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

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



Message

Phoenixpower -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

How can someone with dementia give informed consent? They don't understand what they're consenting to nor can they remember it? Nor can marriage counseling be helpful when they have dementia.

I need to protect my father from himself in exactly the same way I had to protect my children when very young from themselves. They couldn't be allowed to do things that would cause them harm. Had I allowed them to do those things, I would have been guilty of neglect. Why is that any different simply because the person is of age but mentally incompetent? In fact, if I did allow my father to use the kitchen and burn himself, I would be guilty of just that. So it's correct to protect him from touching matches but not from touching other people?



Nevertheless she was married to him way before her dementia was diagnosed and took over and just because HIS parents tried to push him to get a divorce does not mean that we have to support their decision and desires. He is an adult and not their little son anymore who has blindly to do what they say. He lives in a supported living home and just because he let himself influence from his parents, does not mean we jump right into their views.

We were there for the clients, and if he expresses to want a divorce then he gets help to explore the fact at first with a marriage councillor to make his own informed decision as much as possible. The fact that his wife had dementia by then does not mean that we have to get straight away their files sorted for a divorce. I do understand your view as daughter, but within that home we are there to support the guys to live their own independent life as much as possible; it is about them and not very much about their parents.

Clients with learning disabilities can be exploited, no doubt about that, but sometimes also own families can exploit them and be overbearing, hence why we gave them the support they deserved as every healthy couple could request in such a situation. I agree that for her it wasn't very helpful, but she was clingy to her husband and so she joined him despite her lack of understanding by then.

and regarding

quote:

Why is that any different simply because the person is of age but mentally incompetent?


The law say that every person has to be considered as having mental capacity unless proven otherwise. Just because he has a learning disability does not mean straight away that he does not have mental capacity.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/HealthAndSupport/YourRightsInHealth/DG_10016888



CalifChick -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:21:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

And it's that I don't agree with.
If the driver has done no harm, I don't agree that it's okay to punish him for harm he may potentially do.



So he has to kill someone first by running a red light and plowing into them before he is punished? Funny (in a stick a pencil thru your brain sort of way), I wish the drunk drivers who have killed the friends I have known were caught first and removed from the road BEFORE they committed harm to another person. Well, "committed harm" is such a neutral sort of term, how about, "before he ran a red light and t-boned a car carrying my friend and her 3 year old daughter, crushing the 3 yr old and putting her into a coma before she was removed from life support a few days later due to zero brain function".

I think I'm going to have to step out and just stop reading this thread. It reminds me of a coworker who said her brother should not be in trouble for repeatedly drunk driving, repeatedly getting into wrecks, and repeatedly causing harm to others because, and I'm quoting because I'll never forget this, "it's a disease, he can't help himself, so it's not his fault and he shouldn't be punished."

Cali



tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:22:08 PM)

~FR

Godwin's Law has been employed. Does that mean the debate is over?



mnottertail -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:24:21 PM)

No nazis, no chainsaws, no blowjobs, no fatgirls.  Hell no, this ain't over by a damn sight.



RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:33:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
No nazis, no chainsaws, no blowjobs, no fatgirls.  Hell no, this ain't over by a damn sight.


To be fair though we've seen a lot of other stuff; a shedload of woolly thinking, incorrect "logic", unsubstantiated claims, overblown verbal diarrhoea and plain stupidity* :)

This thread must die :)

*and I mean stupidity bad enough to stand out, even in CM Forums.



tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:34:27 PM)

Nazi has already been mentioned.



mnottertail -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 3:36:23 PM)

Well then, since I mentioned the balance, yes...stick a fork in this fucker, its done.



Aynne88 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 4:30:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

And it's that I don't agree with.
If the driver has done no harm, I don't agree that it's okay to punish him for harm he may potentially do.



So he has to kill someone first by running a red light and plowing into them before he is punished? Funny (in a stick a pencil thru your brain sort of way), I wish the drunk drivers who have killed the friends I have known were caught first and removed from the road BEFORE they committed harm to another person. Well, "committed harm" is such a neutral sort of term, how about, "before he ran a red light and t-boned a car carrying my friend and her 3 year old daughter, crushing the 3 yr old and putting her into a coma before she was removed from life support a few days later due to zero brain function".

I think I'm going to have to step out and just stop reading this thread. It reminds me of a coworker who said her brother should not be in trouble for repeatedly drunk driving, repeatedly getting into wrecks, and repeatedly causing harm to others because, and I'm quoting because I'll never forget this, "it's a disease, he can't help himself, so it's not his fault and he shouldn't be punished."

Cali



I can't even wrap my head around that fucked up statement. I skimmed over it initially because I didn't really think that any rational adult would really think that a drunk person behind the wheel of a car should NOT be punished until they actually kill a child, run my dog over, or smash into a fucking car coming in the other direction.Wow. I honestly think that is the most illogical and asinine statement I have read here. And that is going a stretch in this place.

It's even more ridiculous than stating insurance shouldn't be mandatory. Again, just a giant WTF. [8|].  Like Tazzy said, the one lone state that doesn't require insurance makes you pay $500.00 for that right. I pay less than that for full coverage on my vehicles. Which I might add having totalled a 9 month old Avalanche not too long ago, I can attest that the system did indeed work. Insurance company paid within ten days in full, not a hitch.  



Elisabella -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 4:41:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

Alcohol checkpoints are rather common in the bar districts and towns I'm familiar with.

I've been checked several times while going to, or coming back from bar districts.
I've never been checked while being pulled over for other offenses.


Fair enough, I've never been through an alcohol checkpoint.

quote:

Besides that, I disagree that the above behaviors are necessarily dangerous, whether or not they are depends entirely on the road conditions and the other traffic.
As such, I again disagree that such behaviors should be prosecuted on public roads, unless it can be demonstrated that the person in question has actually done harm.


If red lights and traffic lanes are merely suggestions, what's the point of having them at all?

quote:

I feel that the cost in unsuccessfully trying to prevent people from doing harm is much higher on society than the cost of the actual harm that supposedly is prevents, especially when it comes to creating a mindset in which people have become accustom to trade in freedom for a false sense of security.


I disagree that the sense of security is false - but the thing is, you just don't know whether or not the person with DUI would have hurt someone.

What we do know is that 1/3 of all fatal car crashes have at least one drunk driver involved. We also know that alcohol impairs judgment, reaction time, and even vision.

quote:

I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions, not for the potential actions they might engage in.
Because of our continued attempts to hold people accountable for potential actions, society is moving in a direction where personal liberty has to sacrifice ever time for the false cause of "the greater good".


Well, DUI laws are holding people accountable for their actions - specifically, the action of driving while intoxicated. They're not being prosecuted for harming others or damaging property, they're being prosecuted for reckless driving. The recklessness is their slowed judgment time - if the car in front of them brakes suddenly, or a squirrel runs out into the road, or anything at all happens that they need to react to, their reaction time and smoothness of movement will be impaired.

quote:

As I don't believe that utilitarianism is a morally sound theory, I don't believe that society's demand that the individual makes sacrifices for the sins of others is ethically sound.


Do you agree or disagree that, everything else being equal, a person driving drunk is more dangerous than that same person driving sober?



kalikshama -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/7/2011 6:20:19 PM)

quote:

My father is almost 84 and has dementia. Legally he's capable of marrying. Which means we have to be watchful for anyone who wants to marry an elderly, wealthy man and hurry him on in order to be a rich widow. It's just about impossible in NY state these days to get conservatorship so we can't use that to protect him from himself. And considering he proposes marriage to waitresses on a daily basis, this is a real problem. We've had to threaten charging women with elder abuse in the past but the risk always exists. He isn't capable of thinking about the consequences of his actions. Or even remembering them ten minutes later.


My grandfather had Alzheimer's and I used to care for an 88 yo man with dementia. Best wishes for you and your Dad and your family.



porcelaine -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 2:31:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

I've don't recall saying exploitation does not occur. I don't even recall saying it wasn't occurring in the context of this discussion (although it seems pretty clear, from the information, that it's not).


Greeting Nihilus,

I'm sorry you're having challenges recollecting. There's supplements available to remedy that ailment. [:D]

quote:

We're either discussing one of two things: the concept of "being taken advantage of" as a general idea (which, apart from actual abuse, is a pretty flimsy notion, true) or we're talking about the article we're all discussing here as being an example of "being taken advantage of", which would be a weak position to be sitting on.


Now I'm laughing and I'm pretty certain you were as well when you wrote that.

quote:

Actually, the very opposite is what is sought (which is why people pertinent to court cases on an emotional basis, who have some say in the result, recuse themselves from participation in that regard).


And you believe that the decisions are completely devoid of emotion? You realize that most people don't function that way in their lives outside of the courtroom and to expect them to do it there is really wishful thinking. Alas those biases and other unsavory thoughts creep in particularly when they find suitable company. Whether they admit that is something altogether different and you can't know for sure either. It's pretty nifty. But then again we're at polar opposites on this issue. I don't aspire for robotic logic. It's nonexistent in most human forms.

quote:

Attorneys will surely use appeals to emotion to win cases. Their job is to win cases. Not to restrict their methodologies to strict logic (or even ethics).


And the judge is unflappable of course.

quote:

This wasn't a "reality" until the court made the decision.


Like it or not they have decided and while we're divided on this issue our opinions mean very little if we have no intent on exercising them on his behalf. It's just another person weighing in.

quote:

I suppose we could argue that every social and political and ethical decision made at any time is appropriate for that time and place just because it was made. Which really only means you need a government installed at a certain location to make things okay. Which is ridiculous.


No, I'd propose that if you found it that disconcerting that you voice your opinion in the matter or go one better and enter the system yourself. Forgive me, I'm a bottom line kind of girl and not enthralled by debate for debate's sake. If no action will follow it's merely a bunch of intellectual hot air being blown.

quote:

You're suggesting that it wasn't ethically viable because if illogic is rampant enough, it makes it okay?


Nope. I'm suggesting that the majority of human beings haven't perfected the art of divorcing themselves from their emotions nor do they wish to. And since the act is not a staple of our society, it would serve to reason that there would be more than a few that would find it troublesome to do so in a court of law.

quote:

So it hinges on this man needing to pass additional (psychologically malformed) tests to earn his otherwise inalienable human rights.


I'm not advocating his rights. I'm not that politically correct. In the here and now the case has come before a judge and a decision has been made based upon the details and the defendant's mental capacity. And just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean it should be acted upon. He has a 'right' to copulate but at what cost? I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to swallow the ramifications of his oops and nor should anyone else. Call it what you will, but you aren't living with the consequences of his ignorance because you're not climbing in bed with him.

Namaste,

~porcelaine




Sundowner -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 4:10:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RapierFugue


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
No nazis, no chainsaws, no blowjobs, no fatgirls.  Hell no, this ain't over by a damn sight.


To be fair though we've seen a lot of other stuff; a shedload of woolly thinking, incorrect "logic", unsubstantiated claims, overblown verbal diarrhoea and plain stupidity* :)

This thread must die :)

*and I mean stupidity bad enough to stand out, even in CM Forums.


"This thread must die"?

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of the boards RF. Sure, ppl tolerate those occasional threads with sensible, logical discussions and debates but the mods only leave those ones out of kindness and tolerance.

The important posts, the raison d'etre, the ones which provide a real social service, are the threads full of a shedload of woolly thinking, incorrect "logic", unsubstantiated claims, overblown verbal diarrhoea and plain stupidity. They're here so that we can become better people by telling others how they can become better people and pointing out their shedload of woolly thinking, incorrect "logic" etc etc.
We also encourage such threads so that ppl can release pent up emotion through hissy fits.  [sm=tantrum.gif]

You must try harder RF. I suggest you practice by responding to my comments in a totally unreasonable way, preferably by missing my point and ideally by abusing me. Optionally use CAPS.    [sm=smile.gif]






Icarys -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 8:16:53 AM)

quote:

I'm not advocating his rights. I'm not that politically correct. In the here and now the case has come before a judge and a decision has been made based upon the details and the defendant's mental capacity. And just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean it should be acted upon. He has a 'right' to copulate but at what cost? I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to swallow the ramifications of his oops and nor should anyone else. Call it what you will, but you aren't living with the consequences of his ignorance because you're not climbing in bed with him.

Namaste,

~porcelaine


Before you take away a persons ability to pursue happiness you should be willing to exhaust all avenues and possibilities so that you don't infringe upon the rights that we all know we possess and take for granted it seems..especially when it's not us in the hot seat.

Now we don't know how competent and thorough this Doctor has been. Is it possible that he has spent minimal time trying to explain to the guy the implications of his actions? In this day and time I'd say it's very possible.

Hopefully they do and I'm wrong.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members" I believe that was Winston Churchill.




Icarys -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 8:23:47 AM)

Ishtarr...I understand your meaning behind starting this thread and it shows compassion for those who might not be able to defend their rights as far as I'm concerned. Don't let a bunch of self-involved, self-centered assholes with myopic views, who lack an ounce of compassion for anything other than what's in their little worlds, tell you any different.



osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 8:41:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

I'm not advocating his rights. I'm not that politically correct. In the here and now the case has come before a judge and a decision has been made based upon the details and the defendant's mental capacity. And just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean it should be acted upon. He has a 'right' to copulate but at what cost? I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to swallow the ramifications of his oops and nor should anyone else. Call it what you will, but you aren't living with the consequences of his ignorance because you're not climbing in bed with him.

Namaste,

~porcelaine


Before you take away a persons ability to pursue happiness you should be willing to exhaust all avenues and possibilities so that you don't infringe upon the rights that we all know we possess and take for granted it seems..especially when it's not us in the hot seat.

Now we don't know how competent and thorough this Doctor has been. Is it possible that he has spent minimal time trying to explain to the guy the implications of his actions? In this day and time I'd say it's very possible.

Hopefully they do and I'm wrong.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members" I believe that was Winston Churchill.






or it's minorities

look at how well we treat the minority that is super rich



Phoenixpower -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 9:00:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

I'm not advocating his rights. I'm not that politically correct. In the here and now the case has come before a judge and a decision has been made based upon the details and the defendant's mental capacity. And just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean it should be acted upon. He has a 'right' to copulate but at what cost? I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to swallow the ramifications of his oops and nor should anyone else. Call it what you will, but you aren't living with the consequences of his ignorance because you're not climbing in bed with him.Namaste,

~porcelaine


Before you take away a persons ability to pursue happiness you should be willing to exhaust all avenues and possibilities so that you don't infringe upon the rights that we all know we possess and take for granted it seems..especially when it's not us in the hot seat.

Now we don't know how competent and thorough this Doctor has been. Is it possible that he has spent minimal time trying to explain to the guy the implications of his actions? In this day and time I'd say it's very possible.
Hopefully they do and I'm wrong.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members" I believe that was Winston Churchill.



Someone not necessarily understanding possibilities, such as transmitting diseases is not something I would equal with ignorance. Apart from that it wasn't stated that he sleeps arount, does it? Yes, it was mentioned that he doesn't understand health impacts, but that itself does not equal fucking around. Apart from that, with him living in residential accomodation there is the possibility to control what he is doing and to be honest, reading at times how some folks willingly transfer STD's to other folks and don't care about their consequences, I can't remember having read that they were judged as being banned from having sex...last but not least protection can be applied and demanded from both sides, not just from his side, which again shows to me that it doesn't justify the reaction from that little we know about the actual facts

Well said, reminds me on a previous doctor who ignored my immense pain caused due to having fibromyalgia, with dismissing it that the pain would be weight related [8|] which quite frankly, wasn't the case, as I know now thanks to a different doctor



LadyPact -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 9:32:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
Before you take away a persons ability to pursue happiness you should be willing to exhaust all avenues and possibilities so that you don't infringe upon the rights that we all know we possess and take for granted it seems..especially when it's not us in the hot seat.

Now we don't know how competent and thorough this Doctor has been. Is it possible that he has spent minimal time trying to explain to the guy the implications of his actions? In this day and time I'd say it's very possible.

Hopefully they do and I'm wrong.

"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members" I believe that was Winston Churchill.

No, we don't know.  We've only got two short articles to tell us anything.  We know nothing of the group home where the man resides.  We know the other person that's been identified is also a client of that home, so we don't know if that other person is disabled or not.  (He's under assisted care for some reason, so that's kind of sketchy to begin with.)  We don't know the policies of that home, and if other clients are permitted sexual activities with others or not. 

The part that bugged Me when only the first article was presented was My own curiosity of why did this make it to a legal situation in the first place?  What was the issue that led to that?  If everything was fine, what prompted that action be taken?  Something wasn't fine and dandy at some point or this wouldn't have made it to court.  There were a couple of more clues in the second article to potentials.

It seems to Me that a number of folks on the thread have been concerned for this individual in thinking there might be potential for him being abused.  The other possibility that exists is that he has the potential to be an abuser.  If it's been determined that he doesn't have the capacity to consent, it's also possible that he doesn't have the capacity that he needs consent from others.   Scary line to be walking, especially when the second article mentions that the man had been accused of making lewd gestures at children.



tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 11:13:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Ishtarr...I understand your meaning behind starting this thread and it shows compassion for those who might not be able to defend their rights as far as I'm concerned. Don't let a bunch of self-involved, self-centered assholes with myopic views, who lack an ounce of compassion for anything other than what's in their little worlds, tell you any different.


ROFL... you have GOT to be kidding me, Icarys... You obviously have no clue what you are talking about if you are posting that to Ishtarr.



Icarys -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 12:53:28 PM)

quote:

ROFL... you have GOT to be kidding me, Icarys... You obviously have no clue what you are talking about if you are posting that to Ishtarr.

Why don't you tell us what the truth is....My words stand. No joke.



BitaTruble -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/8/2011 1:53:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

I feel it's morally wrong to try and create a society in which people are protected from all potential risks.
It never works, and I consider the cost in terms of loss of freedom to be too great, for an end result that never even comes NEAR to what people are promised in return for the freedoms they actually give up.


I understand your viewpoint, I really do but the citizens have rights that only extend to the point where fist meets nose and I shouldn't have to duck to avoid the fist. If someone is driving drunk, they are swinging at me and everyone else on the road and I'm the one is who is going to have to swerve to avoid the connection. I don't consent to that and it is apples and oranges away from your OP.

As far as Alans situation, I don't know that I would agree with the judges decision if I had further information but as it stands I don't think the *what if* is nearly enough for the government representative to stick its nose into Alan's bedroom.

There have been plenty of folks in this thread who are torn on the issue. I don't suppose that just because the judge wears those cool black robes that it's any easier for him. I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he denied Alan.. that he really did what he thought was best and put at least a step in there for an excuse to give him a chance to make a different decision.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625