It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court says police illegally taped nursing home sex

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mystery_Lady
 

see, at the end of the say you did make a fair post...
and as i said (and i still cannot believe this thread is continuing... WOW how people like to gossip!) at the end of the day HOW can people find it in themselves to be ranting about the private life of this husband and wife...

this is a prime example of what happens in a society where nosiness and gossip is seen on almost every doorstep...
and at the end of the day i am SURE this woman would NOT want everyone gossiping about her and her husband!
it is sick that they would even film this, let alone watch it, let alone taking it to court and broadcasting this to the world!

you know, he does seem like a guy who is dedicated to his wife and his religion, thus i am darn sure he KNOWS what the religious punishment is for rape, and thus would not do it!
now, for the people who have said they WOULD cheat on her with a few prostitutes THAT is sickening!
due to the fact that the laws in the old testament AND islaam state stoning to death is for the adulterer, i am sure this guy is NOT like you irreligious people who would see it as "a harmless bit of satisfaction" and i doubt that this thought would seriously enter his head if he truely is religious!

i am saddened people are still talking about such an event and also being maliscious about it...

as i quoted before, a hadeeth states:
do not concern yourself with that which does not concern you

we are also commanded in the qur'aan:
judge with JUSTICE

so, before ANY of you can judge this poor man, you need to know EVERYTHING including his intention

another hadeeth says:
actions are judged by their INTENTION...

maybe take some lessons from this, insha'Allaah...

anyways:
i'm sure you wouldn't want it broadcast if you neighbor saw you "playing" with your spouse and they appeared to be asleep to the onlooker!

[edit on 15-9-2008 by eyescryforALLAAH07]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yeah you are way off, some people even have sex until they are 80 or 90 years old, hey more power to the guy if he can still get it up. I am 31 so my husband and I will continue to have sex as long as he can get it up. Once the function fails sex is over with. age is just a number!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



Penetrating a coma patient is rape..and I have no idea if she sustained any bruises or if it was "violent..."


Well, if the woman had been injured, then I would say that there were grounds for further investigation. Injuries would have been aparrent to her caregivers. Short of that, this case should have never been made.

Your opinion that "penetrating a coma victim is rape" should have no bearing on the personal relationships of others.



...besides which the violation is an act of violence in itself (it is where the word comes from). Please re-read the definition of rape.


I have read the definition. The "violation" would be an act of violence if it were in fact a violation, I grant you, but you are assuming that the event was indeed a violation, which it was not necessarily. In fact, the opposite seems to be true judging from the further details of the case.



Please. Theraputic message like rubbing her feet is a bit different than using her as a sex toy.


And again you try to cheapen what happened by trying to portray the man as some twisted dirty old sex fiend when it seems quite clear that this is not the case. He was not using her as a sex toy.

And aside from that, you make a hypocritical leap here by saying that the two acts are "different" somehow. If this woman did truly hate her husband, I don't think she would want him touching her at all in any manner. So therefore, if he did not have her consent to touch her, he has indeed committed simple assault as well. After all, consent is consent is it not?



The police were protecting her rights not to get raped.


A dubious assumption which runs right into a simple fact. Maybe they were protecting her from rape, but they were certainly violating her privacy and that of her husband. Once again, do the police have the right to put a camera in your bedroom or mine, just because some neighbor thinks that something illegal might be going on in the bedroom? That perhaps you are imposing your will on your spouse?

By definition, I was raped by my woman last night. I didn't want to have sex because I was tired after working a double shift. But she coerced me by harassing me and not letting me sleep. Finally I gave in to her wants. Should I have her arrested and sent to prison?



She was not "having sex" with her husband. Her husband was having sex with her.. it was not a mutual action.


I see your point, but really we can't be sure of that either. There are some who say that coma patients are aware of their surroundings to some degree. But regardless, non-mutual physical performance does not constitute rape anyway.



Are you trying to say marriage is a permission slip for rape?


I suupose that would depend on how you define rape. See my example above from my situation last night. When you are in a relationship, you take on certain responsibilities to your partner. Tending to physical/emotional needs is a big part of that, and is not always done when "you feel like it."



My point was he was using her limp body for HIS sexual pleasure.. yet you agree..


I do not agree. We have no way of knowing what his state of mind was. He might very well have believed that she was "there" with him during the act. I don't see his actions as being solely based on the self and his needs exclusively.

By the way, I did not mean to sound insulting with my response to the "rubber doll" comment. I was trying to illustrate a legitimate point. You are equating what this man did to sex with a rubber doll, and that is not the case at all. He was not just sticking it in some knot-hole in the fence, and your portrayal of this case in that manner really shows where you are coming from, in that you have no respect whatsoever for these people. Either of them.

[edit on 9/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Without getting too personal, let's just say that I once knew a woman who most certainly demanded to be awoken every morning in this particular way. In fact, if that didn't happen, she was not a happy camper.


And without getting too detailed, let's just say that yes, if I was awake before her, coitus was one of the two expected methods of waking her up. I'll leave the other to your imagination.

I wasn't unhappy to hear of this expectation. A little shocked (in a happy way, mind you), but not unhappy.
I rose to the occasion. (pun fully intended)

[edit on 16-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
In the end, what this whole thing really boils down to is further deterioration of liberty, our rights as Americans and freedom-loving human beings. All it takes is the trigger-word "rape" to convince the sheep to give up more rights. The powers-that-be move the goalposts once again, and there are plenty of people right here in this thread who are enablers of fascism, wether they know it or not.

Rape, child-molester, sexual deviant, all triggers to whip up your emotions and intimidate you with fear so that you willingly give up your rights.

Wake up people. This is not about this couple who are being made a spectacle of and are being used to carry out an insidious agenda. This is about YOUR rights!

How is this case any better than an old-fashioned lynching?

This year we allow cameras here for this reason, next year we put the cameras over there for that reason, and the next thing you know everyone is walking around micro-chipped with a 24-7 feed to the police station of everything you see, hear, feel, think...

[edit on 9/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I am a nurse. I would not want to think my comatose client was forced to have sex with anyone. Without consent it is rape. When sex is not consented to and a person is not in a coma...it is rape...this to me is even more so the case. I would not want my own husband to have sex with me if I was in a coma. I have been in a coma as a teen for 3 days...and I experienced abolutely nothing until I regained my consciousness. So that answers the question of people seeing and hearing etc. while in a coma.

As for younger people who are making fun of adults who have sex *I am 56*, it is apparent that you are not grown up enough to join in this discussion and are extrememly egocentric...obviously thinking that because during one sex act you were created...therefore the individuals who created you have formed their whole lives, identity, and sexulality around your existence. I think not. Got along without you before I met you gonna get along without you now.etc.

Yup, it was rape.


From,

A nurse, a woman, a mature person



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Just because there is not major injury recieved from a rape does not make it any less of a rape. Apparently thats a favourite legal defence for rapists.. well next to "she wanted it".. and guess what? BOTH arguments have been used here.. in defence of sexual penetration of a coma patient.


I give up.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Again you assume that a rape did in fact occur. How is it that you know well enough to send this man to prison, that this couple did not enjoy a realtionship in which sexual right was presumed, unless specifically denied on ocassion perhaps? That consent was not inherent in their matrimonial vows?

What makes you know this woman's feelings on the matter better than her own doting husband?

How would you feel if this woman did finally wake up and promptly suffered a heart attack when she learned that her cherished loved was now spending 25 to life behind bars?

How would you feel to wake up and learn that everyone was watching you at your most intimate and vunerable, and that the whole country was talking about it?

EDIT to add:


Just because there is not major injury recieved from a rape does not make it any less of a rape.


No, but it would have been evidence to support the notion that a rape had in fact occurred, and would have shown probable cause to actually put surveillance in place. So what evidence is there that a crime had occurred?

There is also a flip side to that coin too you know. There are women, and men for that matter, that do enjoy physical pain and injury during sex.



Apparently thats a favourite legal defence for rapists.. well next to "she wanted it"..


I for one never said "she wanted it." But how do you know that she didn't? What magic gives you such insight to know the thoughts and feeling of this woman better than her own loved ones? What makes your own personal opinion sufficient to send this man to prison for what might be the rest of his life?




[edit on 9/17/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
In the end it all comes down to your own values. What do you value more, freedom and liberty, or the "safety" of a fascist police-state? With freedom comes certain responsibility, a price to be paid. And that price is that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free, than to convict one innocent man.

I for one feel that the scales have already been tipped far out of the favor of freedom. There are already far too many innocents paying the price for the imagined safety of the police-state.

www.innocenceproject.org...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Maybe he thought he could bring her out of the coma. by sexually stimulating her? just something to think about

gatorspudz



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


yes totally agree just asked my wife who is in your field aswell.

The woman could not give her "Consent" married or not that is still assult.

And if he loved her why violate her!



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Working in the healthcare industry for both elderly and disabled i as a worker have the clients rights to uphold regardless of previous wants likes or dislikes. Mariage is not a licence to have sex awake alseep dead or alive. the sister in-law did not know of what went on behind closed doors for all we know he could have been abusing his wife for years. as for the reading of the bible that means nothing havnt you heard of priests abusing children and they read the bible all the time.
Consent could not be given, regardless of being married.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunyiplady
 



Consent could not be given, regardless of being married.


Marriage is consent, barring of course the right to rescind that consent on ocassion with reason, or in divorce.

And aside from that, I have already asked my woman, and she has given me open-ended consent if we were to be placed in a similar situtation. So I suppose that I will have to pay some lawyer to draw up the papers to have my marital rights re-affirmed then?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Bunyiplady
 



Consent could not be given, regardless of being married.


Marriage is consent, barring of course the right to rescind that consent on ocassion with reason, or in divorce.

You may think that but marriage is NOT consent.. the definition of rape does not even mention marriage. Your idea means husbands could drug a "non-consenting" wife unconscious so she could not say no or resist. Are you okay with that? Drink spiking would be okay by you so long as it's a husband doing it?


Half a century ago marriage used to be considered consent (a wife was property) but laws got changed to make it illegal for someone to rape their wife. Previous to that a wife could get raped by her husband and it was allowed. Thankfully society's attitude towards women has evolved, well most of society anyway..

I'm going to try to (again) ignore this thread from now on as it just creeps me out that people think "rape is okay so long as it's..".

If someone does not give consent it is rape.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by riley]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Some very interesting views to be seen on this thread. I can understand people's points that he may have been trying to revive her or was just showing his love for her. I can see how people can think that but if he was trying to revive her it would have made so much more sense to speak to the doctors about it first. The first thing on my mind would be my wife's health and I would not like to compromise that by my actions. I would not like to unintentionally cause her harm. Speaking with the doctors would have been my first port of call.

Secondly, as an act of love. He may love her and she may love him but having sex with your lover without equal consent is not a loving thing to do. If she was merely a deep sleeper and he was able to have sex with her without waking her up, is that ok too? If she woke after without knowing what had happened?

I can say that if my partner, whom I love very much, pentrated me without my consent I would be very upset.

As for marriage being consent for sex? That's just about the craziest thing I've ever heard. It may be consent for the couple to have sex but not consent for just one half of the couple to have sex. As someone already said, if marriage was consent what's stopping you from holding your wife down whenever you please.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yossarian
 



I can say that if my partner, whom I love very much, pentrated me without my consent I would be very upset.


25 to life kind of upset? I doubt it.



As someone already said, if marriage was consent what's stopping you from holding your wife down whenever you please.


Because your wife (or husband) maintains the right to say no.

So in the end, if this woman woke up and had a problem with it then it would be rape.


[edit on 9/21/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



Your idea means husbands could drug a "non-consenting" wife unconscious so she could not say no or resist. Are you okay with that? Drink spiking would be okay by you so long as it's a husband doing it?


Why would he drug a "non-consenting" wife? Why not just go for it without the drink spike? You see, what you are asking is based on the "NO" having already been implied. Otherwise there would be no need for the spike in the first place.

But in the end, yes, drink-spiking would be fine, so long as the woman didn't have a problem with it. Weird, but not illegal.



Half a century ago marriage used to be considered consent (a wife was property) but laws got changed to make it illegal for someone to rape their wife.


And I support that change. But that does not mean that this man raped his wife. Can you prove that this was done against her will? If not, then you have no case, end of story.



If someone does not give consent it is rape.


And once again you presume to know more than this woman's own husband as to what her feeling were.

Consent is presumed and implied in marriage (or any serious realtionship), except of course for those times when consent is denied. I do not ask my woman for consent and I don't get a notarized permission slip. Just because she doesn't say "yes" doesn't make it rape.

And even there, there are things that one does for their partner. There are times that I really don't want to, but give in to her needs. And it goes the other way too. "Oh god, will you just finish already."



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
So in the end, if this woman woke up and had a problem with it then it would be rape.

What she doesn't know won't hurt her eh? Please go look up "rape" in the dictionary. Just because she cannot physically say "no" does not mean she is not thinking it.

This thread turns my stomach.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by riley]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 



What she doesn't know won't hurt her eh?


I didn't say that either, nor did I mean to imply that.



Please go look up "rape" in the dictionary.


I know very well the deifinition of rape. There is no evidence to show that this woman was "forced against her will."



Just because she cannot physically say "no" does not mean she is not thinking it.


Well, if you're gonna go down that road there is nothing to say that she was not grateful that they could still be together in this way, right along with the singing and reading and all the rest.

EDIT to add: And your statement reeks of "thought police."




[edit on 9/21/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The woman was not in a position to give her consent but she was also unable to say no. Therefore, you cannot assume consent is given just because there is a ring your finger.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join