Alcohol, Consciousness, Rape and Consent

MiCr0 · 09-08-2010 2:34pm

t4k30 banned for 2 weeks

Elle Collins · 09-08-2010 2:34pm

If those last two scenarios constitute rape then I've raped my partner more times than I can remember and thoroughly enjoyed being raped innumerable times by him also! It's ridiculous to label such actions between a loving couple rape.

Permabear · 09-08-2010 2:58pm

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 09-08-2010 3:21pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here again you are conflating consent to initiate a sexual act with consent to complete the act. You have acknowledged this implied consent and I have questioned it. It's clear we're not going to agree on it. For me, it isn't about "consent to penetrate" equals "consent to climax", rather it's about recognising the right of someone to withdraw consent at any time, unless the couple had agreed something previously.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, I have repeatedly acknowledged that if a couple have previously agreed that this is OK, ie given prior consent, then away with them. But to try to compare this to a medical procedure is a bit odd, I don't really see the connection. Sex is something different to a medical procedure even if both require consent.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is also force through coercion and threats.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What do you mean by "normal boundaries"?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well hang on a sec now. These things are in degrees so we have been discussing someone who is unconscious not "extremely sleepy". I'm not sure why you are so sure that the standard of continual, conscious consent is such a difficult one to stick to. I don't have in-depth knowledge of anyone else's sex life but my own so I just have to say I don't know about anyone else. Of course I've had sex while drunk but I have never had sex with someone when they were far more drunk than I was and it would be a complete turn-off to be with someone who wasn't as engaged in the whole thing as I was.

The idea that a large number of people would struggle to be sure of consent from their sexual partner is an unsettling one.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you not consider consent to be so important with sexual activities?

Elle Collins · 09-08-2010 3:44pm

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you not consider consent to be so important with sexual activities?

I assume because, as he's already said, in the situation where we're talking about a committed couple consent is already very much implied.

If I were to conk out unconcious halfway through sex my partner would be welcome to take whatever 'liberties' he felt like and because I love and trust him I wouldn't experience it as negative in any way, shape or form. The same would be true if the shoe was on the other foot also.

(Obviously I don't maintain that this is true for all women or for all couples though.)

Macha · 09-08-2010 3:53pm

Elle Collins wrote: »

I assume because, as he's already said, in the situation where we're talking about a committed couple consent is already very much implied.

If I were to conk out unconcious halfway through sex my partner would be welcome to take whatever 'liberties' he felt like and because I love and trust him I wouldn't experience it as negative in any way, shape or form. The same would be true if the shoe was on the other foot also.

(Obviously I don't maintain that this is true for all women or for all couples though.)

Yes I agree that it varies between couples. But this only works if both partners are aware of it ie, if consent has been given prior to the actual event itself. Assumptions of consent can be dangerous because, as you note yourself, not everyone would be happy with the idea of someone going at it with their unconscious body, even if that someone is their partner.

Herbal Deity · 09-08-2010 4:06pm

So essentially, the question is whether this is reasonable to assume or vital to establish prior to doing it?

I'd like to think it'd be reasonable to assume. If with a partner you love and trust, I can't really see why anyone would care too much, but maybe I'm an aberration?

metrovelvet · 09-08-2010 4:16pm

Elle Collins wrote: »

If those last two scenarios constitute rape then I've raped my partner more times than I can remember and thoroughly enjoyed being raped innumerable times by him also! It's ridiculous to label such actions between a loving couple rape.

How do you know you enjoyed it if you were unconcious?

If you were unconcious you'd have no memory of it.

Nevyn · 09-08-2010 4:45pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But not using physical force to rape, not all rapes are phyically brutal,
(esp when a woman's body will lubricate out of self defence from unexpected penetration) physical force is not always applied esp if the victim goes into shock or is comatose. So to say that a rape as to be forceful is to make less of those which are not and is a rape myth.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If she has consented to him having sex with her when she is asleep then I don't have an issue with that but it should be something which is discussed and not assumed.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but either party despite being naked has the right to withdraw that consent and demure stating they do not wish such contact " not tonight I have a headache....:P" in the case were a person is asleep they can not exercise that right and I do not think it should be considered waived unless it was done by prior agreement.

Permabear · 09-08-2010 4:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Nevyn · 09-08-2010 4:57pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True esp as the state of being aroused by the other person could be considered being intoxicated due to the endorphins and other sex hormones present in the body.

metrovelvet · 09-08-2010 5:18pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She was responsive? She could remember it?

That's not being unconcious. And if she responded positively and actively, isn't that consent?

drkpower · 09-08-2010 5:45pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Technically, yes! False imprisonment is to take or detain someone without their consent. If the agreement that led to someone sitting into a car was that they would go to Ballyfermot but they ended up in Ballybunion or Belize, he could very easily argue that he was taken or detained without their consent. But I fear this is an analogy too far.....

Permabear · 10-08-2010 12:23am

This post has been deleted.

Herbal Deity · 10-08-2010 8:26am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you just won the thread.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 8:28am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know it can be intoxicating alright.

I would still not call that unconcious though.

If we got into the territory of body chemicals exempting us from consent then I could turn around and justify multiple rapes by saying I was "drunk with love.' As Alice said, "I cannot explain myself sir. I was not myself.'

I don't accept that.

However, as I suffer from sleep paralysis from time to time, i would be one of those people who should have one of those talks taco is talking about, or anyone with slerp disorders should.

DF -you obviously trusted her enough that she wouldn't turn around and deny her part or make any accusations. But another person may have.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 9:23am

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you know you enjoyed it if you were unconcious?

When you wake up wreathing on the edge of an orgasm you can be pretty sure your unconcious body was enjoying itself!

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 9:27am

Elle Collins wrote: »

When you wake up wreathing on the edge of an orgasm you can be pretty sure your unconcious body was enjoying itself!

And what if you didnt want to have sex?

What if your partner chose not to use contraception while you were asleep?

What if you were going through a bad time with your partner?

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 9:53am

metrovelvet wrote: »

And what if you didnt want to have sex?

That's happened both ways round. In that case we each just push the other off and that's the end of that.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What if your partner chose not to use contraception while you were asleep?

I'd be very perplexed if he did. I've been on the mirena for years.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What if you were going through a bad time with your partner?

All the better. I find uninitiated sex particularly arousing after an argument,

Nevyn · 10-08-2010 9:53am

Elle Collins wrote: »

When you wake up wreathing on the edge of an orgasm you can be pretty sure your unconcious body was enjoying itself!

Arousal or orgasm does note equal consent.

If a female rape victims body technically becomes aroused, ie the vagina 'tents opening up and starts to lubricate that is not consent but her body doing so in self defence in order to limit the amount of damage which may done to it when she is penetrated. If a female rape victim has an orgasm (which can happen and causes a lot of guilt and confusion) that does not mean she has enjoyed being raped or that or consented.

The same can be said of men, just because a man is aroused it does not equal consent.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 9:55am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Arousal or orgasm does note equal consent.

It does in my bed.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 9:58am

Elle Collins wrote: »

That's happened both ways round. In that case we each just push the other off and that's the end of that.

I'd be very perplexed if he did. I've been on the mirena for years.

All the better. I find uninitiated sex particularly arousing after an argument,

If you can push him off, you are not unconcious.

And you may find sex arousing after an argument, but not everyone does and not after every argument.

And not everyone is on the coil either.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 9:59am

Elle Collins wrote: »

It does in my bed.

And you think your bed should be the paradigm for universal policy?

Permabear · 10-08-2010 10:06am

This post has been deleted.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 10:07am

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you can push him off, you are not unconcious.

Obviously I am talking about what happens on waking.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And you may find sex arousing after an argument, but not everyone does and not after every argument.

And not everyone is on the coil either.

By these responses you make it clear that you think I am generalising about the experiences of all couples. I don't know why you'd think that since I've already made it clear that I am not.

What I am saying is that your cut-and-dried rules about what constitiutes rape do not apply to every couple, since they do not apply to us, and since that is true I'd be very willing to bet that we are not the only couple who'd reject their sexual experiences being defined by your definition of rape.

What is done to your sleeping body is your business. What is done to my sleeping body is mine.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 10:08am

metrovelvet wrote: »

And you think your bed should be the paradigm for universal policy?

Where did you get that idea? It seems you ought to re-read my posts.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 10:13am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hmnn.. did I say that?

What i'm saying is you can't assume consent when someone is unconcious. If you do, you are taking a risk.

Note I said unconcious, not very sleepy, not drunk, not itoxicated with love and sex hormones, unconcious.

Even within partnership, you cant assume absolute trust across the boards. It is not infallible. Situations occur, believe it or not where you partner doesnt want you to have sex with them even if they are unconcious.

Consenting at blast off and then conking out is complex. I would say, stop. Legal implications for this? I cant say, at least not now.

Having sex with someone when they are unconcious and consent was never at any point, yes I do think the unconcious party should have the power to prosecute if they so choose.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 10:15am

Elle Collins wrote: »

Where did you get that idea? It seems you ought to re-read my posts.

Sorry, I thought this was a philosophical discussion not a care and share sleep over party.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 10:31am

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, I thought this was a philosophical discussion not a care and share sleep over party.

I'd respond to that if I had the first idea what you're talking about. I've given you anecdotal evidence which you would prefer not to acknowledge; that's fine by me. I know that your definitions of rape do not fit with my life experience and I am quite certain that they do not fit with the experiences of many others. I can't help wondering why, though, anyone would be so dogged in insisting what goes on in other peoples private lives constitutes rape?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Even within partnership, you cant assume absolute trust across the boards.

Yes, you sometimes can. Your not having experienced that or not being comfortable with that does not negate its truth in the lives of others.

Permabear · 10-08-2010 10:32am

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 10:39am

Elle Collins wrote: »

I'd respond to that if I had the first idea what you're talking about. I've given you anecdotal evidence which you would prefer not to acknowledge; that's fine by me. I know that your definitions of rape do not fit with my life experience and I am quite certain that they do not fit with the experiences of many others. I can't help wondering why, though, anyone would be so dogged in insisting what goes on in other peoples private lives constitutes rape?

Yes, you sometimes can. Your not having experienced that or not being comfortable with that does not negate its truth in the lives of others.

I didnt say I never experienced that, but I am not absracting my opinions soley my personal history as you are doing.

Nor am I trying to convince you were raped or trying to classify it as rape.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 11:00am

metrovelvet wrote: »

I didnt say I never experienced that, but I am not absracting my opinions soley my personal history as you are doing.

I am not basing my opinions on my personal experiences alone. What I am saying (and have already said) is that these issues differ in nature from person to person, couple to couple, and partner to partner. That is what is so fundamentally unsound about the concept of applying a one-size-fits-all definition of rape here.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Nor am I trying to convince you were raped or trying to classify it as rape.

That assertion doesn't quite fit with these comments of yours:

metrovelvet wrote: »

Even within partnership, you cant assume absolute trust across the boards.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Having sex with someone when they are unconcious and consent was never at any point, yes I do think the unconcious party should have the power to prosecute if they so choose.

You do not accept that it is possible for a couple of exist in a sense of generalised sexual consent, and you feel that an unconcious person ought to have the power to prosecute if they so choose. (and yes, by the way, drunkenness and deep sleep do constitute unconciousness - you don't have to be a in a coma to be unconcious) If we were link these two beliefs of yours together and make them law God knows how many couples would be candidates for their sexual offences wing of the local prison.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 11:05am

Elle Collins wrote: »

I am not basing my opinions on my personal experiences alone. What I am saying (and have already said) is that these issues differ in nature from person to person, couple to couple, and partner to partner. That is what is so fundamentally unsound about the concept of applying a one-size-fits-all definition of rape here.

That assertion doesn't quite fit with these comments of yours:

You do not accept that it is possible for a couple of exist in a sense of generalised sexual consent, and you feel that an unconcious person ought to have the power to prosecute if they so choose. (and yes, by the way, drunkenness and deep sleep do constitute unconciousness - you don't have to be a in a coma to be unconcious) If we were link these two beliefs of yours together and make them law God knows how many couples would be candidates for their sexual offences wing of the local prison.

Ok. If you dont want to protect those individuals who did not consent to sex when they were unconcious, who were given no choice in the matter, and were not witnessess to an act in which they were part, well thats your pregogative. I dont see it that way.

As for the overcrowded sex offenders wing... if there were trust involved there would be no need to prosecute.

Btw. Drunk and asleep do not equal unconcious.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 11:24am

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. If you dont want to protect those individuals who did not consent to sex when they were unconcious, who were given no choice in the matter, and were not witnessess to an act in which they were part, well thats your pregogative. I dont see it that way.

Neither do I. Obviously rape victims should be supported. That goes without saying, but I believe that can be done without big-brother-style legislation that dictates to consenting adults what they are allowed to get up to in their own bedrooms.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for the overcrowded sex offenders wing... if there were trust involved there would be no need to prosecute.

You have just spent several posts arguing why that level of trust does not exist in your view.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Btw. Drunk and asleep do not equal unconcious.

A person who is in a deep sleep, either alcohol induced or not, is not concious; hence they are unconcious.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 11:37am

Elle Collins wrote: »

Neither do I. Obviously rape victims should be supported. That goes without saying, but I believe that can be done without big-brother-style legislation that dictates to consenting adults what they are allowed to get up to in their own bedrooms.

You have just spent several posts arguing why that level of trust does not exist in your view.

A person who is in a deep sleep, either alcohol induced or not, is not concious; hence they are unconcious.

I dont think you've thought this through.

drkpower · 10-08-2010 11:52am

Elle Collins wrote: »

You do not accept that it is possible for a couple of exist in a sense of generalised sexual consent, and you feel that an unconcious person ought to have the power to prosecute if they so choose. (and yes, by the way, drunkenness and deep sleep do constitute unconciousness - you don't have to be a in a coma to be unconcious) If we were link these two beliefs of yours together and make them law God knows how many couples would be candidates for their sexual offences wing of the local prison.

A person who was unconscious and never provided consent to sex does have the power to prosecute. That is the same whether the 'offendor' was their husband, boyfriend or a stranger. Of course, if the person was in a loving relationship where the couple often engaged in that kind of sexual practice, the person is very unlikely to report the issue. And if they do, the other party is likely to mount a defence to the effect that there was implied consent, in that they often engaged in this kind of sexual practice. That defence is only likely to be successful if one party can show that this wa sa very regular occurences, that both parties agreed to and acepted and that nothing 'out of the ordinary' occurred on this occasion (ie. he dindt suddenly decide to do it without porotection, or in a different position)

But to be honest, this is not really on-topic. The issue here is where consent is given, and then the person falls asleep. That is the much more tricky issue.

Nevyn · 10-08-2010 11:59am

There was a high profile case where a man entered the victims home and got into her bed and started to have sex with her, she had tought it was her partner and didn't protest until she woke more and saw it was not her partner who did have consent for such an act where as the man in her bed and in her body certainly did not.

He was proscuted for rape.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1219/shannonm.html?rss

The Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that a Central Criminal Court judge erred in principle when he imposed a non-custodial sentence on a man found guilty of rape.

Mary Shannon, a 33-year-old mother of three, was raped as she slept in her bed in May 2005.

She waived her right to anonymity after Adam Keane, from Barnageeha in Daragh, was initially given a three-year suspended sentence for the attack.
Advertisement

He was later ordered to serve the sentence after making what the trial judge described as a 'triumphalist gesture' against Ms Shannon. Keane flicked a cigarette at Mary Shannon after both took the train home to Ennis after the original sentencing.

Today, Keane had his sentence increased from three to ten years following an appeal from the DPP.

In its 28-page written judgment the court found that the appeal of the leniency of the sentence by the DPP was well founded.

It said that the well-established principle that a custodial sentence be handed down for the offence of rape should have been followed.

The judgment also found that Mr Justice Paul Carney did not attach sufficient weight to the location and circumstances in which the rape took place.

It stated that during sentencing there was no reference on the impact of the crime on the victim and her family also it says the fact she felt she was driven out of her own home appears to have been ignored by the trial judge.

Ms Shannon was in court with her family when the judgment was handed down.

Afterwards, Mary Shannon's sister, Sarah, said she was hopeful the case would insure that no other convicted rapist would walk from court without a custodial sentence.

The Court suspended three years of the ten-year sentence. Adam Keane will be subject to one year's post-release supervision.

Herbal Deity · 10-08-2010 12:08pm

How is that relevant?

This thread has become highly confusing. I haven't a clue what's even being argued.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 12:27pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

There was a high profile case where a man entered the victims home and got into her bed and started to have sex with her, she had tought it was her partner and didn't protest until she woke more and saw it was not her partner who did have consent for such an act where as the man in her bed and in her body certainly did not.

He was proscuted for rape.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1219/shannonm.html?rss

Im glad you posted this.

If she was asleep and 'thought it was her boyfriend' that shows conciousness, that during sleep there can be some level of conciousness during sleep.

Nevyn · 10-08-2010 12:31pm

Herbal Deity wrote: »

How is that relevant?

This thread has become highly confusing. I haven't a clue what's even being argued.

That while a state of consent can agreed between a couple it is a very different if it has not been agreed.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im glad you posted this.

If she was asleep and 'thought it was her boyfriend' that shows conciousness, that during sleep there can be some level of conciousness during sleep.

More like semi concious.

Elle Collins · 10-08-2010 12:45pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

There was a high profile case where a man entered the victims home and got into her bed and started to have sex with her, she had tought it was her partner and didn't protest until she woke more and saw it was not her partner who did have consent for such an act where as the man in her bed and in her body certainly did not.

Well that's exactly my point. She would have regarded it consensual, even though she was not in a position to verbally consent, had it been her boyfriend. It was revealed as non-consensual as soon as she realised the man was someone else. Ergo; consent can and does exist between some couples in the absence of verbal consent.

Herbal Deity · 10-08-2010 12:46pm

Does anyone think that a situation like in the OP's post isn't likely to have been discussed by the couple beforehand?

It seems just like something that might happen rather than something you might have thought about beforehand, you're having sex and your OH falls asleep as a result of alcohol.

Are some of you saying that if you haven't explicitly discussed this before, that it is imperative that you stop and don't keep going until you come?

That just seems so overtly paranoid to me...

The Corinthian · 10-08-2010 12:49pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

More like semi concious.

An interesting distinction from unconscious.

One can be semi-conscious due to a number of reasons, of which sleepiness is only one - drunkenness is in effect a vast gray area of semi-consciousness in that your judgment and senses are not in their optimal state and people frequently make 'mistakes' by consenting to sex in a drunken state.

Consider the example you gave from the man's perspective. He got into bed with her and she consented to have sex with him - that is potentially all he knew.

As an extension to this, is giving consent under false pretenses, of which one example was recently prosecuted.

Where is the dividing line then?

Herbal Deity · 10-08-2010 1:00pm

The guy broke into the woman's home in Thaedydal's link?

Nevyn · 10-08-2010 1:08pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

An interesting distinction from unconscious.

One can be semi-conscious due to a number of reasons, of which sleepiness is only one - drunkenness is in effect a vast gray area of semi-consciousness in that your judgment and senses are not in their optimal state and people frequently make 'mistakes' by consenting to sex in a drunken state.

Consider the example you gave from the man's perspective. He got into bed with her and she consented to have sex with him - that is potentially all he knew.

In that case he was in her home, he had not been invited to do so,
he was in her bed he had not been invited to do so,
he was in her body and had not been invited to do so.

He did not have previous history to suggest that it was an acceptable thing to do nor did he have consent prior to the act, where has her parter had been invited, had history and had consent.

If I was unconscious or semi-conscious even with a regular sexual partner and they then used that fact to push the boundaries and enguage in sexual activities which there was no history of and of which there had been no discussion or agreement about and I had not previous given consent,
there would be uproar to the point it could make or break the relationship,
and depending on the acts charges may be pressed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As an extension to this, is giving consent under false pretenses, of which one example was recently prosecuted.

Where is the dividing line then?

I think that the two examples you gave in the post which started this thread are always going to be skewed by the notions we have that hetro/bi men enjoy heterosexual sex no matter the circumstances and can't be forced/cocered into having sex if they do not wish to.

If the argument at the beginning had the woman using a strap on on the man while he was passed out or another man taking advantage I think the reactions in the thread would be very different as society thinks and has enshrined in the law that a man can not be raped by a woman using the act of heterosexual penetrative sex. It's a double standard which is causing a lot of suffering.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 1:08pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

An interesting distinction from unconscious.

One can be semi-conscious due to a number of reasons, of which sleepiness is only one - drunkenness is in effect a vast gray area of semi-consciousness in that your judgment and senses are not in their optimal state and people frequently make 'mistakes' by consenting to sex in a drunken state.

Consider the example you gave from the man's perspective. He got into bed with her and she consented to have sex with him - that is potentially all he knew.

As an extension to this, is giving consent under false pretenses, of which one example was recently prosecuted.

Where is the dividing line then?

I would consider false pretences, fraudulent seduction, not rape like in that article.

Nevyn · 10-08-2010 1:09pm

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The guy broke into the woman's home in Thaedydal's link?

The back door wasn't' locked, he let himself in, went up to her room, got into her bed and started to have sex with her while her kids were in the room next door.

metrovelvet · 10-08-2010 1:11pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The back door wasn't' locked, he let himself in, went up to her room, got into her bed and started to have sex with her while her kids were in the room next door.

Ugh. I just puked a little.

drkpower · 10-08-2010 1:53pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would consider false pretences, fraudulent seduction, not rape like in that article.

Consent obtained by deception is not valid consent; therefore it is sex without consent; therefore it is rape.

Consent obtained by deception in a contractual context results in the repudiation of that contract; there never was a valid contract.

Consent obtained by deception in the medical context results in an assault and/or trespass; there never was any valid consent.

Consent that has no validity is not consent.

Herbal Deity · 10-08-2010 2:02pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

If I was unconscious or semi-conscious even with a regular sexual partner and they then used that fact to push the boundaries and enguage in sexual activities which there was no history of and of which there had been no discussion or agreement about and I had not previous given consent,
there would be uproar to the point it could make or break the relationship,
and depending on the acts charges may be pressed.

If they were pushing the boundaries and engaging in acts that you previously had not engaged in, and they were clearly using your semi/unconscious state to take advantage of that, that is understandable.

But the example in the OP's post. You're both having drunk sex. You fall asleep. They continue on until they come. You have not discussed anything like this before.

Uproar?

Alcohol, Consciousness, Rape and Consent

Comments