Police illegally videotaped man having sex with wife in a coma

[spenser.d]

you say regardless of who she is, but that is not true. everything is taken into account in court. what's hard about it is that laws are not absolute. there is "wiggle" room for exceptions. the law is there to protect the victim from being harmed, physically or mentally. and in most cases, it's not a lack of consent, it's the fact that they victim expresses that they do not want to but it is forced on them anyways. the whole "lack of consent" thing is only in the law for when people get drugged against their will. rape has a negative connotation to it because it is associated with things being harmful. however he is not trying to harm his wife. he is, in fact, trying to help her.

if the husband, who has power of attorney over all things while his wife is in a coma, is doing it in the same medical sense as playing music or talking to people in a coma to help his wife then he can fight for that right in court. and the fact that he is the husband, the sister approves, and after talking to any family or friends to see their past relationship practices, he can be found not guilty and be allowed to continue.

once again, what he is doing is not malicious. the laws are not supposed to stop you from helping people which is why we have a court system. he is absolutely within his rights to try to help her and if the city disagrees he will just appeal to a higher court to help his wife

You don't seem to understand what defines rape in a legal sense. It's all about consent. There really isn't wiggle room. And you're last bit is a load of BS when an 18 year old guy can do time and get put on a state/federal sex offender list for having consentual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. That's not malicious either, but it's the law.

-Spenser

[Marshalus Veteran]

It's rape, but I feel sorry for the guy. Married to someone for that long, probably just very desperate for them to "snap out of it" and probably thought that would help... and make him feel better (not in a sexual sense, but in a "I love my wife" sense.)

And now the whole world gets to judge him.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

Thread Cleaned

[39 Thieves]

It's rape, but I feel sorry for the guy. Married to someone for that long, probably just very desperate for them to "snap out of it" and probably thought that would help... and make him feel better (not in a sexual sense, but in a "I love my wife" sense.)

And now the whole world gets to judge him.

Well, what I would like to see elaborated upon, if this is acceptable, why did the hospital staff alert the police when they suspected this was going on, and why was a search warrant granted? On what grounds is this decided to be legal or illegal either way?

[Krome]

the poor guy is evidently devoted to his wife as he visits daily and exercises her legs etc. I suspect someone needs to offer him support and counselling to help him instead of trying to brand him as a weirdo and having him locked up as a rapist.

What he's doing is continuing to love the woman he chose to be with. unfortunately his state of mind is obviously clouding his common sense. It's definately not rape, not in his eyes anyway. It's a sad story for both him and his wife

With you on that.

I don't, however, think he should be prosecuted for rape. This situation is tragic. He loves his wife and he's probably very lonely. That kind of thing can warp your perception of right and wrong. It's not the same as raping someone who is asleep or drugged - she isn't going to wake up in a few hours.

The best course of action would really be some decent support and counselling from the self righteous medical staff who should concentrate on what's actually best for their patients.

No one benefits from him being locked up. His wife won't get his visits and the other, more positive, attention from him. Who else is going to visit her everyday? What about if she wakes up and needs her husband, who is locked up for something she may well have found perfectly acceptable? I find it really sad that the decision was taken to prosecute rather than help this man.

With you on this.

You can't assume she's not consenting, just because she can't express herself.

If you're going to say that, then you could just as well assume that if she can't express herself then she is consenting.

The truth is, if she can't express herself you have no way of knowing whether she consents or not.

He probably thought it would wake her out of the coma like Sleeping Beauty.

Isn't sexual intercourse what two people do when they love each other and want to express their love and intimacy?

You guys are sick, treating it as if he's being violent towards her, or stealing something from her or something.

I know I love it when I wake up to find I'm getting head, and my woman often wakes to find I've slipped in and she's having a nice dreamy time of it.

LOL that's hilarious.

the difference is it'd be illegal to have sex with an underage child even if she gives consent, while it's not illegal to have sex with your wife when she gives consent.

well, I think when you say those stuff like "I love you, you love me", "I'll be forever with your, you'll be forever with me", etc. etc. in the Church, you basically gave a "long-term contract of consent" unless you explicitly express against it. By your reasoning if you and your wife drink some wine together and get yourselves drunk, then suddenly you can't touch her because she's drunk?

Of course the fact that her being his wife means a lot here, it means they have given each other consent to have sex with each other, unless explicitly stated otherwise. There's an implied consent when you got married, getting married implied you'll live together, have sex, have children, etc. etc. Else what's the different between married couples and strangers?

I am fully with you on this.

As much as I agree with 3 of you above, it does not mean it's normal or acceptable thing for this particular case. Not because the law defines it wrong, it's because it's morally wrong. The really flawed view is that many of these people using the law as the backbone of their argument, and then would not want the law to be fully ran their lives. If you define this situation based on the law, then might as well give up living your life and let the law control your every aspect of actions.

[primexx]

As much as I agree with 3 of you above, it does not mean it's normal or acceptable thing for this particular case. Not because the law defines it wrong, it's because it's morally wrong. The really flawed view is that many of these people using the law as the backbone of their argument, and then would not want the law to be fully ran their lives. If you define this situation based on the law, then might as well give up living your life and let the law control your every aspect of actions.

so you'd rather impose your own morality on someone who obviously don't share it.

[wellofsouls]

By your reasoning, you think that it's the man's right to have sex, just because they are married. Just because they are married doesn't mean there is any prior consent given to sex. If we use your "drunk" argument, then YES you can't touch her because she's drunk unless she has given her consent for you to do so. That's clearly obvious :rolleyes:

oh, by your argument, how can she give you consent when she's drunk? :rolleyes: Yes I do think it's the man's right to have sex with her wife unless she explicitly says no. That's the difference between married couples and strangers. I'd say all those vows and legal papers and stuff you have taken when you get married means long-term implicit consent. So for married couples, it's yes unless you explicitly says no, while if you are not married, then it's no unless you explicitly says yes. Thus for this "drunk" argument, then YES she has given me her consent to do so when she married me, unless she explicitly says no. Being married means a LOT, both legally and morally, that's clearly obvious :rolleyes:

I'm surprised how many people haven't heard of cases of rape from the victim's spouse. She didn't consent, end of. It's up to her if she wants to press charges though IMO.

those rapes are when the victim explicitly says no.

It's saddening to me to see just how many people don't understand what rape is. You are raping a woman if you did not get consent from her, regardless of who she is. I don't understand what's so hard about that concept.

-Spenser

And I don't understand what's so hard about the concept of getting married means a LOT. And I do think getting all those vows and legal papers and stuff at least count for some kind of consent, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Your joking right? If not your wife is weird if she is cool with you slipping her a sleeping pill so you can have sex with her. I guess her being awake is disgusting or something?

well, if she wakes up and say it's okay, then it's okay. if she wakes up and say it's rape, then off you go behind the bars.

That's what I'm saying, once you are married, then it means implicit consent unless you explicitly says no. I can touch my wife after we drink wines together because she basically has given me consent the day we get married. And haven't we all heard it, "innocent until proven guilty"? So yup I'd say this guy is innocent until his wife wakes up and explicitly says "no" to what he has done, then he's guilty. Else we have to presume she has implicitly given her consent because they are married.

Edited September 13, 2008 by wellofsouls

[Angelic Marge]

You'd prefer her moved on to someone else and cheater on her? breaking his vows?

I'm pretty sure his wife would approve of him having sex with her in a coma, as opposed to other women.

If you really love someone you don't cheat on them no matter what.

Your joking right? If not your wife is weird if she is cool with you slipping her a sleeping pill so you can have sex with her. I guess her being awake is disgusting or something?

I thought the same thing too but each to their own. There's nowt as queer as folk as they say.

[jwjw1]

Calling this "rape" is disrespectful to actual rape victims. Its definitely ****ing weird though.

What! what a retarded comment....you mean because an actual rape victim was awake and could yell NO!....Thats like telling the Judge that because you gave the girl a 'date rape' drug and she was knocked-out and unable to say NO!... it was ok.... :blink:

Edited September 13, 2008 by jwjw1

[wellofsouls]

What!...you mean because an actual rape victim was awake and could yell NO!....what a retarded comment. Thats like telling the Judge that because you gave the girl a 'date rape' drug and she was knocked-out she didn't say NO!...so it was ok.... :blink:

Like I said, if you are not married, then it means NO unless she explicitly says yes. While if you are married, then it means yes unless she explicitly says NO.

[tiagosilva29]

While if you are married, then it means yes unless she explicitly says NO.

What you just said is bull**** under the Portuguese law. Someone better dig this up in the USA's marriage rights and responsabilities.

[briangw]

And, how do you all know that she isn't enjoying it or that it's helping in some way? The whole coma thing is still unknown to the medical community and this probably wasn't even considered for research purposes.

[C++]

You people are still going on about this rape thing?

IT'S NOT RAPE.

All I see is "intercourse without consent." That is not even the definition of rape. The definition of rape is forceful sexual relations with a person against that person's will. In this case, the woman hadn't expressed consent but she hadn't expressed refusal, either. Do to her condition, she was unable to communicate a clear answer. So, we have to ask ourselves what her answer to sexual relations with this individual would be had she been able to express it. And, as the man's wife of 20 years, that answer is yes.

[Angelic Marge]

That's what I'm saying, once you are married, then it means implicit consent unless you explicitly says no. I can touch my wife after we drink wines together because she basically has given me consent the day we get married. And haven't we all heard it, "innocent until proven guilty"? So yup I'd say this guy is innocent until his wife wakes up and explicitly says "no" to what he has done, then he's guilty. Else we have to presume she has implicitly given her consent because they are married.

You have a strange way of looking at marriage, I'm glad I'm not your wife. I certainly did not give my hubby consent for anything the day we married :s

[Minifig]

Why would a man, have sex with his wife that is in a coma?

I'm going to hell for saying it, but maybe that's the only way he could get some?

[C++]

I'm going to hell for saying it, but maybe that's the only way he could get some?

That is just plain disrespectful. How about he could get some, but chose to stick by his wife, even in this condition, because that is how much he loves her? No... That obviously never crossed your mind...

[struct]

From Wikipedia but with no attributed source:

However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 U.S. states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery, or spousal abuse. It is also known that even if a spouse has an illness causing an inability to sexually respond, the other spouse may engage him or her in conjugal relations without criminal liability.

[nomis_nehc]

Hmmm, I am split on this. Rape?

Yes - she is not consenting there and then.

No - she is his wife and has previously consented.

Also, at least he still loves her and is with her - not getting it elsewhere.

Still feels a bit weird to me though! Just imagine she comes round - mid-coitus...

"Oh, um, hi. Let me just... Right. You're probably wondering what the heck I am doing... NURSE!!!!!"

I am rather in between this as well. I am leaning towards the it's okay camp though.

Rape is unwanted penetration with any object, and in this case, it's not necessary "unwanted" nor "forceful" (which is debatable I guess).

On top of that, she's his wife, so unless they were one of those sexless people I read about recently, I imagine they must have had sex in the past.

And I agree with the wife's sister. The guy was merely expressing his love to his wife. While some of you may not understand it, but when you are within the vicinity of someone you love so much, and think is the most beautiful person in the world... it's hard not to want to do something with (to) them.

In the past, I have almost always wanted to have sex with my gfs. All the time.

[Skulltrail-old]

Wow... maybe he thought she was going to die; screw her for old times? :laugh:

EDIT: She'll probably go into another coma when she wakes up to the news that her husband raped her and then was sentenced to 30+ years in jail. xD

[Arkaic]

:blink: :huh: :huh: :huh: come on! there's devout, then there's just plain rape

+1

its rape imo.

[primexx]

What you just said is bull**** under the Portuguese law. Someone better dig this up in the USA's marriage rights and responsabilities.

It's bull**** under all civilized legal systems.

IT'S NOT RAPE.

quote the legislation/case law that says it.

[megamanXplosion]

I consider it rape. That she is his wife means nothing. That doesn't maker her his property to do with as he pleases and their marriage contract almost certainly does not contain a Vagina Usage Clause that covers the times when she couldn't possible consent.