Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[France Nolan]

I'm not stressed about it just kind of surprised? bewildered? That people would think that part of life should be cut off to someone because of a traumatic event they can't change. It frankly seems like an attitude from the past when he would of been thrown away in an institution.

In no way is anyone suggesting that Cale be institutionalized. He can and should have a fulfilling life in the community. What I'm questioning is his ability to consent to sex. I think it's an important question, not one that speaks to an attitude from the past but to an attitude of protecting people who might not be able to protect himself. Due to his disability, Kathleen has enormous power over Cale. I'm not suggesting she's cruel to him or necessarily taking advantage of him, but to ignore the power differential is absurd.

[treemom]

If she was at the level this guy seems to be, then I think it would be ok. I do think it is trickier when you are talking about a functioning level of understanding to consent to pregnancy and childbirth, because those are potentially physically hazardous experiences. But if she was healthy, had support systems in place and said she was willing I think it would be fine. But yeah, any health risk to the person does bring up more issues.

Sex unrelated to pregnancy I don't see why it would be any different if its the man or the woman.

If a woman can't consent, then a man can't either.

[treemom]

I'm not stressed about it just kind of surprised? bewildered? That people would think that part of life should be cut off to someone because of a traumatic event they can't change. It frankly seems like an attitude from the past when he would of been thrown away in an institution.

No one says this part of his life should be cut off. They are discussing whether he has the faculties to consent to someone who has considerably more cognitive abilities than him and is his primary caregiver.

[treemom]

This is one of those situations that I think has more nuance than Larissa's. Her spouse was not able to legally consent to marriage and I find everything about that troubling.

That said, that doesn't mean this situation isn't fraught with some moral dilemmas because of it. It isn't just the cognitive differences (that is enough) but she is also the primary caregiver as well.

I am not ready to say it is rape, I am just willing to say it is an area that could be troubling.

[jaelh]

Treemom, I'm with you, more or less.

I'm not sure an absence of consent, per say, is the issue here. Consent is a contextual thing. We can only ever consent within the parameters of our capacity. I know law says a 15 year old cannot consent to sex (pick a stat assault offence in the jurisdiction of your choice) yet anyone who is prosecuted under a stat. rape provision has to have had the consent of the person they had sex with (otherwise it would be straight up sexual assault, and not statutory). There is absolutely no question that many of those deemed 'incapable of consent' can, actually, consent.

Statutory rape provisions (and I think they're the most analogous to the kind of consent issues that we're talking about here) protect against though is an incapacity to understand consequences/protect from exploitation. It's not about consent, per say, it's about exploitation. Which is why cases where an 18yo is put on a lifetime sex offenders list for receiving a blowjob from his 15yo gf are troubling to many - the expectation is that protections are to stop exploitation; not to stop teenagers making out. The "harm" factor is missing, if you will. [YMMV, I appreciate that].

I agree with TM, but slightly differently. We have no idea of this mans actual intellectual capacity etc... But, assuming some form of consent (if shy of the fully informed threshold) is present; I think it's the "damage" factor that matters. Is he suffering/being exploited? I can't see any evidence of that (and I acknowledge that the blog isn't really any evidence of anything).

Re: the question about "what if it were a woman?" well; that's easy, because there is a very real damage/exploitation nexus. Pregnancy is a health risk; issues associated with changes to be body can be traumatic, breastfeeding etc. If "fully informed consent" isn't possible; then I think there are huge problems with pregnancy in situations of extreme power differential. (I think there are huge problems with pregnancy in such situations anyway, btw). Regarding the sex; I wouldn't have so much of an issue, *if* general 'consent' could be determined. Working on the assumption that in this case, "baseline" consent can be established; in the absence of harm to Cole; I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. (Though skydog, what an extraordinary load this woman is going to have...)

[MajorMajor]

It is not "some power issues". If the man does not have the ability to consent or understand the consequences or choose to have the child, then it is rape. This woman says her husband has the cognitive ability of a child. Having sex with him now is the same as her having sex with a child.

I don't really know whether I think having sex with him still is right or wrong but I certainly don't think it can be equated with having sex with a child. I understand you used the analogy because of the consent issue but that is just one reason why it's wrong to have sex with a child. He isn't a child he is an adult with an adult body. His wife isn't suddenly on the same level as a pedophile.

[nelliebelle1197]

This is one of those situations that I think has more nuance than Larissa's. Her spouse was not able to legally consent to marriage and I find everything about that troubling.

That said, that doesn't mean this situation isn't fraught with some moral dilemmas because of it. It isn't just the cognitive differences (that is enough) but she is also the primary caregiver as well.

I am not ready to say it is rape, I am just willing to say it is an area that could be troubling.

I don't think it is rape; sadly, I am not expressing the nuance well. I agree, too, that I overstated the other point to make a comparison. It's just... off....and unethical somehow, and the sex/consent issue is so frightening.

[jaelh]

I don't think it is rape; sadly, I am not expressing the nuance well. I agree, too, that I overstated the other point to make a comparison. It's just... off....and unethical somehow, and the sex/consent issue is so frightening.

I agree it's off - it's prob. the inevitable consequence of a belief system that values women for their role as wife and mother above everything else.

[treemom]

Treemom, I'm with you, more or less.

I'm not sure an absence of consent, per say, is the issue here. Consent is a contextual thing. We can only ever consent within the parameters of our capacity. I know law says a 15 year old cannot consent to sex (pick a stat assault offence in the jurisdiction of your choice) yet anyone who is prosecuted under a stat. rape provision has to have had the consent of the person they had sex with (otherwise it would be straight up sexual assault, and not statutory). There is absolutely no question that many of those deemed 'incapable of consent' can, actually, consent.

Statutory rape provisions (and I think they're the most analogous to the kind of consent issues that we're talking about here) protect against though is an incapacity to understand consequences/protect from exploitation. It's not about consent, per say, it's about exploitation. Which is why cases where an 18yo is put on a lifetime sex offenders list for receiving a blowjob from his 15yo gf are troubling to many - the expectation is that protections are to stop exploitation; not to stop teenagers making out. The "harm" factor is missing, if you will. [YMMV, I appreciate that].

I agree with TM, but slightly differently. We have no idea of this mans actual intellectual capacity etc... But, assuming some form of consent (if shy of the fully informed threshold) is present; I think it's the "damage" factor that matters. Is he suffering/being exploited? I can't see any evidence of that (and I acknowledge that the blog isn't really any evidence of anything).

Re: the question about "what if it were a woman?" well; that's easy, because there is a very real damage/exploitation nexus. Pregnancy is a health risk; issues associated with changes to be body can be traumatic, breastfeeding etc. If "fully informed consent" isn't possible; then I think there are huge problems with pregnancy in situations of extreme power differential. (I think there are huge problems with pregnancy in such situations anyway, btw). Regarding the sex; I wouldn't have so much of an issue, *if* general 'consent' could be determined. Working on the assumption that in this case, "baseline" consent can be established; in the absence of harm to Cole; I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. (Though skydog, what an extraordinary load this woman is going to have...)

I oppose the sexual registry because it is not useful in any way.

But, I disagree. Just because you can verbalized consent doesn't mean it should be accepted as full consent. My 13 year old understand sex and we have had many talks. He can consent with another teenager near his age, but he can't really fully consent with a teacher. The power differential reduces consent.

While I understand the physicality of a pregnancy is different, if a woman is not able to fully understand the risks and consent than I do not believe that a man of equivalent cognitive abilities is able to consent either. Just because pregnancy is dangerous doesn't mean women have a different standard of consent applied to them.

[treemom]

Again, I am speaking somewhat in a vacuum and not neccesarily of any specific situation.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

On the comments page:

Reply

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:13 PM

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is an athirst, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion website out there dedicated to litterally tearing apart good, wholesome, Godly folks like you guys. I just noticed that you have come under attack there.

Normally I would ignore it, but these women have actually gone as far as to stalk out blog owners online (including their Facebook pages) and use that information to make false reports to CPS. I am praying for you and your family and hope that these monsters don't attack you too terribly.

The only advise I can offer is to make the blog private and be sure not to friend anyone you don't know on Facebook. As I said, this group can be dangerous and they are malicious and nasty women. Blessings and apologies.

Reply

Replies

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:24 PM

It seems as though I forgot to include the link:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19767

Frankly I'm annoyed we are all tarnished with the same brush. Some of us are Christian. Buddhist. Pro-life. I consider myself a good person. I am kind. I am a nurse & do volunteer work. I believe in marriage equity. I believe in love. I don't 'snark' on people. I am not mean about people we discuss here. I don't say anything here I would be upset about saying at a dinner table or at work.

90% of people on FJ are lovely, kind people. Just like anywhere else.

That's all.

[FakePigtails]

I agree with those saying the consent issue here is unclear, but definitely questionable / troubling.

His anger problems also worry me when it comes to bringing a child into their lives. Just this April they had to cancel a trip because:

It's kind of a long story, but on Friday about 30 minutes before we were to leave for the airport, Cale had a really bad explosion. Thankfully he walked right to his man cave and stayed for a couple hours! While he was out there, I made the decision to stay. First of all there was no way I was getting him on the plane and I just knew it wasn't a good idea.

I will be the first to admit that I didn't have the best attitude. I hated not being able to go. With tears I talked with Mama and called the hotel and airline. I also unpacked.

adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/04/the-plane-left-without-us.html

And that's after a long time getting inpatient care: adarlingkindoflife.com/2012/10/getting-settled.html

It's hard to be in the position just wanting the best possible life for Cale and him not understanding in the slightest. He says I'm mean, he hates me, and he's going to divorce me. He also yelled that he doesn't want a baby with "that" when Mama was trying to explain how this program can be a help for us to have a baby. I see him so miserable and it breaks my heart in so many pieces...pieces that I don't know if I can ever find again. I feel has horrible as he says I am. I feel guilty and terrible. This is just one of those times that I have to be the ugly horrid person because I love him so much. So much that it literally hurts...and there are so many tears.

It's their choice of course, and I hope for the best for them but I can't say it's a choice I would make.

[jaelh]

But, I disagree. Just because you can verbalized consent doesn't mean it should be accepted as full consent. My 13 year old understand sex and we have had many talks. He can consent with another teenager near his age, but he can't really fully consent with a teacher. The power differential reduces consent.

While I understand the physicality of a pregnancy is different, if a woman is not able to fully understand the risks and consent than I do not believe that a man of equivalent cognitive abilities is able to consent either. Just because pregnancy is dangerous doesn't mean women have a different standard of consent applied to them.

On consent (at least, the difference between 'full' and partial consent), we actually agree entirely. You can verbalise consent; This isn't the same as 'full' (or fully informed, or whatever standard you want to apply) consent. But it IS consent; albeit not as complete as we might like. Your 13 can still consent; what he can't do is fully comprehend the power differential and exploitation.

I'm not saying it should be accepted as 'fully informed' consent, but I don't think any of us can dispute that it is, actually, consent.

I didn't say a different consent standard should be applied to men and women (but we may still part way here anyway). What I said is that assuming there is "baseline" consent (the consent discussed above); then "risk or damage" to the individual who can't give full consent should be the determining factor. Application of this same standard gives a very different result for men and women in this situation. It's not that a different standard should be applied to them; it's that the application of the standard gives a different result.

[jaelh]

It's their choice of course, and I hope for the best for them but I can't say it's a choice I would make.

Nor I. That doesn't sound like a good environment for a young child.

[treemom]

Fair enough. I misunderstood your consent piece.

But I am not sure I agree on the risk part. I would argue that while there is risk to a woman physically in the pregnancy there is an equal risk mentally for a man of similar cognitive abilities when it comes to fathering a child with a women who doesn't have an impairment.

It is tricky and muddled though because I don't believe men or women with cognitive impairments are unable to raise children.

[Mama Mia]

If a woman can't consent, then a man can't either.

As I said, I don't think there would be an issue with a woman in the same situation consenting either. However the ability to understand the consequences of pregnancy is going to have a different impact on a woman, since she is the one who is physically pregnant. But if she can understand the potential risks and various discomforts, Thani think she should be able to consent to that as well.

I don't think the analogy to a young teen with a teacher is comparable. The young teen can be told that they aren't mature enough to make this decision at this time. They can make any decisions they like in a few years. It has a temporary impact on their lives. For someone with a TBI taking away that decision is taking it away that choice forever.

I've worked with some couples where one parent had a TBI. It was a really difficult road for them, and for their kids, and took a great deal of work and patience, but they seemed to be trying to maintain a close husband/wife relationship to the extent possible and not let their entire world slip into a caregiver/ patient role. I can't imagine that someone questioning their right to maintain a sexual relationship would have been anything but hurtful. And to my knowledge none of the many professionals involved ever thought it was in any way appropriate to question the TBI partners ability to consent.

[FakePigtails]

Fair enough. I misunderstood your consent piece.

But I am not sure I agree on the risk part. I would argue that while there is risk to a woman physically in the pregnancy there is an equal risk mentally for a man of similar cognitive abilities when it comes to fathering a child with a women who doesn't have an impairment.

It is tricky and muddled though because I don't believe men or women with cognitive impairments are unable to raise children.

ITA with the bolded, which makes it hard in cases like this where it's especially not clear-cut. In this case it's less the cognitive impairment that makes me hesitant but the "explosions" as she calls them. Now, combine that with the cognitive impairment (he didn't understand why he needed to stay in the hospital, he gets very angry at needing to use the checklists from the hospital at home), and then you get into a question of can he consent in the understanding sense of the term the difficulty of raising a child and particularly the effect of his tendency towards explosions on that child? IOW, does he understand the implications of his TBI on the process of raising a child? If he can't, that's when I'd say that in the understanding the consequences of sex version of the term, he may not be able to truly consent.

[treemom]

As I said, I don't think there would be an issue with a woman in the same situation consenting either. However the ability to understand the consequences of pregnancy is going to have a different impact on a woman, since she is the one who is physically pregnant. But if she can understand the potential risks and various discomforts, Thani think she should be able to consent to that as well.

I don't think the analogy to a young teen with a teacher is comparable. The young teen can be told that they aren't mature enough to make this decision at this time. They can make any decisions they like in a few years. It has a temporary impact on their lives. For someone with a TBI taking away that decision is taking it away that choice forever.

I've worked with some couples where one parent had a TBI. It was a really difficult road for them, and for their kids, and took a great deal of work and patience, but they seemed to be trying to maintain a close husband/wife relationship to the extent possible and not let their entire world slip into a caregiver/ patient role. I can't imagine that someone questioning their right to maintain a sexual relationship would have been anything but hurtful. And to my knowledge none of the many professionals involved ever thought it was in any way appropriate to question the TBI partners ability to consent.

It isn't the TBI, it is the cognitive impairment. I can't believe no one ever thought this was something to be discussed because it is a regular discussion when you think of cognitive impairments that occur before adulthood.

Again, like I said it isn't clear cut. If my son never advanced anymore than a 13 year old it would be a lifetime issue for him as well. If the ability of a human to consent is at the level of a 13 year old, then we should be applying a similar standard there. And it could be problematic for someone without that impairment and in a position of power (caregiver) to have sex with them.

Not completely related, but there was an interesting piece on NPR several weeks back about elderly in nursing facilities having sex. I do know it was discussed that in a particular facility sex was encouraged and that someone having dementia did not inhibit their ability to consent. It was interesting.

[Mama Mia]

I can see it being addressed as an issue if someone had the cognitive impairment from a young age, or if it happened when they were an adult, but single. The difference in this situation ( and with the couples I worked with ), is that they were already in a relationship with this particular person, who became their caretaker. They didn't start out with a giant power differential, or as their caretaker. And so no one questioned that they should continue their relationship, in whatever way they wished.

The primary concerns with abuse were actually around the explosiveness and the person ( in my work they happened to be the men ..which also can increase problems due to strength / size ) with the TBI person being violent towards their spouse or children. They got it under control with medication, safety plans, therapy, etc. but it was very difficult until all of that was sorted out,

That's interesting about the elderly and dementia. I don't think couples should be expected to stop being sexual if they both desire it, but it does bring up issues similar to this couple if the person with dementia is single.

[nelliebelle1197]

Is the blog gone?

[treemom]

I can see it being addressed as an issue if someone had the cognitive impairment from a young age, or if it happened when they were an adult, but single. The difference in this situation ( and with the couples I worked with ), is that they were already in a relationship with this particular person, who became their caretaker. They didn't start out with a giant power differential, or as their caretaker. And so no one questioned that they should continue their relationship, in whatever way they wished.

The primary concerns with abuse were actually around the explosiveness and the person ( in my work they happened to be the men ..which also can increase problems due to strength / size ) with the TBI person being violent towards their spouse or children. They got it under control with medication, safety plans, therapy, etc. but it was very difficult until all of that was sorted out,

That's interesting about the elderly and dementia. I don't think couples should be expected to stop being sexual if they both desire it, but it does bring up issues similar to this couple if the person with dementia is single.

It was single people. But I don't think single people have a different standard of consent.

If anything, being the caretaker AND not having a cognitive impairment means there is a significant power differential.

[FakePigtails]

Is the blog gone?

It's there, the first time I tried going to it by copy and pasting it didn't show up though. I did a google search and since then my browser's remembered it when I started typing it.

[miffy]

On the comments page:

Reply

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:13 PM

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is an athirst, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion website out there dedicated to litterally tearing apart good, wholesome, Godly folks like you guys. I just noticed that you have come under attack there.

Normally I would ignore it, but these women have actually gone as far as to stalk out blog owners online (including their Facebook pages) and use that information to make false reports to CPS. I am praying for you and your family and hope that these monsters don't attack you too terribly.

The only advise I can offer is to make the blog private and be sure not to friend anyone you don't know on Facebook. As I said, this group can be dangerous and they are malicious and nasty women. Blessings and apologies.

Reply

Replies

Sarah Morrison10/26/13, 12:24 PM

It seems as though I forgot to include the link:

http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19767

Frankly I'm annoyed we are all tarnished with the same brush. Some of us are Christian. Buddhist. Pro-life. I consider myself a good person. I am kind. I am a nurse & do volunteer work. I believe in marriage equity. I believe in love. I don't 'snark' on people. I am not mean about people we discuss here. I don't say anything here I would be upset about saying at a dinner table or at work.

90% of people on FJ are lovely, kind people. Just like anywhere else.

That's all.

Wow! I'm 'godly folk', right wing & pro choice, because I don't think my personal views should have any control over others.

[Mama Mia]

It was single people. But I don't think single people have a different standard of consent.

If anything, being the caretaker AND not having a cognitive impairment means there is a significant power differential.

I agree IF the situation started out as caregiver / cognitively impaired patient. It's when they are already a couple when the impairment takes place that I don't think people should be expected to change their sexual relationship. It's probably difficult enough to maintain a sexual relationship in that situation, without having outsiders question it.

[Jana814]

I commend this woman for staying w/ her husband I don't think I could do that. However, that being if I was I. Her situcation I don't think I would have a child.