And that’s what this whole thread is debating. We know what the law is, some of us are saying that it is an unjust law.
Why must it be one or the other? Couldn’t affirmative consent be considered clear evidence of an absence of non-consent? Couldn’t we make it an either-or thing–that if someone has given affirmative advance consent for a sex act that would occur when they would be unable to withdraw consent (e.g., when they were asleep), that would be sufficient to override their inability to withdraw consent during the act itself?
But then you would have an issue of the circumstances in which the consent was made
Was the person of sound mind, sober, not coerced, etc? I mean, let’s face it, if you’re having sex with your wife and she asks if you will take her to the ballet, did you really just give consent of your own free will?
Somehow I find fault with, “Yeah, choke me and fuck me unconscious oh yeah big daddy right THERE!” to be the voice of a rational woman.
Here’s the problem with saying two adults can buck the law in the privacy of their own home:
When rape occurs, a guy can say, “She told me before she was unconscious that she wanted it.”
or, “She’s my wife and we’ve had sex before” in response to accusations of spousal rape.
Same applies for any other crime. I can’t kill someone because they ask me to.
Right, I totally follow that. My feeling is that the law, as it is right now, is potentially leading to terrible miscarriages of justice.
If you want to say that someone who enjoys being chocked out and fucked is mentally unsound that’s another issue and I don’t want to get into it. But how about this, let’s move the state of unconsciousness to one of inebriation.
A married couple goes to a party, let’s call it their anniversary party, and it is at a hotel where the couple have a room upstairs. After the party they plan to have lots of sex. In fact the wife specifically plans to get drunk because she likes to have drunk sex. They are open with their sexuality so they tell everyone at the party that they are leaving to go have wild monkey sex as soon as the wife is drunk enough. When they arrive they are both sober and they tell everyone they meet that this is the plan. When they leave the husband (who doesn’t drink) is still sober, and the wife (who does) is fairly drunk. Drunk past the point of legal consent. They leave the party telling everyone that they are going back to their room to have hot wild monkey sex in celebration of their 10th wedding anniversary. Ten years married and still hot to jump each others bones.
Later they come back to the party the wife clearly still drunk and talk about the wild sex they just had.
Do the party goers have the husband arrested for rape? Under the law, as I understand it, they should. It isn’t any different the the choking scenario. I am saying that is wrong since the plan was to get drunk and fuck.
Erotic asphyxiation has been around for a long time. It is considered a disorder by psychologists but the practice is not unheard of.
Personally I don’t get it but then there are a lot of sexual kinks I don’t get and it is not for me to decide which are ok and which aren’t. In this case I’d say the danger posed by the practice trumps “it is not for me to decide” but I suppose that could be argued.
It is technically in many states. Including mine. Difference is that sex is not illegal but a violent act that results in unconsciousness is.
When it comes to death and long term neurological damage, I vote your opinion counts!
Wait. I need to clarify: You cannot be drunk and legally give consent. However, if you and your mate are drinking and have sex and you don’t care the next morning, it wasn’t rape. The idea is that you should never assume consent and that being drunk does not allow you to enter into a contract. HOWEVER, this is meant to protect women in date rape cases…you’re interpreting it wrong
Still, this situation is where a man harmed a woman physically.
Ok, good to know. That being said. Shouldn’t a married couple be able to give each other prior consent to have unconscious sexual congress just like they could give each other prior consent to drunken sex?
The choking was considered legal. That isn’t the subject of the debate.
It’s not a just law if it isn’t the act which is criminal. If you can do something without knowing at the time if it will be deemed later to be criminal then that’s not a just law. Either having sex with a drunk woman who seems to consent is legal or it isn’t, it shouldn’t be left to someone else’s whim.
Nah, he just choked her unconscious. No harm, no foul.
Having sex with a woman without her consent is illegal. Period. A drunk woman giving or implying consent is not sufficient for your counterclaim. That’s what the law says.
The law does not say that having sex with a drunk woman is illegal.
No, it’s not what the law says, period. You’re factually incorrect, or else you’re phrasing your posts so confusingly that it’s impossible to tell whether you’re incorrect.
First, “without consent” is not the standard, as Jimmy et al have repeatedly pointed out. Second, being drunk doesn’t remove the ability to withdraw consent until you’re talking passing-out-drunk. Third, the gender of the victim is immaterial.
One, I said in my state, two I said woman/wife in response to the other poster. I think they - and many- are interpreting the Canadian law wrong. I could be incorrect on that, but concerning Colorado law I am not. You are free to dig up a side by side comparison of all 50 states, Canada, and the UK if you like.
You’re way out of line here. This is Great Debates, not the Pit, and you should know better.
I know. See post #94. There are two threads going on this subject, and I thought I was in the Pit thread. My apologies. It was an accident.
nm
You are wrong on the law in the UK to the best of my knowledge. The practices are extremely rarely prosecuted, but could be.
You could. I just don’t see why. Given that affirmative consent is the general standard throughout law, it would seem rather odd to continue with absence of non-consent except in certain areas where we will normalize things and go with affirmative consent.
A very brief check suggests that the current standard is that one cannot consent to “injuries of a lasting nature”. I would suggest that most BDSM practices don’t cause such injuries.
Wiki cite, which suggests there is a great deal of ambiguity over what “lasting injuries” are, although the standard is clearly not permanent harm, as I suggested earlier.
Actually your wiki cite shows that this is a misrepresentation…
Ignoring the last clause there, as you have, completely changes the meaning.