# Canuck Supreme Court/Do not fondle your sleeping wife's boobs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 27, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446 "2011-05-27T17:01:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/181 "2011-05-30T07:15:44Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > There’s no such crime in Canada as rape. Well, to be precise, we just renamed it “canola”. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/182 "2011-05-30T07:18:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A sleeping person will wake up and respond. And if they don’t respond? Is it then sexual assault? Hey, I sleep pretty lightly and most things would wake me up, but not always. When I don’t wake up am I unconcious? Just wondering where the line is drawn between normal sleep, deep sleep, and unconciousness. NONE OF WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE A CONCIOUS CONSENT TO ANY ACTION SOMEONE ELSE MAY BE DOING UNTIL AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED. > [@](#): > > Kissing is not shoving a dildo up the ass anyway. You keep saying this. A BJ isn’t a kiss, either. Is that allowed? What is it about your ass fixation, anyways? > [@](#): > > This hypothetical is retarded from the word go. I’m pretty sure something is retarded around here. I think we’re going to disagee on what (or who) it is. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/183 "2011-05-30T10:37:56Z")
Dio, it doesn’t matter that sexual activity would likely wake someone up. I don’t know why you think that’s some key distinction, but just to be clear: I agree and I don’t need you to repeat it. But that misses the point entirely, and it doesn’t matter a bit that the majority doesn’t specifically spell out this scenario. And I say that as someone who is largely in agreement with you (other than this strange point you’re defending), that all these “slippery slope” scenarios have about a zero chance of ever coming into play. A person, while asleep, cannot give consent. That’s the point being made. You seem to be saying that a sleeping person could wake up and express his or her preferences. Um, yes. That does not change the fact that a person, _while asleep_, cannot give consent, and any sexual activity conducted _while that person is asleep_ is assault. Said sleeping person may awaken and be thrilled with what is occurring, but Canadian law, strictly speaking, makes no exception for that circumstance. LHoD gave a great analogy that you dismissed. The ruling makes clear that prior consent holds no weight, not if it is interrupted by a period where the person is not conscious and able to give consent. \*While in that state. \* Other than this silly point, this seems to be one of those threads where, for the most part, there is violent agreement on the objective facts. The difference of opinion is at the conclusion, with one tribe who finds such a law irksome no matter how likely some outrageous outcome is; the other saying, “Who cares? The only ones likely to be unfavorably impacted are the guys who should be.” These are subjective assessments, and neither can be objectively shown as right or wrong. You won’t “lose” the debate by acknowledging this. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/184 "2011-05-30T11:52:48Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > “He won’t testify at all, unless his attorney is completely and totally incompetent.” > In such a situation, having the defendant testify may be the only way for the defense to present evidence. I can’t see how the defendant could help this case. There will be next to no evidence against him/her. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > “No witness has to testify” > So the subpoena I wrote to someone last week did not obligate her to testify? What do you think subpoenas do? It means you get to question them on the stand. It does not mean that the prosecutor will get them to say what the prosecutor needs to get a conviction. What are you going to do? Put the plaintiff in protective custody separate from the spouse until the trial? Or is the more likely scenario that once an overly aggressive DA gets going, they say to one another over the breakfast table, “Just say I was pretending to be asleep”? Can a spouse even be forced to testify against the other if they don’t want to? (I honestly don’t know) > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > “What the prosecutor would be dealing with is an uncooperative witness to a crime with no other witnesses” > In the case presented in the OP, the complaignant had recanted. Having recanted, she must have been an uncooperative witness. The defendant still got convicted. > A cooperative witness helps but is not necessary. From the decision, discussing the facts of the original trial: > [@](#): > > [12] However, Nicholas J. found J.A. guilty of sexual assault. She described K.D.’s conflicting testimony as “typical … of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter” (para. 8). She concluded that K.D. had not consented to the insertion of the dildo, and that this was the first time that the couple had engaged in this sexual activity (para. 41) I haven’t read the initial trial to determine how or why the first court came to this conclusion. Additionally, J.A. had numerous previous convictions, including 3 domestic abuse, two of which were against K.D. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > And, as Uzi points to, if you want something to be criminal, you should be ready to send people to prison for it. not rely on “yeah it’s illegal but don’t worry it won’t be enforced according to its plain meaning”. I’m referring only to a very specific allegation earlier in the thread. > [@Uzi](#): > > Even if you both agree to the action, all it would take is one of you making a joking comment, “I wake my husband up to a blowjob”, in the presence of the wrong person and the offending party is dealing with the police. Even if someone calls the RCMP and even if the speaker is ignorant of this finding and overly talkative of their sex life to the officer, this has no chance of conviction unless the wife wants to convict her husband. Yes, the law is written and/or interpreted foolishly. Yes, it makes the oral sex to a sleeping spouse illegal. I am saying that it is unenforceable against normal, consenting couples who don’t want their spouse thrown in jail. (The assumption is that normal, consenting couples don’t have multiple domestic abuse complaints and/or convictions and do not go filing police complaints trying to get one another arrested when they argue). > [@](#): > > If you’re not in favour of sending people to prison when that’s what the rule implies, change the rule. In this case, the court should have used the common interpretation principle that the legislator cannot have meant something absurd and gone with another interpretation. The defendant might still have been convicted under another, reasonable interpretation of the law. Never argued against this. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/185 "2011-05-30T12:01:20Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’d agree, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the implications of the ruling for people who say “yes, I would LOVE it if you would choke me unconscious and then fuck me in the ass.” How about people who say, “Choke me and if I pass out, you can get started”, fall accidentally unconscious, but when they wake up a few minutes later say “What the hell is that dildo doing up my ass? I didn’t agree to _that_.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/186 "2011-05-30T14:07:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, to be precise, we just renamed it “canola”. :D:D:D ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/187 "2011-05-30T15:35:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The definition of unconsciousness is inability to respond to stimuli. A sleeping person responds easily to stimuli. A sleeping person is not unconscious. They are not close to the same thing. The comparsion is bullshit. Being unable to respond to stimuli means you’re dead, not unconscious. There is a whole spectrum of unconsciousness from light dozing to comatose, with less response to stimulus along it. But even comatose people respond to some stimuli. So, as so often with you, you are factually wrong about the one point you are shouting about to make your argument. You clearly understand neither the technical nor general usage of the word “unconscious”, and have redefined it to such an extent that even the people who agree with you are telling you you’re wrong. You’re an embarrassment to yourself, to this board, to America, and to the human race. Oh, and just to make it clear, in case I haven’t said it often enough, rape is bad. Don’t be raping people, people. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/188 "2011-05-30T16:25:26Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Being unable to respond to stimuli means you’re dead, not unconscious. This is sophist. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/189 "2011-05-30T16:47:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A sleeping person is not unconscious, Oh, is this one of those threads where Diogenes makes up new definitions for established English words? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/190 "2011-05-30T16:50:26Z")
No. I cited the medical definition of unconsciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/191 "2011-05-30T16:55:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. I cited the medical definition of unconsciousness. [Sleep is rousable unconsciousness](http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v3/v3c091.html?SESSID=k01grfkol9vjpa8vljvgvuhs87), according to several medical sources. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/192 "2011-05-30T16:57:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This comparison does not parse. First of all, no consent is no consent regardless. If a person asked to be awakened by sex, then that is different from “consenting” to sex during a state in which they have no ability to awaken and respond. Why is it different? In both cases you’re consenting to an action that will occur while you’re unconscious. We both agree that after you wake up you can consent or not, but I’m not talking about the acts that happen after you wake up; I’m only talking about the ones that happen **prior** to waking. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/193 "2011-05-30T16:59:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [Sleep is rousable unconsciousness](http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v3/v3c091.html?SESSID=k01grfkol9vjpa8vljvgvuhs87), according to several medical sources. Your cite doesn’t seem to say that. It’s about anesthesia, not normal sleep. Yes, people under anesthesia are in a state of controled, and rousable unconsciousness. They are not literally “asleep.” ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/194 "2011-05-30T17:09:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. I cited the medical definition of unconsciousness. What do you mean by “I,” “cited,” “the,” “medical,” “definition,” and “of”? Based on your track record, it might be best not to assume you’re using the English versions of those words. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/195 "2011-05-30T17:17:28Z")
It means I cited the medical definition. Look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/196 "2011-05-30T17:20:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, to be precise, we just renamed it “canola”. Win. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/197 "2011-05-30T17:28:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Your cite doesn’t seem to say that From my cite: > [@](#): > > Normal sleep is a state of rousable unconsciousness. You were saying? Google “rousable consciousness” for several medical articles that use almost identical phrasing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/198 "2011-05-30T17:43:51Z")
Lame. If it’s rousable," then that rousability renders the issues relating to “unconsciousness” (which does not mean sleep) moot. The lack of ability to rouse and respond is what separates unconsciousness from sleep, and as it pertains to this thread, is what makes an unconscious person vulnerable in a way that a sleeping person is not. It’s not ok to strangle somebody unconscious and then ass rape them, ok. You’re not going to convince that it it is. I don’t feel sorry for ass-rape stranglers. If you want to call that closed-minded, fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/199 "2011-05-30T17:50:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Lame. If by “lame” you mean, “I’m sorry, I should read more than the title of your cite before telling you you’re wrong, I promise not to be such an idiot next time,” then sure, I accept your apology. Just don’t do it again. > [@](#): > > If it’s rousable," then that rousability renders the issues relating to “unconsciousness” (which does not mean sleep) moot. Good lord. Unconsciousness no more means sleep than mammal means hamster. But that doesn’t mean a hamster isn’t a type of mammal. > [@](#): > > The lack of ability to rouse and respond is what separates unconsciousness from sleep, and as it pertains to this thread, is what makes an unconscious person vulnerable in a way that a sleeping person is not. Again, incorrect. If you were right, then if I stopped feeling up my sleeping houseguest as soon as she woke and objected, I’d be in the clear. It’s the taking of actions on an unconscious person (whether or not those actions will awaken that person) that they’ve not previously consented to that’s the problem with my houseguest. That’s why a husband who spoons his sleeping wife, holding her intimately, isn’t committing a crime, but a dude who does that to an unsuspecting houseguest may be committing a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/200 "2011-05-30T17:52:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, incorrect. If you were right, then if I stopped feeling up my sleeping houseguest as soon as she woke and objected, I’d be in the clear. No, lack of prior consent in either case makes it not ok. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446.md?page=11)