Can A Wife With Dementia Say Yes To Sex With Her Husband?
Wedding photo of Donna Lou Young and Henry V. Rayons from 2007:
Bryan Gruley writes at Bloomberg of a husband who's been charged with felony rape:
More than 350 people attended the wedding reception of Donna Lou Young and Henry V. Rayhons in Duncan, Iowa, on Dec. 15, 2007. Family and friends ate pork roast and danced polkas to celebrate the union of a widow and a widower, both in their 70s, who had found unexpected love after the deaths of their long-time spouses.For the next six-and-a-half years, Henry and Donna Rayhons were inseparable. She sat near him in the state House chamber while he worked as a Republican legislator. He helped with her beekeeping. She rode alongside him in a combine as he harvested corn and soybeans on his 700 acres in northern Iowa. They sang in the choir at Sunday Mass.
"We just loved being together," Henry Rayhons says.
Today, he's awaiting trial on a felony charge that he raped Donna at a nursing home where she was living. The Iowa Attorney General's office says Rayhons had intercourse with his wife when she lacked the mental capacity to consent because she had Alzheimer's. She died on Aug. 8, four days short of her 79th birthday, of complications from the disease. One week later, Rayhons, 78, was arrested. He pleaded not guilty.
To convict Rayhons, prosecutors must first convince a jury that a sex act occurred in his wife's room at the Concord Care Center in Garner, Iowa, on May 23. If prosecutors prove that, his guilt or innocence will turn on whether Donna wanted sex or not, and whether her dementia prevented her from making that judgment and communicating her wishes.
The State of Iowa vs. Henry Rayhons offers a rare look into a complex and thinly explored dilemma that will arise with increasing frequency as the 65-and-over population expands and the number of people with dementia grows. It suggests how ill-equipped nursing homes and law enforcement agencies are to deal with the nuances of dementia, especially when sex is involved. The combination of sex and dementia also puts enormous strains on family relationships, which turned out to be a critical element in the Rayhons case. His four children are supporting him. Two of Donna's three daughters played a role in Rayhons' investigation. Through their attorney, Philip Garland, the two declined to be interviewed for this story.
Sexual assault laws years ago recognized that a spouse cannot force himself or herself upon the other. Dementia confuses the issue. People with dementia can lose past inhibitions about sex and become aggressive about seeking it. They might be unable to balance a checkbook while they're perfectly capable of deciding whether they desire a partner's affections.
Experts in geriatrics say that intimacy -- from a hug to a massage to intercourse -- can make dementia sufferers feel less lonely and even prolong their lives. Love complicates things further.
By many accounts, Henry and Donna Rayhons were deeply in love. Both their families embraced their marriage. The case has produced no evidence thus far that the couple's love faded, that Donna failed to recognize her husband or that she asked that he not touch her, said Rayhons' son Dale Rayhons, a paramedic and the family's unofficial spokesman.
Consent to sex within marriage is implied.
Doesn't mean you cant be raped if you are married, but what it does mean, is that the burden of proof should be on the prosecutor to prove that there wasn't consent.
I'm trying to figure out how a case like this gets to court.
Probably an overreaction and poor judgment by rigid authoritarian nursing home employees.
Isab at December 9, 2014 8:22 AM
The woman's daughters are boundary challenged. Most likely they didn't approve of their elderly mother remarrying, much less having and enjoying sex.
Why the police and prosecutors are bothering with this case is another question entirely.
a_random_guy at December 9, 2014 8:38 AM
so they want to put a guy in jail in his 80's for having sex with his wife, who has since passed on.
Why would any prosecutor waste state funds like this?
Unless there were a number of sharp pokey sticks from outside.
cynical me says, follow the money and figure out who is being punished here, and for what.
SwissArmyD at December 9, 2014 9:55 AM
Reminds me of an argument I had ages ago. It revolved around the over protection of the nannystate if you didn't want it. Basically it was a mentally handicapped girl, who the law declared as handicapped so any sex she had would be considered rape. No matter what she said, wanted, or initiated it would be rape. The person I was arguing with though this was a great thing, to protect her from abuse and rape. I disagreed, since I don't see sex as inherently evil, I saw condemning to eternal spinsterhood as a bad thing.
Joe j at December 9, 2014 10:57 AM
All of the above poster make valid points, except that it isn't clear that the daughters supported the charges. "playing a part in the investigation", can mean anything from simply being interviewed as to where everyone was at the time, to communicating witnessing stated intent, to even being there at the time. But the son who is acting as family spokesman would not be speaking for all of them unless they supported the father. The article also states that the case has produced no evidence thus far as to the Alzheimers patient objecting. This leads to a conclusion that nursing home personnel think that Alzheimers patients are incapable of giving consent, so they think that it's immoral for these patients to engage in sex, even if they are in one of their lucid periods, even if they give consent. It's that "founded by Puritans" legacy, popping up again to interfere. Not good. Illness should not force a person to be celibate against her/his wishes. This is going to be one heck of an expensive, controversial case, likely to be decided upon who can afford the best witnesses and lawyers.
Samm at December 9, 2014 11:08 AM
My mom used to work in a nursing home. The Alzheimer's men would get incredibly sexual with her and they had various girlfriends who were insanely jealous and would follow them around protecting their property.
One woman kept chasing my mom around a room in circles telling her she was going to kill her. They're really fucking strong too.
My favorite memory is taking our bichon-frise right after he got the stereotypical bichon-frise blowout (he looked like a puffed up marshmallow) and he was held hostage by an Alzheimer's patient. It was nearly impossible to get him back because he was her "little cloud of sunshine".
Ppen at December 9, 2014 12:03 PM
> This is going to be one heck of
> an expensive, controversial case,
> likely to be decided upon who can
> afford the best witnesses and lawyers.
Naw, this'll fall apart fast. Ppen's right: There's weird and dark shit happening in these places all the time, and there always has been. It's probably happening in some facility, private or commercial, within a mile of where you're sitting right now. Someone in this process —an executive with the nursing home, a relative, or maybe even one of the attorneys— will remind a judge that the end of life is a bad time, which is why these folks were institutionalized to begin with... And it'll melt into a quick-drying puddle, having little to do with what the woman's life was really all about.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 9, 2014 12:17 PM
Isab, in the state I live in the employees are mandatory reporters of elder abuse. If they failed to report they could face criminal charges, civil liability and loss of their license to work in the industry. There is a nationwide database of individuals that have been barred from working in the industry. Not too mention potential sanctions on the employer. The same mandatory reporting laws also provide immunity for making the report in good faith. Can you really blame them for making the report?
Bill O Rights at December 9, 2014 12:21 PM
Boy, I'm gonna wait until we hear the side of the nursing home. I visit there regularly, and man can they tell you some stories. But my gut tells me for this man to be charged with rape, that someone at the nursing home heard/saw something that led to this, and that it wasn't something pretty. What if she was hollering and fighting him? What if it wasn't the first time he'd done that in her state and he had been warned to not be trying to have sex with her? I'm gonna wait and hear the other side first.
gooseegg at December 9, 2014 4:06 PM
Isab, in the state I live in the employees are mandatory reporters of elder abuse"
I think where we disagree, and some discretion would be appropriate is automatically defining sexual intercourse between two married elderly people as some sort of abuse.
Isab at December 9, 2014 6:34 PM
This kind of stories in the media are almost always- hell, literally always missing some crucial detail that makes it make sense. I'm going to reserve judgement.
Allison at December 9, 2014 7:44 PM
This kind of stories in the media are almost always- hell, literally always missing some crucial detail that makes it make sense. I'm going to reserve judgement.
Posted by: Allison at December 9, 2014 7:44 PM
I going to guess that you did not follow the child abuse witch hunts in the early 90's where several people were deprived of their children, their jobs, and their liberty on what was essentially coached testimony of four year olds.....
No physical evidence of abuse what so ever.
Isab at December 9, 2014 8:06 PM
This man's suffering is deeply distressing. Even if he is found not guilty, the process will crush him... and this on top of what he must be feeling due to his wife's deteriorating condition.
Lastango at December 9, 2014 11:51 PM
I went back and read the whole article. He was told that she could no longer consent to sex. And was placed in a room with a roommate and still had sex with her. I don't give a crap if they had always had sex. At the point I'm so out of it I can't tell if a pineapple or a penis is coming at me, keep the penis away. That man should have kept it in his pants. She couldn't consent anymore, had been tested as such, and he did otherwise.
gooseegg at December 10, 2014 10:53 AM
I've yet to hear wedding vows which included "been tested as such."
Wouldn't be surprised, nowadays… Just sayin'.
Crid at December 10, 2014 12:06 PM
Crid, just because you're married doesn't mean you can screw your very passed out wife just cause you always have. The state of mind of his wife was essentially the same - absolutely gone. He had still been crawling up in that bed having sex with her, so they tested her and found her not to be able to remember a damn thing. not a thing. At that point, she was a shell of the person she had been. And that man was not having sex with his wife, but just a body who could not consent nor enjoy what was happening. It was wrong to everyone who witnessed what happened. He just wanted to be having sex. That's why God created hands.
By the way, he was warned to not do it anymore, that she could not consent, put her in a room with a roommate to dissuade further contact, and still did it with the roommate there behind a curtain. WTH?
gooseegg at December 11, 2014 6:59 AM
I went back and read the whole article.
No you didnt
He was told that she could no longer consent to sex.
No longer consent, wasnt told she could no longer INITIATE
And was placed in a room with a roommate and still had sex with her.
Only according to the roommate, who has dementia, and has now recanted
I don't give a crap if they had always had sex. At the point I'm so out of it I can't tell if a pineapple or a penis is coming at me, keep the penis away.
Thats you, why should she be forced to live by your standards as opposed to the standards she chose for herself?
That man should have kept it in his pants.
They have yet to prove he took it out
She couldn't consent anymore, had been tested as such, and he did otherwise.
No they tested her short term / long term memory deficiencies, not her ability to recognize her husband, nor does that standardized test gauge a person ability to consent to anything or ask about sex
Keep in mind two of the three of the woman's daughters kidnapped her from her husbands house and had her institutionalized against her will and the will of her legal guardian worked for months to limit her contact with the man she married and just as they were about to lose the court case for the transfer of legal guardianship this rape charge pop up?
Odd timing dont you think?
lujlp at December 11, 2014 9:40 AM
> he was warned to not do
> it anymore
Bunny... Stop. Are you in kindergarten?
> they tested her
"They"?
It's kind of darling that you're so pissed about this, so ferociously eager to identify with some doubly-ravaged spirit from beyond oblivion.
That part that isn't cute is that you've reached the age of majority (Driver's license! Alcohol!) but still imagine that teacher (or camp counselor or cop or nursing home social director) will be the authority figure who makes everything go smoothy-silky, Momma-style.
…As if life will never go dark— Or perhaps never could go dark.
…As if the certainty of eclipse wasn't precisely what the intense bonds of marriage had been designed to resist.
That's where you're head's at: Other people will protect this woman (me) from her (my) savage husband.
Let us know how that works out for you. (A lifetime of schoolgirl terror would not be my choice, but heeeeeey... Free country.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2014 11:57 AM
The same mandatory reporting laws also provide immunity for making the report in good faith. Can you really blame them for making the report?
Posted by: Bill O
Yes. One of my family members is in a memory care facility. Staff informed us of a budding romance, and reminded us of the seniors' rights to privacy and intimacy. Anyone who has lived in a college dorm knows that one can have a roommate and still have enough privacy for a conjugal visit.
Dementia (or even delusion) and consent are not mutually exclusive.
Michelle at December 11, 2014 4:50 PM
Exactly. It's very easy to believe flameouts like these are from office busybodies —perhaps at the corporate desks rather than the care facilities themselves— who are eager to project their own schoolchild-feminist ideas onto the lives of those too weak to resist... Much like Rolling Stone's recent march through Charlottesville.
Sandra Day O'Connor surrendered her seat on the Supreme Court to attend her own health and that of her husband, who suffered from senile dementia. In an interview a few months later, she said that he no longer clearly remembered who she was when she visited him in his assisted-living facility... But he'd found a new girlfriend in his wing, and he liked to talk about her.
This was years ago, but as I recall, Justice O'Connor knew better than to take offense.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2014 8:49 PM
Regarding this particular incident, I think Luj nailed it.
Given historical incidents of abuse of the mentally and physically frail (especially people who have been institutionalized), I'm not inclined to lay this legal issue at the feet of any twenty-first century flavor of feminism.
Michelle at December 12, 2014 8:41 AM
Ah.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 12, 2014 2:23 PM
Exactly. This is such a gift:
Forty-eight hours after moving into that new cottage he was a teenager in love," Scott O'Connor said. "He was happy."
Michelle at December 12, 2014 6:45 PM
Leave a comment