Harsh sentence

Muckka · 06-02-2019 12:28am

He probably wouldn't have dreamt about it if he was sober.
Drinks an awful curse, the amount of damage it has done to people and families it effects is huge.

There's another example of someone doing something stupid under the influence of the demon drink.

Probably had a black out, and light's out.

It doesn't excuse the trauma the victim went through.

But it goes to show what someone who is other wise sane sober gets up to while drunk.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 06-02-2019 12:41am

Dante7 wrote: »

That's absolutely horrible, and I am in no way trying to excuse it or belittle it, and I am really sorry about what happened to you. I just don't think a custodial sentence is necessarily appropriate.

Well, here’s the thing - do you think I’m the first and last woman he did that to? Maybe I was the one and only. I doubt it though. So, to me, a custodial sentence might actually shock some sense into someone who thinks feeling unwilling people up is okay. Then again, maybe nothing will knock that deviance out of a person. So what’s the solution?

Vic_08 · 06-02-2019 12:42am

Dante7 wrote: »

That's absolutely horrible, and I am in no way trying to excuse it or belittle it,

Yes you are, at least have the courage of your non-conviction.

Dante7 wrote: »

and I am really sorry about what happened to you. I just don't think a custodial sentence is necessarily appropriate.

What he did was a real crime with a real victim who suffered real consequences, you just don't believe the criminal should suffer any consequences.

Sounds like a dictionary definition of belittling to me.

As for your horror at a very similar crime and offering of sorrow, sounds like self-serving BS to me, you posted no such claims about the linked case which you are making every effort to minimise here.

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 12:44am

Irish Guitarist wrote:

What a hero. He went most of his life without touching womens vaginas without permission.
He probably didn't realise the law allowing you one sexual assault when you reached the age of 32 had been changed. My heart goes out to him.

Yeah but if a man reaches that age without having ever broken a law and there was drink involved and he says he made a mistake getting into the wrong bed then you have to take him at his word. Even the way it happened when he realised it was the wrong bed he got up and walked out of the room is very unusual.
You have to accept his explanation here. The man should nit be behind bars for this imo. And I'm normally at the other end if the spectrum regarding sentencing in sex cases.

Dante7 · 06-02-2019 12:58am

retro:electro wrote: »

Why? One of the purposes of prison is to reform your character, and while don’t know any other details it’s clear from the article that his attitude wasn’t conducive to a position of remorse, therefore a year inside having a think about that might do him the world of good. I would agree that a custodial sentence would be harsh had he acknowledged his wrongdoing but since his defence was basically “your honour, i was meant to force myself on my girlfriend instead” I have no sympathy and he sounds like a twat

Hmm, not too sure about the tone of this. It smacks of Gulag. No one is saying that he didn't require sanction, but the question is, was it overly harsh. I happen to believe that it was extremely harsh.

SoundsRight · 06-02-2019 1:24am

Harsh sentence for what sounds like a genuine mistake. Harsher still for the girl to name and shame him.

Jmsg · 06-02-2019 6:59am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Does the impact it had on the victim have any bearing on whether a custodial sentence should be applied genuine mistake or not?

This question hits at a central issue in the whole matter, that is the notion in the culture at large and motion in the contemporary legal system towards having the heinousness of sexual crimes be based at a primary level on victim impact which is something that differs dramatically based on the individual ranging from total indifference to outright suicidal hysteria.

If a man climbs into a woman’s bed and touches her vagina and she reacts positively then to do so is perfectly acceptable, but if a negative reaction is the case then outright jail time’s the outcome. Merely women’s wills are clearly too fine a line in the matter to separate that which is perfectly acceptable and that which is utmostly abominable. It is demonstrably the case that historically what constituted the severity of sexual crimes has been synonymous with the transgressing of fundamental, mutually understood moral codes about what constitutes acceptable behavior in the area in general. With the loosening if not outright annihilation of such codes in recent times, the boundaries have become extremely murky resulting in a chronic cultural crisis, the lack of resolve of which has been bubbling up to the fore more and more in the public consciousness via the media as we all know, and will continue to become more and more prominent an issue until we capable to resolve it via serious discussion on the matter collectively but unfortunately there are little signs of that actually happening.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 06-02-2019 7:09am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No? The point of the law is to rehabilitate, not mete out punishment based on subjective effects. There are plenty of legal things we can do that can have a serious impact on someone, such as cheating etc.

I wish I could remember the thread years ago where this was debated on here. It wasn't about rape but it was about whether or not the severity of impact should have any effect on sentencing.

The point of law isn’t primarily rehabilitation. That would be a totally different legal system.

06-02-2019 7:16am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The point of law isn’t primarily rehabilitation. That would be a totally different legal system.

Off the top of my head, I would say it's about rehabilitating, protecting the public, and deterring future offenders.

If this guy genuinely went into the wrong room and thought it was his girlfriend, a custodial sentence does literally nothing for anyone. It doesn't help the girl, it changes nothing about him, and it doesn't deter anyone, since anyone can make a mistake.

Honestly, you'd have to argue that this guy is likely to make the same mistake again unless sent to prison. That's loose ground to be standing on.

My friend mistakenly entered the wrong house and slept on the couch thinking it was our house. Should he be arrested and sent to prison for home invasion to ensure he's more careful about house numbers? No.

06-02-2019 9:52am

She said she was falling asleep when Doran came into the room and got into her bed and touched her vagina.

He said to her “show me your clit” and then got up and walked out.

The home-grown talent and class available to the average Irishwoman never fails to impress.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 06-02-2019 10:04am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I would say it's about rehabilitating, protecting the public, and deterring future offenders.

Retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation in that order.

I didn’t actually talk about this case in reply. If rehabilitation were a primary focus then lots of people would never be jailed for major crimes and others face large sentences for minor ones.

Muckka · 06-02-2019 10:13am

Harsh sentences are made to deter people from crime's like this.

I remember a <snip> hopping into bed beside me one time at a college house party.
I woke up in the morning, she proceeded to try to give me a reach around.
I pushed her hand away and said I wasn't interested, twice more she did it.
I got up and walked out, and in the back ground I could hear her muttering something.

I told the lads about it, they said she's a right slapper.
I didn't even remember her hopping into bed beside me. It was my own room.
I ****ed off into town, got the no 14 bus.
I'd say she was an 18 at least bless her.

I didn't feel violated but felt disgusted until around 6 that evening.

Back in the 90's men brushed this behaviour off, not sure how it goes down today.

lbc2019 · 06-02-2019 10:15am

If this was a traveller or non Irish national Im sure the responses would be different.

Boggles · 06-02-2019 10:25am

Yesterday as well.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-jailed-after-gun-fired-over-boys-head-before-horrific-sexual-attack-902494.html

An East Cork man fired a gun over the head of a 12-year-old boy who was subjected to a horrific sexual assault and today the culprit was jailed for two-and-a-half years

Sentencing is all over the place in this country.

Mrsmum · 06-02-2019 10:32am

Drunkenness doesn't give one a free pass on the consequences of his/her actions or allow a person to get off with a slap on the wrists when the crime they 'mistakenly' committed due to drink is serious. If you were walking down the street one night and a drunk man was staggering around but coming straight towards you and you put up your arm to ward him off and he in his drunken state mistakenly thinks you are going to strike him so plants you one instead smashing all your teeth, he doesn't get off by saying "but but but Judge, I thought at the time I was acting in self defence". I don't think too many of us would say "ah fair enough, honest mistake". The girl in the bed was as innocent as the man walking down the street minding his own business and she was sexually assaulted. He has to pay the consequences of that. He is probably sharing his cell with strangers now and sleeping with one eye open in case some coked up head 'mistakes' him for his boyfriend and gives him the same experience as he gave the girl. And if he was unfortunate enough that anyone did touch him, I'm sure he would want them punished properly for their crime on him.

06-02-2019 10:51am

I think the largest, and most important part of the story is that he showed no remorse to the action.
We have all done things when drunk that we should now better at, but something like this where, if true, and no remorse was shown then shows that the person thinks they did nothing wrong. That I think is the part the judge would be most concerned with.

And to those who say if it was the other way, I once woke up to a lady who was not my Mrs trying to do similar, thought she was in a different room, I told her cop on and out she went. next day she was mortified and apologized, her BF looked a bit shook also by it, prob because he was 6 inches shorter than me and heavy so hard to mistake!!!!

I also once grabbed a woman by the backside on holidays before, she was wearing same dress and and had very similar build and hair to my Mrs, I was sober at the time!!
Had apologized powerfully at the time and other times when I saw her, she just joked after that she should be so lucky in future that I be single.

Boggles · 06-02-2019 10:55am

Mrsmum wrote: »

It really doesn't matter if it was a genuine mistake.

In determining a suitable sentence of course it matters.

It would appear from the short article the Judge gave him a custodial sentence because he didn't appear contrite or contrite enough.

Was that based on the fact he plead not guilty or his demeanour in court.

It would appear he was certainly up against it on that front.

I trusted you like a brother. My life was derailed. I felt so lost after. I felt abandoned and betrayed

Either way, I imagine there is a lot more to this story than the small article we are privy to.

retro:electro · 06-02-2019 10:57am

Boggles wrote: »

Either way, I imagine there is a lot more to this story than the small article we are privy to.

Absolutely

Feisar · 06-02-2019 11:03am

Harsh on the lad if it was an honest mistake but you gotta be accoutable for yer actions.

Green&Red · 06-02-2019 11:12am

Feisar wrote: »

Harsh on the lad if it was an honest mistake but you gotta be accoutable for yer actions.

The phrase “show us your clit” would suggest he knew well what he was doing, who the f**k says that to their fiancé?

Green&Red · 06-02-2019 11:14am

It’s also in line with this sentence

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-coach-who-grabbed-womans-bottom-fails-in-appeal-37464256.html

Boggles · 06-02-2019 11:22am

Green&Red wrote: »

It’s also in line with this sentence

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rugby-coach-who-grabbed-womans-bottom-fails-in-appeal-37464256.html

Judge Patricia McNamara had imposed a two-month suspended sentence, but he had appealed the conviction

No it isn't.

Scotty # · 06-02-2019 11:30am

The real punishment here is not the custodial sentence, it's the loss of anonymity.

Feisar · 06-02-2019 11:51am

Green&Red wrote: »

The phrase “show us your clit” would suggest he knew well what he was doing, who the f**k says that to their fiancé anyone?

Fixed that there for you, no need to thank me!

Skylinehead · 06-02-2019 11:55am

Rake of rereg posts and replies to such deleted, fyi

yourdeadwright · 06-02-2019 11:55am

I don't think anyone here can really have a stone wall opinion on this ,

If it was genuine mistake then yes the sentence is harsh but he could have just chanced his arm ,know what he was doing and when it didn't go as planned played I was drunk it was a mistake card, In that case then yes he deserver's every day he serves.

So hard to judge from just reading the report, You'd really have to know the guy and seen how drunk he was or how he reacted after it ,

Doesn't look good that he refused to admit he done anything wrong, Surely you'd be straight down the women's house or Garda station explaining the accident and station your sorry for it , Not admitting you did anything wrong is weird

Drunk or a mistake or not it doesn't make it any better for the women who obviously suffered some distress, She's the one that people should really feel sorry for ,

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 12:21pm

Green&Red wrote:

The phrase â€œshow us your clitâ€ would suggest he knew well what he was doing, who the f**k says that to their fiancÃ©?

Many people have different ways of doing things in bed. It could be some joke between them that became part of the ritual.

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 12:24pm

yourdeadwright wrote:

Doesn't look good that he refused to admit he done anything wrong, Surely you'd be straight down the women's house or Garda station explaining the accident and station your sorry for it , Not admitting you did anything wrong is weird

He did admit he did it in a statement to a garda. He felt it was an accident and that he shouldn't be convicted of sexual assault. It was a technical not guilty not a disputing or denying the charge type of not guilty.

seamus · 06-02-2019 12:26pm

It's the Independent.

A few weeks back there was a case where a man offered to pay his ex-wife for sex, and when she refused, dragged her upstairs, punched her in the face and forcibly removed her trousers, but she fought him off before he could rape her.

The Independent reported this case as "man hit his wife over the head in a row over sex". Like some cartoonish Flintstones escapade.

So given the Independent's tendency to downplay sexual violence, I'm going to look at the more obvious point here:

- This was tried in a circuit court, with a jury, rather than a district court.

If the case was as simple as, "Ah Jaysus we were locked and I got in the wrong bed", the DPP wouldn't have brought it to the circuit court, and the man's solicitor would have advised him to plead guilty and accept a small charge.

There is undoubtedly a lot more to this case than the Indo is reporting.

Boggles · 06-02-2019 12:34pm

seamus wrote: »

It's the Independent.

A few weeks back there was a case where a man offered to pay his ex-wife for sex, and when she refused, dragged her upstairs, punched her in the face and forcibly removed her trousers, but she fought him off before he could rape her.

The Independent reported this case as "man hit his wife over the head in a row over sex". Like some cartoonish Flintstones escapade.

Not quite.

Man who hit wife and dragged her upstairs after she refused sex walks free

I do think the link above highlights the scatter gun attitude judges have towards sentencing and would reinforce the opinion that the custodial sentence in this case would be deemed harsh in comparison.

yourdeadwright · 06-02-2019 12:38pm

eagle eye wrote: »

He did admit he did it in a statement to a garda. He felt it was an accident and that he shouldn't be convicted of sexual assault. It was a technical not guilty not a disputing or denying the charge type of not guilty.

"Judge Elma Sheahan said that Doran's failure to acknowledge his wrongdoing raised a question as to the level of insight he has into his offending"

That's a red flag surely ? or if he said I don't remember is that a failure to acknowledge his wrong doing ?

Either way the victim did nothing to deserve what happened, so drunk or sober it was still him wo committed the act, unfortunate or not he most be held responsible for his actions ,

yourdeadwright · 06-02-2019 12:40pm

seamus wrote: »

It's the Independent.

A few weeks back there was a case where a man offered to pay his ex-wife for sex, and when she refused, dragged her upstairs, punched her in the face and forcibly removed her trousers, but she fought him off before he could rape her.

The Independent reported this case as "man hit his wife over the head in a row over sex". Like some cartoonish Flintstones escapade.

So given the Independent's tendency to downplay sexual violence, I'm going to look at the more obvious point here:

- This was tried in a circuit court, with a jury, rather than a district court.

If the case was as simple as, "Ah Jaysus we were locked and I got in the wrong bed", the DPP wouldn't have brought it to the circuit court, and the man's solicitor would have advised him to plead guilty and accept a small charge.

There is undoubtedly a lot more to this case than the Indo is reporting.

Yes something seems to be a miss alright ,Surely the victim who knew him well would know if it was a honest mistake ?

seamus · 06-02-2019 12:42pm

Boggles wrote: »

Not quite.

They changed the headline after they got slaughtered for it.

You can see the original headline here - MSN republished the article, but didn't change the headline when the Indo did:
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/man-who-hit-wife-on-head-in-row-over-sex-walks-free/ar-BBOrsjf

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Yes something seems to be a miss alright ,Surely the victim who knew him well would know if it was a honest mistake ?

I'm assuming by the article that it was his house. And although there's a lack of information in the article, I'm also going to assume that he typically shared a bed with his fiancee. So unless the victim was sleeping in their bed, it seems very unlikely that someone could make this mistake no matter how drunk/ I've never gotten plastered and wandered into the wrong bedroom in my own house.

It's curious that the report contains only his defence ("it was a mistake") and says nothing of the prosecution facts.

BrokenArrows · 06-02-2019 12:48pm

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

I also once grabbed a woman by the backside on holidays before, she was wearing same dress and and had very similar build and hair to my Mrs, I was sober at the time!!
Had apologized powerfully at the time and other times when I saw her, she just joked after that she should be so lucky in future that I be single.

I bet if you were very unattractive to her the result would have been very different.

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 12:52pm

yourdeadwright wrote:

"Judge Elma Sheahan said that Doran's failure to acknowledge his wrongdoing raised a question as to the level of insight he has into his offending"
That's a red flag surely ? or if he said I don't remember is that a failure to acknowledge his wrong doing ?

He pleaded not guilty and was found guilty. That is what she is referring to. He admitted what happened but felt it was not sexual assault because there was no intent to sexually assault on his part. He though it was his own bed.

yourdeadwright wrote:

Either way the victim did nothing to deserve what happened, so drunk or sober it was still him wo committed the act, unfortunate or not he most be held responsible for his actions ,

Yes we have a victim, a person hurt by a very unfortunate event.
This man has no history of law breaking let alone a sexual assault history.
I think it's wrong that he got jailed. As I've said already I'm normally on the other side of the fence wanting bigger sentences for sexual offenders.

batgoat · 06-02-2019 12:53pm

The fact that it was an accidental assault does not mean he should not feel remorse over his actions...

JupiterKid · 06-02-2019 12:56pm

seamus wrote: »

It's the Independent.

A few weeks back there was a case where a man offered to pay his ex-wife for sex, and when she refused, dragged her upstairs, punched her in the face and forcibly removed her trousers, but she fought him off before he could rape her.

The Independent reported this case as "man hit his wife over the head in a row over sex". Like some cartoonish Flintstones escapade.

So given the Independent's tendency to downplay sexual violence, I'm going to look at the more obvious point here:

- This was tried in a circuit court, with a jury, rather than a district court.

If the case was as simple as, "Ah Jaysus we were locked and I got in the wrong bed", the DPP wouldn't have brought it to the circuit court, and the man's solicitor would have advised him to plead guilty and accept a small charge.

There is undoubtedly a lot more to this case than the Indo is reporting.

Agreed.

I'm sure there is a lot more to this case that the Indo has disclosed. When sentencing, the judge takes into account a myriad of factors and circumstances around incidents so we almost certainly do not know the full story here. The fact that he pleaded Not Guilty and was subsequently found Guilty automatically means a harsher sentence than if the defendant had originally pleaded guilty.

Why am I not surprised that some on the same posters who were taking the same side as the Ulster rugby players acquited of those sordid rape allegations are bleating on here that the sentence in this case was far too harsh?

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 12:56pm

batgoat wrote:

The fact that it was an accidental assault does not mean he should not feel remorse over his actions...

Who said he didn't feel remorse?

GreeBo · 06-02-2019 12:56pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m more worried about the fact he thought an appropriate defence for barging in the room like a lout and touching a sleeping girl’s vagina was “I thought she was my girlfriend”. News flash hun that still doesn’t make it okay.

Maybe that’s why the judge decided to lock him up for a year.

Sorry but, what?

Is this really where we are as a society?

My wife kissed me on the back of the head this morning when she came up behind me, sexual assault in your eyes no doubt.

#metoo

seamus · 06-02-2019 12:59pm

GreeBo wrote: »

My wife kissed me on the back of the head this morning when she came up behind me, sexual assault in your eyes no doubt.

Did you just compare a kiss on the back of the head while you're awake, with touching someone's genitals while they sleep?

Or did you miss that bit?

Yes, touching your partner's genitals while they're asleep, is sexual assault.

Please tell me I didn't need to point that out.

meeeeh · 06-02-2019 1:00pm

seamus wrote: »

It's the Independent.

A few weeks back there was a case where a man offered to pay his ex-wife for sex, and when she refused, dragged her upstairs, punched her in the face and forcibly removed her trousers, but she fought him off before he could rape her.

The Independent reported this case as "man hit his wife over the head in a row over sex". Like some cartoonish Flintstones escapade.

So given the Independent's tendency to downplay sexual violence, I'm going to look at the more obvious point here:

- This was tried in a circuit court, with a jury, rather than a district court.

If the case was as simple as, "Ah Jaysus we were locked and I got in the wrong bed", the DPP wouldn't have brought it to the circuit court, and the man's solicitor would have advised him to plead guilty and accept a small charge.

There is undoubtedly a lot more to this case than the Indo is reporting.

That was my thinking. Plus you would imagine one would apologize straight away when realizing they climbed into wrong bed. Maybe he did but it doesn't seem so from victims reaction.

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 1:01pm

seamus wrote:

Did you just compare a kiss on the back of the head while you're awake, with touching someone's genitals while they sleep?

What if she says it's ok to do it when you come to bed?

retro:electro · 06-02-2019 1:01pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry but, what?

Is this really where we are as a society?

My wife kissed me on the back of the head this morning when she came up behind me, sexual assault in your eyes no doubt.

#metoo

Yeah cos that’s exactly the same thing as barging in the room blotto and forcing yourself on a sleeping person and fondling their genitals :rolleyes:

batgoat · 06-02-2019 1:02pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Who said he didn't feel remorse?

Failure to acknowledge wrongdoing would indicate a lack of remorse. In itself it's a bit worrying that he doesn't believe there was wrongdoing.

Boggles · 06-02-2019 1:02pm

seamus wrote: »

If the case was as simple as, "Ah Jaysus we were locked and I got in the wrong bed", the DPP wouldn't have brought it to the circuit court, and the man's solicitor would have advised him to plead guilty and accept a small charge.

What small charge could the DPP reduce it to?

Also we have no idea what his solicitor advised him to do.

I imagine the victim has a say in it too.

In the case of the lowlife who beat and dragged his wife upstairs and attempted to rape her, he didn't plead guilty to the attempted rape, he plead guilty to assault. The DPP dropped that aspect of it.

But again, not enough detail.

This happened in the summer of 2015, what was the delay I wonder.

GreeBo · 06-02-2019 1:02pm

seamus wrote: »

Did you just compare a kiss on the back of the head while you're awake, with touching someone's genitals while they sleep?

Or did you miss that bit?

Yes, touching your partner's genitals while they're asleep, is sexual assault.

Please tell me I didn't need to point that out.

I'm not equating touching genitals with a kiss on the head (as I'm *sure* you are aware) I'm equating the lack of consent in both cases.

So, my wife sexually assaulted me this morning in your eyes?

yourdeadwright · 06-02-2019 1:07pm

eagle eye wrote: »

He pleaded not guilty and was found guilty. That is what she is referring to. He admitted what happened but felt it was not sexual assault because there was no intent to sexually assault on his part. He though it was his own bed.

Yes we have a victim, a person hurt by a very unfortunate event.
This man has no history of law breaking let alone a sexual assault history.
I think it's wrong that he got jailed. As I've said already I'm normally on the other side of the fence wanting bigger sentences for sexual offenders.

Doesn't really make sense for the judge to say , he didn't feel remorse then ?

Anyway if you make that comment and touch a women there it is your duty to make sure you know who your touching ,Drunk or not he sexually assaulted her end of story ,

Lots of things seem to be missing from the story, who's house was it ?
Surely the women who knew him (like a brother) would have know if it was an accident ?
Was the comment he made to her before or after he touched her ,
Had she made he self know to him before or after the touch and comment

Lots of stuff missing from the report but as someone said ,
I don't think a simple accident with friends would have went that far ,

eagle eye · 06-02-2019 1:07pm

batgoat wrote:

Failure to acknowledge wrongdoing would indicate a lack of remorse. In itself it's a bit worrying that he doesn't believe there was wrongdoing.

It's a technical thing. He admitted doing it but believes there was no intent to sexually assault. The charge brought before the court was one which includes intent.

Grayson · 06-02-2019 1:08pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not equating touching genitals with a kiss on the head (as I'm *sure* you are aware) I'm equating the lack of consent in both cases.

So, my wife sexually assaulted me this morning in your eyes?

Consent can be implied. If I walk up to a random woman and kiss her, it's a type of assault. If you kiss your wife then it's not because it's something you do every day. You can assume that she will consent because she always has and you have no reason to think she wouldn't.

However if your wife told you she doesn't want you to kiss her then you would have to assume that there's no consent.

The simple fact that this has to be explained in this day in age is amazing.

GreeBo · 06-02-2019 1:11pm

Grayson wrote: »

Consent can be implied. If I walk up to a random woman and kiss her, it's a type of assault. If you kiss your wife then it's not because it's something you do every day. You can assume that she will consent because she always has and you have no reason to think she wouldn't.

However if your wife told you she doesn't want you to kiss her then you would have to assume that there's no consent.

The simple fact that this has to be explained in this day in age is amazing.

Thats plain and obvious to most, but clearly not all.

seamus wrote: »

Yes, touching your partner's genitals while they're asleep, is sexual assault.

Please tell me I didn't need to point that out.

Harsh sentence

Comments