I very much doubt if the legislators foresaw a case like this one. Maybe they should have, but I’ll bet they didn’t. The law, it seems to me, incorporates a general assumption that married couples (at least those who are cohabiting) can have sex, even after one of them is incapacitated. That kind of cuts against some of the arguments that some folks in this thread have been making about what the default assumption is.
Very handy argument, @Hunt: the legislators must have meant their law to be interpreted the way you think it should be interpreted, even though the text clearly contradicts what you think it should be. The legislators were thinking about mentally incapacitated spouses, but it never occurred to them that mentally incapacitated persons are sometimes institutionalized? Maybe you’re right, but as I say, your argument looks suspiciously handy. The legislators might also have thought if a person is institutionalized for mental incapacitation, they can no longer consent.
But Cardinal Fang, the law refutes the argument that you’ve been making through this whole discussion, that the default assumption should be (or is) that an incapacitated spouse should be assumed to no longer consent to sex. Doesn’t that give you any pause?
The law is clear about people who are incapacitated at the time of the marriage, like 14-year-olds and people with Downs; those people had someone else consent for them when they got married. I agree it’s weird about people who become incapacitated after marriage-- but you have no evidence that the legislators secretly wanted those people to be deemed capable of having sex in all cases, whether the person lived at home or in an institution, but forgot to embody that clarity in the legislation. They might have not thought about it at all, or they might have written the legislation intentionally as it is worded, believing that if a person is so far gone as to be in an institution, and is mentally incapacitated, they can no longer consent.
Remember, I say that the legislation should be clarified: there should be defaults, and spouses, families, care facilities and medical professionals should be clear on what is permitted and what someone will be arrested for doing. It’s Consolation who says no changes are needed.
The law refutes the argument that what Rayhons is accused of doing is legal. Doesn’t that give you any pause?
Maybe the legislative assumption was that the person providing or overseeing care is in the best position to determine capacity. If they are living together then that is presumably the spouse, and if not, that determination may very well be taken out of your hands by a doctor or medical director of the facility providing the care.
It’s creepy that it’s legal to have sex with your comatose wife, in Iowa, provided she is living in your house.
CF, I am curious - why are you calling her comatose? She was not in coma, she was suffering from dementia. Medically different conditions.
Jury finds Rayhons not guilty.
BunsenBurner, I am curious, why do you say I called Mrs. Rayhons comatose, when I have never done that? Give a specific post number, or retract right now. I don’t like being misquoted.
CF, aren’t we talking about this specific case? I thought the entire point of discussion was whether a demented person is capable of consenting, and if so, where the line would be drawn. I am not misquoting you, but I possibly misunderstood where you drew the line.
Thank God. I remain firmly convinced that any conviction would have been thrown out as unconstitutional in any event.
We talk a lot about many different things in threads. In this thread, for example, Hunt asked about tattoos for people with brain damage. Does that mean Hunt thought that Mrs. Rayhons had brain damage and an unfinished tattoo?
Again, specific posts, or retraction and apology. I don’t appreciate being misquoted. I have never said that Mrs. Rayhons was in a coma.
CF, my previous post was not meant as an insult or attack on you by any means. Apologies if you took it this way.
The entire point of discussion is people with various degrees of mental incapacitation, and whether they can consent to sex. At the one end of the scale would be someone of sound mind. At the other end of the scale would be someone in a coma. In the middle would be people at various stages of Alzheimers, as well as the mentally ■■■■■■■■ and some other people. We need to draw the line somewhere. If we refuse to draw any line, then sex with people in a coma is legal-- which, apparently, is true for spouses of comatose people in Iowa, provided the comatose person lives with their spouse.
That’s not an apology, nor is it a retraction. You said that I said Mrs. Rayhons was in comatose. I did not say that. Retract your comment.
@Cardinal Fang The post that BB was referring to was probably #305 where you said
. When I first read that post I thought you were talking about Mrs. R., even though I think you meant in general.
Would you agree that the line drawing should involve a multi-factor analysis of every particular situation, and not in every case the line will fall in the same place? I am not sure of the last sentence in your post. Are there any court decisions that interpreted that statutory language in that specific way?
CF: I have really appreciated your exploration of this topic. And agree these are issues that will impact many of us coming up. I find it very useful to consider scenarios and possible responses before such a situation arises in my own family. I agree with you it is something society as a whole will have to deal with as baby boomers age. Thank you.
I said, It’s creepy that it’s legal to have sex with your comatose wife, in Iowa, provided she is living in your house.
In addition to not being in a coma, Mrs. Rayhons did not live with her husband. How would this be thought to apply to her?
I meant it as a general comment on the law that HarvestMoon1 had just quoted. No amount of incapacitation matters, in the case of spouses living together in Iowa.
That’s what made me realize you didn’t mean Mrs. R. Someone who hasn’t followed this thread closely might not know Mrs. R didn’t live with her husband.