> On Sep 15, 12:11 am, "J"
live.com> wrote:
>>> Tell them Eric, your wife wasn't in a coma. That's just the way she is in
>> bed.
>
> Once again, you show evidence that the size of your ignorance is
> larger than your mother's ass....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Secret sex tape can't be used, court says
>
>> Man accused of assault of wife in coma
>
>
>> Prosecutors can't use secret videotapes of a Watertown minister having sex
>> with his comatose wife while she was in a nursing home, the 4th District
>> Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
>
>> The man faces eight felonies - four counts of second-degree sexual assault
>> of an unconscious person and four counts of third-degree sexual assault - as
>> well as a misdemeanor.
>
> As well he should. One thing I've noticed about all you morons who
> claim the `slippery slope' is proof your ancient sexual taboos might
> stiil be relevant is that none of you morons understand the concept of
> "consent".
>
>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consent
>
> Main Entry: 1 con·sent
> Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsent\
> Function: intransitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French consentir, from Latin
> consentire, from com- + sentire to feel — more at sense
> Date: 13th century
> 1: to give assent or approval : agree
> 2archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
>
> Someone who is comatose cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless
> of their marital status. One must be conscious to consent to sexual
> activity. It takes "...two to tango..", idiot. If one says "no", then
> sexual activity should not occur.
>
> This is the same reason allowing homosexuals to legally marry will not
> lead to the legalization of bestiality or necrophilia. Animals and
> dead humans are not capable of consenting to a sexual union.
> Homosexuals *are*.
How is either any sort of a crime, when a dead human is already dead,
and an animal is considered as much - I mean I hardly see that it
crosses the line into cruelty to animals.
There are far too many laws, screwing over far too many people in the
United States, at taxpayer expense. While sex with an unconscious
person could be considered criminal if they later decided they were
violated, the woman in this case may consent if she ever wakes up.
The law should only press charges if the once living victim is dead or
incapacitated - in this case she is at the moment, but will she be in
the future? The man may have acted out of love, the wife may be happy
he got sex. Will it serve HER to destroy her husband? Furthermore,
must we not consider; how terrible of a crime is rape in the first
place? For those not brutally beaten nor permanently injured, nor
repeatedly raped, life will go on........ will it go on for an
attacker who is made a felon and sentenced to jail - to loose his
house and his job - where he faces peril of possible beatings, death
and rape himself? The government of the United States is the biggest
rapist in the book, as prison rape is worse if it is repeated.
Repeated, brutal, and/or terrorizing rape are far worse than mere non-
consensual assault which leaves no harsh injuries. The issue of rape
is sort of like hitting someone weaker than you when they're already
down. Would you rather be politely sexually forced or beat up and
injured but not raped? Perhaps both are bad, but if it was a one time
thing you could easily recover from a rape which had no physical
repercussions, much like a minor assault. Yes you deserve your just
desert for either, but what is an eye for an eye, a just punishment
for mere rape with no lasting physical harm? In many cases of date
rape it would seem the crime is not necessarily that much worse than
one of false restraint. It would otherwise seem the greatest part of
the crime would lie in the degree of terrorization of the victim. If
it is with somebody they know and trust they will be less likely to
fear physical harm and murder. And an obvious punishment of raping
would be the likely loss of a relationship with the victimized
person.
Is it fair if some people make a bigger deal out of sex than others?
What of people who have already slept together such as this couple?
Is mere anger enough to justify attacking and screwing something? Or
does that make you; or in this case the government you advocate; no
different than a criminal?
>> The case raises a number of issues, including a nursing home's obligation to
>> protect the health and safety of a patient, an individual's right to privacy
>> and questions of marital sexual abuse.
>
> And of course, the issue of moronic superstitous people ignoring such
> a simple concept as "consent" will be ignored. I'm going to laugh the
> next time you post something condemning Muslim men for doing the same
> damn thing...
>
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
