October 5, 2019
Talk about sending mixed signals.
The court of protection has ruled that a man who cannot understand the issue of consent must be allowed to pursue sexual relationships.
Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that the man, who has autism with impaired cognition and lives in a supported residential placement, has a “fundamental right to sex”.
The wording there is interesting. If people have a fundamental right to sex, shouldn’t they be guaranteed access to sex to avoid violating this fundamental right?
If it is about pursuing sex, then how does that fit in with the concept of “sexual harassment”?
How can men have a fundamental right to sex but also be punished when they pursue it?
The court considers issues relating to people who might lack the mental capacity to make decisions.
A clinical psychologist submitted a report saying that the 36-year-old man, referred to as JB, represents a “moderate risk” of sexual offending to women, particularly to those who are vulnerable, and that JB cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence.
However, the judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination because it would “impose on him a burden which a capacitous individual may not share”.
She said not having that knowledge might result in criminal prosecution but JB was “entitled to make the same mistakes which all human beings can, and do, make in the course of a lifetime”.
If he really can’t understand consent, then there’s no such thing as him making the same mistake that all human beings can make. It seems that they want to have more material available for future #MeToo campaigns and are using cheap excuses to set this man up for failure.
JB has never been charged with any criminal offence but because of his behaviour towards women he has been subject to a care plan by his local authority since 2014 which has imposed significant limitations on his freedoms.
The local authority wanted the care plan to stay in place, but Roberts said in her judgment that JB had “made it very plain that he desperately wants to find a girlfriend with whom he can develop and maintain a relationship. He is anxious to have a sexual partner and believes that the current restrictions represent an unfair and unwarranted interference in his basic rights to a private and family life.”
He wasn’t charged with any criminal offence but his freedoms were violated? That is unacceptable. He should be compensated with free, guaranteed access to the bodies of whatever females were involved in the restriction of his freedoms.
The judgment said that the “decision to engage in sexual relations … is a primal expression of our humanity and existence as sexual beings. It is an essential part of our basic DNA as reproductive human beings.”
Roberts added: “Sexual relations form a fundamental aspect of our humanity, common to all regardless of whether an individual suffers from some impairment of the mind.”
In its submission to the court, the local authority said that there was concern that JB’s behaviour, if unrestrained, “might result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females”. They said that his advances to women in the past have lacked appropriate social inhibition.
This keeps getting messier and messier when you try to reconcile the message of this judge with the society-wide attacks on heterosexual relationships.
If this is such a primal expression of humanity, how can you shun it? How can you punish men for expressing their humanity?
All of this is meant to be confusing. Men are supposed to be scared of interacting with women, and women are supposed to behave like paranoid harpies. Rules aren’t supposed to be clear.
Babies are not supposed to be born.