NationStates Jolt Archive

An exercise in perspective and definition.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A husband and wife, in a stable marriage who get along well, are asleep one night when the husband awakens with an intense sexual desire. His wife, deeply asleep, doesn't respond when he tries to wake her for a middle of the night romp, but as they had sex before dropping off to sleep, she is still lubricated from earlier, and he carefully positions himself and takes her in her sleep. He's very slow, very gentle, and manages to complete the act without her fully waking up. (We can assume at this point he was specifically trying to see if he could pull it off without waking her.)

Was this an act of rape?

Would any of the following circumstances alter your perception of this event?

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.
-If they hadn't already had sex that evening, and he found some other means to lubricate?
-If they had fought before going to bed?
-If they had been relying on condoms, and he didn't use one?
-They're not married?
-If he never tells her what happened (Although we can assume she'd be able to tell normally, the fact that they'd already had sex that night might make it more difficult)?
-If he had drugged her so that she'd remain asleep?

I have my own opinions on these, but I'll hold off until a few people have replied, since I'm more interested in learning about people's perception than getting involve din a debate.

Poll inc.

EDIT: For you female posters, if you don't mind answering this, how would you feel if you woke up and realized your husband/boyfriend had done it? Not a general question, but specific to the guy you're with now.

An exercise in perspective and definition.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A husband and wife, in a stable marriage who get along well, are asleep one night when the husband awakens with an intense sexual desire. His wife, deeply asleep, doesn't respond when he tries to wake her for a middle of the night romp, but as they had sex before dropping off to sleep, she is still lubricated from earlier, and he carefully positions himself and takes her in her sleep. He's very slow, very gentle, and manages to complete the act without her fully waking up. (We can assume at this point he was specifically trying to see if he could pull it off without waking her.)

Sex without consent? Yeah, that seems to be pretty much the definition.

Your alternative hypotheticals do not change the underlying facts, thus do not change the conclusion, except, perhaps, for this one: "If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented."

Sex with consent is sex. Sex without is rape. Did she consent? Yes? Not rape. No? Rape.

It's pretty simple.

Generally, yes, it would be rape. If she chooses to have him prosecuted for it is up to her though.

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented. - That might constitute mitigating circumstances.
-If they hadn't already had sex that evening, and he found some other means to lubricate? - Doesn't change a thing
-If they had fought before going to bed? - Doesn't change a thing
-If they had been relying on condoms, and he didn't use one? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape, but it might make it more likely that she will have him prosecuted.
-They're not married? - Doesn't change a thing
-If he never tells her what happened (Although we can assume she'd be able to tell normally, the fact that they'd already had sex that night might make it more difficult)? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape.
-If he had drugged her so that she'd remain asleep? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape, but it might make it more likely that she will have him prosecuted.

He must be pretty non-endowed if she didn't wake up.

And what fun is there in fucking the sleeping, the comatose, or the otherwise unconscious?

Geez.

Emmmm.....Yes? No...wait..lemme think.....Yes. Sexual contact without consent. Rape.

Which means that:


-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.


Makes it not rape. I think.

Generally, yes, it would be rape. If she chooses to have him prosecuted for it is up to her though.

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented. - That might constitute mitigating circumstances.
-If they hadn't already had sex that evening, and he found some other means to lubricate? - Doesn't change a thing
-If they had fought before going to bed? - Doesn't change a thing
-If they had been relying on condoms, and he didn't use one? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape, but it might make it more likely that she will have him prosecuted.
-They're not married? - Doesn't change a thing
-If he never tells her what happened (Although we can assume she'd be able to tell normally, the fact that they'd already had sex that night might make it more difficult)? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape.
-If he had drugged her so that she'd remain asleep? - Doesn't change the fact that it's rape, but it might make it more likely that she will have him prosecuted.

^ this ^

tho the bolded might be iffy. after all, just because she agreed to try it sometime might not make it a consent.

a possible strawman would be "She agreed that one day she would have sex with him." does not consititute 'future consent'. or if she 'agrees to experiment with simulated rape sometime in the future.' but that would be up to the lawyers to argue.

Yeah, it is. Your sentence might be mitigated if she consented to the general idea beforehand, though. If you can put on a sympathetic face for the jury. <.<

An exercise in perspective and definition.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A husband and wife, in a stable marriage who get along well, are asleep one night when the husband awakens with an intense sexual desire. His wife, deeply asleep, doesn't respond when he tries to wake her for a middle of the night romp, but as they had sex before dropping off to sleep, she is still lubricated from earlier, and he carefully positions himself and takes her in her sleep. He's very slow, very gentle, and manages to complete the act without her fully waking up. (We can assume at this point he was specifically trying to see if he could pull it off without waking her.)

Was this an act of rape?
Yes, it is rape, because the previous sexual intercourse she consented for has ended. This is a new intercourse, and, as such, it requires a new consent.


Would any of the following circumstances alter your perception of this event?

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.

Mh, dunno. This is a difficult one.


-If they hadn't already had sex that evening, and he found some other means to lubricate?

Absolutely rape.


-If they had fought before going to bed?

Still rape I'd say, unless the matter of the fight was she saying "you have never fucked me while I sleep you bastard, and you know how much I'd want it"


-If they had been relying on condoms, and he didn't use one?

Doesn't matter.


-They're not married?

Doesn't matter at all.


-If he never tells her what happened (Although we can assume she'd be able to tell normally, the fact that they'd already had sex that night might make it more difficult)?

This is a case when prosecution would be difficult. Still, it would be rape.


-If he had drugged her so that she'd remain asleep?

Absolutely rape, plus there's the unlawful administration of drugs.

Yeah, it is. Your sentence might be mitigated if she consented to the general idea beforehand, though. If you can put on a sympathetic face for the jury. <.<

juries don't decide sentencing (except in one instance not applicable here). Judges do. Juries just are a guilty/not guilty institution.

He must be pretty non-endowed if she didn't wake up.

This. If my ex tried that and I didn't wake up, I would have hoped he'd take me to the hospital, because I'd probably be in a coma.

This. If my ex tried that and I didn't wake up, I would have hoped he'd take me to the hospital, because I'd probably be in a coma.

I still don't understand the part about a guy actually enjoying fucking someone who is completely out.

That's only a small step away from necrophilia, if you ask me.

juries don't decide sentencing (except in one instance not applicable here). Judges do. Juries just are a guilty/not guilty institution.

I sneer at factual errors about the basic workings of the legal system. :$

Thanks very much for the replies so far. Please note I added a question to the OP, asking the female posters here how they might feel if they were the woman in this hypothetical scenario.

I still don't understand the part about a guy actually enjoying fucking someone who is completely out.

That's only a small step away from necrophilia, if you ask me.

Got problems with the word "hypothetical"?

juries don't decide sentencing (except in one instance not applicable here). Judges do. Juries just are a guilty/not guilty institution.

but can juries 'suggest' punishment/severity?

I sneer at factual errors about the basic workings of the legal system. :$

yes...well...don't do it again. Or something.

Got problems with the word "hypothetical"?

Yeah, the same problems that Neo had with the "hypothetical" in another thread.

Yeah, the same problems that Neo had with the "hypothetical" in another thread.

Zing.

but can juries 'suggest' punishment/severity?

maybe in some jurisdictions? But I doubt it. Generally the only question juries have is "is he guilty?" and upon answering that question, are relieved.

The only occassion I know of when a jury is empowered to decide a sentence (and there's only one), it's an ENTIRELY different hearing, with the question of guilt already decided.

Zing.

yeah, he really got me alright :rolleyes:

Well if he doesn't wake her it doesn't speak well for the size if his manhood or his abilities in the sack. ...unless she's narcoleptic or something like that.

It's kinda messed up but provided that their married I wouldn't call it rape - but I suppose she has a right to know... (Although if she's on drugs or passed out drunk it's rape!) What I want to know is who wants to have sex with someone who is asleep???

It's kinda messed up but provided that their married I wouldn't call it rape - but I suppose she has a right to know... (Although if she's on drugs or passed out drunk it's rape!) What I want to know is who wants to have sex with someone who is asleep???

wait, let me make sure I understand this, a husband can have sex with his wife, without consent, but it's not rape because they're married, but only if she's naturally unconcious, and not artificially?

It's rape. The idea that in some far past she consented to "maybe trying" it doesn't make it not rape.

For example if you told your girlfriend you wanted to try anal and she said "maybe one day" that doesn't mean you get to have some anal fun time at any point in the future whether she wants it or not because "hey you said I could!".

You need consent every time you have sex, and fresh consent, not 3 years ago consent.

It's rape. The idea that in some far past she consented to "maybe trying" it doesn't make it not rape.

For example if you told your girlfriend you wanted to try anal and she said "maybe one day" that doesn't mean you get to have some anal fun time at any point in the future whether she wants it or not because "hey you said I could!".

You need consent every time you have sex, and fresh consent, not 3 years ago consent.

well it's...vague, I mean, hypothetically if she said, at one point "OK, at some point when I'm asleep you can have sex with me", that might do it, no matter how long ago, if she didn't recscind.

maybe in some jurisdictions? But I doubt it. Generally the only question juries have is "is he guilty?" and upon answering that question, are relieved.

The only occassion I know of when a jury is empowered to decide a sentence (and there's only one), it's an ENTIRELY different hearing, with the question of guilt already decided.

Juries can sometimes find a defendant guilty of a lesser included offense (or so I understand from watching Court TV :tongue:) but that probably wouldn't apply here. Or in a civil case they can sometimes decide the monetary damages. Or perhaps you're thinking of the death penalty, Neo?

yeah, he really got me alright :rolleyes:

you sure that's what that meant?

I thought it was a clear miss? :confused: :p

What I want to know is who wants to have sex with someone who is asleep???

That's not the question. Presumably, some people are into that kind of thing, no matter how few. Rule thirty-six, or something.

The question is, if somebody is into it, does it count as rape anyway? I'd say the answer is yes, and any judge would pronounce you guilty without hesitation.

Well if he doesn't wake her it doesn't speak well for the size if his manhood or his abilities in the sack. ...unless she's narcoleptic or something like that.

Why, because he's a competent enough lover to be able to insert himself into her without waking her up? I seriously pity the females in the lives of all the huge dicks in this thread who apparently can't have sex without causing earthquakes.

You need consent every time you have sex, and fresh consent, not 3 years ago consent.

Where's this three years comming from?

She could have said "Hey, I want you to fuck me tonight while I sleep, mmmkay?"

well it's...vague, I mean, hypothetically if she said, at one point "OK, at some point when I'm asleep you can have sex with me", that might do it, no matter how long ago, if she didn't recscind.

.....well, I'm just saying maybe she forgot.... or changed her mind and didn't bring it up.....or something.

I wouldn't base any sexual consent on something she said in passing a "while ago".

Where's this three years comming from?

She could have said "Hey, I want you to fuck me tonight while I sleep, mmmkay?"
If she did, then it sounds like consent.

I got the impression that this conversation was far removed from the evening in question though.

Also, Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 26 (20 members and 6 guests)

And most of them agree with each other, too. Who says this is a debate forum? :P

wait, let me make sure I understand this, a husband can have sex with his wife, without consent, but it's not rape because they're married, but only if she's naturally unconcious, and not artificially?

I don't want to get into this since It's not a situation I would ever find myself in. I think It should be up to the womans discretion whether or not this is rape or not... If she's cool with it then it's not rape. Which is why i said she has a right to know...

Unless they had agreed before hand that he could do this in such a situation it's pretty clearly sex without consent. Even then it's a bit iffy.

Juries can sometimes find a defendant guilty of a lesser included offense (or so I understand from watching Court TV :tongue:) but that probably wouldn't apply here.

yes, that's true, but that still isn't applicable. I said a jury doesn't decide sentencing. They determine guilt. Determining a defendent guilty of a lesser included offense is still determining guilt. Not sentencing. They can find a defendant guilty of a lesser included offense, but it's still up to the judge to sentence the defendant for that crime.

Or in a civil case they can sometimes decide the monetary damages.

Which is not exactly a "sentence" and more of an "award". But that's civil not criminal.

Or perhaps you're thinking of the death penalty, Neo?

That would be the one exception, yes.

If she did, then it sounds like consent.

I got the impression that this conversation was far removed from the evening in question though.

Being far removed would put it in its intended context.

Being far removed would put it in its intended context.

Damn. Smunkee:1 Drunkendove:0

What's the fascination with rape? I see that topic popping up quite frequently here on NSG (yes I'm mostly a lurker), but I think it's a very rare crime. Or am I just naive?

What's the fascination with rape? I see that topic popping up quite frequently here on NSG (yes I'm mostly a lurker), but I think it's a very rare crime. Or am I just naive?

It's not that rare, and people like arguing about it for some reason. Maybe it makes their blood boil. (it's one of those sensitive topics that inspires passionate opinionating, methinks.)

What's the fascination with rape? I see that topic popping up quite frequently here on NSG (yes I'm mostly a lurker), but I think it's a very rare crime. Or am I just naive?

You're naive. 1 in 6 women will be raped in their lifetime. It's sadly a very common crime.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

The only way it could be rape is if she wakes up, finds out and presses chardes. Realistically though I don't think a court would hear it under the circumstances that they are man and wife.

Why, because he's a competent enough lover to be able to insert himself into her without waking her up? I seriously pity the females in the lives of all the huge dicks in this thread who apparently can't have sex without causing earthquakes.

Not waking her up is not what I would consider a measure of competence. :eek:

Huge? I wouldn't say so - just normal.:$ As for earthquakes, I've broken two beds with my lover but I assure you we *both* like it that way. :D

It's not that rare, and people like arguing about it for some reason. Maybe it makes their blood boil. (it's one of those sensitive topics that inspires passionate opinionating, methinks.)

Right up there with religion and the death penalty and such.
The only way it could be rape is if she wakes up, finds out and presses chardes. Realistically though I don't think a court would hear it under the circumstances that they are man and wife.

I disagree. It's rape regardless of whether it goes to court, or even if the victim knows about it/tells anyone.

Not waking her up is not what I would consider a measure of competence. :eek:

Huge? I wouldn't say so - just normal.:$ As for earthquakes, I've broken two beds with my lover but I assure you we *both* like it that way. :D

So, the only way you know how to have sex is rough and violent? Again, I pity your lover.

Ladies? How about the second part? What if it was YOU in this example, with your current guy?

Hmmm. Tricky. First impulse is to say rape, but if my girlfriend would wish to wake me with a blowjob I would not complain - even though that also is without consent.

So.. I will need to ponder.

Ladies? How about the second part? What if it was YOU in this example, with your current guy?

If it was me, it wouldn't really help much to your OP, Neo B. I don't mind being taken when I'm asleep, never have. To me, only me, that's not rape. But in a context, because she didn't give her consent, what the husband did could be considered rape.

I disagree. It's rape regardless of whether it goes to court, or even if the victim knows about it/tells anyone.

Is it still rape if she wants it to happen? From a strict standpoint, she's not consenting to that particular instance of sex, so it's rape, but from a broader view, if she's into it and wants him to do that, is it still rape? Rape fetishes DO exist, after all.

So, the only way you know how to have sex is rough and violent? Again, I pity your lover.

Jeepers, judgmental about other peoples love making habits today aren't we? :eek: It may surprise you to learn that some women don't actually gentle loving at all but prefer it rough. I don't really want to get deep into it because our sexual habits are none of your business...

Jeepers, judgmental about other peoples love making habits today aren't we? :eek: It may surprise you to learn that some women don't actually gentle loving at all but prefer it rough. I don't really want to get deep into it because our sexual habits are none of your business...

Judgemental? You mean like assuming that a man who's able to insert into his sleeping wife without waking her has a tiny penis and/or is a terrible lover?

Is it still rape if she wants it to happen? From a strict standpoint, she's not consenting to that particular instance of sex, so it's rape, but from a broader view, if she's into it and wants him to do that, is it still rape? Rape fetishes DO exist, after all.

Rape fetishes aren't really rape though, they're roleplaying rape. The 'victim' feels helpless(if they get into it), but in reality they agreed to get 'raped' and can stop everything with a word or phrase or gesture. In theory.

Judgemental? You mean like assuming that a man who's able to insert into his sleeping wife without waking her has a tiny penis and/or is a terrible lover?

Not being judgmental - just being factual.

Ok, so if his penis isn't tiny, then she has a whale's vagina.

Is it still rape if she wants it to happen? From a strict standpoint, she's not consenting to that particular instance of sex, so it's rape, but from a broader view, if she's into it and wants him to do that, is it still rape? Rape fetishes DO exist, after all.

The thing about rape is, it's phrased about consent, but consent is tricky. Consent can be implied. How do you define implied consent?

For me it's simple. Consent is implied by the ability to safely control the situation, and a disinclination to do so.

Which is why sex with unconsious people is rape, because they have no ability to control the situation or withdraw from it.

Not being judgmental - just being factual.

Ok, so if his penis isn't tiny, then she has a whale's vagina.

Or she's a deep sleeper.....

Not being judgmental - just being factual.

Ok, so if his penis isn't tiny, then she has a whale's vagina.

Or maybe he's just good enough in bed to not shake the foundation every time he inserts. Just because you are a shitty lover doesn't make us all as bad as you in bed.

Is it still rape if she wants it to happen? From a strict standpoint, she's not consenting to that particular instance of sex, so it's rape, but from a broader view, if she's into it and wants him to do that, is it still rape? Rape fetishes DO exist, after all.

To my understanding, Rape Fetishes still has some form of control. if the 'victim' wants it to stop, the 'victim' can put an end to it through the use of 'safe words'.

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.


This is the only situation where this might not be rape, and then only if the consent was very very clear on this issue. Otherwise, yes, it's rape.

To my understanding, Rape Fetishes still has some form of control. if the 'victim' wants it to stop, the 'victim' can put an end to it through the use of 'safe words'.

I have had this exact situation requested of me, and I declined for the very reasons we're discussing in this thread. But I know at least one person who genuinely wants to be raped while asleep, and I highly doubt that she is the only person out there like that.

To completely hijack the hypothetical, say that this was something that husband and wife agreed to before retiring to bed. They discussed it and agreed that he would take her while she slept. Perhaps she took some NyQuil or such to ensure a deep sleep. The consent exists there, before the act. During the act, however, it cannot legally exist as she's unconscious. If the police showed up right then, they'd rightfully arrest him for rape. When she woke back up, she would back up his claim that she wanted it to happen. Would he still be charged with rape?

I have had this exact situation requested of me, and I declined for the very reasons we're discussing in this thread. But I know at least one person who genuinely wants to be raped while asleep, and I highly doubt that she is the only person out there like that.

As I mentioned, I would not object to my girlfriend waking me with a blowjob (or by riding me for that matter). I think most other men also would also not be upset about that.
But, since that starts while I am asleep, it indeed would be without consent.

Most of my gfs sofar did not mind being woken in an erotic matter either - though I haven't tried the "shove the meat in before she is awake" approach.

I have had this exact situation requested of me, and I declined for the very reasons we're discussing in this thread. But I know at least one person who genuinely wants to be raped while asleep, and I highly doubt that she is the only person out there like that.

To completely hijack the hypothetical, say that this was something that husband and wife agreed to before retiring to bed. They discussed it and agreed that he would take her while she slept. Perhaps she took some NyQuil or such to ensure a deep sleep. The consent exists there, before the act. During the act, however, it cannot legally exist as she's unconscious. If the police showed up right then, they'd rightfully arrest him for rape. When she woke back up, she would back up his claim that she wanted it to happen. Would he still be charged with rape?

Which boils down to, as others said, the reaction of the 'victim'.

Which boils down to, as others said, the reaction of the 'victim'.

That's not always the case, though. A statutory rape "victim" is still a victim even if he/she says they were entirely complicit with the whole act, because the law deems that a person below a certain age cannot legally consent. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that the same would generally hold true for someone unconscious. She can say before and after that she was okay with the entire event, but because she was incapable of legally consenting at the time, it would still be rape, despite any protests.

Or am I misinterpreting the law? To me it seems that it would be rape whether or not the other person said they were cool with it afterwards.

That's not always the case, though. A statutory rape "victim" is still a victim even if he/she says they were entirely complicit with the whole act, because the law deems that a person below a certain age cannot legally consent. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that the same would generally hold true for someone unconscious. She can say before and after that she was okay with the entire event, but because she was incapable of legally consenting at the time, it would still be rape, despite any protests.

Or am I misinterpreting the law? To me it seems that it would be rape whether or not the other person said they were cool with it afterwards.

The law doesn't recognize consent "after the fact". If it was rape at the time, it's rape, regardless of whether or not the victim later says "ehh, I'm ok with it."

From a practical matter, it's difficult to charge someone with rape if the victim doesn't want to testify, however.

I have had this exact situation requested of me, and I declined for the very reasons we're discussing in this thread. But I know at least one person who genuinely wants to be raped while asleep, and I highly doubt that she is the only person out there like that.

To completely hijack the hypothetical, say that this was something that husband and wife agreed to before retiring to bed. They discussed it and agreed that he would take her while she slept. Perhaps she took some NyQuil or such to ensure a deep sleep. The consent exists there, before the act. During the act, however, it cannot legally exist as she's unconscious. If the police showed up right then, they'd rightfully arrest him for rape. When she woke back up, she would back up his claim that she wanted it to happen. Would he still be charged with rape?


It's tricky. My understanding is that she consented to a future act, it's consent.

Was this an act of rape?

Yes. The only extra circumstance you listed that could mitigate this fact is:

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.

And some of the other ones would make the situation even worse.

EDIT: For you female posters, if you don't mind answering this, how would you feel if you woke up and realized your husband/boyfriend had done it? Not a general question, but specific to the guy you're with now.

(assuming this were even possible)

I'd be pissed off. And I'd feel used and, yes, raped. And the deliberate nature of it is definitely of importance here. I have been bothered by my husband trying to initiate some sexual contact while I'm still sleeping, but the problem there is that he is actually sleeping as well, so he isn't doing it on purpose.

It's tricky. My understanding is that she consented to a future act, it's consent.

What if she changes her mind, mid-stroke?

Consent should be written, otherwise you can shove it up your butt, it's not consent.


And if said consent exists to the first act...
Well, if there isn't specified that it's valid for one act only, it's not rape. If there is such a clause, and the said one act has been already fulfilled, it's rape. Simple.

It's tricky. My understanding is that she consented to a future act, it's consent.

How much can a person consent to a future act, then? There's a difference between "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep tonight" and "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep some night in the next six months", right?

What if she changes her mind, mid-stroke?

that depends on the jurisdiction, and what she did to communicate it to him. If she said she wanted to have sex, then changed her mind in the act, but didn't communicate this, or exhibit behavior that, at very least, would cause a reasonable person to realize her views had changed, probably not rape.

I don't believe any jurisdiction uses a strict liability standard for rape, except for statutory rape.

How much can a person consent to a future act, then? There's a difference between "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep tonight" and "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep some night in the next six months", right?

I mean, that would depend on a lot of factors. Were there intervening events that could cause him to believe she withdrew consent? What is the statutory definition of rape in that jurisdiction? Things like that.

When the waters are murky, it really depends on specific legal definitions, as well as, really, what the jury thinks at the itme. Different jurisdictions use different standards for rape, from negligence, to recklessness, to intent. That would therefore depend on what happened within those 6 months.

Let me clarify, there are a series of different "states of mind" in the law, which one a particular jurisdiction uses will depend on how they define rape, from easiest to prove to hardest:

strict liability - it is rape if you have sex with someone who does not consent. Whether you knew, or indeed had ANY way of knowing about their lack of consent is irrelevant

negligent - you had sex with someone who a reasonable person would have known did not consent

reckless - you had sex with someone with a willful disregard as to their consent, and their lack thereof would have been known to any person

knowledge - you had sex with someone who you knew did not consent, and did not care

intent - you had sex with someone with the specific intent to have sex with someone who did not consent.

To my knowledge, no jurisdiction uses strict liability (IE you had sex with someone who did not consent, it does not matter if you knew, or even could have known, there was no consent, therefore rape) EXCEPT for statutory rape (in the instance of statutory rape, it does not matter if you knew, or even had a chance to know that the partner was underage).

I also do not believe that any jurisdiction requires actual INTENT to rape for rape to be a crime. Jurisdictions, to my knowledge, vary between the most restrictive "negligence" standard, and the least restrictive "knowledge" standard. So rape, depending on where you are, can be anything from having sex with someone whom a reasonable person would know there was a significant chance did not consent, to only when you, yourself, have knowledge of the fact she did not consent.

How much can a person consent to a future act, then?
Very much. For instance, visit your local recruiter to irrevocably consent to harsh physical treatment, being sent to some hellhole, being transported by force in some circumstances, and ultimately to being killed.


There's a difference between "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep tonight" and "I'm going to have sex with you while you sleep some night in the next six months", right?
That's just like the difference between a one-ride ticket and a season pass.

owing circumstances alter your perception of this event?

-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.

I'd classify anything but this one as rape.

Of course it's rape. She didn't consent. Duh.

The ONLY circumstance in which this would not be rape is if, before falling asleep, she explicitly told her husband, "Okay, I really want you to fuck me tonight while I sleep. Try not to wake me up," or something to that effect. I am frankly disturbed as hell by the posters who seem to feel that a marriage certificate is a promise to let one's husband use one's body whenever and however he wants.

As for NB's other question, if I were the woman in this scenario, I would be furious and deeply, deeply hurt.

An exercise in perspective and definition.

Was this an act of rape?
My question is: Why the gender bias? :p

Would it be a rape if the woman abused her husband's nightly erection?


In anycase, the topic is a tricky one...

- For one, no man or woman would probably get convicted so legally there has been no rape.

- Secondly, what if instead of having sex it's a kiss on the cheek, perhaps breasts or dick...That is: The act was something that could constitute a sexual assault without the existence pre-existing relationship and assumed existing consent?

- Thirdly..well, this actually continues second point: You give continued consent to actions in a relationship in favour of being able to co-exist with the other person, this usually means, for example, license to touch (unless explicitly denied). Now, my question is: Where do you draw the line and is breaching the line without prior knowledge because you thought there's an implied conset a crime and something society should solve or a mistake that should be handled by the participants?

That is: What if the partner mistakenly(?) thought his or her actions were something the other half consented/would consent to? Which party would it serve to pursue the incident as a crime?

edit:
I probably would draw the line in whether the partner committing the act acted in good faith, ie. he or she genuinely thought that the target would consent or has consented to his or her actions.

Too murky for me to really be able to say on that first special circumstance, the rest it's clearly rape as far as I can tell.

I am frankly disturbed as hell by the posters who seem to feel that a marriage certificate is a promise to let one's husband use one's body whenever and however he wants.
Not whenever and however, and not now. A century ago or so it used to be a season pass to the amusement ride on thy wife.

Today season passes are only available in the third world, in the first you have to get a ticket (a gift and a couple bottles of champagne usually) for every night.

I'd say some convenience has been lost, much unlike in other fields, but then one should also take into account the short-lived nature of post-sex revolution relationships, so it might be simply an adjustment to the situation.



My question is: Why the gender bias? :p
Cultural.

Would it be a rape if the woman abused her husband's nightly erection?
Only if you live in the Muslim country where the word of the man outweighs that of a woman. In the Western countries, it's vice versa. So if you tried to prosecute, she could claim it was actually you who raped her, and win.


- Secondly, what if instead of having sex it's a kiss on the cheek, perhaps breasts or dick...That is: The act was something that could constitute a sexual assault without the existence pre-existing relationship and assumed existing consent?
Huh. Most of us here are actually sexual assailants, it seems.

Only if you live in the Muslim country where the word of the man outweighs that of a woman. In the Western countries, it's vice versa. So if you tried to prosecute, she could claim it was actually you who raped her, and win.
Only half true that.

Proving a rape in case similar to what's represented in the OP would be insanely hard.

Half true in that, I also suspect no one would believe the man could be the victim.
Huh. Most of us here are actually sexual assailants, it seems.

Indeed... ;)

I assume most people don't explicitly ask every time they want to touch their other half intimately, but rather assume they have (pre-existing) consent to do so...unless explicitly denied.

...which is why I added this in the edit:
I probably would draw the line in whether the partner committing the act acted in good faith, ie. he or she genuinely thought that the target would consent or has consented to his or her actions.

My question is: Why the gender bias? :p

Would it be a rape if the woman abused her husband's nightly erection?

Of course not. Men cannot be raped by women, only by other men, and then it's funny, and doesn't count as abuse. Anyway, the guy is probably lucky that he managed to get laid, consent or no consent.

:p

Being far removed would put it in its intended context.

Hmmm...that makes it a little more murky. If it's been a while, I'd say it would be something one should check up on again before trying it.

I still don't understand the part about a guy actually enjoying fucking someone who is completely out.

That's only a small step away from necrophilia, if you ask me.

yeah, cuz never in the history of humanity has a guy gotten a girl so drunk she was pretty much unconscious when they had sex.

never happens.....

.... r i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

If a female is not gladly being involved in the process, it is rape. A lot of women "consent" to sex, do so out of coercion, fear, or emotional bullying, or in above mentioned case, under the influence of drugs. That's called 'date rape'.

So it's not just "was she consenting," imho - it's "was she consenting and actually wanted to. Cuz unless it's both consented AND wanted, it's rape.

Of course not. Men cannot be raped by women, only by other men, and then it's funny, and doesn't count as abuse. Anyway, the guy is probably lucky that he managed to get laid, consent or no consent.

:p

Norwegian Court Convicts First Woman for Rape

Thu Apr 28, 9:15 AM ET

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian court has sentenced a woman to nine months in jail for raping a man, the first such conviction in the Scandinavian country that prides itself for its egalitarianism.

The 31-year-old man fell asleep on a sofa at a party in January last year and told the court in the western city of Bergen he woke to find the 23-year-old woman was having oral sex with him.

Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.

The court sentenced the woman Wednesday to nine months in jail and ordered her to pay 40,000 Norwegian crowns ($6,355) in compensation.

"This is a very harsh sentence," the woman's lawyer, Per Magne Kristiansen, told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The woman argued the man had been awake and consented.

The prosecutor had sought a 10-month sentence and argued the court should not be more lenient with a woman than a man. It was Norway's first conviction of a woman for rape.

Norway has long traditions of equality -- 40 percent of the cabinet of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, for instance, are women.

I think that any 23 yr old woman should only be required to pay me $50 for a blowjob, though I think its only fair that it be upped to $100 if she swallows since she has then received the benefit of my seed.

I will now seek passage to Norway where they are at least enlightened enough to recognize that women should pay for the privilege of fellating us.

Doesn't marriage consent to sex? She obviously accepts sex.

Doesn't marriage consent to sex?

No.

Gee, that was easy.

No.

Gee, that was easy.

Not in the 1950s...

Doesn't marriage consent to sex? She obviously accepts sex.

you realize, you just painted a HUGE target on yourself... :D

Doesn't marriage consent to sex?

Maybe in the Old Testament and the Middle East.

Proving a rape in case similar to what's represented in the OP would be insanely hard.
Half true in that, I also suspect no one would believe the man could be the victim.
Not readily, but with the m>w legal bias, it could be possible. Except I'm sure by their law rape can't be perpetrated by a woman.
In the West with a milder reverse bias, no way, unless there has been a plethora of witnesses (IIRC there was one conv. for a party rape).


Indeed... ;)
I assume most people don't explicitly ask every time they want to touch their other half intimately, but rather assume they have (pre-existing) consent to do so...unless explicitly denied.
So, most people are doing it wrong. Most people also don't observe the speed limit and go with the traffic, so if the limit is 50mph and the traffic moves at 75mph, they'll go 75. It's the vast majority - but they're still guilty of speeding.

As I mentioned, I would not object to my girlfriend waking me with a blowjob (or by riding me for that matter). I think most other men also would also not be upset about that.
But, since that starts while I am asleep, it indeed would be without consent.

Most of my gfs sofar did not mind being woken in an erotic matter either - though I haven't tried the "shove the meat in before she is awake" approach.

I think that situation can get tricky as well, but it is a different situation. I don't think waking someone up with sexual contact is necessarily rape, but I do think it's something that needs to be discussed ahead of time. I would guess that it's actually pretty common within a committed relationship - particularly because you can sometimes start initiating it without even being fully awake yourself. Either way, if you do wake someone up this way, and they don't want to have sex, they can decline at that point or choose to engage in it - basically giving explicit consent (while consent to the first contact would be implied through a previous conversation).

In this scenario, it was explicitly stated that he was trying to have sex with her without waking her up - without her conscious involvement at any time and without any explicit consent or chance for her to give it.

Doesn't marriage consent to sex? She obviously accepts sex.

No.


So, most people are doing it wrong.

Relationships would be pretty odd (and inconvenient) if you had to stop and say, "Can I do this?" before every kiss, hug, etc.

Not in the 1950s...

which ended, last I checked, about...oh...50 years ago.

which ended, last I checked, about...oh...50 years ago.

I'm implying that Wipim may not be aware of that...

If a female is not gladly being involved in the process, it is rape.
What if she's depressed and still not glad?

A lot of women "consent" to sex, do so out of coercion, fear, or emotional bullying, or in above mentioned case, under the influence of drugs.
I's not just "a lot", but ALL women, with the exception of those in professional sex.

What the commoner calls love and sexual desire are simply the effects of endogenous narcotics, similar in action to amphetamine and opiates. They're even called endorphins, i.e. endogenous morphines.

The only way it could be rape is if she wakes up, finds out and presses chardes. Realistically though I don't think a court would hear it under the circumstances that they are man and wife.
Her: ha I caught you now you must play CHARADES!

Him: oh oh god no!

Her: muhahahahahahahhaah

*three days later*
[court room]
Judge: The accused Mrs [name blanked for security] is accused of murder in the 1/2 degree under the proviso for death by charades. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury what say you?

Jury leader person: We return a verdict of not guilty on the basis of self defense

*mass cheering from the court room*


. . .thats right . . .all that because I saw charades

So the sense I'm getting from most people here is that there's general agreement that by strict definition it's an act of rape, but that for practical purposes the only thing that really matters is the level of communication between the partners. In other words, if the understanding between the two is such that the guy has reason to think she's okay with it, and she is, then no harm, no foul.

This thread was inspired by a conversation my wife and I were having in which we talked about this scenario and what it would mean and how people would feel about it. Is there anything sinister about a guy slipping into bed next to his wife, putting his arms around her, and resting a hand on her breast? Nah, although certainly this would be rape in many other contexts.

One could see the idea of a "sleep pounce" in the same context. There have been a couple of times when I myself have awoken with my clothes mysteriously on the floor when they were on my body when I went to bed, and found that I'd had a romp with the wife in my sleep. I thought it was amusing myself, but that's me. And I'm a guy, and my perspective is not necessarily the same as my wife's. She feels pretty much that if I pounced her in her sleep the only downside is that she'd have missed out on the fun. Techincally rape? I suppose, but only in the same context as a couple having a BDSM scene might be technically guilty of assault or wrongful imprisonment, but what DA would bother prosecuting that on those grounds? (Typically if you're gonna go after that it has more to do with some sort of decency ordinance or whatever.)

There are websites out there that specialize in sleep sex fetishes. I haven't really perused through them but the impression I get is they are rape fantasies, as the participants are strangers (within the context of the story.)

No.



Relationships would be pretty odd (and inconvenient) if you had to stop and say, "Can I do this?" before every kiss, hug, etc.

A think a relationship may allow for a certain pre-supposed consent though how much is entirely between the two individuals involved.

I suppose, but only in the same context as a couple having a BDSM scene might be technically guilty of assault or wrongful imprisonment

Erm...no. As both a lawyer and a guy that likes to tie women down and hit them...no, it's neither.

I's not just "a lot", but ALL women, with the exception of those in professional sex.

What the commoner calls love and sexual desire are simply the effects of endogenous narcotics, similar in action to amphetamine and opiates. They're even called endorphins, i.e. endogenous morphines.

You're just trolling, right?

So the sense I'm getting from most people here is that there's general agreement that by strict definition it's an act of rape, but that for practical purposes the only thing that really matters is the level of communication between the partners. In other words, if the understanding between the two is such that the guy has reason to think she's okay with it, and she is, then no harm, no foul.

This is close to what I would say. I do think that understanding needs to be fairly explicit, however. In this scenario, there is no chance for the sleeping partner to explicitly consent (or choose not to) for this particular instance of intercourse, so I would say that you would need to have explicitly discussed this scenario ahead of time. Just a general feeling that it would be ok is not enough.

Relationships would be pretty odd (and inconvenient) if you had to stop and say, "Can I do this?" before every kiss, hug, etc.
And if you followed the 50mph speed limit where everyone else is going 75, you'd probably crash and die, together with another car's occupants, unless you're Colin Mc... oh wait. Much worse than asking "Can I do this?", isn't it?

But that still doesn't make it legal to go with the flow, even if in reality it's safer. What matters for the law is for the distance between a metal box and a concrete stripe not to change more than by 1/13,500,000 of the distance light travels while Cesium-133 does 9,192,000,000 state transitions, not how many people live or die.

Erm...no. As both a lawyer and a guy that likes to tie women down and hit them...no, it's neither.

I defer to your superior knowledge on this.

But the important thing is that a DA isn't going to bother unless there's an actual complaint (assuming he could know about it some other way). yes?


This is close to what I would say. I do think that understanding needs to be fairly explicit, however. In this scenario, there is no chance for the sleeping partner to explicitly consent (or choose not to) for this particular instance of intercourse, so I would say that you would need to have explicitly discussed this scenario ahead of time. Just a general feeling that it would be ok is not enough.

Better to err on the side of caution, certainly.

*snip*

Have you ever been in a relationship?

I defer to your superior knowledge on this.

But the important thing is that a DA isn't going to bother unless there's an actual complaint (assuming he could know about it some other way). yes?


So, how much trouble are you in?

You're just trolling, right?
No. This is true. Both a woman in love and a woman on opium consent to sex under the influence of narcotics. The only difference is where these narcotics are produced.

I defer to your superior knowledge on this.

But the important thing is that a DA isn't going to bother unless there's an actual complaint (assuming he could know about it some other way). yes?

Pretty much, yes.

Now, I think it is important to note that consent doesn't mean EXPLICIT CONSENT. Consent can be implied. If sex with my girlfriend usually involves me tying her up and hitting her with whatever is handy, it doesn't become battery and false imprisonment to do that without explicitly asking her if it's ok.

Consent can be implied through prior acts.

No. This is true. Both a woman in love and a woman on opium consent to sex under the influence of narcotics. The only difference is where these narcotics are produced.

under no definition I am aware of do hormones classify as "narcotics"

So, how much trouble are you in?

None whatsoever. I'm just assuming that while everybody seems to agree that it's TECHNICALLY a rape scenario, I'd find it hard to imagine it actually taken seriously by the authorities unless someone actually raised a complaint. Kinda that gray area in which the law and practicality don't quite match up.

Because again, strictly speaking if a husband cuddles his wife and gives her breast a squeeze in her sleep, that alone would get him in serious trouble in other contexts but nobody would seriously look down on him for doing it in this one.

Have you ever been in a relationship? Just yesterday, very intimately.

But if you have to ask and challenge the analogy, yes, I would choose asking "can I kiss you?" each time over dying prematurely* in a car crash.

[*Non-prematurely, I'd rather go out with a bang than shit the bed.]


under no definition I am aware of do hormones classify as "narcotics"
They are very nearly the same substances that the medics inject the sick and injured with and the junkies use on themselves. And, if that's not enough, even the symptoms are similar, with developing addiction, rising tolerance and painful withdrawal.


Of course, seeing as you're a lawyer, I guess none of that matters and what's important is how the law classifies them. Well, then, if someone extracted these endogenous narcotics out of a human or animal body and sold them on black market, I guess they wouldn't be acquitted just because their morphine is natural, would they?

To answer the added question: If I woke up to my ex (assuming we were together) having sex to me, I'd break his f***ing face. That would be the end of that relationship.

Of course, seeing as you're a lawyer, I guess none of that matters and what's important is how the law classifies them. Well, then, if someone extracted these endogenous narcotics out of a human or animal body and sold them on black market, I guess they wouldn't be acquitted just because their morphine is natural, would they?

are you seriously under the impression that the human body produces morphine? and that morphine is a hormone?

are you seriously under the impression that the human body produces morphine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin

Endorphins are endogenous opioid polypeptide compounds. They are produced [...] during strenuous exercise, excitement, pain, and orgasm, and they resemble the opiates in their abilities to produce analgesia and a sense of well-being. Endorphins work as "natural pain relievers", whose effects may be enhanced by other medications.
[..]
It consists of two parts: endo- and -orphin; these are short forms of the words endogenous and morphine


So, back to the question, would human body origin of these substances be a legal defense if someone was extracting and selling them for recreational purposes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin

Which is not a hormone now is it?

are you seriously under the impression that the human body produces morphine? and that morphine is a hormone?

morphine is an endorphin mimetic (more potent due to changes in structure and lack of a built in inhibitor present for the natural compound). I think thats the point he was trying to make.

No consent, rape.

If she's consented, not rape. All the other things you mentioned doesn't really factor in.

No consent, rape.

If she's consented, not rape.
<assume a steady-ish relationship>

What if the act is limited to spooning: That either of the partners cuddles the other without explicit consent?

What if she/he goes along with sex while being asleep: That the partner engages in sex while not remembering any of it after waking up?

What if there's an implicit consent: That the partner is - or would be - OK with waking up to other half having sex to him/her?

What if there's mistaken implicit consent: That the perpetrator genuinely thinks the partner would be OK with waking up to having sex or later knowing that the partner had sex with him/her while being asleep?


btw. Are there sexual assaults that are not considered rapes in the law of <OP's example>?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin



So, back to the question, would human body origin of these substances be a legal defense if someone was extracting and selling them for recreational purposes?

You realize that doesn't say what you think it says, right? Similar =/= same.

Was this an act of rape?


Yes


-If he had ever said he'd like to try that sometime and she consented.

No


-If they hadn't already had sex that evening, and he found some other means to lubricate?

Yes


-If they had fought before going to bed?

Yes


-If they had been relying on condoms, and he didn't use one?

Yes


-They're not married?

Yes


-If he never tells her what happened (Although we can assume she'd be able to tell normally, the fact that they'd already had sex that night might make it more difficult)?

Yes


-If he had drugged her so that she'd remain asleep?


Yes

That was easy.

This happened with my sister...she was woken up in the middle of the night by her husband doing the wild thing. Once awake she joined in...only to find out after it was over that he was asleep the whole time...interesting side note 9 months later they had a kid...not sure if they ever told the daughter what happened though...as a side my sister got fixed after that because she couldn't count on her husband to wrap it in his sleep.

You realize that doesn't say what you think it says, right? Similar =/= same.
Obviously, it would be very strange if the body-synthesized and lab-synthesized morphine would be exactly the same.

But they're similar, and both are narcotics. If you injected yourself with endorphins, you'd get your high.


Actually, the very reason most (not all) drugs work is that they replicate the substances that are normally endogenously produced, and produce the same effects. Most times amplified, but sexual chemicals are no small doze.


Basically, the difference between a person in love and sexual arousal and a person who have drugged themselves and desire sex under that influence is the same as between a person who watches a video file from their HDD and a person who watches it on youtube.

What everyone said about consent.

Personally, I wouldn't mind in theory, but would mind in practice since it would likely cause me to have a nightmare about, well, being raped.

What everyone said about consent.

Personally, I wouldn't mind in theory, but would mind in practice since it would likely cause me to have a nightmare about, well, being raped.

See I was thinking that would be similar to a prime example of why the communication is as critical as it is... If the wife had been raped or molested in her sleep at some point then she may very well not want to have this happen as it would almost certainly bring back memories and there's little chance of her being able feel comfortable about it happening.

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.

now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.

would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?

if you continue if she says 'No [another person's name], stop it'?

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

Look, when I do that, you all get upset.

Ok.

Let's say he's feeling under the covers between her legs, and he discovers that it's not really his wife, but a man, baby. Should he proceed with the boning (using the rear entrance of the mangina, of course), or should be politely wait until morning and then ask for permission?

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.
now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.
would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?
if you continue if she says 'No [another person's name], stop it'?
That's why the consent should be given in a written contractual form, in three copies, signed by a notary.

Then it will be a simple question of what is specified and what is not, i.e. the chapter on premature consent revocation.

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.

now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.

would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?

I would take it as a command to stop, because playing the "no, stop" game when you don't really mean it only works when there's a clear safe word in play. If she's asleep, or even half asleep, then she probably doesn't have the presence of mind to use a safe word, thus the default meaning of "no" remains "no."


if you continue if she says 'No [another person's name], stop it'?

Oh I'd stop, and then I'd wonder why she was dreaming about [another person's name] raping her... 'cause that might indicate some very serious problems...

I have sleep sex all the time and I aint no stinkin rapist!

Just yesterday, very intimately.

You were in a relationship yesterday, but now you're not?


See I was thinking that would be similar to a prime example of why the communication is as critical as it is... If the wife had been raped or molested in her sleep at some point then she may very well not want to have this happen as it would almost certainly bring back memories and there's little chance of her being able feel comfortable about it happening.

I've not been raped in my sleep before, but I have found that being woken up by sexual activity invokes both anger and a defense response in me, even when I wake up enough to realize it is my husband. So I'm clearly not the person who would be ok with this. The few times it has happened, my husband was also asleep and had no memory of the whole thing, so it wasn't like he was doing it on purpose. But, since we've discussed it and I've told him how I react emotionally to it, I'd be really pissed off if he ever did so.

Of course, if I had found out I was really into it and told him that, then doing it on purpose wouldn't be an issue.

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.

now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.

would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?

if you continue if she says 'No [another person's name], stop it'?

I would say that such a reaction would make it pretty clear that something was wrong and it would be time to wake her up and see if she was ok. You could always try the whole thing with your partner staying asleep the whole time another night.

What kind of idiot logic do you get off on when you use idiot circumstances like you did? Anything mentioned there is rape.

What kind of idiot logic do you get off on when you use idiot circumstances like you did? Anything mentioned there is rape.

Well there you have it folks, this noobcake apparently is way more enlightened than the rest of us, who actually bothered to discuss the topic like reasonable, intelligent people.

We should all be ashamed.

Apparently.

/shrug

The circumstances in the OP quite clearly are rape. Regardless of the conditions. Even with the first one, it does not constitute mitigating circumstances unless she had specifically stated that it was okay that evening. Even then, it really depends.

I don't understand any man who would do that to someone he supposedly loved. There can be no interaction in a circumstance like that. It's basically using a person as a masturbatory aid IMHO.

As for the second question, if I ever awoke to find that my husband/boyfriend/whatever had done that to me, I would report him to the police. Simple as that.

Well there you have it folks, this noobcake apparently is way more enlightened than the rest of us, who actually bothered to discuss the topic like reasonable, intelligent people.

We should all be ashamed.

Apparently.

/shrug


lol "noobcake"
:D

You were in a relationship yesterday, but now you're not?
I'm not engaged in its most intimate part right now.


Even with the first one, it does not constitute mitigating circumstances unless she had specifically stated that it was okay that evening.
Would it be OK if they live beyond the Arctic circle?

What kind of idiot logic do you get off on when you use idiot circumstances like you did? Anything mentioned there is rape.

oh really? an idiot circumstance (http://www.health24.com/news/Sexuality/1-944,23049.asp)?

maybe not exactly like the OP situation, but damn close. :D

Did she consent?
No?
Then he's an asshole and, if she chooses to charge him with rape she's within her rights.

The only way it could be rape is if she wakes up, finds out and presses chardes. Realistically though I don't think a court would hear it under the circumstances that they are man and wife.
Really? Is it only murder if the victim calls the cops before he or she dies?

The OP situation is rape.

All but one of the variations attached to it in the OP only aggravate the rape.

If the woman afterwards decided she was okay with it, then she would be deciding to let the man off the hook for having committed rape. He should get down on his knees and thank her.

Because having sex with someone without their consent is rape.

Did she consent?
No?
Then he's an asshole and, if she chooses to charge him with rape she's within her rights.


Really? Is it only murder if the victim calls the cops before he or she dies?
No, Kat, you silly cat. It's because everyone knows it's impossible for a husband to rape a wife because when a woman marries, she gives up all her personal liberty, all control over her own body, and becomes nothing but a tool for the gratification of the man.

Something like that, I'm guessing.

Being far removed would put it in its intended context.
Then it's rape.

Of course it's rape. She didn't consent. Duh.

The ONLY circumstance in which this would not be rape is if, before falling asleep, she explicitly told her husband, "Okay, I really want you to fuck me tonight while I sleep. Try not to wake me up," or something to that effect. I am frankly disturbed as hell by the posters who seem to feel that a marriage certificate is a promise to let one's husband use one's body whenever and however he wants.

As for NB's other question, if I were the woman in this scenario, I would be furious and deeply, deeply hurt.
If I even suspected that my guy had tried that, he would never be allowed to stay the night in my house ever again. And guess how long he'd continue to be my guy?

Look, when I do that, you all get upset.

Ok.

Let's say he's feeling under the covers between her legs, and he discovers that it's not really his wife, but a man, baby. Should he proceed with the boning (using the rear entrance of the mangina, of course), or should be politely wait until morning and then ask for permission?

me???

I don't get upset when people add to the op (as long as it's on topic). I get upset when I quote the OP and answer the OP's statement and others hop on and assume I'm also answering all the add on tangent questions.

If I even suspected that my guy had tried that, he would never be allowed to stay the night in my house ever again. And guess how long he'd continue to be my guy?

and if he says he suffers from Sexsomnia? :tongue:

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.

now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.

would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?

if you continue if she says 'No [another person's name], stop it'?

I would say that such a reaction would make it pretty clear that something was wrong and it would be time to wake her up and see if she was ok. You could always try the whole thing with your partner staying asleep the whole time another night.

This.

Sure she might not actually mean for you to stop, but is that chance worth taking? It's better to make sure she's OK.

Plus you get to comfort her. The wiminz, they like that. Major points. We're talking like, the lightning round of relationships here.

Would it be OK if they live beyond the Arctic circle?


I'm a little confused?

and if he says he suffers from Sexsomnia? :tongue:
He'd be single as well as afflicted.

It's rape.

If my fiance did that to me, the relationship would be over. Sex is something we do together, not something he uses my fanny for. The idea that he can leave me out of things he does with my body is demeaning and would put our entire relationship in a different light. If he can't even respect that most fundamental right to bodily integrity, how can he respect anything about me?

It's rape.

If my fiance did that to me, the relationship would be over. Sex is something we do together, not something he uses my fanny for. The idea that he can leave me out of things he does with my body is demeaning and would put our entire relationship in a different light. If he can't even respect that most fundamental right to bodily integrity, how can he respect anything about me?

Ooh. Good answer. That was much more eloquent than mine.

since we're adding questions on the OP to make it more convoluted...

say Female gives express consent to have a sleep fuck without waking her first.

now while doing it, she has a nightmare about being raped by someone else and says 'no, stop' in her sleep.

would you (as the male) take that as a command to stop?

My experiences this weekend make this post extremely and highly ironic.

Are you sure you don't, like, have a camera in my gf's dorm?

My experiences this weekend make this post extremely and highly ironic.

Are you sure you don't, like, have a camera in my gf's dorm?

nope nope nope nope, not in your GF's dorm. nope nope nope nope...

Edit... funny... string a series of "nope" together and you see a series of 'open' hmmm...

nopenopenopenope, not in your GF's dorm. nopenopenopenope...

lol

Yep its rape.

EDIT: For you female posters, if you don't mind answering this, how would you feel if you woke up and realized your husband/boyfriend had done it? Not a general question, but specific to the guy you're with now.

I hate being a light sleeper. I very, very badly want this. To the point where I'm willing to be drugged to have it happen. However, since at that point I don't think I'm legally able to give consent anymore, I have to figure out how not to inadvertently get my lover into deep trouble if the tape got out.

I voted yes and that no circumstances would excuse it, but this isn't quite what I think. I just think that your circumstances don't excuse it.

The only circumstance that excuses it is if they had discussed this beforehand and she agreed that it's ok that if he's horny in the middle of the night and she's not waking up, it's alright to go ahead (with whatever precautions they normally take and whatever conditions they decide to apply).

edit: Oh shit, that was the first conditions. Oops.

It's rape.

If my fiance did that to me, the relationship would be over. Sex is something we do together, not something he uses my fanny for. The idea that he can leave me out of things he does with my body is demeaning and would put our entire relationship in a different light. If he can't even respect that most fundamental right to bodily integrity, how can he respect anything about me?

Agreed, that if this is an issue you feel strongly about then your partner absolutely needs to respect it.

That being said, can I admit that this post really turned me on? It's basically described what I LIKE about the scenario.

I have two real situations... thoughts?

1. My girlfriend is lying in bed. I came into her room and she was asleep. I shook and her and started talking to her. She kisses me and we end up having sex. In the middle of it, she calls me by John.

I laugh. "You mean, Eric."
"Very funny, John."
I laugh again.
"Quit playing, John."
I stop laughing. I turn on the light and she starts and wakes up. She was alseep the whole time.

She wasn't upset, but I was very much upset. Had she woken up and thought I'd been taking advantage of her, I'd have been in a lot of trouble. It was a very freaky experience.

2. I went to a girlfriend's apartment after working really late. I was exhausted and she wanted to fool around. I had an early class and told her I wasn't up for it. She kept trying to start something until I told her that if she didn't leave me alone I'd leave, because I needed to sleep.

I fell asleep and woke up to see her having sex with me. I got pissed and left and never spoke to her again.

EDIT: For you female posters, if you don't mind answering this, how would you feel if you woke up and realized your husband/boyfriend had done it? Not a general question, but specific to the guy you're with now.

He would have a VERY hard time for the next couple of months.
If he wanted sex, he could just have woken me up, after all.

I don't think I'd report him to the police, but I'm not sure how that would influence our relationship. I would feel deeply betrayed.
After all, our rule is "no sex without the other one knowing and agreeing"...

I have two real situations... thoughts?

1. My girlfriend is lying in bed. I came into her room and she was asleep. I shook and her and started talking to her. She kisses me and we end up having sex. In the middle of it, she calls me by John.

I laugh. "You mean, Eric."
"Very funny, John."
I laugh again.
"Quit playing, John."
I stop laughing. I turn on the light and she starts and wakes up. She was alseep the whole time.

She wasn't upset, but I was very much upset. Had she woken up and thought I'd been taking advantage of her, I'd have been in a lot of trouble. It was a very freaky experience.
:eek:


2. I went to a girlfriend's apartment after working really late. I was exhausted and she wanted to fool around. I had an early class and told her I wasn't up for it. She kept trying to start something until I told her that if she didn't leave me alone I'd leave, because I needed to sleep.

I fell asleep and woke up to see her having sex with me. I got pissed and left and never spoke to her again.

This is terrible. I know several women who have done this, a few to friends of mine, and it's disgusting that they think it's perfectly okay. It's rape just as much as if a man did it to a woman in my view.

U poor thing :tongue:

EDIT: For you female posters, if you don't mind answering this, how would you feel if you woke up and realized your husband/boyfriend had done it? Not a general question, but specific to the guy you're with now.

I don't understand why you guys are making this out to be such a big deal. Me, being female, don't see this as an act of rape. Trust is what is important here. I trust my husband to respect my body and wishes, to keep me safe and protected. If I were to wake up and he were doing something like this it wouldn't bother me at all. I would just lay back and enjoy it at that point. He wasn't trying to hurt me and know in my heart that if I told him to stop and get off that he would do so without hesitation. This also applies the other way. If I decided that I wanted a little action in the middle of the night and my husband wasn't wakeable, I dont see a problem with taking things into my own hands (so to speak). If he woke up and told me to stop, I would. He trusts me to respect his body and wishes as well and I do. Trusting eachother so explicitly is a level of intimacy not many couples share apparently and thats kinda sad.


-PB&J

I don't understand why you guys are making this out to be such a big deal. Me, being female, don't see this as an act of rape. Trust is what is important here. I trust my husband to respect my body and wishes, to keep me safe and protected. If I were to wake up and he were doing something like this it wouldn't bother me at all. I would just lay back and enjoy it at that point. He wasn't trying to hurt me and know in my heart that if I told him to stop and get off that he would do so without hesitation. That is a level of intimacy not many couples share apparently and thats kinda sad.

-PB&J

I trust my BF. Completely. That's why I know he would never do anything like that, but I went along with the presented situation anyway.
How can you trust someone who would use your body for his own gratification without even being considerate enough to wake you up to share the enjoyment?
This is what would make it rape for me. Not only not asking me, but being selfish enough not to even wake me up.

I don't understand why you guys are making this out to be such a big deal. Me, being female, don't see this as an act of rape. Trust is what is important here. I trust my husband to respect my body and wishes, to keep me safe and protected. If I were to wake up and he were doing something like this it wouldn't bother me at all. I would just lay back and enjoy it at that point. He wasn't trying to hurt me and know in my heart that if I told him to stop and get off that he would do so without hesitation. This also applies the other way. If I decided that I wanted a little action in the middle of the night and my husband wasn't wakeable, I dont see a problem with taking things into my own hands (so to speak). If he woke up and told me to stop, I would. He trusts me to respect his body and wishes as well and I do. Trusting eachother so explicitly is a level of intimacy not many couples share apparently and thats kinda sad.


-PB&J

My wish is not to be used for sex whilst I am sleeping - I trust my fiance to "respect my body and wishes" and to therefore not use me for sex while I am sleeping. If this trust were breached, there would be a problem - I can't see how this is difficult to understand.

I don't understand why you guys are making this out to be such a big deal. Me, being female, don't see this as an act of rape. Trust is what is important here. I trust my husband to respect my body and wishes, to keep me safe and protected. If I were to wake up and he were doing something like this it wouldn't bother me at all. I would just lay back and enjoy it at that point. He wasn't trying to hurt me and know in my heart that if I told him to stop and get off that he would do so without hesitation. This also applies the other way. If I decided that I wanted a little action in the middle of the night and my husband wasn't wakeable, I dont see a problem with taking things into my own hands (so to speak). If he woke up and told me to stop, I would. He trusts me to respect his body and wishes as well and I do. Trusting eachother so explicitly is a level of intimacy not many couples share apparently and thats kinda sad.


-PB&J

My same line of thinking. I, personally, don't mind it. Maybe as a common denominator, I am plain strange, but I trust him completely. If he desires me, and I am asleep, let him take me. He won't hurt me. In fact, waking up to the sensual feeling of being taken by him would be, I don't know, something amazing and, IMO, loving. It's all about trust.

Ooh. Good answer. That was much more eloquent than mine.

I don't know, I kind of liked 'break his face.' I know that I'm startled or surprised in my sleep, I often forget to 'use my words.'

Let me clarify however...my ex tried this with me, and I was furious. But then again, at that point, sex with him had become coercive. As in 'give me some or I'm going to be a stupid fucking bastard to you for days after'. Not really ideal.

Let me clarify however...my ex tried this with me, and I was furious. But then again, at that point, sex with him had become coercive. As in 'give me some or I'm going to be a stupid fucking bastard to you for days after'. Not really ideal.

See, that's a perfect example of a situation where the trust isn't there to support that level of mutual intimacy and openness. I really do think it has a lot to do with intimacy and trust.

I can see where people are saying it's a violation of their trust, but I think that presupposes that the idea was not previously discussed and the guy just goes ahead and does it. I think that if the trust is there however, and it's been talked about ahead of time, then it becomes just another kinky thing you can do with your S.O.

...which is a good thing.

I mean yeah people seem to take offense to the idea of their body being "used" for a quickie but let's be honest... How many times do we go along and have sex even when we don't really feel like it but we do it to make our better half happy? Nothing wrong with that. To me it's kinda like that. If my wife is in the mood and I'm not 'cause I'm too sleepy or whatever but she wants to use me to get off then that's cool with me. Better than letting her go without, and a helluva lot better than her finding somebody else, eh? I don't feel violated. It's kind of a compliment, actually. Makes me feel attractive to her. In a way it's even more than when she initiates it when we're awake, because I know there's no way she's just humoring me.

How many times do we go along and have sex even when we don't really feel like it but we do it to make our better half happy?

I don't. And neither does my wife.

I tend not to think of my significant other (whoever she may be at the time) as some sort of masturbation receptacle.

I don't have sex with the sleeping or unconscious, if only because it's not intimate, it's not fun, and it's not a shared experience.

To me, sex is either a shared experience, or it's masturbation.

See, that's a perfect example of a situation where the trust isn't there to support that level of mutual intimacy and openness. I really do think it has a lot to do with intimacy and trust.

I can see where people are saying it's a violation of their trust, but I think that presupposes that the idea was not previously discussed and the guy just goes ahead and does it. I think that if the trust is there however, and it's been talked about ahead of time, then it becomes just another kinky thing you can do with your S.O.

As I said, if it's been discussed and agreed, I think it's less of an issue. However, it needs to be made clear that it's not just something that "generally might be ok". Guys tend to take that as a "yes, let's do that next chance we get", which it isn't.
You ought to be clear, absolutely clear that it's not just generally ok with her, but will be ok if you do it.


I mean yeah people seem to take offense to the idea of their body being "used" for a quickie but let's be honest... How many times do we go along and have sex even when we don't really feel like it but we do it to make our better half happy? Nothing wrong with that. To me it's kinda like that. If my wife is in the mood and I'm not 'cause I'm too sleepy or whatever but she wants to use me to get off then that's cool with me. Better than letting her go without, and a helluva lot better than her finding somebody else, eh? I don't feel violated. It's kind of a compliment, actually. Makes me feel attractive to her. In a way it's even more than when she initiates it when we're awake, because I know there's no way she's just humoring me.

See, I don't. If I'm not in the mood, he's got two healthy hands. Or alternatively he can go an shag the neighbour.
And it's the same the other way around.
I would positively hate the thought that he would have sex with me without actually wanting to.

I mean yeah people seem to take offense to the idea of their body being "used" for a quickie but let's be honest... How many times do we go along and have sex even when we don't really feel like it but we do it to make our better half happy? Nothing wrong with that. To me it's kinda like that. If my wife is in the mood and I'm not 'cause I'm too sleepy or whatever but she wants to use me to get off then that's cool with me. Better than letting her go without, and a helluva lot better than her finding somebody else, eh? I don't feel violated. It's kind of a compliment, actually. Makes me feel attractive to her. In a way it's even more than when she initiates it when we're awake, because I know there's no way she's just humoring me.
Um...You shouldn't be guilted into having sex. If you don't want to, you shouldn't have to, she shouldn't whine about "doing without" or threaten to "find someone else", that's bullshit.

If my husband pulled that shit.......lets say he knows not to.

IF you're horny and your partner isn't "in the mood" go jack off somewhere. Seriously.

I don't. And neither does my wife.

I tend not to think of my significant other (whoever she may be at the time) as some sort of masturbation receptacle.

I don't have sex with the sleeping or unconscious, if only because it's not intimate, it's not fun, and it's not a shared experience.

To me, sex is either a shared experience, or it's masturbation.

Couldn't have said it any better.

How many times do we go along and have sex even when we don't really feel like it but we do it to make our better half happy?

I have, and I will never, ever do it again. It was demeaning, abusive, and to be quite clear, very much like rape near the end. (the last time I had sex with my ex he actually asked 'can you at least pretend to like it?' That was the last straw) Never again. I know my situation isn't what you're describing, but I wanted to put it out there. There's a difference betweenn 'doing it when don't really feel like it, but getting into it along the way' and 'doing it because the other person wants you to, and things will get bad if you don't.'

Now, that being said, what turns me on a lot right now is having him fuck me when I'm not prepared, or awake, or whatever...because omg does that ever turn my crank. In this case, I don't find it demeaning in that way I described above...I find it demeaning in a way that melts me into a little puddle of want.

I don't. And neither does my wife.

I tend not to think of my significant other (whoever she may be at the time) as some sort of masturbation receptacle.

I don't have sex with the sleeping or unconscious, if only because it's not intimate, it's not fun, and it's not a shared experience.

To me, sex is either a shared experience, or it's masturbation.

Mmmmm. Masturbation receptacle. I want him to jerk off into my ass. :D

Mmmmm. Masturbation receptacle. I want him to jerk off into my ass. :D

Oooh... you're giving me ideas now. ;)

As I said, if it's been discussed and agreed, I think it's less of an issue. However, it needs to be made clear that it's not just something that "generally might be ok". Guys tend to take that as a "yes, let's do that next chance we get", which it isn't.
You ought to be clear, absolutely clear that it's not just generally ok with her, but will be ok if you do it.


Agreed.

Um...You shouldn't be guilted into having sex. If you don't want to, you shouldn't have to, she shouldn't whine about "doing without" or threaten to "find someone else", that's bullshit.

If my husband pulled that shit.......lets say he knows not to.

IF you're horny and your partner isn't "in the mood" go jack off somewhere. Seriously.

Who said anything about guilt? Or whining?

I don't. And neither does my wife.

I tend not to think of my significant other (whoever she may be at the time) as some sort of masturbation receptacle.

I don't have sex with the sleeping or unconscious, if only because it's not intimate, it's not fun, and it's not a shared experience.

To me, sex is either a shared experience, or it's masturbation.

I used to think that way but to be honest, it's silly to withhold myself from my wife if she's in the mood. There's no guilt or whining or any of that. If I don't feel well of if I really want to be left alone, there's no problem. Otherwise if I just don't feel like it but she does, then going along with it is just as good a way to show her I love her than any other. If she wants me, t hat makes me feel at tractive to her and that's a good thing, and something I'd certainly want to keep that going, not put the brakes on it. It's the same both ways.

Kinda feels weird being the LESS uptight one around here :D

Oooh... you're giving me ideas now. ;)

Yeah, but you'll be conscious and awake...

Kinda feels weird being the LESS uptight one around here :D

What, for doing something you don't really feel like, just because somebody wants you to?
No, that sounds exactly like you, actually.

Yeah, but you'll be conscious and awake...

You betcha.

I think that's what would piss me off most about my BF doing it to me while I'm asleep. I'd miss out on the fun... seriously, how selfish can you possibly get?

I would say not rape. They had already had sex that evening, and they're two adults that have regular consensual sex. If she found out or he told her, I doubt she would press charges because what would be the point?

I would say not rape. They had already had sex that evening, and they're two adults that have regular consensual sex. If she found out or he told her, I doubt she would press charges because what would be the point?

So it's only rape if the raped presses charges?
Wow... that's some screwed logic.

You betcha.

I think that's what would piss me off most about my BF doing it to me while I'm asleep. I'd miss out on the fun... seriously, how selfish can you possibly get?

I think what some don't understand is the "shared experience" part.

Oooh... you're giving me ideas now. ;) The problem is getting him to hold off on just going in full tilt, which you have to admit, is awfully tempting if you've already got the head poking in...but yeah. There is something sooo wrong about it. Fantastic!

I think what some don't understand is the "shared experience" part.

Ah, I think we can all agree that it's going to depend on you, and your relationship, and what the partners involved have agreed to and are into.

Take the 'fucked while unconscious' scenario I am so interested in...so I don't get to enjoy it at the time...but I demand that it be taped so I can watch later. THAT part is shared, and that's the part that would really get my rocks off.

What, for doing something you don't really feel like, just because somebody wants you to?
No, that sounds exactly like you, actually.

What's with the personal shot? Geez.

But yeah, if there's something I can do for my wife that would make her happy even though I don't really feel like doing it then I don't mind. Know why? 'cause I LOVE HER. It's why I get up to fix her a drink from the kitchen even though her legs work fine. It's why I go in to wake her from her nap even though we have two alarm clocks. And she does stuff like that for me too.

I know. Insidious and evil, ain't it?

I have, and I will never, ever do it again. It was demeaning, abusive, and to be quite clear, very much like rape near the end. (the last time I had sex with my ex he actually asked 'can you at least pretend to like it?' That was the last straw) Never again. I know my situation isn't what you're describing, but I wanted to put it out there. There's a difference betweenn 'doing it when don't really feel like it, but getting into it along the way' and 'doing it because the other person wants you to, and things will get bad if you don't.'


Agreed completely. And I think maybe that's what the problem is for the uptight people... On some level they're associating it with the latter even though we're talking about the former being the good thing.

I have, and I will never, ever do it again. It was demeaning, abusive, and to be quite clear, very much like rape near the end. (the last time I had sex with my ex he actually asked 'can you at least pretend to like it?' That was the last straw) Never again. I know my situation isn't what you're describing, but I wanted to put it out there. There's a difference betweenn 'doing it when don't really feel like it, but getting into it along the way' and 'doing it because the other person wants you to, and things will get bad if you don't.'

Good distinction. I've definitely done it when I thought I was too tired or sore to want to, but the the difference is that my ex was no coercive at all--he probably didn't even know--and at the point it became sex, I was turned on and realized, hey, I wasn't too tired! Very different from not wanting to do it and feeling pressured. There were definitely times one of us wanted to have sex and the other didn't, for a variety of reasons, and when that happened there was no sex. Sex is something we did together, not something he did to me or I did to him. Like DK said--I have no interest in screwing someone who's not as involved as I am.

Good distinction. I've definitely done it when I thought I was too tired or sore to want to, but the the difference is that my ex was no coercive at all--he probably didn't even know--and at the point it became sex, I was turned on and realized, hey, I wasn't too tired! Very different from not wanting to do it and feeling pressured. There were definitely times one of us wanted to have sex and the other didn't, for a variety of reasons, and when that happened there was no sex. Sex is something we did together, not something he did to me or I did to him. Like DK said--I have no interest in screwing someone who's not as involved as I am.

You know what I've had to learn to deal with? The mistaken impression that a hard on ALWAYS means arousal and that a flaccid penis automatically means complete lack of desire. Seems silly when I think about it now, but I react to cues, very strongly. I'd get really turned off if a guy went semi-flaccid in my mouth for example, because I'd take that as a sign that I was doing something wrong or that they weren't into it or it didn't feel good. Most often the guy would get super embarrased and explain that he was just really tired, or worn out, or had cum so many times already that he just couldn't maintain his erection, but it still felt good etc. Took me a while to believe it. Then with the erection...I'll admit it, I've 'hopped' a few times when the guy wasn't quite awake, and been really confused the one or two times when he was like 'um, not right now please'.

So. One learns :D

Agreed completely. And I think maybe that's what the problem is for the uptight people... On some level they're associating it with the latter even though we're talking about the former being the good thing.

I don't think I'm uptight, I think the phrase that made me think it was the way I think it is...was "so she doesn't find someone else".

There is an inherent amount of fear and guilt when you justify your sexual activity by "she might leave me".

If I have sex with someone it's because I want to, and if I don't want to, I don't.

I don't need to justify my sexual activity past "I wanted to" because that's the only reason I would have sex with someone.

I don't think I'm uptight, I think the phrase that made me think it was the way I think it is...was "so she doesn't find someone else".

There is an inherent amount of fear and guilt when you justify your sexual activity by "she might leave me".

If I have sex with someone it's because I want to, and if I don't want to, I don't.

I don't need to justify my sexual activity past "I wanted to" because that's the only reason I would have sex with someone.

I think the "Find someone else" line was taken out of context. From what I'm reading of his post, the line doesn't imply an actual threat to leave from anyone. It's just a "better than" scenario that he's describing. As in: at the end of the day, he'd rather be sexed in his sleep than have her wander off looking for someone else.

If there's an actual threat to leave, that changes the nature of the game completely. But I'm fairly sure that's not what he was going for.

I think the "Find someone else" line was taken out of context. From what I'm reading of his post, the line doesn't imply an actual threat to leave from anyone. It's just a "better than" scenario that he's describing. As in: at the end of the day, he'd rather be sexed in his sleep than have her wander off looking for someone else.

If there's an actual threat to leave, that changes the nature of the game completely. But I'm fairly sure that's not what he was going for.

Oh, well, in that case. I'd rather not have sex when I don't want to. Having sex when I don't want to isn't better than him finding someone else, it's worse.

Maybe it's because I've been a victim before......maybe that's why I'd rather not have sex when I don't want to.

Oh, well, in that case. I'd rather not have sex when I don't want to. Having sex when I don't want to isn't better than him finding someone else, it's worse.

Maybe it's because I've been a victim before......maybe that's why I'd rather not have sex when I don't want to.

Then that's really up to you.

For myself, and evidently Neo Bretonnia if I'm reading it all correctly, there isn't a problem because we're making our S.O. happy, and that's what really matters to us. For me, if it's making my gal happy, and I'm still waking up in one piece/unharmed, then her happiness is good enough for me. *nods*

I don't think I'm uptight, I think the phrase that made me think it was the way I think it is...was "so she doesn't find someone else".

There is an inherent amount of fear and guilt when you justify your sexual activity by "she might leave me".

If I have sex with someone it's because I want to, and if I don't want to, I don't.

I don't need to justify my sexual activity past "I wanted to" because that's the only reason I would have sex with someone.

Well I put that "so she doesn't find someone else" in kinda as a joke to keep it lighthearted.

I mean obviously, if I were honestly worried that my wife might leave me for someone else over it, then the issues run deep and need to be dealt with.

For myself, and evidently Neo Bretonnia if I'm reading it all correctly, there isn't a problem because we're making our S.O. happy, and that's what really matters to us. For me, if it's making my gal happy, and I'm still waking up in one piece/unharmed, then her happiness is good enough for me. *nods*

You are reading it correctly indeed, sir.

1. My girlfriend is lying in bed. I came into her room and she was asleep. I shook and her and started talking to her. She kisses me and we end up having sex. In the middle of it, she calls me by John.

I laugh. "You mean, Eric."
"Very funny, John."
I laugh again.
"Quit playing, John."
I stop laughing. I turn on the light and she starts and wakes up. She was alseep the whole time.

She wasn't upset, but I was very much upset. Had she woken up and thought I'd been taking advantage of her, I'd have been in a lot of trouble. It was a very freaky experience.

Who's John? =)

Seriously though. I got really pissed off at my husband once when I woke up and he was on top of me and trying to undress me. As I said earlier in the thread, I have a very visceral negative reaction to that. But I was very tired and still half asleep, so I just brushed him away, curled up on my side, and went back to sleep. The next day, when I complained to him about it, I found out that he had been asleep the whole time and had no recollection whatsoever of the event. At that point, I wasn't pissed off anymore and we had a good laugh about it.

2. I went to a girlfriend's apartment after working really late. I was exhausted and she wanted to fool around. I had an early class and told her I wasn't up for it. She kept trying to start something until I told her that if she didn't leave me alone I'd leave, because I needed to sleep.

I fell asleep and woke up to see her having sex with me. I got pissed and left and never spoke to her again.

I'd say that you were raped and that, should you have chosen, she should have been prosecuted (although I know that you'd have a hard time getting a prosecutor to take that case.) Not only did you not provide consent, you specifically stated your non-consent. There was no excuse here whatsoever.

My same line of thinking. I, personally, don't mind it. Maybe as a common denominator, I am plain strange, but I trust him completely. If he desires me, and I am asleep, let him take me. He won't hurt me. In fact, waking up to the sensual feeling of being taken by him would be, I don't know, something amazing and, IMO, loving. It's all about trust.

It's also about taste. I trust my husband completely, but there are sexual acts that I either have a negative reaction to or I'm just not into. The same thing goes for him. Part of that trust is knowing that neither of us is going to pressure the other into doing something they don't want to do, much less just go ahead and do it without even asking.

I don't know if this is what you were going for, but the impression I get from your post is that you think anyone who trusts their partner is going to be ok with this. It's the same crap that I've sometimes heard from people in sub/dom relationships - that I'd be perfectly ok with being someone's property if only I trusted him enough. Personally, I don't think it works that way.

I am John. Sorry, Jocabia.


(j/k... I couldn't resist.)

It's also about taste. I trust my husband completely, but there are sexual acts that I either have a negative reaction to or I'm just not into. The same thing goes for him. Part of that trust is knowing that neither of us is going to pressure the other into doing something they don't want to do, much less just go ahead and do it without even asking.

I don't know if this is what you were going for, but the impression I get from your post is that you think anyone who trusts their partner is going to be ok with this. It's the same crap that I've sometimes heard from people in sub/dom relationships - that I'd be perfectly ok with being someone's property if only I trusted him enough. Personally, I don't think it works that way.

I guess we're talking about trusting the other to stay within previously agreed bounds. I know my S.O. has explicitly said no Number Two Hole, but that she'd never mind waking up to me having sex with her. Ergo she's putting trust in me to maintain the usual boundaries. I've also said she's more than welcome to having sex with me when I'm asleep so long as she doesn't start...exploring odd places on me.

The common denominator is that we both have agreed we enjoy sleep sex. The trust factor comes from not harming the other and sticking to the usual boundaries. The blanket "if you trust em, then you should be okay with sleep sex" isn't really what we're going for here.

It's also about taste. I trust my husband completely, but there are sexual acts that I either have a negative reaction to or I'm just not into. The same thing goes for him. Part of that trust is knowing that neither of us is going to pressure the other into doing something they don't want to do, much less just go ahead and do it without even asking.

I agree with you there, Dem. But you said it, it's about personal taste.

I don't know if this is what you were going for, but the impression I get from your post is that you think anyone who trusts their partner is going to be ok with this. It's the same crap that I've sometimes heard from people in sub/dom relationships - that I'd be perfectly ok with being someone's property if only I trusted him enough. Personally, I don't think it works that way.

No, it wasn't what I was going for. It's just the way I think things in my realtionship work. It's not a matter of saying one is someone else's property, I am no one's property, I am someone's partner, I have thoughts and feleings of my own (I know people are not things), but I myself don't mind it if my partner wishes to take me. I find it very sensuous (and I don't have rape fantasies, before anyone goes to that) to wake up having an orgasm or feeling his body on top, warm. If it pleases him, I'm ok with it. It pleases me too.

I also understand when a woman dislikes this. Trust in a relationship has certain levels, and every couple establishes them accordingly.

It's the same crap that I've sometimes heard from people in sub/dom relationships - that I'd be perfectly ok with being someone's property if only I trusted him enough. Personally, I don't think it works that way.

For the record, as someone who does tend to go on about the awesomeness of D/s relationships on occasion, that is indeed crap. Trust is certainly a necessary component of a successful D/s relationship, but actually liking D/s relationships is kinda key, too. :p

For the record, as someone who does tend to go on about the awesomeness of D/s relationships on occasion, that is indeed crap. Trust is certainly a necessary component of a successful D/s relationship, but actually liking D/s relationships is kinda key, too. :p

^This

For the record, as someone who does tend to go on about the awesomeness of D/s relationships on occasion, that is indeed crap. Trust is certainly a necessary component of a successful D/s relationship, but actually liking D/s relationships is kinda key, too. :p

I got my first orders last night.

:D

Liking it is indeed key.

Trust is certainly a necessary component of a successful D/s relationship, but actually liking D/s relationships is kinda key, too.
Only in consensual ones.

Only in consensual ones.
Non-consensual D/s isn't D/s. It's rape/abuse.

:rolleyes:

Non-consensual D/s isn't D/s. It's rape/abuse.
Actually it's both. D/s, rape and abuse. Occasionally human enslaving and trafficking too.

Non-consensual D/s isn't D/s. It's rape/abuse.

:rolleyes:

^This.

Actually it's both. D/s, rape and abuse. Occasionally human enslaving and trafficking too.

No, it's not both. Consensual D/s is consensual D/s, two people consent to enter a dominant/submissive relation, no one is forced to do something that will degrade the other person.

Rape, on the other hand, is abuse.

No, it's not both. Consensual D/s is consensual D/s, two people consent to enter a dominant/submissive relation, no one is forced to do something that will degrade the other person.
Yes, you might notice I haven't said it's consensual D/S. It's domination, forced submission, rape, and abuse. All four.


Rape, on the other hand, is abuse.
Is it necessarily? I would say almost always it is, but the definition of rape doesn't exactly include abuse. For instance, if the idiots who support prison rape got their way, and it was institutionalized as a punishment, it would be rape, but not abuse.

Was this an act of rape?

It really depends on his wife's attitude towards this situation. I really doubt a woman could sleep through such an act as sex; unless intoxicated or comatose somehow. At the vary least the scenario you have described seems that the wife is faking her slumber and may enjoy it on some level, to which she does not want to disturb her husband's illusion. Also, I belive most guys would have wondered out of bed and wanked elsewhere.

I seem to remember answering this exact same question before...I think Ryadn posted it...

And I caught hell for trying to argue the difference between Intimate Partner Violence, or Domestic Abuse, whatever is your preferred term, and Rape...

Actually it's both. D/s, rape and abuse. Occasionally human enslaving and trafficking too.

First of all, that's nonsense in and of itself. Being raped does not mean one in any way chooses to submit to one's rapist, and it's more than a little nauseating to me that you would suggest that was the case.

Second of all, I suggest reading the posts you're replying to. Let's look at what you quoted again:

Trust is certainly a necessary component of a successful D/s relationship, but actually liking D/s relationships is kinda key, too.

See the words "successful D/s relationship"? How exactly is your little off-topic nonsense about non-consensual behavior not involving trust (a revelation on par with "beating someone over the head with a brick doesn't involve gentleness") relevant to the topic of successful D/s relationships?

"non consensual submission" makes about as much sense as "dry water"

I am John. Sorry, Jocabia.


(j/k... I couldn't resist.)

I laughed.

For the record, after I got over being freaked out, I thought it was funny and occasionally teased her about it. For one thing, apparently, she had, at the very least, a subconscious attraction to John. I don't know, but I strongly suspect that at one point or another something happened between them since it seemed like she felt like it was totally okay to have sex with him and even laugh when "he" mentioned my name.

First of all, that's nonsense in and of itself. Being raped does not mean one in any way chooses to submit to one's rapist, and it's more than a little nauseating to me that you would suggest that was the case.
Of course one doesn't choose. Submission can be voluntary or forced. In this case the victim is forced to submit.


See the words "successful D/s relationship"?
Successful for the dominating side. I guess that makes it semi-successful.

Of course one doesn't choose. Submission can be voluntary or forced. In this case the victim is forced to submit.
Um......no, it can't.

Submission is always voluntary.

Um......no, it can't.

Submission is always voluntary.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=121&contentid=745&page=2

"Rees said: "Visiting brothels where women have been gang-raped into submission, into slavery, is not part of the UN’s mandate."


That's voluntary to you?

Right out of the mouth of UN.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=121&contentid=745&page=2

"Rees said: "Visiting brothels where women have been gang-raped into submission, into slavery, is not part of the UN’s mandate."


That's voluntary to you?

Which is equivocation. The term they are using refers to the actions of the submissive party. I'm not submitting when I'm forced to do something. In fact, my submission (in their usage) requires that I choose to submit.

The definition they are using requires that someone surrender their will to another. That's the very definition.

If you twist my arm behind my back, I didn't surrender my will, you overwhelmed my will altogether.

More so, you have to understand the nuances to language. By the usage in D/s, they are referring to the choice of surrender to someone you gave power to. It's an even smaller subset of the term you aren't using properly. You can't ignore this. You might as well claim that liberals aren't liberal by arguing that they have to be "liberal" about everything they could possibly be liberal about. Some terms, in certain contexts, have a specific meaning. It's called English. It's a complicated language but if you start now, you can probably figure out through context what meaning they're using.

The definition they are using requires that someone surrender their will to another. That's the very definition.
If you twist my arm behind my back, I didn't surrender my will, you overwhelmed my will altogether.
Yes, but if one points a gun at you, you surrender your will to them - submit.

Yes, but if one points a gun at you, you surrender your will to them - submit.

As I pointed out, you're using equivocation. In case you're wondering, that's a fallacy. Do you know what fallacy means?

Seriously, this is where you change the subject or some other silliness. See, when you actively ignore the context in which something is used, then completely fail to realize that not every usage of "submission" is the same usage, well, that's called not understanding how English works.

Incidentally, if I link to a UN story about cougars loving to eat bobcat does that mean it's a favorite food of single powerful women in the 40s? Or is it possible that there are different usages of words?

Actually it's both. D/s, rape and abuse. Occasionally human enslaving and trafficking too.

Yes, you might notice I haven't said it's consensual D/S. It's domination, forced submission, rape, and abuse. All four.
No.

D/s refers to a specific, consensual dynamic. You do not get to redefine it as something non-consensual, bend it completely out of whack and turn it into anything even remotely akin to rape, abuse, or human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

D/s refers to a specific, consensual dynamic.
What you miss is that the modern, watered-down, consensual version of D/S is just a simulation of a nonconsensual relationship. Which were pretty common in the Middle Ages, BTW. And don't try to deny it, 'cause that will sound silly.

What you miss is that the modern, watered-down, consensual version of D/S is just a simulation of a nonconsensual relationship. Which were pretty common in the Middle Ages, BTW. And don't try to deny it, 'cause that will sound silly.

Yes, and sex is just the modern, watered-down, consensual version of rape, which pretty common in the Middle Ages, BTW. And don't try to deny it, 'cause it will sound silly.

Seriously, do you actually read the nonsense you type? Honestly, read it out loud. Did you laugh? I did. It's pretty silly without anyone denying anything.

Meanwhile, people who actually want to join a rational discussion will be talking about the relationship being described in the thread and not trying desperately to recover from an ignorant and indefensible statement from earlier in the thread. Other people will be doing the opposite. Which group are you interested in joining?

"non consensual submission" makes about as much sense as "dry water"

I swear to God, I've had some. I've had water that manage to make my mouth parched somehow. I insist upon the existence of this oxymoron.

What's with the personal shot? Geez.

What personal shot?


But yeah, if there's something I can do for my wife that would make her happy even though I don't really feel like doing it then I don't mind. Know why? 'cause I LOVE HER. It's why I get up to fix her a drink from the kitchen even though her legs work fine. It's why I go in to wake her from her nap even though we have two alarm clocks. And she does stuff like that for me too.

I know. Insidious and evil, ain't it?

There's a difference between fetching something, and letting yourself be used when you don't feel like it.
I do get up to get my BF stuff, but it also happens that I just tell himself to fuck off and get it for himself because I don't feel like getting up. And vice versa.

But that seems to be a bit too subtle a difference for some people.

Yes, you might notice I haven't said it's consensual D/S. It's domination, forced submission, rape, and abuse. All four.

Not in the example given.

Is it necessarily? I would say almost always it is, but the definition of rape doesn't exactly include abuse.

Yes, it's abuse. Rape is abuse. You're forcing a person to have sex with you, not for sexual desire but for the need to humiliate. Don't kid yourself. Humiliation, of any kind, is abuse.

For instance, if the idiots who support prison rape got their way, and it was institutionalized as a punishment, it would be rape, but not abuse.

Which has nothing to do with the thread at hand and I highly doubt prison rape will be institutionalized as punishment. On this regard, the point you're trying to make is moot.

Of course one doesn't choose. Submission can be voluntary or forced. In this case the victim is forced to submit.

No one forces you to submit. If you don't want to be raped, you fight. You will probably be harmed greatly or killed, but as I stated, you're not forced to submit.

Successful for the dominating side. I guess that makes it semi-successful.

It's successful for both sides, stop twisting something that obviosuly you do not understand. It's a gratifying experience for both sides, it's a successful experience fro both sides, the dominant one and the submissive one.

What you miss is that the modern, watered-down, consensual version of D/S is just a simulation of a nonconsensual relationship. Which were pretty common in the Middle Ages, BTW. And don't try to deny it, 'cause that will sound silly.

she's not the one who is missing anything. You are. It's irrelevant "what happened in the middle ages". It's irrelevant what happens in the human trafficking rings.

Words and terminology has meaning. Terms like d/s, s&m, bdsm, they have meanings. phrases like "d/s relationship" has a meaning in the modern sense of the phrase. and you can't talk about things like "non consensual d/s". The term is an oxymoron by the modern useage of it.

You can talk about rape, and how rapists modus operendi often do have elements of sadism and dominance to them, and I won't disagree with you. The problem is you're trying to use a term simply in a context where it does not fit. You try to argue that "forced submission" can be d/s. It can't. That's the definition of the term. "non consensual d/s relationships" is as meaningless as "dry water". Inherent in the definition of of water is that it is not dry. Inherent in the definition of a d/s relationship is that it is consensual.

arguing that the UN's use of the word "submission" in the sense of enforced submission by violence equates to d/s is like saying I have a d/s relationship with this forum because every time I say something I click on the button that says "submit post"

What personal shot?
What, for doing something you don't really feel like, just because somebody wants you to?
No, that sounds exactly like you, actually.


There's a difference between fetching something, and letting yourself be used when you don't feel like it.
I do get up to get my BF stuff, but it also happens that I just tell himself to fuck off and get it for himself because I don't feel like getting up. And vice versa.

But that seems to be a bit too subtle a difference for some people.

See, I don't see it as letting oneself be used they same way you seem to see it. I think of it as lighthearted and fun, not some kind of social statement. If I don't feel like it and she does, what does it cost me to go along? It makes her happy, which is gratifying to me, it makes both of us feel good, and there's never anything wrong with that.

she's not the one who is missing anything. You are. It's irrelevant "what happened in the middle ages". It's irrelevant what happens in the human trafficking rings.

Words and terminology has meaning. Terms like d/s, s&m, bdsm, they have meanings. phrases like "d/s relationship" has a meaning in the modern sense of the phrase. and you can't talk about things like "non consensual d/s". The term is an oxymoron by the modern useage of it.

You can talk about rape, and how rapists modus operendi often do have elements of sadism and dominance to them, and I won't disagree with you. The problem is you're trying to use a term simply in a context where it does not fit. You try to argue that "forced submission" can be d/s. It can't. That's the definition of the term. "non consensual d/s relationships" is as meaningless as "dry water". Inherent in the definition of of water is that it is not dry. Inherent in the definition of a d/s relationship is that it is consensual.

arguing that the UN's use of the word "submission" in the sense of enforced submission by violence equates to d/s is like saying I have a d/s relationship with this forum because every time I say something I click on the button that says "submit post"

Hey don't forget to capitalize the 'D' bro ;) That's convention.

Neo Art is completely right here. The way D/s relationships function is through consent and trust. Both have to be complete. There can be no force in a system which, by DEFINITION can be ended the instant either participant is uncomfortable. That's what safe words are for. It's roleplay. For someone to say D/s is a watered down version of force akin to the complete control men had over women in the Middle Ages is like comparing a dodgeball game to a public stoning. It's a useless analogy.

See, I don't see it as letting oneself be used they same way you seem to see it. I think of it as lighthearted and fun, not some kind of social statement. If I don't feel like it and she does, what does it cost me to go along? It makes her happy, which is gratifying to me, it makes both of us feel good, and there's never anything wrong with that.

Yep, that's what my mom thought as well for the better part of 20 years. It took her that long to realise that over time, she had become something quite similar to a rug to my father.

There is definitely room for mutuality and compromise, without it no relationship would work. The question is how far do you take it. And him having sex with me while I'm not even conscious is a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness.

The way D/s relationships function is through consent and trust. Both have to be complete. There can be no force in a system which, by DEFINITION can be ended the instant either participant is uncomfortable. That's what safe words are for. It's roleplay. For someone to say D/s is a watered down version of force akin to the complete control men had over women in the Middle Ages is like comparing a dodgeball game to a public stoning. It's a useless analogy.

Aaaand, ding! Someone nails it. Thanks for that, Neo B.

There is definitely room for mutuality and compromise, without it no relationship would work. The question is how far do you take it. And him having sex with me while I'm not even conscious is a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness.

You know, it's fine that you think that way, but it's also fine that not everyone sees it as such. You are trying to impose your personal view on the matter onto some sort objective correctness in the matter. Just because you would feel that such an act would be a sign of dysfunctionality does not equate to it being an objective sign of dysfunctionality.

You know, it's fine that you think that way, but it's also fine that not everyone sees it as such. You are trying to impose your personal view on the matter onto some sort objective correctness in the matter. Just because you would feel that such an act would be a sign of dysfunctionality does not equate to it being an objective sign of dysfunctionality.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand it in any different way. My partner feels horny, and rather than waking me up, he just uses my body rather than his own hand? What's that to tell me about the way he sees me? Seriously?

And that's without taking into account some of NB's options, like not using condoms when I would usually insist on them, or doing it after having had an argument.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand it in any different way. My partner feels horny, and rather than waking me up, he just uses my body rather than his own hand? What's that to tell me about the way he sees me? Seriously?

It can tell you whatever you want it to tell you, just stop trying to equate the way you FEEL with some sort of objective truth. Just because you would FEEL disrespected does not make it a universal sign of disrespect.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand it in any different way. My partner feels horny, and rather than waking me up, he just uses my body rather than his own hand? What's that to tell me about the way he sees me? Seriously?
I'm with you Cabra. Although I've already been told I'm "uptight" for it or that I don't trust him enough. You know the same things the boys in high school told me to try to get me to sex them too...."if you love me you'll do it", "if you trust me you'll do it", "if you don't do it you're a prude"........yep.

It can tell you whatever you want it to tell you, just stop trying to equate the way you FEEL with some sort of objective truth. Just because you would FEEL disrespected does not make it a universal sign of disrespect.

Ok, outline to me how it would show respect?
You feel like jerking off but don't want to put your partner through the discomfort of waking up?

I'm with you Cabra. Although I've already been told I'm "uptight" for it or that I don't trust him enough. You know the same things the boys in high school told me to try to get me to sex them too...."if you love me you'll do it", "if you trust me you'll do it", "if you don't do it you're a prude"........yep.

"oh baby, please, my balls are about to burst..."
"oh baby, please, I promise I won't cum in your mouth..."

yadda yadda yadda

I'm with you Cabra. Although I've already been told I'm "uptight" for it or that I don't trust him enough. You know the same things the boys in high school told me to try to get me to sex them too...."if you love me you'll do it", "if you trust me you'll do it", "if you don't do it you're a prude"........yep.

Yes, I recognised the sound of that as well. Given the OPs previous posts on the subjects of sex and respect, I'm finding this whole thread deeply ironic.

You know, it's fine that you think that way, but it's also fine that not everyone sees it as such. You are trying to impose your personal view on the matter onto some sort objective correctness in the matter. Just because you would feel that such an act would be a sign of dysfunctionality does not equate to it being an objective sign of dysfunctionality.

this...but pretend I said earlier in an effort to make me feel smarter...

...but it's also fine that not everyone sees it as such... ...Just because... does not equate to it being an objective sign of dysfunctionality.

^This.

For instance, if the idiots who support prison rape got their way, and it was institutionalized as a punishment, it would be rape, but not abuse.
You're conflating 'legal' with 'moral'.

Ok, outline to me how it would show respect?
You feel like jerking off but don't want to put your partner through the discomfort of waking up?

For what purpose? So you can intentionally disrespect my personal feelings on the subject? That would be quite ironic indeed. My sexual fetishes are not on trial here, but suffice it to say that I would quite enjoy being used in the way that you feel would be extremely disrespectful to me. I am not trying to tell you not to feel the way you feel, but show some respect for the fact that perhaps not everyone feels the same way as you do about everything, yeah? You're beginning to sound like Bluth Corporation.

For what purpose? So you can intentionally disrespect my personal feelings on the subject? That would be quite ironic indeed. My sexual fetishes are not on trial here, but suffice it to say that I would quite enjoy being used in the way that you feel would be extremely disrespectful to me. I am not trying to tell you not to feel the way you feel, but show some respect for the fact that perhaps not everyone feels the same way as you do about everything, yeah? You're beginning to sound like Bluth Corporation.

A=A god damn it!

For what purpose? So you can intentionally disrespect my personal feelings on the subject? That would be quite ironic indeed. My sexual fetishes are not on trial here, but suffice it to say that I would quite enjoy being used in the way that you feel would be extremely disrespectful to me. I am not trying to tell you not to feel the way you feel, but show some respect for the fact that perhaps not everyone feels the same way as you do about everything, yeah? You're beginning to sound like Bluth Corporation.

Are we talking about that same thing here?
Because I believe I made it quite clear earlier that if it had been discussed and explicitly agreed between the partners, there's not a thing wrong with it....

You're conflating 'legal' with 'moral'.

In the posts, that seems to be the norm. Morality... is... really... such a subjective thing, according to society. In Europe it's ok for women to be topless at the beach, in the US is immoral and punishable by law to do this.

Are we talking about that same thing here?
Because I believe I made it quite clear earlier that if it had been discussed and explicitly agreed between the partners, there's not a thing wrong with it....

I think his point was he'd enjoy it regardless of whether he had explicitly said "go ahead". Which is fine, for him. And being offended and hurt is fine, for you.

But you can't say such a thing would be universally disrespectful or rude. Hell, some things I do with my partner would be considered EXTREMELY disrespectful, out of the context.

Are we talking about that same thing here?
Because I believe I made it quite clear earlier that if it had been discussed and explicitly agreed between the partners, there's not a thing wrong with it....

And I'm saying that I would not be offended or feel disrespected if we HADN'T discussed it prior and I awoke to my girlfriend on top of me. I am saying that I would find it deeply satisfying, particularly the notion that we HADN'T discussed it prior. And your attempts to deem the way I FEEL as somehow incorrect because they do not correlate with the way you feel is ignorant.

In the posts, that seems to be the norm. Morality... is... really... such a subjective thing, according to society. In Europe it's ok for women to be topless at the beach, in the US is immoral and punishable by law to do this.
This is for another topic, but I'd argue that in Europe and the US it is not immoral, it's just illegal in the US.

My point being, just because a (horrific) action is sanctioned by authorities, it doesn't mean that the action in question suddenly stops being abusive.

And I'm saying that I would not be offended or feel disrespected if we HADN'T discussed it prior and I awoke to my girlfriend on top of me. I am saying that I would find it deeply satisfying, particularly the notion that we HADN'T discussed it prior. And your attempts to deem the way I FEEL as somehow incorrect because they do not correlate with the way you feel is ignorant.

Question : Would you do it to her without having discussed it?

I think his point was he'd enjoy it regardless of whether he had explicitly said "go ahead". Which is fine, for him. And being offended and hurt is fine, for you.

But you can't say such a thing would be universally disrespectful or rude. Hell, some things I do with my partner would be considered EXTREMELY disrespectful, out of the context.

I....yeah. I have my own personal opinion of the subject....it's clouding...yeah. I mean if it works for Neo to sex his wife even if she's sleeping or even when he really doesn't want to.....whatever. He asked what I would do, so yeah, I'd be pretty pissed and someone would be in a lot of fucking trouble.

I'm not trying to convince them their "feelings" about it are wrong so much as trying to defend mine.

My point being, just because a (horrific) action is sanctioned by authorities, it doesn't mean that the action in question suddenly stops being abusive.

Yeah, I've seen some pretty nasty tits on some ancient German women hanging out (literally) at the lakeside.

They made the saggy flaps you saw in National Geographic magazine in your youth look positively erotic.

There should be a law - if you're scary looking when naked, you can't disrobe in public.

And I'm saying that I would not be offended or feel disrespected if we HADN'T discussed it prior and I awoke to my girlfriend on top of me. I am saying that I would find it deeply satisfying, particularly the notion that we HADN'T discussed it prior. And your attempts to deem the way I FEEL as somehow incorrect because they do not correlate with the way you feel is ignorant.
Out of interest, would you say you have given tacit consent?

Yep, that's what my mom thought as well for the better part of 20 years. It took her that long to realise that over time, she had become something quite similar to a rug to my father.

There is definitely room for mutuality and compromise, without it no relationship would work. The question is how far do you take it. And him having sex with me while I'm not even conscious is a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness.

It sucks that it happened that way for your mom and dad. It happens all the time... but it doesn't HAVE to be so. I, for one, enjoy the openness between myself and my wife and I'm not gonna look at it as some kind of hideous cancerous problem just because it didn't work out so well for others.

And to be honest, I only see dysfunction if it happens without prior discussion. Otherwise it strikes me as kinky, which isn't a bad thing.

Aaaand, ding! Someone nails it. Thanks for that, Neo B.

:)

I....yeah. I have my own personal opinion of the subject....it's clouding...yeah. I mean if it works for Neo to sex his wife even if she's sleeping or even when he really doesn't want to.....whatever. He asked what I would do, so yeah, I'd be pretty pissed and someone would be in a lot of fucking trouble.

Is it so much to ask that you say "Neo B"? You confused the hell out of me there for a second :p

I'm not trying to convince them their "feelings" about it are wrong so much as trying to defend mine.

which...if fine. I don't think a single person here has sad you're WRONG for feeling as you do. Your feelings are your own and you have a right to them.

All anyone has said, from what I've seen, is that THEY might feel differently about the subject. On the other hand, while nobody has challenged that your feelings are perfectly legitimate, those that HAVE said they'd be ok with it were met with things like:

Yep, that's what my mom thought as well for the better part of 20 years. It took her that long to realise that over time, she had become something quite similar to a rug to my father.

Which seems to me to imply nothing more than "if you're ok with it, then something is wrong with your relationship". Which is frankly damned insulting.

Is it so much to ask that you say "Neo B"? You confused the hell out of me there for a second :p

I think we all know the difference, Neo A.

Question : Would you do it to her without having discussed it?

No, because that does not appeal to me. I like the idea of being taken, not taking.

Is it so much to ask that you say "Neo B"? You confused the hell out of me there for a second :p
I do that to hubby to, he keeps telling me "quit using pro-nouns I'm not in your head, I have no clue what you just fucking said!"


which...if fine. I don't think a single person here has sad you're WRONG for feeling as you do. Your feelings are your own and you have a right to them.

All anyone has said, from what I've seen, is that THEY might feel differently about the subject. On the other hand, while nobody has challenged that your feelings are perfectly legitimate,
This whole subject makes me really defensive, I have to remember that.

Out of interest, would you say you have given tacit consent?

Not that I'm aware of, no. I mean, we have discussed my overall inclination towards submission, but we have not once discussed it in respect to me being the one asleep.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand it in any different way. My partner feels horny, and rather than waking me up, he just uses my body rather than his own hand? What's that to tell me about the way he sees me? Seriously?

Actually, on this point my wife observed th at she'd much prefer that I turn to her rather than my hand. It makes her feel desirable and sexy.

Yes, I recognised the sound of that as well. Given the OPs previous posts on the subjects of sex and respect, I'm finding this whole thread deeply ironic.

I'm waiting for it to dawn on you that you don't know me, or my views, nearly as well as think you do. You're filling in a lot of assumption there.


I'm not trying to convince them their "feelings" about it are wrong so much as trying to defend mine.

You don't need to defend your feelings. They're yours. I'd only ask that you and Cabra try not to come across as being judgmental of the way others see it... which is happening whether you intend for it to or not.:)

I think we all know the difference, Neo A.

Any volunteers to create a nation we can call "Neo C?"

I do that to hubby to, he keeps telling me "quit using pro-nouns I'm not in your head, I have no clue what you just fucking said!"



This whole subject makes me really defensive, I have to remember that.

The thing is, I have nothing but sympathy for someone who says "no, I don't want to do that". That's 100% your right, and you are free to place whatever limitations you want on how you use your body.

On the flip side, not everybody is the same. I know, and have been with, girls who like to have their hair grabbed, their head pulled back, slapped hard in the face and called a dirty whore. Does that disrespect them? No, not really, if that's what they enjoy.

What's disrespectful to you, or Cabra, isn't so for someone else. You have every right to not enjoy it. You have NO right to tell me I, or Neo B, or Sdaeriji shouldn't enjoy it either.