What ever happened to “The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” ?
This is the most retarded Supreme Court decision ever handed down.
As far as I’m concerned, if a person in an ongoing sexual relationship, particularly marriage finds they have been violated sexually, they can deal with the problem within their relationship and terminate if neccessary. I’d make an exception for physical harm and/or previously specified taboos.
But the idea that a spouse must keep his hands off the other spouse while he/she is asleep unless he/she trusts the other enough not to go to the authorities is just too much to ignore for me.
I’m having trouble getting a handle on the sort of behavior your rules would prohibit. What is a “previously specified taboo”? Would rape-as-commonly-understood qualify, so long as care were taken not to effect physical damage? Would inserting a dildo into the ass of one’s unconscious wife not be taboo, or at the very least a violation of societal norms?
But we’re not talking about cuddling or even groping, here, we’re talking about anal penetration. If you don’t believe that your spouse would refrain from accusations of rape due to unconscious anal penetration, then I suggest you probably shouldn’t do that (and I don’t feel I’m being terribly unreasonable here) – why is that “too much to ignore”?
At first glance, this sound likes one of those textbook don’t-talk-to-the-cops situations.
Detective: Your wife says two months you choked her unconscious and put a dildo in her anus. Is that correct?
WHAT DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SAID: I’m not answering any questions until I talk to my lawyer.
Well, the guy was an ass. So I can’t dredge up to much sympathy for him. What is concerning is the fact that this decision opens up the gate for any vindictive bitch that wants to cry rape on her SO because she having relationship issues.
Am I the only one who lacked sufficient reading comprehension for the article? The way I read it, the Canadian court restored a man’s conviction of sexual assault since the woman was unconscious and couldn’t give consent.
Then feminist groups were decrying the decision, saying that if someone give consent once, that’s pretty much de facto consent forever. But that’s completely the opposite of what was stated earlier in the article.
Sounds like it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
But there is also this:
Which seems to suggest that either she didn’t “cry rape,” or attempted to rescind her cry, to no avail. It isn’t completely clear from the article whether she sought out police to tell them about it— is it possible they were talking to her about something unrelated, asked if the guy had ever put his hands on her, and she replied “well, couple of weeks ago he choked me unconscious and shoved a dildo up my ass, but that was no big deal…” ?
Having read most of the actual opinion, it sounds like they had a domestic dispute where the guy threatened to try to take full legal custody of her child, and because that pissed her off, she complained to the police about the assault. They both sound like winners to me.
What’s frightening is that the court specifically addresses one of the convicted guy’s arguments that if the court were to rule this way, it would basically mean that kissing your wife while she’s asleep could be considered sexual assault if she complains about it. And the court admits that this is true while making the ruling. I’m…flabbergasted.
I think what the court did there was just to beg Parliament to deal with that possibility rather than leaving it to the courts to carve out a bunch of impossible-to-carve-out exception cases. It’s a pretty impossible thing to ask the court to make sure that it rules in a way that will categorically rule out something extremely mild like an unwanted kiss, especially when the case at bar is one that apparently involved binding the unconscious woman’s hands before penetrating her anus and one that involves a recanted accusation by the alleged victim. I can’t say I blame the court for not wanting to reinterpret the entirety of the criminal code just to make a ruling that couldn’t hypothetically lead to a bad result elsewhere if every person involved was kind of wildly unreasonable about it. I think the court acknowledges a bit of an overbreadth problem, but it wants a legislative solution to it.
I’m not sure “Don’t touch your wife’s boobs while she’s asleep” is quite what the court said, in any event. When someone is actually prosecuted for something remotely similar to that, that’s when I’ll start to be worried about it. And I continue to be mildly entertained by how paranoid a lot of the male members of this board seem to be about this stuff – “opens up the gate for any vindictive bitch that wants to cry rape on her SO because she having relationship issues,” really? False accusations of any crime are always possible; I doubt all those women who are out to get you were waiting for favorable jurisprudence before they perjured themselves in the hopes of bringing you low, first of all, and second of all, this doesn’t open the door to any false claims of rape anyway. All you can really take from this ruling is that, if you’re in Canada, you probably shouldn’t tie up anybody’s hands and insert a dildo into his/her anus after you’ve choked him/her unconscious. And really, if that news comes as a big blow to your lifestyle…
The bit about the dangers of kissing your sleeping wife (or hell sleeping child or sibling and parent) are on para 58.
I do think Justice has been served in this case. I do not think that the principal created is a sound one.