This poor judge is being made out to be a rape apologist by feminists (big surprise there).
In fact, the social services department in the UK is trying to get an order blocking her lawful husband from ever having sex with his wife, because she is “incapable of consent.” The reason? She has recently been diagnosed with a learning disability.
I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued…
In this context, the judge’s ruling is perfectly sane. I mean, married women like to fuck, too. Assuming the ruling holds, the government is basically saying that this woman can fuck any man except her husband, given that they’re seeking to bar him specifically.
Why should this married lady have to get on Tinder to get her needs met? Isn’t that what her husband’s cock is for?
Ahhh, government interfering in the private relations of spouses “for her protection.” No doubt I am naive, but I don’t think this would fly in the USA…yet. And how would these sickos enforce their ridiculous order? Subject a confused woman to invasive vaginal exams on the regular? Oh, yeah, that would be so much less traumatizing than for her to continue to enjoy the company of her husband. This poor judge is going to be forced to apologize, no doubt, but I commend him for showing enough sense and spine to issue this statement at all.
It’s just the continuation of the rebellion of wimminz. They know their husband is the lawful male authority in their life they can have licit sex with. But since that doesn’t bring about the rebellious tingles like fornicating with some Chad…she starts calling it rape because she doesn’t want to consent to licit sex.
The whole idea of (wimminz) consent is when the government and legal system really started getting into the bedroom. And I’d never go off her consent because she can just as quickly change the story after the fact if she doesn’t get the financial extortion or correct feelings as we’ve seen plenty of stories in the news media.
Legal systems .. like government can not be virtuous .. only the individual can be virtuous ..
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-identical-twins-child-maintenance-paternity-dna-test-goias-a8852436.html
A Bill of RIGHTS is to limit tge intrusion of government .. not to limit liberty / freedom of the individual ..
If it has to be done by force (government laws or judges) then it is by definition not liberty or freedom.
These very people that demand judges make law (that suits them) .. now demand that this judge have no effect .. why .. because he didn’t do as they demand?
Sour-Grapes (when it doesn’t go their way) you say? .. nope .. (pure evil) TYRANNY!
PS Wives give consent the day they say “I do” .. and here is my proof .. just like the man lets a womminz into his wallet when he says “I do” .. the government has no problem saying she’s entitled to his money post “I do” .. So .. HE must be entitled to dat azz post “I do” .. am I right .. how much moreso is he entitled to dat azz while they are still married? Oh yeah .. TYRANNY ..
PPS STAY SINGLE MY FRIENDS!
No doubt I am naive, but I don.t think this would fly in the USA.yet.
Yes, you are being EXTREMELY naive in thinking that this “can’t happen here.” It’s pretty much axiomatic that any lunacy that becomes Law of the Land on the western side of the Big Pond has its origins in the dying island on the eastern side from which this nation originated.
However, we don’t even have to take it that far. Once the absurd concept of “marital rape” became an actual crime punishable by law, the situation described in the OP became inevitable. This reactionby the femtard majority and their cuckstrati supporters really shouldn’t surprise anybody who has been paying attention. It’s just another H-bomb attack on marriage. And yes, this judge’s ruling WILL be overturned on appeal and insanity be allowed to reign free. Count on it.
I think of jaws often when I think of th wimminz and how they attack the very people they need to survive ..
On the left you have anyone .. or all of them .. (the fem-bot nazi’s and their army of attack dogs) .. on the right .. you have men trying to escape .. and warn others ..
As more men escape (the plantation .. e.g. MGTOW) .. and more men are warned .. we’re (i.e. men and innocents) gonna need a bigger boat for us all ..
Hey wimminz .. keep biting the hand that feeds you .. I promise .. eventually .. you’ll be rewarded like the shark in jaws.
If she is incapable of giving consent then the marriage is invalid.
This is not a one-time occurrence where consent is given when they get married. Consent in modern society is flexible and subject to change at the whims of the mob. At any point the state can invalidate the marriage (or at least the sex) if it determines that she didn’t consent or can no longer consent even if she did or can. The state decides whether she is capable of consent, not her, not her husband, not her family.
Imagine taking your wife through the airport for your international flight and having overzealous agents think you are sex trafficking a mentally disabled person. I believe this has already happened, but I can’t find the reference.
Go ahead and intimately touch your wife if she is in the hospital and not completely conscious and positively consenting and you’ll be charged with sexual assault.
It’s entirely plausible that I could go to the airport with my adopted children and get accused of sex trafficking. Our family has been subject to racism in the past because we don’t look the same as our children. I can only imagine how difficult it is if you marry a woman with a mental and/or physical disability that people think impairs their ability to consent.
And that’s why I don’t take ‘consent’ as something that has legality or morality.
We live in feminist clownworld and the nanny state is her boss when she beckons her call. Men are chattel.
Something that I’m confused about is whether the woman wants this sort of interference; I had supposed that this was not the case, and that some government busybodies were assessing her as incapable of consent in the course of their welfare check. After all, a married woman saying “I don’t want to have sex” is not rare, and since in fact most men don’t want to have sex with unwilling participants, the matter would simply end with the man joining those many others who have to endure a sexless marriage. But do you know any information to the contrary?
We can’t be sure, because the judges have sealed the records and imposed an order not to identify the parties.
As near as I can tell, this is a unilateral move by feminists in the social welfare ministry, who have taken it upon themselves to bar the husband (and only the husband) from sexual intercourse with the wife (and only the wife).
Basically, each can have sex, so long as it is in an affair with some stranger.
As shocking as it might seem, I don’t support the rape of one spouse by another. In the event that a spouse refuses sex, the proper remedy is divorce. I find that reasonable, and it is another big hint that the state is acting unilaterally here. Even “learning disabled” people have the right to divorce, and if she wanted one, she’d surely be getting one. That neither is asking for a divorce is a huge suggestion, at least to me, of more clownworld overreach by meddlers and troublemakers.
“As shocking as it might seem, I don.t support the rape of one spouse by another. In the event that a spouse refuses sex, the proper remedy is divorce.”
This is pretty much common sense. When the state gets involved in he-says-she-says disagreements, it’s going to get ugly. A man with a wife refusing to have sex with him does have other options. He can learn to live without sex. Or he an get a legal separation. False rape allegations are just as possible in marriage as out of marriage, but at least with marriage there are legal options (divorce or legal separation).
>As near as I can tell, this is a unilateral move by feminists in the social welfare ministry, who have taken it upon themselves to bar the husband (and only the husband) from sexual intercourse with the wife (and only the wife).
I wouldn’t doubt that Britain is a lot like the United States in that marriage isn’t between a husband and wife, but between a husband, wife, and the State. The State also gets to unilaterally defines the terms, making it an adhesion contract. Any kind of feature that’s consistent with a Biblical marriage, including implicit consent for sex (*), is considered “abusive”.
(*) Once upon a time, marriage was considered the only proper function for sex because marriage was considered the vehicle for children. The commitment of marriage tied the two together to the point that sex was an implicit feature. Look at the modern definition of rape versus the one of 50-100 years ago, and you’ll be enlightened.
I’d imagine the state took a bigger and bigger part in dictating the terms in the marriage over time when female suffrage was unleashed.
And here is another judge being punished for daring to ask an alleged rape victim whether she was, in fact, raped:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/new-jersey-judge-questions-alleged-rape-victim.html