Well, to be precise, we just renamed it “canola”.
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.
You keep saying this. A BJ isn’t a kiss, either. Is that allowed? What is it about your ass fixation, anyways?
I’m pretty sure something is retarded around here. I think we’re going to disagee on what (or who) it is.
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.
I can’t see how the defendant could help this case. There will be next to no evidence against him/her.
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)
From the decision, discussing the facts of the original trial:
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.
I’m referring only to a very specific allegation earlier in the thread.
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).
Never argued against this.
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.”
:D:D:D
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.
This is sophist.
Oh, is this one of those threads where Diogenes makes up new definitions for established English words?
No. I cited the medical definition of unconsciousness.
Sleep is rousable unconsciousness, according to several medical sources.
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.
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.”
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.
It means I cited the medical definition. Look it up.
Win.
From my cite:
You were saying?
Google “rousable consciousness” for several medical articles that use almost identical phrasing.
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.
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.
Good lord. Unconsciousness no more means sleep than mammal means hamster. But that doesn’t mean a hamster isn’t a type of mammal.
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.
No, lack of prior consent in either case makes it not ok.