Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[twinmama]

The idea of a person with the cognitive ability of a 5 or 10 year old consenting to sex is monstrous to me. But thankfully it doesn't matter at all what any of us think, what matters is the law and if a person is unable to consent because of their cognitive abilities, they are unable to consent.

I think that if you have to add a bunch of "if they were already married" and "if they have already had sex with the person" to it, then it's wrong. If a married man who got in an accident and ended up with the cognitive ability of a 5 year old is able to consent to sex, ANY man with a cognitive ability of a 5 year old has to be able to consent to sex. I see no difference. Since prior consent does not equal future consent, the man's marital status doesn't impact it.

[Mama Mia]

I don't know what the line should be, but the reason I picked 10 was because I thought surely she will agree a person with the cognitive level of a ten year old can't truly consent to sex with a caregiver. Then a five year old?

But what really boggles me is that consent depends on whether or not the person was impaired as an adult and whether or not there as a previous sexual relationship with a person.

I believe that sex can (can not must) carry with it emotional risks as well as physical ones. And I do not believe those risks of pregnancy, disease, disorder, power, etc can be fully understood by the cognitive level of a 10 year old.

I am not in the position to decide whether or not this is the case in any specific situation, but I hope that the professionals are.

Obviously we are going to continue to disagree on this issue. I understand that you think that the emotional risks and the power differential that could be abusive mean that a couple with greatly disparate cognitive capacities should refrain from sex. I get your concerns.

I just disagree that those concerns outweigh the rights of people with severe disabilities to continue on with as normal a life as possible. If sex was already part of their relationship I think it is patronizing and dehumanizing to remove that part of their life as long as the person can communicate that they still desire it.

I do think it is different if someone is already in the relationship when the disability happens. As I've stated before, a person is more than their cognitive functioning. They already have an emotional and physical attachment, and shared history, with their partner. That doesn't disappear because one partner now has limitations.

If someone is single when the injury happens, or if they are born with impairments, than the issues can become even more complicated, IMHO, because of things like financial abuse that might occur when a new caretaker suddenly expresses a romantic interest in a patient, for example. As little mommy pointed out it can be very tricky on where and how to draw lines, either legally or through education and counseling.

Sex is a basic adult human need. I think it's kind of appalling that people seem to want to take that right away from people or create some very narrow band of who it is acceptable to express sexuality with based solely on cognitive ability.

[GawkingToo]

The idea of a person with the cognitive ability of a 5 or 10 year old consenting to sex is monstrous to me.

Do you feel this way even when both parties are disabled? Because it just seems kind of extreme to me.

I have an aunt who has an intellectual disability. She is engaged to a man who also has intellectual disability and, as best we can all assume, she does have sex with him. The organization that runs her home even organizes "couples weekends." Now, I won't lie, the fact that my aunt is post-menapausal does have a lot to do with why my family is okay with it. Also, we trust the organization that runs the home.

I think it's kind of extreme to assume that people with intellectual disabilities shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

For those who are interested, here is some info put out by the organization that runs my aunt's group home:

Sexual Consent 101: Understanding the Verbal Sexual Consent Determination Evaluation

http://www.yai.org/services/staying-hea ... ealth.html

Links to resources on relationships and sexuality (Apparently you have to have an account to see the articles/lesson plans themselves, but the summaries give a good idea as to the amount of thought that they've put into the topic.):

http://www.yai.org/resources/r-c/topic- ... ality.html

http://www.yai.org/resources/r-c/resour ... ssion.html

[lilwriter85]

I know y'all have been focusing on consent-whichin this case is a fuzzy area of squick for me.

However, I just keep wondering what kind of person would want to have a sexual relationship with someone who functions at a sugnificantly lower level. I just can't imagine it being physically or emotionally satisfying. In fact, I imagine it would be really sad in her case because she experienced an adult sexual relationship with him prior.[/quote]

I have been wondering about that too since Larissa said on her blog that she has sex with Ian. Also add in the fact that Larissa and Ian needed a court order to get married.

[fundiemental]

I know y'all have been focusing on consent-whichin this case is a fuzzy area of squick for me.

However, I just keep wondering what kind of person would want to have a sexual relationship with someone who functions at a sugnificantly lower level. I just can't imagine it being physically or emotionally satisfying. In fact, I imagine it would be really sad in her case because she experienced an adult sexual relationship with him prior.

ETA: I suck at comprehension today! I understand what you mean.

See, to me, the fact that she had an adult sexual relationship with him prior is exactly why I can understand her wanting it to have that (or something like it) now. I'm sure it's not the same as before, but they had something together before the accident. I'd be more squicked out if she'd just met the guy and wanted to have sex with him.

[Mama Mia]

" What kind of person?" Maybe the kind of person who was already in love with their partner? Also, I don't have first hand experience, but on a purely physical level, it would seem entirely possible that the injured partner is just as skilled ( or unskilled) at sexual activity as they were before the injury. Getting into the right head space for the un injured partner would be the most difficult aspect, for me, but if she can manage it, good for her.

[treemom]

Obviously we are going to continue to disagree on this issue. I understand that you think that the emotional risks and the power differential that could be abusive mean that a couple with greatly disparate cognitive capacities should refrain from sex. I get your concerns.

I just disagree that those concerns outweigh the rights of people with severe disabilities to continue on with as normal a life as possible. If sex was already part of their relationship I think it is patronizing and dehumanizing to remove that part of their life as long as the person can communicate that they still desire it.

I do think it is different if someone is already in the relationship when the disability happens. As I've stated before, a person is more than their cognitive functioning. They already have an emotional and physical attachment, and shared history, with their partner. That doesn't disappear because one partner now has limitations.

If someone is single when the injury happens, or if they are born with impairments, than the issues can become even more complicated, IMHO, because of things like financial abuse that might occur when a new caretaker suddenly expresses a romantic interest in a patient, for example. As little mommy pointed out it can be very tricky on where and how to draw lines, either legally or through education and counseling.

Sex is a basic adult human need. I think it's kind of appalling that people seem to want to take that right away from people or create some very narrow band of who it is acceptable to express sexuality with based solely on cognitive ability.

You argument also assumes it was a healthy relationship to begin with.

I am just pointing out that it 1. Denies sex to other adults of similar cognitive abilities simply because they were not in a relationship prior and also 2. Allows sex with people who in no way are able to consent (a person with extremely limited cognitive abilities).

I actually haven't made a specific line in the sand, just acknowledged that the scenarios which are perfectly fine to you are still a problem morally to me.

None of this is saying that it isn't a human need or denying people sex. It is talking about power, consent and relationship changes. It's an intellectual discussion that I don't think has clear lines and boundaries.

[treemom]

Do you feel this way even when both parties are disabled? Because it just seems kind of extreme to me.

I have an aunt who has an intellectual disability. She is engaged to a man who also has intellectual disability and, as best we can all assume, she does have sex with him. The organization that runs her home even organizes "couples weekends." Now, I won't lie, the fact that my aunt is post-menapausal does have a lot to do with why my family is okay with it. Also, we trust the organization that runs the home.

I think it's kind of extreme to assume that people with intellectual disabilities shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

For those who are interested, here is some info put out by the organization that runs my aunt's group home:

Sexual Consent 101: Understanding the Verbal Sexual Consent Determination Evaluation

http://www.yai.org/services/staying-hea ... ealth.html

Links to resources on relationships and sexuality (Apparently you have to have an account to see the articles/lesson plans themselves, but the summaries give a good idea as to the amount of thought that they've put into the topic.):

http://www.yai.org/resources/r-c/topic- ... ality.html

http://www.yai.org/resources/r-c/resour ... ssion.html

This doesn't bother me because I agree that sex is a human desire. I also don't think I am "right" as much as just making arguments that sexual relationships between people with significant power differences and a cognitive difference can be troubling.

[GawkingToo]

ETA: I suck at comprehension today! I understand what you mean.

See, to me, the fact that she had an adult sexual relationship with him prior is exactly why I can understand her wanting it to have that (or something like it) now. I'm sure it's not the same as before, but they had something together before the accident. I'd be more squicked out if she'd just met the guy and wanted to have sex with him.

I agree with fundamiemental. (I think--am I reading it right?) I'm no neurologist, but my understanding is that TBI doesn't affect all skills/functions equally. So while she described her husband as going from being like a child to being like a teenager, we don't know exactly which skills she was referring to. It could have been in terms of verbal skills, emotional regulation, logical reasoning, etc. But it's not necessarily all of those things at once.

For what it's worth, I could see how someone might be struggling to regain verbal skills but still be quite competent in bed. And if that was the case, who says it's weird to find that aspect of their relationship satisfying, especially if it's one of the few things left more or less intact?

Now, this is purely speculation, of course. Obviously, I have no idea what their sex life is actually like or whether it's affected by the TBI. All I'm saying is that we should be careful about jumping to conclusions. Just because one's spouse is struggling with deficits in one area doesn't mean that all aspects of life have to be depressing or sucky, ya know.

ETA: In the time it took me to write the above novel, a couple others expressed the same idea, but much more succinctly.

[treemom]

I know y'all have been focusing on consent-whichin this case is a fuzzy area of squick for me.

However, I just keep wondering what kind of person would want to have a sexual relationship with someone who functions at a sugnificantly lower level. I just can't imagine it being physically or emotionally satisfying. In fact, I imagine it would be really sad in her case because she experienced an adult sexual relationship with him prior.

This doesn't bother me at all. The desire to return to a sexual relationship seems normal.

[Diana]

How do you know he is not capable of consent? if he wants to have sex with her and she is not forcing him(that will be really difficult if not impossible) why is this bad? dissabled people have sexual desire too and are capable of falling in love, also he was in love with her before, i dont know maybe i just see it normal because i recently watched a film about a down syndrome man who falls in love with a woman and the lack of understanding to their relation seemed unfair.

[alaeangelorum]

I think this is an interesting debate. I kind of agree with the notion that it isn't as simple as saying this person is now like a 5-year-old because they have had a brain injury. Presumably the husband here remembers having an intimate relationship with his wife before his accident, has learnt about sex in the past etc - not experiences a 5-year-old would have had. It is not like all that is forgotten as soon as the accident happens. We often structure our thinking around people who have been disabled from birth where they get 'stuck' at a stage in development, and use phrases like 'x has the cognitive ability of a 3-year-old', and it isn't as clear cut with this kind of injury, IMHO. This couple were also apparently trying for a baby/hoping to get pregnant before the accident, so the desire to have a child was there. Whether that makes it right to do so now I am not so sure.

Also to add to the debate - here is an interview from a couple who were featured on a show about giving birth here in the UK. The wife had a traumatic brain injury I think before she met her husband. She very clearly wants to have a baby and is able to look after her, with help, once she is born. I have to say I find the disparity of intellect a bit disturbing but they seem to love each other.

https://lifebegins.channel4.com/explore ... -elizabeth

(not sure if it is watchable outside the UK)

[Mama Mia]

You argument also assumes it was a healthy relationship to begin with.

I am just pointing out that it 1. Denies sex to other adults of similar cognitive abilities simply because they were not in a relationship prior and also 2. Allows sex with people who in no way are able to consent (a person with extremely limited cognitive abilities).

I actually haven't made a specific line in the sand, just acknowledged that the scenarios which are perfectly fine to you are still a problem morally to me.

None of this is saying that it isn't a human need or denying people sex. It is talking about power, consent and relationship changes. It's an intellectual discussion that I don't think has clear lines and boundaries.

How have I in any way said that adults should be denied sex with other adults with similar cognitive abilities ? Unless you think that them staying with their current partner is denying them the opportunity to be single and find someone who is a better match? I'm confused by what your saying :?

I don't think single adults with intellectual disabilities should be unable to consent to sex. I do think it is more complicated, ethically, if a person with intellectual disabilities becomes involved with a caretaker just due to the possibility of financial exploitation. But that doesn't mean I think that they should be necessarily unable to consent to the new relationship, just that there are risks that should be addressed. I believe most counseling and rehabilitation programs for people with cognitive disabilities provide some education on making safe sexual choices.

[lipstickgoalie]

I am going to say this with total awareness that it makes me sound like a complete and total bitch. I resent the implication that Cale is a Wounded Warrior. It pisses me off. I am the spouse of a Veteran with multiple service connected injuries including a mild TBI. The key word there is service connected, as in directly related to combat.

Cale simply happened to be injured while he was in the service, in fact he was in the process of discharging when the accident occurred. I am all for his having received treatment at military hospitals but to claim Wounded Warior status is pretty gross. A bit like getting a Purple Heart because you broke your arm falling off a barstool at the Officer's Club. It takes some of these guys years to admit that their PTSD is even a problem, much less to embrace the Wounded Warrior concept. To claim that your husband is a WW because of injuries you received as a result of a car accident while on off time or dwell time is pretty despicable. (I say "your husband" because I don't think it was Cale that got online and registered and ordered the TShirt, much less used the WW parking at Walmart.)

Sorry for the off-topic rant. I am pretty uneasy with them having a baby together as well. Consent issues and Cale's volatility are pretty much at the top of the list for me. My husband is combative in his sleep and if we ever have a baby Goalie we will not be able to co-sleep EVER. Cale is combative and volatile while awake. I just couldn't bring a kid into that environment.

[already hungover]

I am going to say this with total awareness that it makes me sound like a complete and total bitch. I resent the implication that Cale is a Wounded Warrior. It pisses me off. I am the spouse of a Veteran with multiple service connected injuries including a mild TBI. The key word there is service connected, as in directly related to combat.

Cale simply happened to be injured while he was in the service, in fact he was in the process of discharging when the accident occurred. I am all for his having received treatment at military hospitals but to claim Wounded Warior status is pretty gross. A bit like getting a Purple Heart because you broke your arm falling off a barstool at the Officer's Club. It takes some of these guys years to admit that their PTSD is even a problem, much less to embrace the Wounded Warrior concept. To claim that your husband is a WW because of injuries you received as a result of a car accident while on off time or dwell time is pretty despicable. (I say "your husband" because I don't think it was Cale that got online and registered and ordered the TShirt, much less used the WW parking at Walmart.)

Sorry for the off-topic rant. I am pretty uneasy with them having a baby together as well. Consent issues and Cale's volatility are pretty much at the top of the list for me. My husband is combative in his sleep and if we ever have a baby Goalie we will not be able to co-sleep EVER. Cale is combative and volatile while awake. I just couldn't bring a kid into that environment.

I don't think you sound like a bitch at all. If I were in your position, I think I'd feel the same way.

[twinmama]

Do you feel this way even when both parties are disabled? Because it just seems kind of extreme to me.

No. Consent is a complex situation, but in my opinion, if the two parties are equally matched cognitively then I am fine with them doing whatever they decide to do.

The thing that squicks me out about it is the idea of someone who is a FIVE year old mentally deciding to have sex. They have no ability to understand the complex ramifications of having a sex life. I'm not even sure they could understand how the urge they have to have sex relates to the act of having sex. A 5 year old.

And I just want to be clear, I am only talking about this in theory not about this particular couple that I know nothing about. And I have absolutely nothing against anyone with a cognitive impairment or TBI. I am solely concerned about consent issues and the ability to consent.

[France Nolan]

I am going to say this with total awareness that it makes me sound like a complete and total bitch. I resent the implication that Cale is a Wounded Warrior. It pisses me off. I am the spouse of a Veteran with multiple service connected injuries including a mild TBI. The key word there is service connected, as in directly related to combat.

Cale simply happened to be injured while he was in the service, in fact he was in the process of discharging when the accident occurred. I am all for his having received treatment at military hospitals but to claim Wounded Warior status is pretty gross. A bit like getting a Purple Heart because you broke your arm falling off a barstool at the Officer's Club. It takes some of these guys years to admit that their PTSD is even a problem, much less to embrace the Wounded Warrior concept. To claim that your husband is a WW because of injuries you received as a result of a car accident while on off time or dwell time is pretty despicable. (I say "your husband" because I don't think it was Cale that got online and registered and ordered the TShirt, much less used the WW parking at Walmart.)

Sorry for the off-topic rant. I am pretty uneasy with them having a baby together as well. Consent issues and Cale's volatility are pretty much at the top of the list for me. My husband is combative in his sleep and if we ever have a baby Goalie we will not be able to co-sleep EVER. Cale is combative and volatile while awake. I just couldn't bring a kid into that environment.

I don't think you sound like a bitch at all. The "Wounded Warrior" status bothered me too, and I don't even have any practical experience with it.

[jaelh]

The thing that squicks me out about it is the idea of someone who is a FIVE year old mentally deciding to have sex. They have no ability to understand the complex ramifications of having a sex life. I'm not even sure they could understand how the urge they have to have sex relates to the act of having sex. A 5 year old.

and this is why I think using children's ages is profoundly inappropriate for this discussion.

someone who has acquired a traumatic brain injury as an adult is *not a child*. they can have had sex in the past; depending on the injury, they likely remember sex.

It is so utterly not like having sex with a 5 year old.

I know people don't intuitively understand IQ (reasonable point, TM), but an average person = 100; mental retardation from 70 (about 2% of the population) and 130 = about top 2%. It might not be as easy to understand as ages, but it's not that hard.

Would you be OK with someone in the bottom 2% of the intelligence range (who used to be about average) having sex with someone of average intelligence?

You might still come to the same answer, but you're much less likely have an ewww sqwick response.

I know, lots of people are approaching this differently. but words matter, whatever our intention when we use them, it's what people respond to that matters. People with ATBI are not children, and we do them a disservice thinking about them as children.

[jaelh]

I can't answer for treemom, but if we're using IQ scores as the measuring stick then no, I'm not okay with someone who has an intellectual disability (Full scale IQ of 70 or below) engaging in a sexual relationship with someone with an average IQ (usually cited at about 100). Now, there's admittedly a big grey area in between. I don't know I'd feel if one partner had an IQ of 70 and the other partner had an IQ that was borderline intellectually disabled, like 80.

As for the difference between the people with a 100 and a 150 IQ, while I don't know if it would work well, the partner with the lower IQ is not intellectually disabled.

Sorry, I didn't see this before. It seems to me you're using the "potential exploitation" test with the 70 and 100 difference. If someone with an IQ of 70 capacity to consent to someone with an IQ also of 70, it's not like the lose that capacity when it comes to having sex with someone of a higher level of intelligence. Their capacity to chose to have sex doesn't change depending on who they're having sex with; it's the constant.

[FakePigtails]

How do you know he is not capable of consent? if he wants to have sex with her and she is not forcing him(that will be really difficult if not impossible) why is this bad? dissabled people have sexual desire too and are capable of falling in love, also he was in love with her before, i dont know maybe i just see it normal because i recently watched a film about a down syndrome man who falls in love with a woman and the lack of understanding to their relation seemed unfair.

I'm assuming the documentary you're referring to is Monica and David. It's a great film but a different situation than this. In the film both people were of similar ability levels and lived with family who ensured there would be no pregnancies. The families cared for them completely. Here you have a caregiver/patient relationship, and one in which the caregiver has a LOT to manage with the patient.

As to your first question, no one is saying he isn't capable of consent, however, it is something we're questioning (as opposed to declaring). The point here IS that we don't know, but there are signs that could indicate he's less capable of consenting than many here are comfortable with, especially when unlike Monica and David a child will be in the picture.

Also I'm not sure what to make of the IQ talk, since children can have IQs of any level. That vs the age descriptors seem like two different ways of describing different abilities/skills.

[Buzzard]

I am going to say this with total awareness that it makes me sound like a complete and total bitch. I resent the implication that Cale is a Wounded Warrior. It pisses me off. I am the spouse of a Veteran with multiple service connected injuries including a mild TBI. The key word there is service connected, as in directly related to combat.

Cale simply happened to be injured while he was in the service, in fact he was in the process of discharging when the accident occurred. I am all for his having received treatment at military hospitals but to claim Wounded Warior status is pretty gross. A bit like getting a Purple Heart because you broke your arm falling off a barstool at the Officer's Club. It takes some of these guys years to admit that their PTSD is even a problem, much less to embrace the Wounded Warrior concept. To claim that your husband is a WW because of injuries you received as a result of a car accident while on off time or dwell time is pretty despicable. (I say "your husband" because I don't think it was Cale that got online and registered and ordered the TShirt, much less used the WW parking at Walmart.)

Sorry for the off-topic rant. I am pretty uneasy with them having a baby together as well. Consent issues and Cale's volatility are pretty much at the top of the list for me. My husband is combative in his sleep and if we ever have a baby Goalie we will not be able to co-sleep EVER. Cale is combative and volatile while awake. I just couldn't bring a kid into that environment.

I'm in complete agreement with you and I'm not so sure that she should have qualified for the recent trip to Alaska courtesy of Samaritan's Purse - for wounded veterans. Yes, he is a veteran and yes, he has an injury - but the implication to me is someone wounded in the line of duty.

[jaelh]

Also I'm not sure what to make of the IQ talk, since children can have IQs of any level. That vs the age descriptors seem like two different ways of describing different abilities/skills.

Yes, it's a very different way of describing skills and abilities. That's the point.

[FakePigtails]

Yes, it's a very different way of describing skills and abilities. That's the point.

I know, it's just that much of the conversation here's focused on IQ numbers, and it didn't seem the most telling for the situation.

Anyway, here's a detailed but interesting article about this subject: http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/200F ... ncy07.html

And a much more concise piece: http://www.idhd.org/downloads/SDC/CAPAC ... matted.pdf

[jaelh]

I know, it's just that much of the conversation here's focused on IQ numbers, and it didn't seem the most telling for the situation.

That's true - but it's no more or less appropriate than using age, and much less emotive. both are imperfect reference points : someone with an acquired brain injury has memories and understandings that a child does not have, and someone with a high or low IQ could have respectively, low or high emotional capacity.

I think the use of full descriptions (like those on the links you gave) is the best way of having this discussion, but if we must use some kind of referential shorthand, some kind of non-emotional measure like IQ is better than an alternate reference that has a powerful sqwick factor.

anyway. sorry, I know it's a total divert from the actual topic at hand (and i'll shut up now) but language powerfully informs how we understand concepts. age is way too loaded to be a good measure.

[treemom]

How have I in any way said that adults should be denied sex with other adults with similar cognitive abilities ? Unless you think that them staying with their current partner is denying them the opportunity to be single and find someone who is a better match? I'm confused by what your saying :?

I don't think single adults with intellectual disabilities should be unable to consent to sex. I do think it is more complicated, ethically, if a person with intellectual disabilities becomes involved with a caretaker just due to the possibility of financial exploitation. But that doesn't mean I think that they should be necessarily unable to consent to the new relationship, just that there are risks that should be addressed. I believe most counseling and rehabilitation programs for people with cognitive disabilities provide some education on making safe sexual choices.

I meant in comparison not between. Person 1 who has a TBI and was not in a relationship and person 2 who has a TBI and was in a relation ship.