Sexual Offences Act, and those with DID.

Host's boyfriend is a law student and keeps banging on about s30 and s31 of the Sexual Offences Act.

s30 Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice
s31 Causing or inciting a person, with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity.

He keeps going on as if we alters can't consent to sex as we are a "person with a mental disorder". this is so wrong, isn't it? Those sections of the SOA (England, BTW). We were talking about some cop trying to get me to hook up with him consensually and he's acting as if I can't consent and that he should be locked up for trying it on with me.

Ridiculous. Don't like being thought of as too mentally retarded to be able to consent to sex. This is irritating and wrong IMO. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Soph xxx

Last I heard, we, the host are responsible for the acts of every single part of us.

Your bf needs to read IFS - all humans have multiple parts to their brain. I would hate to see the law go so far as to locking you up when his little boy comes out to play!

Odd answers, but an add suggestion by your bf deserves such.

The first thing I notice is that the hosts boyfriend is wanting to keep you all safe from someone he views as a predator. Ok so maybe he's wrong in this particular instance, but I would say wanting to keep you safe is a nice personality trait to have in a boyfriend.

Second thing I notice is you said "hosts boyfriend". Does this mean you don't view him as YOUR boyfriend? However many alters there are, there is only one body. I can understand how the hosts boyfriend might have a problem with the body having sex with someone else. Even if it was you, or another alter, who was in control of the body at that time, and not whichever one of you is his girlfriend.

Third thing is the law. Law always strikes me as kind of a "black and white" thing. I'm not sure how much allowance there is, in law, for "shades of grey". Is DID actually considered a mental illness? I mean like people can have a problem with anxiety, but it not be considered a mental illness. Then a different persons anxiety IS considered a mental illness. So I'm not sure what is/isn't officially a mental illness. If your DID is considered to be a mental illness then the law would seem to make sense to me. Like if the host wasn't out then a person could be said to be under the influence of their mental illness? Though that does seem to imply that the host is somehow more important than the rest of the alters, and that seems wrong to me. But just because it seems wrong to me, doesn't mean it's wrong in law.

It's a tricky situation. I can understand why you're cross, but I haven't a clue how you could sort it out. Sorry I'm not much help. X

DID may be a mental disorder but it is not a mental disorder impeding choice. Choice is not impeded. Do you actually want to hook up with "some cop"?

Um, am I the only one seeing this? If the boyfriend is making such a strong case for this, if he has been or is planning to become intimate with the host at any point, wouldn't he be wearing the supposed cop's shoes? I'm just sayin'.

Or is that the point he's trying to make? I didn't know it might be illegal for me to consent to relations when I'm on vacation in England. If I hooked up with somebody, they'd just end up in the slammer because I'm off limits.I'm worse off that I thought! Bummer.

I really wouldn't want a real relationship to be ruined by a law. I already get treated like an incompetent.

However, I do believe that people in general shouldn't be fooled or reeled in to much or disrespected. I do think it might could be bad if someone was continually throwing themselves in harms way. HOWEVER, I do not believe that no mentally ill people or people with did shouldn't have a right to pursue a real relationship. I think itthis is a case by case thing: I.e. person keeps seeking sexual behavior that they don't even enjoy and idiot picks up on it. But, that doesn't just happen to mentally ill people. That happends to normal people sometimes who are in a rut. It wouldn't be fair for someone to wrongly accuse me of being unable to choose just for acting irrational for a few weeks.