# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/121 "2011-05-29T15:08:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > So what _is_ your actual problem with? … **People having consensual sex of a form you wouldn’t personally like?** Historically speaking, it’s this. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/122 "2011-05-29T15:11:20Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Not according to the court judgement under discussion. Which would be the whole point of the analogies. The court decision did not say that sleeping = unconscious (and medically, it does not), it said that the _defendant_ tried to argue that. The dissent also echoed that concernm but the actual judgement did not say that. Medically speaking, a sleeping person is not unconscious, and it goes without saying that kissing is not the same as ass-rape. The kissing scenario was raised by the defendant as a possible “absurd conclusion” from this ruling, but there is ZERO chance that the law would ever be interpreted or prosecuted that way. It’s a phony, disinengenuous objection. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/123 "2011-05-29T15:12:24Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > Historically speaking, it’s this. This is 100% false. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/124 "2011-05-29T15:16:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The court decision did not say that sleeping = unconscious (and medically, it does not), it said that the _defendant_ tried to argue that. The dissent also echoed that concernm but the actual judgement did not say that. > > Medically speaking, a sleeping person is not unconscious, and it goes without saying that kissing is not the same as ass-rape. The kissing scenario was raised by the defendant as a possible “absurd conclusion” from this ruling, but there is ZERO chance that the law would ever be interpreted or prosecuted that way. It’s a phony, disinengenuous objection. I’ll agree with you that arse rape is bad, as is any other form of rape. That, however, is a disingenuous objection as I’m talking about consensual anal sex. What is your problem with consensual anal sex? ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/125 "2011-05-29T15:18:54Z")
There was no consent. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/126 "2011-05-29T15:20:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What is your problem with consensual anal sex? He really doesnt like the idea that one day in the distant future his then adult daughters will be doing it and enjoying it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/127 "2011-05-29T15:23:35Z")
nvm ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/128 "2011-05-29T15:27:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There was no consent. Yes there was, both in the actual case we’re talking about, and in the hypotheticals I’ve mentioned. > [@billfish678](#): > > He really doesnt like the idea that one day in the distant future his then adult daughters will be doing it and enjoying it. Almost certainly true. I don’t think for a moment he’ll admit it though. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/129 "2011-05-29T15:31:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The court decision did not say that sleeping = unconscious (and medically, it does not), it said that the _defendant_ tried to argue that. The dissent also echoed that concernm but the actual judgement did not say that. > > Medically speaking, a sleeping person is not unconscious, and it goes without saying that kissing is not the same as ass-rape. The kissing scenario was raised by the defendant as a possible “absurd conclusion” from this ruling, but there is ZERO chance that the law would ever be interpreted or prosecuted that way. It’s a phony, disinengenuous objection. Okay, so, the court summary of the current state of law, section 66 of the judgement, reads: > [@](#): > > The definition of consent for sexual assault requires the complainant to provide actual active consent throughout every phase of the sexual activity. It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance. Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Unless you think that your wife can “consciously evaluate whether she is consenting” while she’s asleep, that is about as clear-cut as it can get that the court thinks that you are wrong here. In section 65 it even addresses that kissing (or any “sexual touching”) falls afoul of this law, and asserts that it is not the court’s decision to rule any other way given how strictly the law is written. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/130 "2011-05-29T15:35:00Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > He really doesnt like the idea that one day in the distant future his then adult daughters will be doing it and enjoying it. To be fair to Dio, the thing that seems to worry him is the near future and their potential lack of enjoyment more than anything else. As vanilla as his preferences appear, I don’t think he’s anti-sex, just overprotective. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/131 "2011-05-29T15:40:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes there was No there wasn’t. Nothing in the decision says there was ever any consent to be anally penetrated prior to the choke out. Moreover, no consent is _possible_[ for an unconscious person anyway, because they do not have the ability to understand what’s happening or withdraw consent. That’s not “consensual” sex. The apparent lack of ability to comprehend that by some of the posters here is very disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/132 "2011-05-29T15:41:09Z")
_“The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point.”_ (from the OP) So it’s like this now. Hubby: Cleared to penetrate? Wifey: Cleared for penetration. Hubby: Penetration complete, cleared for stroke? Wifey: Cleared for stroke. Hubby: Stroke completed, cleared for second stroke? Wifey: Cleared for second stroke. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/133 "2011-05-29T15:44:24Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Okay, so, the court summary of the current state of law, section 66 of the judgement, reads: > > Unless you think that your wife can “consciously evaluate whether she is consenting” while she’s asleep, that is about as clear-cut as it can get that the court thinks that you are wrong here. In section 65 it even addresses that kissing (or any “sexual touching”) falls afoul of this law, and asserts that it is not the court’s decision to rule any other way given how strictly the law is written. Asleep is not unconscious. A sleeping person has the ability to awaken and respond. An unconscious persion does not. This is a bogus comparison and is not a credible reason to legalize the strangulation and ass rape of women. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/134 "2011-05-29T15:48:09Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > _“The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point.”_ > (from the OP) > > So it’s like this now. > > Hubby: Cleared to penetrate? > Wifey: Cleared for penetration. > Hubby: Penetration complete, cleared for stroke? > Wifey: Cleared for stroke. > Hubby: Stroke completed, cleared for second stroke? > Wifey: Cleared for second stroke. No. It’s not like that at all. A partner who is conscious, active and not withdrawing consent is implying ongoing consent. An unconscious person has no ability to either consent or withhold consent. There is no implication. It’s not ok for you to strangle a woman into unconsciousness and then fuck her in the ass, ok? Don’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/135 "2011-05-29T15:49:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No there wasn’t. Nothing in the decision says there was ever any consent to be anally penetrated prior to the choke out. Moreover, no consent is _possible_[ for an unconscious person anyway, because they do not have the ability to understand what’s happening or withdraw consent. That’s not “consensual” sex. The apparent lack of ability to comprehend that by some of the posters here is very disturbing. No it’s not. How often do you think this happens to people who post here anyway? If I choose to give my consent, and it happens it’s not disturbing. It’s my body and your judgements are irrelevant. I refer you back to my post where I pointed out that your opinions about this stuff colors your objectivity - and which you denied, btw. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/136 "2011-05-29T15:57:26Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > No it’s not. The hell it isn’t. Anyone who wants to strangle a person into unconsciousness and then ass rape them is disturbing. Sorry. A person who ahs been rendere unconscious by asphyxiation is in a state of medical trauma and life threatening vulnerability. > [@](#): > > How often do you think this happens to people who post here anyway? I’m more concerned about the ones who are so desperate to justify doing it to others. > [@](#): > > It’s my body Tell that to the rape defenders. ---
**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 29, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/137 "2011-05-29T15:59:50Z")
[Consent](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH3mQmbC41g) ---
**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 29, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/138 "2011-05-29T16:14:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A sleeping person is not unconscious At a party, a mature woman was making out with a young man. She passed out drunk (unconscious). He fucked her and then fell asleep (sleeping). She came to, woke him up, and asked him who he was, to which he replied “Hi, I’m _[name]_!” He ended up convicted because although she consented to making out, she did not consent to intercourse. During the trial the judge’s eyes were open, and he occasionally interjected, but at the end of the trial, the judge rose, walked off the dias, and continued walking until he walked face first into the wall and fell on his ass. Lessons learned? 1. Don’t fuck people when they have not given clear consent. A person cannot give consent when asleep or unconscious. The difference between the two states is immaterial when it comes to giving consent. 2. Justice is blind, and sometimes appears to be asleep/unconscious, but should not be fucked with either. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/139 "2011-05-29T16:24:22Z")
Know what? Far be it from me to take up cudgels on Dio’s behalf (he’s well able to take care of himself) but am I the only one who feels a little uncomfortable that his young daughters should be dragged in to every discussion here involving sex? It’s a little creepy and, damn it all, it’s ungentlemanly! ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446/140 "2011-05-29T16:41:52Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Tell that to the rape defenders. If I felt that this place were simply overrun with sociopathic rape apologists, I would leave faster than someone could caution me not to let the door hit my ass on the way out. What does it say about you that you prefer to stay? > [@aldiboronti](#): > > [A]m I the only one who feels a little uncomfortable that his young daughters should be dragged in to every discussion here involving sex?! No, you’re not; it’s certainly a bit creepy. They’re dragged in to make **Diogenes** feel uncomfortable, which isn’t necessary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canuck-supreme-court-do-not-fondle-your-sleeping-wifes-boobs/583446.md?page=8)