News0 min ago
A Right To Sleep With Ur Wife?
51 Answers
"A senior judge has said he "cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right" than the right of a husband to have sex with his wife in a case concerning a woman with learning difficulties."
What an insensitive comment. This may cost him his job.
http://
But to give a question... Does a man have a fundamental right to sleep with his wife?
What an insensitive comment. This may cost him his job.
http://
But to give a question... Does a man have a fundamental right to sleep with his wife?
Answers
Of course the real question here is Does a man have the fundamental right to sleep with his wife if she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent? Followed by, if not how can the law prevent it happening?
16:31 Wed 03rd Apr 2019
-- answer removed --
YMB - // So anyone who 'needs' sex is animalistic? I see. //
No, but anyone who thinks sex is as necessary as oxygen, and must have it at all costs, within marriage if available, outwith marriage if not - is animalistic in my view.
They are animalistic the sense that they are responding to a biological urge and wish to appear unable to have any control over it, which they do, but opt not to utilise in the interests of civilised behaviour
No, but anyone who thinks sex is as necessary as oxygen, and must have it at all costs, within marriage if available, outwith marriage if not - is animalistic in my view.
They are animalistic the sense that they are responding to a biological urge and wish to appear unable to have any control over it, which they do, but opt not to utilise in the interests of civilised behaviour
spath - // "A senior judge has said he "cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right" than the right of a husband to have sex with his wife in a case concerning a woman with learning difficulties." //
On further reflection, I think what his honour may have meant to impart is the fundamental right of a husband to have sex with his wife … without interference from the judicial system.
Either that part of his observation was edited in the interests of whipping up a story, or he omitted to include it, which was careless speaking on his part.
On further reflection, I think what his honour may have meant to impart is the fundamental right of a husband to have sex with his wife … without interference from the judicial system.
Either that part of his observation was edited in the interests of whipping up a story, or he omitted to include it, which was careless speaking on his part.
-- answer removed --
spath - // Sex is necessary, else we wouldn’t be here and it is a natural instinct //
So is defecating, which, unlike sex, is actually essential to survival, but as a civilised society, we don't obey all our instincts as and when they come upon us.
Civilisation demands that we constrain our urges to suit situations, not simply indulge them like they are itches to be scratched.
So is defecating, which, unlike sex, is actually essential to survival, but as a civilised society, we don't obey all our instincts as and when they come upon us.
Civilisation demands that we constrain our urges to suit situations, not simply indulge them like they are itches to be scratched.
I think it is the wrong question all round. It should be about her rights- his haven't changed. Does this mean she is never allowed to have sex again beause others have decided her communiation isn't good enough? That seems a lot more of a fundamental right than her husband obeying an already existing law. Do we just assume she will never want to?
Latest Posts
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News6 mins ago
Society & Culture8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
