"Men Guilty of Sexual Assault If They Touch Her While She Sleeps:" Supreme Court

[qayak]

Women cannot give consent in advance but must give consent continuously while any act is going on.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-cou...135928262.html

Absolutely bizarre.

[dtugg]

Oh, that's the Canadian Supreme Court. Not the real one.

Anyway, if I wake up to my gf giving me a blowjob, can I have her arrested for sexual assault?

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

Women cannot give consent in advance but must give consent continuously while any act is going on.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-cou...135928262.html

Absolutely bizarre.

....cringe, um, cringe , ****. Okay i will toss it out there.

I've slept in the same bed as someone ( female as it happens.) and woke up engaged in a sex act. Horrible, weird, experience. Any law preventing this, is a ok in my books. As long as men are equally protected ( as really, when we are asleep is one of the few times a female can force us into sex.) .

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

....cringe, um, cringe , ****. Okay i will toss it out there.

I've slept in the same bed as someone ( female as it happens.) and woke up engaged in a sex act. Horrible, weird, experience. Any law preventing this, is a ok in my books. As long as men are equally protected ( as really, when we are asleep is one of the few times a female can force us into sex.) .

How about if you agreed to the sex act, and while they were caressing you, you fell asleep. Do you think they should then be charged with sexual assault?

How about if a woman's husband comes to bed after she goes to sleep and touches her breast. Is he guilty?

This interpretation is absolutely ludicrous because it says you must get a woman's consent but that even if she gives it to you, it doesn't count, because she can't consent to a future sexual act.

Of course, if she keeps moaning "Yes, Yes, Yes . . . it will be pretty hard for the cops to justify breaking down the door and firing a few rounds into your naked ass.

Seriously though, not only does the decision make a mockery of the court, it makes women out to be unable to control their own lives, and thus, requiring courts to decide what they are allowed to do.

[TragicMonkey]

Wow, slippery slope much? The actual case in question wasn't a husband who touched his wife's breast as she slept:

Quote:

The case involves a woman — who can only be identified as K.D. because of a publication ban — who was choked unconscious by her common-law spouse. When she awoke, she found herself bound and being anally penetrated with a sex toy.

The woman told police that she consented to the asphyxiation, but not the subsequent sexual activity. She later recanted. Her evidence at trial was described by the judge as a "typical cross-examination of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter."

I think even Canadians don't need to fear arrest any time soon over the terrifying end-of-world precedent some posters seem to believe has been set.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

How about if you agreed to the sex act, and while they were caressing you, you fell asleep. Do you think they should then be charged with sexual assault?

How about if a woman's husband comes to bed after she goes to sleep and touches her breast. Is he guilty?

This interpretation is absolutely ludicrous because it says you must get a woman's consent but that even if she gives it to you, it doesn't count, because she can't consent to a future sexual act.

Of course, if she keeps moaning "Yes, Yes, Yes . . . it will be pretty hard for the cops to justify breaking down the door and firing a few rounds into your naked ass.

Seriously though, not only does the decision make a mockery of the court, it makes women out to be unable to control their own lives, and thus, requiring courts to decide what they are allowed to do.

First question, 100% if i am not in a state to stay awake, i am not in a state to make informed decisions on what is going on. I was, but i no longer am once i fall asleep.

Depends, i would say the wife ( if it was a friend, for example i would say 100% not right.) has informed her husband she does not like this ( though this is kind of a tree falling in the woods when no one is around situation. How would she know if she was asleep.) and he continues to, then yes. The same way that a wife can say " No i don't want to do anal." and if her husband forces her, charge him.

But the problem is, why not, just stop if she is asleep? I mean ******* seriously, what kind of horned up spider monkey can't just say " i will wait till she is awake.". I mean i have actually been in this situation, with a girl that was much more inebriated than i thought, and even drunk, and going through a dry spell, once i realized she had fallen asleep, i simply stopped what i was doing and waited till the next morning to start something.

And in regards to your last point, no one can control their own lives when they sleep. They are friggen sleeping man.

I mean , really it sounds like your trying to FOTL the ladies on this one. " You consented, no matter what you still have that consent, i get a credit for one free intercourse with you."

[qayak]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Oh, that's the Canadian Supreme Court. Not the real one.

Anyway, if I wake up to my gf giving me a blowjob, can I have her arrested for sexual assault?

Probably, this new decision is based on an interpretation of the 1992 Rape Shield Law. Basically, at anytime, a person must be able to withdraw consent, and that an unconscious person cannot consent, which are both good, one would think.

But this ruling says that even if someone consents before hand, if they fall asleep, pass out, etc., all consent they have given is null and void because for that period of tiem that they were unconscious/asleep they were unable to withdraw consent. Pretty strange.

Even if you stated you agreed to your gf giving you a bj in the morning, the act of falling asleep voids that consent and she is actually committing a crime.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

First question, 100% if i am not in a state to stay awake, i am not in a state to make informed decisions on what is going on. I was, but i no longer am once i fall asleep.

Depends, i would say the wife ( if it was a friend, for example i would say 100% not right.) has informed her husband she does not like this ( though this is kind of a tree falling in the woods when no one is around situation. How would she know if she was asleep.) and he continues to, then yes. The same way that a wife can say " No i don't want to do anal." and if her husband forces her, charge him.

But the problem is, why not, just stop if she is asleep? I mean ******* seriously, what kind of horned up spider monkey can't just say " i will wait till she is awake.". I mean i have actually been in this situation, with a girl that was much more inebriated than i thought, and even drunk, and going through a dry spell, once i realized she had fallen asleep, i simply stopped what i was doing and waited till the next morning to start something.

And in regards to your last point, no one can control their own lives when they sleep. They are friggen sleeping man.

I mean , really it sounds like your trying to FOTL the ladies on this one. " You consented, no matter what you still have that consent, i get a credit for one free intercourse with you."

I think you didn't read the article.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

Probably, this new decision is based on an interpretation of the 1992 Rape Shield Law. Basically, at anytime, a person must be able to withdraw consent, and that an unconscious person cannot consent, which are both good, one would think.

But this ruling says that even if someone consents before hand, if they fall asleep, pass out, etc., all consent they have given is null and void because for that period of tiem that they were unconscious/asleep they were unable to withdraw consent. Pretty strange.

Even if you stated you agreed to your gf giving you a bj in the morning, the act of falling asleep voids that consent and she is actually committing a crime.

.... and?

I still hold to the point that if you can't just stop when someone falls asleep, you have a sexual disorder of some form. We are not bonobos man , we can make rational decisions in regards to sex. Consent does not entitle you to a " Free bang " voucher, consent states that at that time the person is willing. If you don't know if they are willing, why not just not do it?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Wow, slippery slope much? The actual case in question wasn't a husband who touched his wife's breast as she slept:



I think even Canadians don't need to fear arrest any time soon over the terrifying end-of-world precedent some posters seem to believe has been set.

Exactly. I don't find the ruling strange at all.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

I think you didn't read the article.

No i read it, and the gist is don't fondle, or **** someone who is asleep, regardless of when they fall asleep. And you are against this, honestly man that lowers my opinion of you by a large amount. You seem to think sex is a transaction, and that once someone says yes it entitles you to a free session of sex. And that, to me is completely and utterly reprehensible.

What is so hard about simply not folding or screwing someone who is asleep?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Er, what makes this so odd? I mean, the actual case is quite a story, but the ruling seems common sense to me .

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Er, what makes this so odd? I mean, the actual case is quite a story, but the ruling seems common sense to me .

Really? The case isn't odd at all. Woman fears BF is going to take custody of child so she accuses him of sexual assault. Woman later recants and admits she consented before and after the act. Man is found guilty anyway. Appeals court overturns the conviction.

Up until this point, the system worked fine, if slow and plodding.

But then the Supreme Court waded in with this truly bizarre ruling that will be the standard for how consent rulings are made in every case. Now it doesn't matter that the woman agreed to the act before and after. That she asked him to do exactly what he did.

The Supreme Court says that one can't consent to a future event but the law states you must get consent PRIOR TO the act, which clearly means you must get consent for any future act. It doesn't make any sense at all.

This new ruling means two things:

1) Even if a woman consents to an act like the one portrayed in the article, that consent is invalid. In other words, this woman is not allowed to enjoy the type of sex she wishes, which involves erotic asphyxiation.

2) Anyone touching someone in a sexual manner while that person is unconscious is committing a crime even if the unconscious person had agreed to it. That includes husbands touching their wives when they are asleep.

You are right that in most cases this won't be a big deal. Not too often will a wife complain about her husband. However, there are other scenarios where this interpretation of the law can lead to an abuse of power.

Remember, the fact that the woman states she consented before and after had no bearing. So this is a crime without a victim and one that can easily be used in an abusive manner.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

Really? The case isn't odd at all. Woman fears BF is going to take custody of child so she accuses him of sexual assault. Woman later recants and admits she consented before and after the act. Man is found guilty anyway. Appeals court overturns the conviction.

Up until this point, the system worked fine, if slow and plodding.

But then the Supreme Court waded in with this truly bizarre ruling that will be the standard for how consent rulings are made in every case. Now it doesn't matter that the woman agreed to the act before and after. That she asked him to do exactly what he did.

The Supreme Court says that one can't consent to a future event but the law states you must get consent PRIOR TO the act, which clearly means you must get consent for any future act. It doesn't make any sense at all.

This new ruling means two things:

1) Even if a woman consents to an act like the one portrayed in the article, that consent is invalid. In other words, this woman is not allowed to enjoy the type of sex she wishes, which involves erotic asphyxiation.

2) Anyone touching someone in a sexual manner while that person is unconscious is committing a crime even if the unconscious person had agreed to it. That includes husbands touching their wives when they are asleep.

You are right that in most cases this won't be a big deal. Not too often will a wife complain about her husband. However, there are other scenarios where this interpretation of the law can lead to an abuse of power.

Remember, the fact that the woman states she consented before and after had no bearing. So this is a crime without a victim and one that can easily be used in an abusive manner.

Actually it can't, if you avoid ******* someone when they are asleep.

[Arcade22]

All people should be required to have these things when they have sex with or do other sex-like things to other human beings:

• Birth certificates or other identifications that proves that all parties are of legal age
• A written statement declaring that all parties are consenting and of sound mind
• A toxicology report showing that said persons are free of any narcotics or drugs that might have affected their ability to consent
• Notes related to a medical check-up showing that all parties are free of sexually transmitted diseases
• And finally, a videotape showing the sex so that everyone can clearly see that all the sexual activity was nice, consensual and legal (this might not be included if one of the parties are old enough to consent to sex yet young enough to be considered a 'child', since that would have created outrageously evil child pornography. A sound recording, or possibly a written log of all the words said and sexual acts that took place, could work as substitute)

Anyone that does not have all of these things is clearly asking to be punished to the full extent of the law.

[casebro]

Seems kind of extreme that a consent of any kind is voided without express umm expression. Try the conceptual comparison to any other contract. Uhh, the exterminator can't spray your house when you are not home? Doctors can't do surgery on patients who are under anesthetics?

So why should consensual sex be held to different standards? Though the gist of the case in point seems that no consent was given for the particular act performed- asleep or not.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

All people should be required to have these things when they have sex with or do other sex-like things to other human beings:

• Birth certificates or other identifications that proves that all parties are of legal age
• A written statement declaring that all parties are consenting and of sound mind
• A toxicology report showing that said persons are free of any narcotics or drugs that might have affected their ability to consent
• Notes related to a medical check-up showing that all parties are free of sexually transmitted diseases
• And finally, a videotape showing the sex so that everyone can clearly see that all the sexual activity was nice, consensual and legal (this might not be included if one of the parties are old enough to consent to sex yet young enough to be considered a 'child', since that would have created outrageously evil child pornography. A sound recording, or possibly a written log of all the words said and sexual acts that took place, could work as substitute)

Anyone that does not have all of these things is clearly asking to be punished to the full extent of the law.

It's kinda funny but those first 4 would come in handy if you had risky sex with someone. Look at it this way, if you only have sex with people that are sober, of age, disease-free and consenting, your life will be considerably less troubled. Ditto only having risky sex with people that you trust enough to not need documentation.

Of course everybody wants the freedom to have non-consensual, unprotected, substance-enhanced sex with underage partners.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

All people should be required to have these things when they have sex with or do other sex-like things to other human beings:

• Birth certificates or other identifications that proves that all parties are of legal age
• A written statement declaring that all parties are consenting and of sound mind
• A toxicology report showing that said persons are free of any narcotics or drugs that might have affected their ability to consent
• Notes related to a medical check-up showing that all parties are free of sexually transmitted diseases
• And finally, a videotape showing the sex so that everyone can clearly see that all the sexual activity was nice, consensual and legal (this might not be included if one of the parties are old enough to consent to sex yet young enough to be considered a 'child', since that would have created outrageously evil child pornography. A sound recording, or possibly a written log of all the words said and sexual acts that took place, could work as substitute)

Anyone that does not have all of these things is clearly asking to be punished to the full extent of the law.

Did you forget to get all that stuff notarized?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by casebro

Though the gist of the case in point seems that no consent was given for the particular act performed- asleep or not.

No. The woman recanted and said she consented to the act before and after. That's why the case was overturned on appeal.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Actually it can't, if you avoid ******* someone when they are asleep.

What happens if that's what they are into and want done to them? Who are you, or the courts, to say they can't give their consent when they clearly can?

ETA: And it doesn't have to be *******, any act that can be perceived by anyone as being sexual, is a crime. That's the problem with this ridiculous ruling.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by casebro

Seems kind of extreme that a consent of any kind is voided without express umm expression. Try the conceptual comparison to any other contract. Uhh, the exterminator can't spray your house when you are not home? Doctors can't do surgery on patients who are under anesthetics?

So why should consensual sex be held to different standards? Though the gist of the case in point seems that no consent was given for the particular act performed- asleep or not.

Because a sex act is an act of pleasure, not a service. This isn't a business transaction this is permission given with the knowlege that it can be revoked at any time.

But all this is beside the point.

What is so hard with just not screwing , or fondling someone who is asleep?

Look i am doing it right now, i am actually not having sex with someone who is asleep, it is easy as hell.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

What happens if that's what they are into and want done to them? Who are you, or the courts, to say they can't give their consent when they clearly can?

ETA: And it doesn't have to be *******, any act that can be perceived by anyone as being sexual, is a crime. That's the problem with this ridiculous ruling.

Then you take the risk of being put in jail. If you feel pleasing that person is worth that risk, then go right ahead, if you trust them enough not to call the cops. If you don't i would suggest avoiding it.

Again, what is so hard about that? People have to make judgement calls all the time.

[LashL]

Here is the actual SCC judgment (including both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion) in case anyone wants to read it.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Because a sex act is an act of pleasure, not a service. This isn't a business transaction this is permission given with the knowlege that it can be revoked at any time.

But all this is beside the point.

Wrong. It doesn't matter why people enter into an agreement, only that they did. Yes, it can be revoked at any time, just like my consent to have my cable hooked up can be revoked at anytime prior to it actually being hooked up (I can even revoke it at any point during the hook up), a person can revoke their consent to a sexual act ap until the time it is done.

Quote:

What is so hard with just not screwing , or fondling someone who is asleep?

Read the article, for christ's sake and think about what human sexuality involves. This ruling punishes people for doing things that are their own business and harm no one else. This woman can't ever consent to that again. She can't engage in a sexual act she finds pleasurable.

That's the problem.

Quote:

Look i am doing it right now, i am actually not having sex with someone who is asleep, it is easy as hell.

To explain how silly that remark is: I am not eating right now, so no one should ever eat again. Seems pretty easy to me.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Then you take the risk of being put in jail. If you feel pleasing that person is worth that risk, then go right ahead, if you trust them enough not to call the cops. If you don't i would suggest avoiding it.

Again, what is so hard about that? People have to make judgement calls all the time.

Of course, you only ever have sex with people who are negotiating in good faith. If someone convinces you that they're negotiating in good faith, there's no risk to you, is there?

Until it's revealed that they negotiated in bad faith, right?

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Look i am doing it right now, i am actually not having sex with someone who is asleep, it is easy as hell.

Do you always wake up perfectly clear-headed? Have you never woken up beside your significant other and cuddled her without thinking?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Then you take the risk of being put in jail. If you feel pleasing that person is worth that risk, then go right ahead, if you trust them enough not to call the cops. If you don't i would suggest avoiding it.

Again, what is so hard about that? People have to make judgement calls all the time.

"The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

That's a quote from one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers when he was asked why he voted in favour of allowing homosexuals all the freedoms everyone else enjoys. Consenting adults should be allowed to do anything they want to do in their own bedroom.

That's the problem with this ruling. It prevents consenting adults from doing what they want to do, something that harms no one.

You also have to remember, that the "victim" doesn't have to call the cops for the "perpetrator" to be charged in Canada. The victim is just a witness in the proceedings. It doesn't matter how the crime comes to light, the Crown can lay charges. So, someone casually mentioning that they woke their spouse up by performing a sex act can have it held against them should the Crown decide. And when does the Crown decide, usually when they are hunting for something to charge people with. "We can't make a drug charge stick, let's get them for blowing their husband while they slept!"

It happens all the time.

Plus, this is now a sex crime and they will have to register as a sex offender, even though both parties consented. So, that person giving her husband a BJ is no different than a pedophile.

This is just a bad ruling on so many levels. Hopefully, the government will see the stupidity and change the law.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by qayak

Women cannot give consent in advance but must give consent continuously while any act is going on.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-cou...135928262.html

Absolutely bizarre.

*** is up with your stupid thread title:
Sleep. *** do you think sleep is?

Being chocked unconscious? ***

She also said she did not give consent and then recanted so not only the thread title is wrong but your sentence is wrong.

Quote:

The case involves a woman — who can only be identified as K.D. because of a publication ban — who was choked unconscious by her common-law spouse. When she awoke, she found herself bound and being anally penetrated with a sex toy.

The woman told police that she consented to the asphyxiation, but not the subsequent sexual activity. She later recanted. Her evidence at trial was described by the judge as a "typical cross-examination of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter."

Maybe if you want to discuss the actual issues of the case rather than you driveey mis characterization. The isue is rather different than your gross mischaracterization.

Now had she consented to sex and said "Start sex with me while I am asleep" and then the charges were pressed, then your thread title might make sense.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

Wrong. It doesn't matter why people enter into an agreement, only that they did. Yes, it can be revoked at any time, just like my consent to have my cable hooked up can be revoked at anytime prior to it actually being hooked up (I can even revoke it at any point during the hook up), a person can revoke their consent to a sexual act ap until the time it is done.



Read the article, for christ's sake and think about what human sexuality involves. This ruling punishes people for doing things that are their own business and harm no one else. This woman can't ever consent to that again. She can't engage in a sexual act she finds pleasurable.

That's the problem.



To explain how silly that remark is: I am not eating right now, so no one should ever eat again. Seems pretty easy to me.

The fact that an act is sex does not suddenly give you free reign. What if your partner wanted to do some coke beforehand? Or what if they wanted to invite a 10 year old?

This precedent can be abused, but so can every other law. Think a woman might be trying to screw you over? Don't choke her. Seems like a pretty simple concept, i mean really, if she wanted to screw you over, she could just make something up as easy as she could lie about consent.

You seem to be on this trip about this opening all kinds of doors to abuse it, but really, there are enough doors, a woman ( or man) who wants to screw you over doesn't need this. But it does offer a recourse to women who are taken advantage of in a situation in which they could not give consent.

I mean come on, with what your proposing, a woman has zero recourse if she is choked ( or sleeping.) and wakes up to find her husband and 2 friends ******* her if she said yes to sex beforehand. But i guess that is okay as long as there isn't a new way ( again, a new way is not needed at all.) that a woman could possibly screw with us.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course, you only ever have sex with people who are negotiating in good faith. If someone convinces you that they're negotiating in good faith, there's no risk to you, is there?

Until it's revealed that they negotiated in bad faith, right?

That is a risk you take in any transaction, and specifically in any sexual encounter. Even if i am having perfectly vanilla sex, the woman could have been sent by someone i ****** off , in order to claim rape. Sorry to say, but it is always the chance you take when you have sex, which is why trust is so important.

There is no need for a new way to screw with men in regards to claiming rape, its easy enough as it is, a law of this nature simply gives more recourse to women who are taken advantage of.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by qayak

Wrong. It doesn't matter why people enter into an agreement, only that they did. Yes, it can be revoked at any time, just like my consent to have my cable hooked up can be revoked at anytime prior to it actually being hooked up (I can even revoke it at any point during the hook up), a person can revoke their consent to a sexual act ap until the time it is done.



Read the article, for christ's sake and think about what human sexuality involves. This ruling punishes people for doing things that are their own business and harm no one else. This woman can't ever consent to that again. She can't engage in a sexual act she finds pleasurable.

That's the problem.



To explain how silly that remark is: I am not eating right now, so no one should ever eat again. Seems pretty easy to me.

Maybe if you actually read the case it would make more sense, the ruling is ina ccord with parliments legislation, so maybe blaming the judges is a problem, maybe you should contact your local MP?

" In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it would be inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions to the concept of consent when doing so would undermine Parliament’s choice. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases and has proved to be of great value in combating stereotypes that have historically existed. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary."

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Madalch

Do you always wake up perfectly clear-headed? Have you never woken up beside your significant other and cuddled her without thinking?

If i had the slightest inkling she would try and use it against me, i would sleep in a different bed.

Especially if i was going through a separation or divorce, the guy in the case, is a complete friggen moron on each and every account.

Your acting as if it is not already easy as hell for a woman to claim rape , and that these nefarious estrogen toting malcontents have just been waiting for their chance to find a law to really stick it to us.

This is only going to effect 2 kinds of people.

Those that deserve it, and took advantage of a woman.

Those who got hooked up with a psycho.

Those in the first group, well they deserve it. And those in the second would be just as easily screwed over by any other claim of rape, abuse, etc. as they would this one.

So how exactly is this doing harm?

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by qayak

"The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

That's a quote from one of Canada's greatest Prime Ministers when he was asked why he voted in favour of allowing homosexuals all the freedoms everyone else enjoys. Consenting adults should be allowed to do anything they want to do in their own bedroom.

That's the problem with this ruling. It prevents consenting adults from doing what they want to do, something that harms no one.

You also have to remember, that the "victim" doesn't have to call the cops for the "perpetrator" to be charged in Canada. The victim is just a witness in the proceedings. It doesn't matter how the crime comes to light, the Crown can lay charges. So, someone casually mentioning that they woke their spouse up by performing a sex act can have it held against them should the Crown decide. And when does the Crown decide, usually when they are hunting for something to charge people with. "We can't make a drug charge stick, let's get them for blowing their husband while they slept!"

It happens all the time.

Plus, this is now a sex crime and they will have to register as a sex offender, even though both parties consented. So, that person giving her husband a BJ is no different than a pedophile.

This is just a bad ruling on so many levels. Hopefully, the government will see the stupidity and change the law.

But the problem is it can harm people, and that, generally is where we draw the line in regards to sexual activities. No one is saying you can't choke your girl, what they are saying is that you better make damn sure she wants it done, and whatever you decide to do while she is out is something she wants.

Oh and pity the poor coke dealers with a kinky girlfriend.

Get real brother, don't want to be held accountable, don't talk about it. Plenty of people do plenty of harmless illegal things and get away with them because of this very fact. The law is essentially just adding more of a sphincter clench factor in regards to making damn sure you know that your partner is not going to dislike anything done.


And why do you keep mentioning the choking when your in direct debate as a sexual right, but to try and make the law seem that much worse, then talk about the sleeping b.j. ? Pretty intellectually dishonest as the sleeping bj can very well be a non consensual act.

You act as if there are gestapo tapping on windows to make sure no one is choking their girl, you realize this is canada right? Not nazi germany, not north korea, pretty much the freest first world nation out there, but oh the oppression, i can't screw a bar skank that fell asleep on my couch, oh the humanity.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by bookitty

It's kinda funny but those first 4 would come in handy if you had risky sex with someone. Look at it this way, if you only have sex with people that are sober, of age, disease-free and consenting, your life will be considerably less troubled. Ditto only having risky sex with people that you trust enough to not need documentation.

Of course everybody wants the freedom to have non-consensual, unprotected, substance-enhanced sex with underage partners.

They do?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by dtugg

Oh, that's the Canadian Supreme Court. Not the real one.

Anyway, if I wake up to my gf giving me a blowjob, can I have her arrested for sexual assault?

No, but you can send her over here afterwards.

[MikeSun5]

Disney to rewrite Sleeping Beauty in 5...4...3...

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by John Jones

They do?

Sorry, I didn't put in the sarcasm smilie because I figured it was pretty obvious. My bad, I overestimated again. When will I learn?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

But the problem is it can harm people, and that, generally is where we draw the line in regards to sexual activities. No one is saying you can't choke your girl, what they are saying is that you better make damn sure she wants it done, and whatever you decide to do while she is out is something she wants.

You obviously didn't read the article. Try again when you have.

She did consent. She admitted she consented before and after. There is no dispute involved there.

What the supreme court said is she can never consent to what she wants her partner to do. It is not only making criminals out of people who have their partner's consent, it is stating that there is no way for anyone to give consent. What part of that don't you get? Even the justices of the Supreme Court admitted that was the result.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Get real brother, don't want to be held accountable, don't talk about it.

WTF? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to talk about sex between two consenting adults?

Quote:

And why do you keep mentioning the choking when your in direct debate as a sexual right, but to try and make the law seem that much worse, then talk about the sleeping b.j. ? Pretty intellectually dishonest as the sleeping bj can very well be a non consensual act.

Are you really this thick? Under the law, there is no difference between being unable to consent because you agreed to be choked, because you passed out, or because you are asleep.

The issue is CONSENT. The law already states that there is no way for a person to consent to a bj while asleep but they could consent to having one performed before they went to sleep. Now, they can't ever give consent for any act to be performed while they are unable to revoke consent.

So, yes, my wife enjoys being woken up by my performing sex acts on her and she has told me to feel free to do it anytime I want. But this ruling makes it illegal. It makes me a sexual predator. It also makes her a sexual predator because she often wakes me up with a morning BJ.

Quote:

You act as if there are gestapo tapping on windows to make sure no one is choking their girl, you realize this is canada right? Not nazi germany, not north korea, pretty much the freest first world nation out there, but oh the oppression, i can't screw a bar skank that fell asleep on my couch, oh the humanity.

Yeah, the Canada that is ranked the most corrupt of any G8 nation? The Canada where people are wrongfully convicted a lot.

Your sex life must be pretty vanilla if you think this ruling only affects "bar skanks" whatever the hell they are. I thought we were talking about human beings with rights here.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Disney to rewrite Sleeping Beauty in 5...4...3...

Disney already did. You didn't think the prince really did merely kiss her, did you?