a parent who is accustomed to the home to another one in order to break up such a relationship?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875