The victim did give consent for sex, in the event that she became unconscious, to continue. Not to the insertion of the dildo, but the court doesn’t seem to have noticed that either.
If my partner isn’t sure I’ve consented to it, they shouldn’t be doing it. The thing is, the only situations I can imagine this happening in are where there’s been prior discussion about what is or isn’t acceptable - that’s pretty much par for the course in BDSM. If someone’s told their partner they don’t want anal sex, to render them unconscious and anally penetrate them is rape. If someone specifically tells their partner to choke them out and anally penetrate them, it’s sex.
Absolutely. I’ll note again, however, that the (later withdrawn) rape complaint that started this thread was not for the anal dildo penetration, it was for later sex whilst she was fully conscious. There’s no actual reason to believe she didn’t consent to it.
I just want to clarify something else here. It seems that you are assuming that he choking and anal penetration here were for the benefit of the guy doing it. That may be the case, but it’s equally possible, if not more likely, that it was for the pleasure of the recipient. That’s another thing that is often the case with BDSM - the Dom’s actions are for the pleasure of the sub, not primarily their own.
Not that I can see. According to the OP link and the full Supreme Court ruling, the victim consented to the choking but did not consent to the sexual acts which followed.
Here is the relevant part of the text from the OP link:
Considering the train wreck of a relationship this already was, we can’t assume that they followed typical standards and practices of healthy BDSM relationships. Perhaps the guy with nearly 2 dozen convictions, including 3 for domestic abuse, got his shit together when practicing BDSM with his partner (who was the victim for 2 of the abuse convictions), but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that he doesn’t think that far in advance.
I’m going out on another limb here because the victim’s testimony indicated either she had not ever had any type of anal intercourse (which is what the initial court believed) or she had tried it just once. I believe it was for the benefit of the DOM. Purely supposition on my part, but I’d put even money the wife engaged in this just show she wouldn’t “lose” her man, not because she is truly a SUB.
I’ll also note that the initial court’s ruling were that she gave consent to sex, but not anal penetration, which is why the conviction was only for the anal penetration. The intermediate court said consent was implied, but the Supreme Court said not only that consent wasn’t implied, but that she could not have consented to any sex.
She recanted her claim. That is not even close to admitting she gave consent to what he did while she was unconscious. It is equally or more likely to be a claim that the incident never even happened, or that at least some parts of it were invented.
She does not claim she gave consent to the use of a dildo at the time. She does say they discussed it.
She also makes this more ambiguous statement:
While it’s possible she said that in advance, it’s also possible she meant it as an explanation why why she didn’t make an immediate claim to the police. IOW, she decided to tolerate it once she woke up.
I’m starting to change my mind about this particular case. Thanks for filling in the gaps. If the relationship is as you’ve described that’s not a Dom/sub relationship, but an abusive one. If there was rape, the guy should be in prison. I do find a rape conviction where the victim claims it didn’t happen, or that it was consensual, problematic though.
One problem with this thread has been the back-and-forth between the original case, and a number of hypothetical cases that the particular ruling will affect. Dio, who most of my posts have been in response to, seems to have a problem with following this, and also with the idea of consensual BDSM. I stand by the view that this activity between consenting adults is fine.
