Now elderly people have to be protected against consensual sex. And a comatose woman needs protection from sex with her husband. A maximum age of consent for elderly, on top of the minimum age for 17 year old children?
Elder (in)justice: a critique of the criminalization of elder abuse.
Similarly, in the name of combating sexual abuse of older adults, some states have criminalized consensual sexual conduct that would otherwise be legally permissible. (72) For example, in the state of Washington, it is a crime for a disabled person age sixty or older to engage in consensual sexual activity with someone who provides that person with paid transportation. (73) In Vermont, it is a crime for anyone who works or volunteers at a caregiving facility or program to engage in sexual acts with any person whose ability to care for him or herself is impaired due to "infirmities of aging." (74)
With the effect that elders have no chance for sexual gratification. Be it because they are great pickup artist, be it for promises and money, or just for the good heartedness of the care giver.
Likewise, the Wisconsin Individual-at-Risk Restraining Order makes it possible to obtain a restraining order over someone–and hold them criminally liable for violating that restraining order–even where the "victim" neither lacks capacity nor objects to contact with the third party. (75) The fact that an older adult is competent is not a basis for dismissal of the petition. (76) Moreover, an order can be granted even if the respondent does not pose a risk to the older adult, but merely poses a threat to an investigation of alleged mistreatment, interferes with an offer of services to the older adult (regardless of whether the older adult wishes to obtain such services and regardless of whether those services have been found to be in the older adult’s best interest), or threatens to mistreat or mistreats an animal owned by or in service to the older adult. (77)
Even a caretaker of the same age group as the patient must not engage in any relationship. Or a husband, as seen in the example further down.
If people really were concerned with manipulation of elders (or minors), they could perfectly legalize the behavior after a notarized consent form, or a psychological counseling session.
But, these laws interfere in personal lives with no exception, no way out.
The emergence of these new, often autonomy-limiting crimes reflects recognition that elder abuse is a societal ill, as well as beliefs about older adults that, at least in part, incorporate ageist stereotypes. The emergence of undue influence statutes are consistent with age-based stereotypes of older adults as being gullible, cognitively impaired, and less able to make good choices about the use of their resources. (78) The Vermont and Washington sexual abuse statutes are consistent with stereotypes of older adults as non-sexual beings, (79) and of sexual activity by such individuals as abnormal or pathological. (80) These stereotypes are not necessarily subconscious. California’s elder abuse criminal statute is explicitly based on a "finding" and declaration by that state’s legislature that "elders… may be confused, on various medications, mentally or physically impaired, or incompetent, and therefore less able to protect themselves, to understand or report criminal conduct, or to testify in court proceedings on their own behalf." (81)
As usual in political correctness: a reasonable grievance (financial, emotional, and physical abuse of the elderly) is blown out of proportion and expanded to encompass almost all potential behavior.
Of course, sex isn’t the only issue here. If dealing with elderly parents becomes as dangerous as dealing with American women, I’m pretty sure a lot of children will opt out. If, for example, grandma gets drunk and resentful and calls the police crying about how mean her children have been, the resulting arrest probably won’t incline the child to go out of his or her way for her in the future Feminists to criminalize elderly sex
And, even wives need to be protected from care-taking husbands.
Police Illegally Taped Nursing Home Sex, Wisconsin Court Rules
Johnson’s wife was admitted to the nursing home after suffering a stroke. Court records say she was unable to speak or sit up, and nursing home staff members fed, cleaned and turned her. Prosecutors say she was comatose.
What a dedicated husband
Johnson visited her frequently and sometimes would close the door to her room so they could have privacy as allowed by the nursing home. But staff members tipped off police, fearing she was in danger because, they suspected, he was having sex with her.
Even a comatose patient will get traumatized by having sex with her husband. /sarcasm
Serious! Doesn’t a comatose patient have other problems in life? Either she will not notice at all, but then it is nice that hubby is still faithful, still cares. Or she notices the sex, then it is probably the only high point in a pretty drab comatose life.
Maybe we need to write a living will that allows the husband to have sex, without explicit consent.
This prosecution of the husband for sex with his comatose wife seems to be simply an offshoot of feminist redefined *rape definition. A consequence of marital rape and date rape legislation.
Any normal person (before feminist theory) would assume that a husband would have an automatic consent to sex, barring very strong proof to the contrary. Imagine, every wife has to wake up her husband to obtain consent before giving him a blow job in the middle of the night. Well, women probably get away without rape accusations.
But men have to obtain clear and unambiguous consent from their wives before, and during every sex act with their wife. Sick!
Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.
David W. Johnson, the husband, escaped prosecution. Not for recognizing his self sacrifice for his wife, for recognizing his (and her) right to sex in marriage. No, the prosecution was correct.
police violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.
"We are satisfied that Johnson’s expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable," the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.
The ruling means prosecutors cannot introduce the videotapes as evidence in their case against Johnson, who is charged with felony sexual assault for having intercourse with his wife without her consent at least three times in 2005.
How does this prosecution fit into the antifeminist sexual trade union theory?
