25
   

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 01:36 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Animating the judicial elaboration of a positive consent standard is an ideal masculine sexual subject constituted through the transactional logic of new consent norms. He is a subject who embraces sexual responsibility and assumes the risk of criminalization when he fails to take active steps to ensure consent. He is rational, subjecting his sexual actions to the calculus of risk avoidance. He asks, rather than takes, and those who fail to ask are constructed as failed risk managers. The discourse of risk and risk calculation pervades judicial descriptions of departures from standards of rational masculine sexual subjectivity
https://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v41/docs/Gotell_final08.pdf

Lise Gotell
RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT IN CANADIAN SEXUAL ASSAULT LAW: NEOLIBERAL SEXUAL SUBJECTS AND RISKY WOMEN

Not me, nor most guys that I know. We solve this problem by being very particular about which women we play with.....those who indicate sympathy with this strain of Feminist Ideology and/or any historical indication that they are the type to go running to the police about men being assertive need not apply. The sex positive feminists are generally OK, but not always. There are a good number of self described feminists who cringe at being asked for everything, they want men to be forceful so long as they dont get hurt and so long as the man is aiming to giving her what she wants, vocalized or not, consciously acknowledged or not.

As I said a few hundred pages back, most women of quality want a man who will throw her up against the wall, and who knows when the right time is. Asking ruins everything.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 04:48 am
@firefly,
Quote:
And just how long is your rap sheet?
ou

Cute Firefly and nice logical attacked on Hawkeye but more to the point how must money are you now taking in/earning a year due to the rape industry?

Second if the GOP does not renew the funding are you going to work for Burger King or McDonald?

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 12:06 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Second if the GOP does not renew the funding are you going to work for Burger King or McDonald?

Funding for VAWA will be renewed, but not at anywhere near the level that is wanted or that was expected just a couple of years ago. I will be interested to see what the terms are. I highly doubt that the Feds will place anymore unfunded mandates on the states to do this or that bidding from the feminists. I expect that there will be another statement for the need for gender fairness, the budget will be negative after inflation year over year, and the states will be told to decide themselves how best to spend it. Just a gut feeling though, no one seems to be talking about how negotiations are going, all we know is that the men's rights groups are much more active than ever before and we know that the Feminists are defending their flank from the so called Grizzlies...conservative women who have had their fill of the radical leftists in the women's movement claiming to speak for all women.

The plan was to use the International VAWA act as a springboard for another round of expanding law to bash men and to justify getting more money, through pitching the feminist agenda as a human rights issue. The plan was to align themselves with war rape victims, African genital mutilation victims, and the oppressed women of the Muslim world.....to gin up the pity party. That did not go as planned though. Once the Grizzlies and the mens rights groups found their voice this became a step too far, the feminists had to back off.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 12:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
I should add that the Feminist pitching women as an oppressed minority group has been responded to with a resounding thud. The word "minority" loses all meaning when it is attached to a group that makes up over 51% of the population. The word "oppressed" is just as denuded when it is used to describe a group that is doing far better than the others in many important areas, and where the others themselves have a solid argument for they them being the oppressed ones.

The feminists for a long while got away with gross abuse of language in the attempt to sell their agenda. Those days are over.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 01:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I should add that the Feminist pitching women as an oppressed minority group has been responded to with a resounding thud.


What is even more interesting to me is the Feminists trying to sell the idea that you can separate out the interests of men and women so completely.

Trying to sell that the concept that the overlapping of the interests of the two sexes is not a thousands times more then the non-overlaps.

Hell the paintings of the majority of men as evil wife beaters, abusers, rapists of women in itself is insane.

Numbers such as ¼ of all college women being rape victims and 43 percent of all women in relationships with evil men are abuse victims and so on is on it face nonsense and silly.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 01:45 pm
While no feminist, or even pro-feminist, position statements have been posted in this thread by either myself, or any other female posting in this thread, for about 370 pages we have witnessed the somewhat bizarre spectacle of Hawkeye, BillRM, and, for a time, Ionus, incessantly ranting about "feminists" and "rape feminists". The use of such strawmen, or "pseudo-opponents", has been used by these three as a vehicle to trivialize the crime of rape, apologize for the actions of rapists, attack the funding for rape crisis centers, ascribe blame to the victims of rape, and to discredit the reports of those who claim to have been raped.

What we have heard from Hawkeye, and BillRM is the sort of propaganda put forth by the most irrational fringe elements of the men's rights movement. They have regurgitated the language and thinking found on such "men's rights" Web sites ad nauseum. And, because such Web sites have little or nothing to do with true gender equality or fairness, but are rather gatherings of men angry and bitter about any displays of female power, their prime targets must be "feminists", because that group has most staunchly advocated for increased female political and legal power.

So, of course, Hawkeye and BillRM must pretend they are arguing with actual feminists posting on this thread--despite the fact there don't seem to be any here--and they cannot even name the actual feminists they feel are leading "the movement" in the real world. That's because they are simply using this thread to spew forth anti-female and misogynist propaganda for their own personal reasons. Hawkeye is afraid that his BDSM sexual activities will eventually be criminalized, and BillRM is still fuming that his ex-wife accused him of assaulting her during their divorce, which he claims was a false allegation--and, because those issues are totally unrelated to the current sexual assault/rape laws which are now in effect, they have persisted in their rather bizarre and irrelevant attacks on what they call the "rape feminists" and, what they deem "the rape industry" to try to manufacture some excuse for their hundreds of posts which have been totally unrelated to the topic of this thread.

If there is such a thing as a "rape industry", it is being supported by people like Hawkeye and BillRM who actively promote rape, by disregarding current legal requirements of "consent", by excusing the behavior of rapists, by blaming the victims of rape, by trivializing the incidence and impact of rape, and by discrediting the complaints of rape reported by victims of that crime--all of which contributes to making rape a crime which can be committed with relative legal impunity. By promoting rape, these two indirectly insure that the crime of rape will continue to flourish.

These two have no genuine interest in men's rights--certainly no interest in the rights of men who have been the male victims of rape. They have no genuine interest in the rights or concerns of female rape victims--female rape victims who are the sisters, daughters, mothers, wives, and grandmothers of men who love them, and men who are genuinely concerned about the crime of rape. What we have heard incessantly from these two has been a defense of rapists.

Current rape laws are not "anti-sex" or "anti-male"--they simply define the legal difference between sexual assault and consensual sexual activity. That is no different than legally defining the difference between voluntarily giving money to a panhandler and being mugged. To argue against these current rape laws, in the manner that Hawkeye and BillRM have done, is to advocate for legalized non consensual sexual activity--they want rape decriminalized--they want rape to be legal. Oh, they're willing to make some exceptions, and to allow for the most forcible rapes, preferably those where the victim is very badly beaten, to still be considered a crime, but they want the majority of actual rapes which occur to be decriminalized. They are pro-rape advocates. And any female who can't resist, or who follows the advice of law enforcement not to strenuously resist--like those who are elderly, infirm, disabled, or impaired by drugs or alcohol or cognitive deficits--should just be regarded as fair prey for rapists--because these two don't want such rapes regarded as crimes because extreme force might not be required to effect such rapes.

It is more than a shame that genuine men's rights issues are tarnished by the likes of such self-serving misogynists as Hawkeye and BillRM. Their angry rants, in fact, detract from instances of real legal injustices against men because they become lost in their bitter diatribes against women who simply demand the right not to be sexually exploited, or sexually assaulted, or sexually victimized, and who want those who commit such crimes to be held responsible for their actions. These are not "feminist" issues, they are basic civil rights issues. But, if Hawkeye or BillRM admitted that, they would be exposing themselves as the fraudulent, disingenuous, misogynistic propaganda purveyors most of us already know them to be.

One value of threads like this one has been to expose people like Hawkeye and BillRM, by letting them post their bile, and voice their hostility toward women, so that everyone can see the sort of attitudes that contribute to making rape a crime which can be committed with relative impunity. These two help to reinforce the reasons why we need those sexual assault/rape laws, and why we need them enforced.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 01:55 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
What is even more interesting to me is the Feminists trying to sell the idea that you can separate out the interests of men and women so completely.

A point that the Grizzlies make often and with vigour...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 02:17 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It is more than a shame that genuine men's rights issues are tarnished by the likes of such self-serving misogynists as Hawkeye and BillRM. Their angry rants, in fact, detract from instances of real legal injustices against men because they become lost in their bitter diatribes against women who simply demand the right not to be sexually exploited, or sexually assaulted, or sexually victimized, and who want those who commit such crimes to be held responsible for their actions. These are not "feminist" issues, they are basic civil rights issues.
That was IdiotBill's approach, and look where it got him. Is there some reason that it should work better for you?

As soon as we see for certain that you object to the conversation, as soon as we see for sure that you object to the voices of those who dont agree with you being heard we should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are afraid that you cant win this argument on facts and logic. You are a thug Firefly, and now you have exposed yourself to all.

OOOPS!
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 02:33 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Current rape laws are not "anti-sex" or "anti-male"--they simply define the legal difference between sexual assault and consensual sexual activity


Sorry the very idea that two legal adults can go out drinking and after having sex the man can be charge with rape if the woman had any regret the next day is both anti-sex, anti-male and anti-women all round into one idea.

No adult had a duty to act as a guardian to another legal adult be that adult male or female.

Flipping a concept upside down you can see how silly such a concept is.

A man get himself under the influence of alcohol and regret having sex with his female date and then try to charge the woman with sexual assault under the theory that she should had known he was too far gone to grant meaningful consent.

When we have on the fringe but coming on strong such concepts as rape by fraud IE lying about being married or not or you being a Muslim instead of Jewish.

Quote:
If there is such a thing as a "rape industry", it is being supported by people like Hawkeye and BillRM


There is now a river of federal money to the tune of billions yearly that had indeed created a rape industry.

Paying for grants to created nonsensical studies such as 1 in four women in college had been rape or 1/3 to almost half the women had been victims of domestic abuse.

The surveys creators doing a magic act in how they define either sexual assaults and acts of domestic violence to get those crazy numbers.

And on and on we go..............................


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 02:44 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
What we have heard incessantly from these two has been a defense of rapists.

What you have heard is a reasonable, rational, fact based argument that we are on the wrong track with sex law....as well as some ideas of what the right track might look like. It has also been an argument to finally ditch the emotional manipulation employed by the feminists when dealing with this situation. It is very important that we get this right, we have let the immature and self promoting Feminists lead us down a dark alley for far too long, and now it is time for the adults to take over and apply a fix.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 04:05 pm
And, the more that Hawkeye and BillRM continue to post, the more they prove the validity of my last post.

Non consensual sexual intercourse is rape. That's all the current U.S. state rape laws say. That's all the laws in the U.K., and Canada, and Australia, and Scotland, etc. say. That is not "anti-sex"--unless one prefers and seeks non consensual sex. That is not "anti-male"--unless one assumes that normal men cannot confine themselves to consenting sexual activity. The laws are designed to deter and punish rapes--non consensual sex.

And that is the definition of rape that Hawkeye and BillRM want abolished. They want the vast majority of rapes decriminalized--rapes of the elderly, the infirm, the developmentally and cognitively and physically disabled, the rapes of those impaired by drugs and alcohol--whether the victims are male or female--wherever the victims aren't beaten to a bloody pulp to prove that extreme force was used, they don't want the rape to be regarded as a crime.

BillRM says that men shouldn't be expected to be the "guardians" of women--and obviously he feels that men shouldn't be expected to inhibit their impulses when the expression of such impulses violates the law. That's like saying that thieves shouldn't be expected to be the "guardians" of other people's property, or inhibit their urge to steal. It's an idiotic statement. That's exactly why we need the sexual assault/rape laws--the laws are the "guardians" of people's rights--their rights to have their bodies protected, their rights to have their property protected--the laws protect people's basic civil rights. And those who choose to violate those laws are criminals, common criminals who deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

Hawkeye and BillRM both seem to have value systems regarding women and sexuality that are heavily influenced by pornography and violent pornography, as well as the power relationships and behaviors embraced by practitioners of BDSM, and that is apparently the perspective they bring to the topic of rape. They want men to be able to rape without consequence, and women to shut up about the fact that this is happening.

Well, unless society decides to abolish all laws pertaining to property rights, and physical assaults, so that people can just take what they want, and punch and beat whoever ticks them off, with no fear of punishment, the sexual assault/rape laws aren't going to be abolished any time soon--because those laws exist for similar reasons--to protect basic civil rights. Listening to Hawkeye and BillRM tells everyone just why the sexual assault/rape laws are needed. They are pro-rape advocates. They are rape apologists. They want the laws changed, and rape decriminalized, so that rape victims can have no access to the justice system. Perhaps this is how they express their anger and fear of women--turn more of them into prey for sexual assaults and let them get what's coming to them--that's how bitter and angry and twisted these two are.

Keep posting Hawkeye and BillRM, let the world continue to see what pro-rape advocacy and sexism and misogyny sound like. Keep railing about your bogeyman "feminists" while you ignore the very real victims of rape.



hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 06:36 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Keep railing about your bogeyman "feminists" while you ignore the very real victims of rape.


I'll put my caring about the victims of real rape, defined as forceful penetration over indicated refusal of consent, up against yours any day.

Quote:
BillRM says that men shouldn't be expected to be the "guardians" of women--and obviously he feels that men shouldn't be expected to inhibit their impulses when the expression of such impulses violates the law. That's like saying that thieves shouldn't be expected to be the "guardians" of other people's property, or inhibit their urge to steal. It's an idiotic statement.
Bullshit, sex is a transaction, theft is a violation. Only rarely is what you are calling rape a clear cut violation, most of the time it is a transaction that was not performed according to the law or according the the desires of the feminists. And you put men fully in charge of making sure that the transaction is legal, you are willing to punish men severely if the transaction is later determined to be not legally sound. In contract law when a contract has been poorly performed we normally say the contract is null and void, we do not decide to hold one party responsible and punish them. Transactions for sex are not that special, that we have a whole new set of ethics and standards for sexual transactions that completely goes against normal standards, normal expectations of behaviour and normal use of the law is not logically supportable. Sex IS special to the feminists, because according to them sex is the main instrument of oppression of females by the males and so they want to control sex at gun-point and limit individual rights to perform sex, but this was always bullshit and we NEVER should have agreed to shape a whole area of law around this delusional thinking of the feminists
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 07:33 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
disabled, the rapes of those impaired by drugs and alcohol--whether the victims are male or female


Firefly when had a woman been charge for having sex with a man under the influence? So once more you are being dishonest by implying that this nonsense work both ways.

By Firefly thinking an adult women had no repeat no duty to control her own damn drinking or drug used.

Yes repeat that an adult human female being can placed the blame on her behaviors after drinking on another human and had him imprison!!!!

Sorry if a woman tell a man that she wish to had sex with him or even is eager to had sex with him he is not under any obligation to then perform drugs and alcohol tests to made sure she can give “legal” consent.

The very concept is insulting to women beside being insane on many other levels.

The simple solution if she find she does not care for the results of her own judgments under the influence is to cut back on the drugs or the drinking.

Quote:
elderly, the infirm, the developmentally and cognitively and physically disabled,


Why can not the elderly consent to sex Firefly? Do you mean the sub group of the elderly that are not of sound mind or do you mean pass a age limit you would take away the right to consent to sex across the board?

Physically disabled you mean the blind or the deaf or those who can not walk had also lost their rights to consent to sex?

You words as always sound good until you look at them and then they are beyond being silly.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 09:39 pm
@firefly,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454328,00.html


Nursing-Home Sex Becoming More Acceptable
Wednesday, November 19, 2008


Print ShareThisNursing-home residents have sexual needs too. And now researchers are finding ways to educate staff on the taboo topic and provide accommodations for the elderly to shack up under some privacy.

"Most staff have the same mindset many of us do, which is 'I don't want to think about my parents having sex, let alone my grandparents,'" Gayle Doll, who directs Kansas State University's Center on Aging, told LiveScience.

The researchers suggest educating staff about sexuality and making sex in nursing homes less hush-hush.

In the long run, they hope federal guidelines will help all nursing homes deal with sexuality in a positive way, especially as baby boomers age and bring their 1950s and 1960s attitudes about sex with them to the facilities.

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

The research, whose details were announced Tuesday, was presented in October at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging conference.

"By law, you can't always lock a room, but you can offer residents some privacy," Doll said. The semi-private rooms that are typical in nursing homes pose a problem for residents who want to engage in sexual activity, either alone or with a partner, Doll added.

In fact, past research has shown that men and women continue to participate in sexual intercourse and "solo activities" well into their 70s and 80s.

Let's talk about sex

The researchers' suggestions come from studies about sexuality in three Kansas nursing homes.

In the study, Majka Jankowiak and Laci Cornelison, research assistants at the Center on Aging, surveyed the staff before and after a workshop on sexuality that they had presented.

Rather than telling nursing-home staff what to do, the researchers used the workshop to get staff talking about sex and asking questions.

The surveys, as well as anecdotal feedback from the participants, showed a marked change in attitudes.

"They really felt this was a topic that they needed to be educated on," Jankowiak said. "Part of it is that American society is not supportive of older people and sex. It's been a taboo, and it's an even bigger taboo in nursing homes."

Jankowiak added, "After the presentation, the participants felt more confident talking about it and dealing with sexual expression of residents."

Such shifting attitudes ended up having a positive effect on a married couple who had moved into a nursing home room with two hospital beds.

One spouse had to have a leg elevated, but it was on the same side as the partner's bed. The positioning made it tricky for them to hold hands.

Some staff members didn't see the importance of allowing the couple intimacy and said the problem couldn't be fixed.

"But someone who had been to our presentation encouraged everyone to move the furniture," Cornelison said.

Safety first

Sex in nursing homes brings up some safety issues. For instance, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can be concerns for a generation that may not have the same awareness that younger people do today, the researchers say.

Also, adult children may have concerns about their parents' safety or how a new relationship will affect the family or their inheritance. The researchers are developing materials to help family members deal with these questions.

"What they fear is exploitation or that the role the parent played will go away," Doll said.

In addition, Alzheimer's and dementia raise questions about the ability to consent, and these conditions also may spur sexual behavior that's inappropriate.

"Even though we advocate for residents' rights, there are things that are inappropriate," Doll said. "But staff must be able handle this without residents feeling embarrassed. Inappropriate behavior can just come from people needing relationships, not necessarily sexual ones."

Copyright © 2008 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

See Next Story in SciTech
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 09:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I'll put my caring about the victims of real rape, defined as forceful penetration over indicated refusal of consent, up against yours any day

Fine. That should mean that you accept the "No means no" date rape laws as indicative of "real rape". The "No" indicates refusal of consent, and, particularly when the female is not willing, the penetration would have to be forceful to be accomplished.
That, of course, does not mean that physical force was used to accomplish the rape, but simply that the penetration itself was done in a forceful manner--as you yourself have defined it.
Quote:
Bullshit, sex is a transaction, theft is a violation.

Sexual assault is no more a transaction than theft is a transaction. Again, you confuse sexual relations with sexual assault. The difference between offering, or giving, your body to someone, and having your body violated, or assaulted, is a matter of consent. Just as the difference between giving your property to someone, or having it taken, or stolen, from you is a matter of consent. There is no difference.
Quote:
Sex IS special to the feminists, because according to them sex is the main instrument of oppression of females by the males and so they want to control sex at gun-point and limit individual rights to perform sex

What on earth do "the feminists" have to do with this? Are you under the misguided impression that women--all women--and men--all men--don't want to have some control over what is done to their bodies, and by whom? This isn't a "feminist" issue. This has to do with the right to protect the integrity of one's body. And both men, and women, have the right to protect their bodies from unwanted types of sexual contacts. The only limit on "individual rights to perform sex" is when the sex is non consensual. You have no right to rape.
Quote:
And you put men fully in charge of making sure that the transaction is legal

No, men are simply responsible for making sure that their own behavior is within the boundaries of the law--they are responsible for making sure they have lawful consent.
What is this crap about contracts?
Quote:
In contract law when a contract has been poorly performed we normally say the contract is null and void, we do not decide to hold one party responsible and punish them

Really? Are you not familiar with breach of contract suits? Or suits for damages?
The "contract" in sexual activity would be that all acts have to be consensual--that both parties agree they want the sexual contacts and sexual acts.
Your problem is that you feel your "right to perform sex" is limited by the need to have consent from the partner. You don't want to recognize that the partner has a say in the matter--or the state has a say in the matter when the partner is underage or impaired in some way. You don't want to accept any restrictions on your sexual activity imposed by anyone. Well, Hawkeye, that's how rapists think. They don't bother with consent. That's why you're a pro-rape advocate.
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 10:00 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
rapes of the elderly


It must be a lot simpler Firefly to be able to view the world in terms of male sexual predators and females victims but it hardly ever that simple.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192178/pagenum/all/#p2


An Affair To Remember
She was 82. He was 95. They had dementia. They fell in love. And then they started having sex.
By Melinda Henneberger
Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 1:14 PM ET
Melinda Henneberger chatted online with readers about this article. Read the transcript.

Bob's family was horrified at the idea that his relationship with Dorothy might have become sexual. At his age, they wouldn't have thought it possible. But when Bob's son walked in and saw his 95-year-old father in bed with his 82-year-old girlfriend last December, incredulity turned into full-blown panic. "I didn't know where this was going to end," said the manager of the assisted-living facility where Bob and Dorothy lived. "It was pretty volatile."

SINGLE PAGE
FacebookDiggRedditStumbleUponCLOSEBecause both Bob and Dorothy suffer from dementia, the son assumed that his father didn't fully understand what was going on. And his sputtering cell phone call reporting the scene he'd happened upon would have been funny, the manager said, if the consequences hadn't been so serious. "He was going, 'She had her mouth on my dad's penis! And it's not even clean!' " Bob's son became determined to keep the two apart and asked the facility's staff to ensure that they were never left alone together.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related in Slate
Dan Engber explored the sexual politics of nursing homes. Steve Lichtman profiled a grandmother willing to bear all. Michelle Tsai detailed the medical benefits of sex toys. But it isn't all about sex—Dahlia Lithwick tackled the Supreme Court's discussion of age discrimination in the workplace.After that, Dorothy stopped eating. She lost 21 pounds, was treated for depression, and was hospitalized for dehydration. When Bob was finally moved out of the facility in January, she sat in the window for weeks waiting for him. She doesn't do that anymore, though: "Her Alzheimer's is protecting her at this point," says her doctor, who thinks the loss might have killed her if its memory hadn't faded so mercifully fast.

Advertisement
But should someone have protected the couple's right to privacy—their right to have a sex life?

"We were in uncharted territory," the facility manager said—and there's a reason for that. Even the More magazine-reading demographic that thinks midlife is forever seems to believe that while sex isn't only for the young, exceptions are only for the exfoliated. We're squeamish about the sex lives of the elderly—and even more so when those elderly are senile and are our parents. But as the baby boom generation ages, there are going to be many more Dorothys and Bobs—who may no longer quite recall the Summer of Love but are unlikely to accept parietal rules in the nursing home. Gerontologists highly recommend sex for the elderly because it improves mood and even overall physical function, but the legal issues are enormously complicated, as Daniel Engber explored in his 2007 article "Naughty Nursing Homes": Can someone with dementia give informed consent? How do caregivers balance safety and privacy concerns? When families object to a demented person being sexually active, are nursing homes responsible for chaperoning? This one botched love affair shows the incredible intensity and human cost of an issue that, as Dorothy's doctor says, we can't afford to go on ignoring.

Dorothy's daughter, who contacted me, said that, in a lucid moment, her mother asked her to publicize her predicament. "We're all going to get old, if we're lucky," said the daughter, who is a lawyer. And if we get lucky when we're old, then we need to have drawn up a sexual power of attorney before it's too late. Who controls the intimate lives of people with dementia? Unless specific provision has been made, their families do. And for Dorothy, which is her middle name, and Bob, which isn't his real name at all, that quickly became a problem.

"Who do you love?" Dorothy asked me, right after her daughter introduced us. She'd married her first—and only other—sweetheart, a grade-school classmate she'd grown up with in Boston and waited for while he flew daylight bombing raids over Germany during World War II. Together they had four children, built a business, and traveled all over the world, right up until she lost him to a heart attack 16 years ago. But she never mentions him now and doesn't like it when anyone else does, either, because how could she not remember her own husband? Her daughter visits every evening, and because Dorothy loves kids, her daughter pays the housekeeper to bring hers over every afternoon, "and she thinks they're her grandchildren, and it makes her happy."

But even showing me around her well-appointed, little apartment in the nice-smelling assisted-living facility was an exercise in frustration for Dorothy: She joked and covered, but she might as well have been guiding me through Isabella Stewart Gardner's house, because all around were tokens from her past that have lost their meaning for her. There were tiny busts of Bach and Brahms, a collection of miniature porcelain pianos, Japanese woodcuts, and some Thomas Hart Benton lithographs she picked up for a few dollars in the '40s. "These are all my favorites," she said, pointing to shelves of novels by the Brontes and books about Leonardo da Vinci and Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. But her expression said that she couldn't recall why she liked these volumes best, and what I think she wanted me to know is that she once was a person who could have told me. When her daughter mentioned Bob's name—Bob, who was led away in January, shouting, "What's going on? Where are you taking me?" right in front of her—it wasn't clear how much she remembered: "He came and he went, and there's nothing more to say."

So it was left to her daughter, her doctor, and the woman who runs the assisted-living facility to explain how this grown woman, who lived through the Depression and survived breast cancer, managed a home and mourned a mate, wound up being treated like a child. "Come back anytime," Dorothy told me sweetly.

Downstairs, in her bright, tidy office, I met the woman who runs the facility—one of the nicest I've seen, with tea service in the lobby and white tablecloths in a dining room that's dressed up like a restaurant. In 30 years of taking care of the elderly, she's seen plenty of couples, but none as "inspiring" or heartbreaking as Dorothy and Bob. Which is why she keeps a photo of the two of them on her desk. In the picture, Dorothy is sitting at the piano in the lobby, where she used to play and he used to sing along—with gusto, usually warbling, "I dream of Jeanie with the light brown hair," no matter what tune she was playing. She is all dolled up, wearing a jangly red bracelet and gold lamé shoes, and they are holding hands and beaming in a way that makes it impossible not to see the 18-year-olds inside them.

Before Dorothy came along, the manager said, Bob was really kind of a player and had all the women vying to sit with him on the porch. But with Dorothy, she said, "it was love." One day, the staff noticed that they were sitting together, then before long they were taking all their meals together, and over a matter of weeks, it became constant. Whenever Bob caught sight of Dorothy, he lit up "like a young stud seeing his lady for the first time." Even at 95, he'd pop out of his chair and straighten his clothes when she walked into the room. She would sit, and then he would sit. And both of them began taking far greater pride in their appearance; Dorothy went from wearing the same ratty yellow dress all the time to appearing for breakfast every morning in a different outfit, accessorized with pearls and hair combs.

Soon the relationship became sexual. At first, Dorothy's daughter and the facility manager doubted Dorothy's vivid accounts of having intercourse with Bob. But aides noticed that Bob became visibly aroused when he kissed Dorothy good night—and saw that he didn't want to leave her at her door anymore, either. (Note to James Naughton: Bob did not need what you are selling.) His overnight nurse was an obstacle to sleepovers, but the couple started spending time alone in their apartments during the day. When Bob's son became aware of these trysts, he tried to put a stop to them—in the manager's view because the son felt that old people "should be old and rock in the chair." When I called Bob's son and told him I was writing about the situation without using any names, he passed on the opportunity to explain his perspective. "I don't choose to discuss anything that involves my father," he said, and he put the phone down.

But according to the facility manager, the son was convinced that Dorothy was the aggressor in the relationship, and he worried that her advances might be hard on his father's weak heart. He wasn't the only one troubled by the physical relationship. The private-duty nurse who had been tending Bob also had strong feelings about the matter, said the manager: "At first, she thought it was cute they were together, but when it became sexual, she lost her senses" for religious reasons and asked staff members to help keep the two of them apart.

Employees wound up choosing sides—as did other residents, including some women who were apparently jealous of Dorothy's romance. And because the couple now had to sneak around to be together—for instance, cutting out when they were supposed to be in church—their intimacy became more and more open and problematic. At one point, the manager had to make Bob stop "pleasuring her" right in the lobby, where Dorothy sat with a pillow placed strategically over her lap. In all of her years of working with elderly people, the manager said, this was not only her worst professional experience but was the only one that left her feeling she had failed her patients. She had a particularly hard time staying neutral and detached, she said, because she kept thinking that "if that was my mom or dad, I'd be grateful they'd found somebody to spend the rest of their lives with."

One day when Dorothy's daughter arrived to visit, she found Bob sitting in the lobby, surrounded by a wheelchair brigade of dozing people who had been posted around him by the private-duty nurse to block Dorothy from approaching him. That's when Dorothy's daughter got the state involved and started throwing around the word lawsuit, which only made things worse, the manager said. "Once she started talking legal, that pushed things over the edge." The state did send someone in to try to mediate the situation—but then the mediator was diagnosed with cancer and died just five weeks later. Though the mediator's replacement tried to pick up where he had left off, she was never able to establish a rapport with Bob's son.

Finally, Bob's family decided to move him and insisted that neither he nor Dorothy be told in advance. No one in either family was there the morning Bob's nurse hustled him out the door. Later, the manager called his son and asked if there was any way Dorothy might come and visit just briefly, to say goodbye. The son thought about it for a few days and then said no, his father was already settled into his new home and was not thinking about her at all anymore. The lawyers told Dorothy's family that there was no way they could make the legal case that Bob's rights were being violated by his family, because you couldn't put people with dementia on the witness stand.

Dorothy's son-in-law, who is a doctor, suspects Bob's son of fearing for his inheritance. Bob had repeatedly proposed for all to hear and called Dorothy his wife, but his son called her something else—a "gold digger"—and refused to even discuss her family's offer to sign a prenup. According to Dorothy's daughter, Bob's son told her, "My father has outlived three wives, including the one he married in his 80s, and your mother is just one of many." But surely Bob's safety was a true concern, too, and maybe his son had religious or moral qualms? "I don't think so," the manager said. "I don't think he meant his dad any harm, but he couldn't see what his dad needed. … He wanted his dad to have a relationship but on his terms: You can sit together at meals, but you can't have what really makes a relationship, and be careful how much you kiss and don't retire to a private place to do what all of us do."

Though Dorothy might or might not remember what happened, "there's a sadness in her" that wasn't there before, the manager said. Bob "gave her back something she had long lost—to think she's pretty, to care about her step and her stride." She eats in her room now rather than in the dining room where she shared meals with Bob. And she no longer plays the piano. A new couple in the facility has gotten together in the last few weeks. The manager called their families in right away and was relieved to see that they were happy for their parents, and the families have been taking them on outings together. As a result of the whole experience, the manager, who is 50, recently had a different version of "the talk" with her 25-year-old daughter, instructing her never, ever to let such a thing happen to her or her husband: "I hope I get another shot at it when I'm 90 years old."

Dorothy's doctor also took their experience personally. "Can you imagine as a clinician, treating a woman who's finally found happiness and then suddenly she's not eating because she couldn't see her loved one? This was a 21st-century Romeo and Juliet. And let's be honest, because this man was very elderly, I got intrigued; my respects to the gentleman." His patient was happier than he could ever remember; she was playing the piano again, and even her memory had improved.

And though the doctor never laid eyes on Bob, in general, he said, the fear of sex causing heart attacks is wildly overblown: "If you've made it to age 95, I'm sorry, but having sex is not going to kill you—it's going to prolong your life. It was as if someone had removed the sheath that was covering [Dorothy], and she got to live for a while." But after the trauma of losing Bob, Dorothy's doctor came close to losing his patient, he said, adding that most people her age would not have survived the simultaneous resulting insults of depression, malnutrition, and dehydration. "We can't afford the luxury of treating people like this. … But we don't want to know what our parents do in bed."

Then the daughter interjected that Bob's son certainly didn't want to see them having oral sex, and the doctor proved his own point. Holding a hand up to stop her from saying any more, he told her, "I didn't need to know that." But maybe the rest of us do.

1 CommentsAdd YoursOr join the discussion
on the FrayLike This Story
More from Slate


You might like:
The David Epstein incest case: If homosexuality is OK, why is incest wrong? (from Slate)
Naughty Nursing Homes Is it time to let the elderly have more sex? (from Slate)
The man I thought was my daughter's
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 10:21 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Firefly when had a woman been charge for having sex with a man under the influence? So once more you are being dishonest by implying that this nonsense work both ways.

Let the men bring charges if they wish to do so.

Are you saying that a man cannot anally rape another man who is drunk? Of course he can, and the one who is raped can press a complaint.
Both genders are protected by sexual assault laws.

Quote:
By Firefly thinking an adult women had no repeat no duty to control her own damn drinking or drug used.

Yes repeat that an adult human female being can placed the blame on her behaviors after drinking on another human and had him imprison!!!!

You are such an idiot...
The woman is responsible for her drinking--she is not responsible for her own rape. If she indicates the sex is unwanted, or if she is too drunk to resist, or to give knowing consent, the sexual intercourse is rape. And those rapists risk winding up in prison because of their own actions.
Quote:

Why can not the elderly consent to sex Firefly? Do you mean the sub group of the elderly that are not of sound mind or do you mean pass a age limit you would take away the right to consent to sex across the board?

Are you totally unable to comprehend? You have taken what I said out of context. I am discussing RAPE.
Rapes of the very elderly may involve no real force, even when these are rapes by a stranger. Very elderly women may rather passively submit out of fear of being physically assaulted. Therefore, the element of "force" may be missing, but the act was still rape because there was no consent and the sex was unwanted.
The elderly can and do enjoy consensual sex.
Quote:
Physically disabled you mean the blind or the deaf or those who can not walk had also lost their rights to consent to sex

Again, you have taken what I said out of context. We are discussing RAPE.
Someone who is in a nursing home and paralyzed, for instance, may not be able to resist a rape. Someone who cannot cry out or move cannot resist a rape. Someone who is blind is more vulnerable to a sexual assault from a stranger.

You and Hawkeye keep insisting that the use of extreme force is an essential element of what you consider "real rape". However, the rapes of the very elderly, or the physically disabled, may not require much force at all--because the person is fearful or has limited ability to resist--but they are still very real rapes. The more vulnerable or impaired a woman is, the higher the likelihood is that she will be a rape victim. A rape does not have to involve extreme physical force.

It's unfortunate that you are so unable to make valid points that you must pathetically resort to taking my sentences out of context, in an effort to distort their meaning. You're just a complete loser.






BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 10:30 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
BillRM have done, is to advocate for legalized non consensual sexual activity--they want rape decriminalized--they want rape to be legal. Oh, they're willing to make some exceptions, and to allow for the most forcible rapes, preferably those where the victim is very badly beaten, to still be considered a crime, but they want the majority of actual rapes which occur to be decriminalized.


Rape as force or the threat of force is used is rape no beating is require a threat of a beating is more then enough to turn it into a rape.

That along with drugging of a woman behind her back or having sex with a woman who is not enough aware of her situation and surroundings to grant consent is rape. That does not however mean that it is rape if the woman had consume enough drugs or alcohol of her own free will to effect her judgment to a degree is rape as it is not rape.

Now strangely almost all the cases of rape you had cheerfully posted on this never ending thread would come under the above conditions for rape.

So for some strange reason you are not postings cases of this claims majority of rapes that I would not consider rape.

How come dear Firefly?

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 10:33 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
So for some strange reason you are not postings cases of this claims majority of rapes that I would not consider rape.


I've posted a great many of those cases.

Unfortunately, your memory is far from your greatest asset. Drunk

And your ability to write coherent sentences is on an equal par. Drunk
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2011 10:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
If she indicates the sex is unwanted, or if she is too drunk to resist, or to give knowing consent, the sexual intercourse is rape. And those rapists risk winding up in prison because of their own actions.


I have no problem and never had problem with the above on this thread with a careful footnote that if she is high by her own actions the bar for so drunk to not be able to give knowing consent is set damn high indeed.

Second footnote is if she would state that she does not wish to have sex and then a man place non-physical pressure on her for sex and she then end up agreeing to have sexual intercourse that is not rape either.

IE examples if you do not put out tonight you will have to find another place to live rent free, or if we do not have sex tonight I am breaking up with you and having sex with Mary or..............
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/07/2025 at 09:52:48