Is this room private?

[Sugar]

Just wondering why we don't have a room that is privet for you know only female stuff talk and what not....Not asking for a club that is only for the right or left handed peep, but gees what about when we need girl talk? Same for the men when they need to do men talk.

[SoMissTV]

The forum creators elected not to have private groups when the board was established. We felt that it can potentially lead to divisiveness and cliques.

SoMissTV
Moderator.

[Nana]

The best way I can explain this is it was discussed and the concensus was to have no private groups. It divides folks which is not the aim of this forum. There is no possible way to keep all sexes divided because an alias could pose as the opposite sex and thus be male and female on the site.

[Honey]

Sugar, I am always here if you ever need to PM me for anything.

[Nana]

And me too. If you need multiple opinions you can pm up to five folks at one time. We will be happy to discuss whatever you need to, anytime.

[Sugar]

Thanks Honey, SMTV. And Nana that best explains it. Me I would never pose as a man...I am after all just a woman and find men talk mostly boring! But I guess we could have peeping Toms or peeping Sallys for that matter, the way women are today...you know molesting like boys.

[Sugar]

Thanks Nana !! So I'll go ahead and post what I wanted to be privet so here goes...

[Sugar]

Police Illegally Taped Nursing Home Sex, Wisconsin Court Rules

Thursday, September 11, 2008
LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,421043,00.html)

MADISON, Wis. — Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.

"We are satisfied that Johnson's expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable," the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.

The ruling means prosecutors cannot introduce the videotapes as evidence in their case against Johnson, who is charged with felony sexual assault for having intercourse with his wife without her consent at least three times in 2005.

Johnson's attorney, Christopher Kelly, said his client would visit his 54-year-old wife every day, reading her the Bible and moving her arms and legs so her muscles wouldn't atrophy.

The woman's sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. "She believes her sister's husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness," Kelly said.

The couple married in 1988 and had no children, Kelly said.

Kelly said he believed prosecutors would be forced to drop the charges without the evidence on the tapes and thought the appeals court made "a pretty obvious call."

Johnson's wife was admitted to the nursing home after suffering a stroke. Court records say she was unable to speak or sit up, and nursing home staff members fed, cleaned and turned her. Prosecutors say she was comatose.

Johnson visited her frequently and sometimes would close the door to her room so they could have privacy as allowed by the nursing home. But staff members tipped off police, fearing she was in danger because, they suspected, he was having sex with her.

Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.

Sauk County Circuit Judge Patrick Taggart tossed out the evidence last year, ruling it stemmed from an illegal search. Prosecutors appealed, arguing Johnson had a right to privacy when he visited his wife to care for her but not when he used the room for what they contend was illegal intercourse.

The appeals court affirmed Taggart's ruling.


Sorry so long I had a call and I can only focus on one thing at a time....

The reason for privacy is b/c I have my female opinions about this wanted the womans views but it really is no big deal...so I'd like to know what you all think....since I'm asking what you all think, I will give mine now.

I think he has every right to have his WIFE and if it were me and I knew before hand I would have it in writing. But life happens and we don't know her wishes...

I pledged to love, obey, and to cherish my husband till death do us part. I would say more but this is an open forum.

[optimistik1]

I think it's perfectly reasonable and she would have given her permission had she known...I also thinks it's better for him to have intimate contact with his wife, than another person! How dare they videotape it anyway!

[Sugar]

Yes Opti how dare they is soooooo right. I hope he wins and wins big time!!! I have nothing to hid from the state or our government except our privet times..

It can feel a little creepy when you think of a strange man having sex with his comatose wife...but when I think if that were hubby and I, well that don't seem so creepy after all.

I worked in a nursing home and there was a married couple there that were know to be having sex. He was able to get around and she wasn't. No one seemed to mind 20 years ago.

[anderlee]

I know you wanted this privet, If you are taking mens thoughts on this let us know?
I will have to think on this a lot to not give an off the cuff response that you ladies might think flippant

[optimistik1]

Everyone has their own opinion, anderlee...and you are entitled to yours...we know you well enough now that we won't jump to conclusions! :)

[Sugar]

Sure Anderlee I'd like yours and all cause we all are adults right and we ain't gonna get no privet room...so please by all mans help yourself.

[Sugar]

OK the remark about not getting no privet room was meant to be funny and not snide, although after rereading it looked that way. (((yourhattiesburg)))

[Hawkeye]

I see yall's booty keee keee keee :cool:

[Sugar]

and I see yours!! woozer! :bunny:

I should reread before I post....I meant to say "you know molesting little boys, not like boys" Geez that would beeeee....umm...whats the word i need here? oh crap I can't think of it....
I think I will just get off the forum till I get my head on sgraight. :shrug:

[katzeyez]

I've learned when it's an open forum, any time it's 'girl' talk, put a huge warning on the thread title. People are going to read, but at least they enter the thread at their own risk if it has a warning on it. ;)


And I sho ain't gonna say what I'd like to say about s e x, because it IS an open forum.http://www.thepointofnoreturn.us/images/smilies/blush.gifhttp://www.thepointofnoreturn.us/images/smilies/rotfl.gif

[Sugar]

sexist is the word I was trying to say.

[anderlee]

I've thought about this all day and on one hand:shrug:

I see a man pissed at his wife and making her more pissed by going everyday to knock off a bit of tail:D


then I see a deep loving couple that before this happened both he and she could read each others mind like the MZ and I;)

and they are loving each other any way they can before the end.

Only HE & SHE and the Great One knows for sure.

[optimistik1]

I like the second option.... :)

[Guru]

I think it speaks volumes that the man had this kind of commitment to his wife and in times like this only she would still do.
I do however see the part about the camera, at least from what you mentioned. On the surface maybe it was a room monitor for the nurse's station to be able to monitor her condition. Other than that, I don't know.

[Sugar]

I like the second option too!

[Sugar]

Guru

Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.

[Guru]

Oh wow.