Honoring Old Love vs Medical Tyranny

[shagster01]

Do you? Huh.



Like...



... and what you are doing now? Very off putting. See?

That was a joke. I understand how you find humor off putting though.

You don't take your own advice on judging? Interesting.

I have an opinion, but I'm not up in arms about it. Opinions are different than judgments. I'm not pretending my opinion is the final say on the subject.

I'm not going with intuition but the validity of the rape test, the witnesses' changed statement, the content of the affidavit that led to the arrest and the other facts in the case that haven't been disputed.

Sure thing detective.

 

[elohiym]

She has more credibility than *you* do because, unlike you, she was THERE. Close enough to hear.

She changed her story and claims now that she didn't hear "sex noises." But since you want to play detective, and Shagster isn't going to complain about you doing so, tell us, Sherlock, why didn't the woman alert the staff while the alleged rape was taking place instead of waiting until the accused man was gone? If I believed someone was having sex with someone against her will, I would have alerted the staff immediately.

And yes, someone who has sex with someone in a place where he knows is not private IS an exhibitionist.

Privacy curtains in those rooms are there for a reason. Things other than sex occur behind those curtains, like changing underwear. People die behind those curtains, too. If you object to stuff like that, when you eventually find yourself in a home, denied the right to have consensual intercourse and forced against your will to cohabit with a stranger, make sure the stranger you room with doesn't need to change her underwear, undergo catheterization or some other uncomfortable procedure ... or die. Tell them you don't want a curtain because you know that your money didn't buy you any privacy.

Also, feel free to explain what you meant by "honoring old love".

Allowing old people to have consensual sexual intercourse without interference from quacks.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why are you claiming on one hand to KNOW he didn't do anything and then stating "whatever they did"? For some reason you seem to believe you know more than someone who was on the other side of a curtain. She has more credibility than *you* do because, unlike you, she was THERE. Close enough to hear.

She's an old lady who changed her story.

Why isn't he being charged with public indecency?

And yes, someone who has sex with someone in a place where he knows is not private IS an exhibitionist.

Privacy screen = private.

Also, feel free to explain what you meant by "honoring old love".

Not breaking up old people and forbidding marital intimacy because they fail an inadequate cognitive test.

 

[elohiym]

That was a joke. I understand how you find humor off putting though.

You suck at humor and sarcasm.

Read zoo's posts if you want to improve your sarcasm; he's the master of sarcasm, on TOL.

I have an opinion, but I'm not up in arms about it.

Yes, you believe he's guilty; it's your intuition. If you believed he was innocent and the trial was just starting, and you saw the implications of this case beyond that courtroom, you might be more activist-like in your approach.

Opinions are different than judgments. I'm not pretending my opinion is the final say on the subject.

My opinion isn't based on my intuition, but on the facts.

Sure thing detective.

Your selective criticism in this thread is off putting.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I'm not pretending my opinion is the final say on the subject.

Evidence that I or elo have done so? We're just pointing out the actual submitted information and arguing that age and senility shouldn't needlessly block them from having their sexuality or kidnap them away to break them up. Or charge them with rape for willingly doing what they started in marriage in a sound mind.

Not only that, but this appears to be a political witch hunt, with no decent facts like a positive rape kit.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why are you claiming on one hand to KNOW he didn't do anything

rape kit.

and then stating "whatever they did"?

He's accused of doing an innocent thing. He's the victim.

You are redefining words like "private" "indecent" "kidnapping" --- why don't you just get an online account and start your own dictionary? Be sure to also include words like "victim" "consent" and "force."

 

[Rusha]

He's accused of doing an innocent thing.

Having sex in the earshot and eyesight of others with a mentally and physically ill woman is innocent?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Having sex in the earshot and eyesight of others with a mentally and physically ill woman is innocent?

Eyesight?

What's up with the bigotry against people with disabilities?

 

[Rusha]

Not breaking up old people

They were still married.

and forbidding marital intimacy because they fail an inadequate cognitive test.

In. A. Medical. Facility. Perhaps his vows included "love, honor and serve me regardless of your health for the last days of your life".

 

[Rusha]

Eyesight?

What's up with the bigotry against people with disabilities?

It's clearly not bigotry to state that sex is something that CONSENTING adults do in privacy.

This sums up the case:

http://www.dps.state.ia.us/commis/pib/Releases/2014/Rayhons_Complaint_&_Affidavit.pdf

 

[1PeaceMaker]

They were still married.

They were separated, not allowed to live together, go anywhere together, or even have a private room.

Perhaps his vows included "love, honor and serve me regardless of your health for the last days of your life".

It's pretty sexist of you to assume who initiated what.

 

[Rusha]

They were separated, not allowed to live together, go anywhere together, or even have a private room.

In sickness and in health use to actually mean something. Such as dealing with a different type of relationship should your spouse become ill. Perhaps in his mind her inability and unavailability to provide him with sex was something he was unwilling to tolerate.

It's pretty sexist of you to assume who initiated what.

:chuckle: It's as if your selective usage of that word actually means something.

 

[Traditio]

By your own standard, everyone in this thread is posting from *ignorance*.

Yes. And some of us in greater ignorance than others.

However, the ONE circumstance that cannot be denied is that the place in question was NOT their private residence.

You do understand that unless you own or legally reside in your place of residence, common sense would dictate that it's not okay to just "do it", especially with an audience present.

A husband having sex with is ill wife in the presence of spectators is neither honorable or loving.

Let us suppose that this actually happened. So what? Suppose that he demonstrated really bad judgment (and, again, we weren't in his shoes, Rusha; people make bad decisions when they're in bad circumstances; it happens all the time; we can sit here from the comfort of our armchairs and say: "Oh, yes, in such and such circumstances, such behavior is just out of the question." Until you're in that circumstance, at which point you either start thinking differently, or else, don't really think much at all.) Either way, that doesn't make our man guilty of rape. :idunno:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

In sickness and in health use to actually mean something.

What about "to have and to hold in sickness and in health?" They were both blocked from having a private area where they could snuggle and sleep, and do innocent harmless, married-old-people stuff.

Stuff that is scientifically proven to improve her health, sanity, quality of life and length of life.

Such as dealing with a different type of relationship should your spouse become ill.

You think if my husband loses his mind and becomes senile I should agitate him by neglecting his love for me and not being intimate with him when he needs me? Would you really try to accuse me in terms like "rape" or "sexual assault?"

Attitudes like that towards sex shorten the lifespan considerably and probably hastened her demise. Every time she asked to be intimate after the ban, she had to be turned away, hurting her spirit.

How would you feel if your spouse constantly neglected you romantically and you couldn't remember from one day to the next why he would do that?

Perhaps in his mind her inability and unavailability to provide him with sex was something he was unwilling to tolerate.

Perhaps SHE couldn't tolerate it, and the stress of frustration and feelings of rejection helped kill her, along with her inability to go places with him that they both loved.

 

[Rusha]

What about "to have and to hold in sickness and in health?" They were both blocked from having a private area where they could snuggle and sleep, and do innocent harmless, married-old-people stuff.

Stuff that is scientifically proven to improve her health, sanity, quality of life and length of life.

I don't believe his *sincere* desire to "snuggle" is what landed him in hot water. lain:

You think if my husband loses his mind and becomes senile I should agitate him by neglecting his love for me and not being intimate with him when he needs me? Would you really try to accuse me in terms like "rape" or "sexual assault?"

No worries. You and your relationship were never a consideration in this discussion.

Attitudes like that towards sex shorten the lifespan considerably and probably hastened her demise.

Because sex is the most important thing in everyone's life ... above all else ...

Got it.

Every time she asked to be intimate after the ban, she had to be turned away, hurting her spirit.

That is your claim ...

How would you feel if your spouse constantly neglected you romantically and you couldn't remember from one day to the next why he would do that?

Remembering one day to the next doesn't really apply in her situation. Not demanding one have sex or pressuring them because they are ill is not neglect. It's love, consideration and selflessness.

Perhaps SHE couldn't tolerate it, and the stress of frustration and feelings of rejection helped kill her, along with her inability to go places with him that they both loved.

Perhaps not. Perhaps this is how *you* would have felt and are projecting your feelings on her.

 

[Sitamun]

Don't forget Rusha, in another thread 1PM did state that men can come to serious medical harm if they don't have sex when they "need" it.

 

[Rusha]

Don't forget Rusha, in another thread 1PM did state that men can come to serious medical harm if they don't have sex when they "need" it.

Oh, I haven't forgotten that *gem*.

 

[Traditio]

Remembering one day to the next doesn't really apply in her situation.

At the very least, do a google search for "Alzheimer's disease."

 

[Sitamun]

At the very least, do a google search for "Alzheimer's disease."

I understand the disease. The issue it comes down to is: Was this a lucid moment? Unfortunately we will never know. The woman was in the home because her daughters thought that her husband could no longer take care of her on his own. Could they have brought in help at their mothers home. Technically yes, but that is VERY expensive, and insurance will only cover so much. The whole incident leaves a bad taste in my mouth if you get my meaning. I feel bad for the guy because alzheimer's is a disease that is worse for the suffers loved ones. To me personally the incident is "shady" at best. It COULD have been an old busy body causing trouble, then again she may have changed her story cause she felt bad for the guy. We will NEVER know. Honestly, the best thing to take from this is another good reason to have your own living will.

 

[Traditio]

I understand the disease.

My comment was directed to Rusha.

The issue it comes down to is: Was this a lucid moment?

That's really only one particular issue, and the only question that would solve is whether she actually consented (and was able to consent) at that particular moment. My default answer is "almost certainly not."

To my mind, simply answering "no" to that question doesn't imply rape.

There could be habitual consent (even though not actual at the time). Simply because she couldn't say "yes" doesn't in and of itself indicate that she would have said "no," had she been able to understand the question and make an informed choice.

But let us suppose that there was neither habitual nor actual consent.

The simple commission of a guilty act doesn't imply the guilt of the doer. This is what I've been stressing.

Honestly, the best thing to take from this is another good reason to have your own living will.

My only points are the following:

1. Rusha has no right to judge the man in question.

2. There's no way that he should be in prison.

I make no further claims either against or in support of Elo. and PM.