Daughters protect elderly remarried mother from her second husband’s sex drive

78 year old Henry Rayhons is charged with raping his wife while she was in a nursing home.

The wife, Donna, a widow, and Ray a widower had married in 2007. Shortly thereafter she was diagnosed with early dementia and by 2014 was unable to live without full care in a facility. Henry says they did have sex early on at her behest, there in her private room. But that after a clinician told Henry and Donna’s two daughters  that Donna could no longer consent to sex he respected the boundary.

He faces 10 years in prison if convicted.

If it is true that patients have moments of lucidity, and if as the article says, patients are considered OK to make decisions about many things that are not trivial, why not sex?

Is this feminism and take back the night in geriatric expansion mode? Have they been so tainted with false media accounts of rape and so branded by the ruining of careers and lives with the Duke case that they are now going to show that men are a danger to their wives once the wife has dementia?

This is not complicated. It has no basis in anything that should point to criminality. I say so what if he had sex with her. If it was not medically dangerous and the wife didn’t object, where’s the problem?

The problem, in this case, seems to be the two daughters who never liked that mom was a geezer pleezer. It feels like they rushed at the opportunity the install the geriatro-chastity belt for their own reasons and are now happy to put a man away for 10 years whether he did it or not.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Daughters protect elderly remarried mother from her second husband’s sex drive

  1. I live near a small metropolis of 3,500 souls that has a fairly large community of special mental needs people who have 24 hour caregivers but are taken out in the community and given as much autonomy as much as possible. Many years ago, new caregiver oversight guidelines had to emplaced because several of the female clients were discovered to have figured out how to have pretty active sex lives (in spite of the quite attentive and responsible caregivers).
    Just because a person has dementia, retardation or other mental issues doesn’t apparently mean sex is not desirable (or apparently, obtainable) to them. The clients had allegedly figured out how to pick up drunk sailors in bars which had the potential for all kinds health and physical problems and was quickly stopped because neither the sailors or the clients were assuredly mentally capable of practicing safe (in all the ramifications of the concept) sex or fully interested in looking after the welfare of the client. A bad situation looking for a place to happen and it was right that it was stopped. The husband, on the other hand, had been exercising a continuing legal and personal responsibility and presumably cared deeply for his wife’s well being and could be counted on to do nothing to jeopardize it. Coercion or physical injury was apparently not the root of the daughters concern. Could it be that the husband, not the daughters would inherit the mother’s estate when she died and his incarceration, or even just the accusation would help them remedy this?
    As a single Christian man in mid 40’s it doesn’t cheer me to hear about a 78 year old man still wanting to “step into the saddle.” One would like to think that desire would eventually ride it’s happy self off into the sunset. Here’s to hoping…

  2. First the femihags want high AOC laws to keep men from pursuing younger women, and now they don’t want old men chasing old women either.

    Feminism is just against male sexuality—-PERIOD!

  3. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Vanished Era Artifact Edition | Patriactionary

  4. Judging by their actions, I’d guess that both daughters are the typical single, perma-scowl-wearing specimens of misandric feminasty work that prowl our society nowadays.
    They make me glad that I’ve never married nor had children (and never will).

  5. Court findings about mental capacity cannot be done legally without a state-approved psychological interview. Talking to other people who claim to have talked to her is hearsay at best, and the opinion of a random “local physican” is legally worthless.

  6. But jf13…..this is rape dang it.

    The thing is, to convict the man for raping his wife because she “cannot consent” suggests that a wife must actively and overtly consent each time even when she is fully lucid. I can see some feminists seeing a pathway to a new threshold for rape where not just GFs but wives can decide months later that a certain encounter was rape. One of the defenses for that is condonement when she has subsequently had willing sex with him. This one gets messy because under this medical rendering even if the woman was to have one of those bright days dementia sufferers are said to have, her consent would not assuage his guilt should he go ahead and have sex.

  7. Rayhons says she actively and overtly consented, and even initiated. Moreover, “She didn’t undergo any in-depth psychological or neurological evaluations. Donna herself was not consulted about her desire for intimacy with her husband. That decision was made for her, based partly on her failing scores on a standardized test used to gauge short-term memory rather than the ability to make decisions.”

    I’m really, really surprised that this is the hill that the anti-white-men-sex crowd decided to die on. I cannot reasonably expect any verdict that does not reflect the clear sentiment “Who are these daughters who dared to decide they had this power of deciding how their mother ought to feel.”

  8. “Brunes, a hospital administrator, and Dunshee, executive director of a non-profit serving people with intellectual disabilities, had talked to Rayhons about putting their mother in a nursing home. He had resisted.

    ABCM says its properties embrace a policy of “person-directed care” designed to give each resident a prominent voice in how she or he lives.”

    No surprise that a hospital admin and an executive director believed that patient-care paperwork is worthless. To even have Donna be enrolled at Concord Care *required* that all the folks – daughters, physicians, etc. – believed Donna had enough mental capacity to make treatment (and suppertime food) choices, and to report her own concerns.

  9. Rayhons was fully acquitted. This was the expected outcome, because the anti-white-man-sex crowd had to have known they had no case. They wanted to scare off other white men from the shame and hassle.

  10. The jurors made no other comment than not guilty. It will be interesting to see if one of them tells it like it happened: the only reason deliberations lasted so long was that one and only one of the women jurors had made up her mind he was guilty, because white man, before entering deliberations. All of the other jurors wanted to acquit immediately, so they worked on her with technicalities. As late as lunch today, the rest of the jurors had declared her a lost cause and wanted a mistrial declared.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s