NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Oh, enjoy it all you want! Just don't tell me I'm "uptight" if I don't.

I get a lot of shit over my own D/s dynamic......seriously it's not for everyone.

I don't need to tell people they're "uptight" for not engaging in it.

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.

In fairness, Smunk and Cabra both made their points after being told that they were "making a big deal out of it" and being "uptight." Speaking as one of those girls who likes being slapped and called a dirty whore, I'd still kick anyone who declared that people who don't like such things are prudes who just need to loosen up. :p

The thread seems to have moved on to talking about those people who might like to be sleep-sexed and who's partners might be reasonably expected to know that (whether stated explicitly or not).

That's all fine and dandy, but before you tell us all off for being "judgemental", please remember that the anti-sleep-sex comments you are objecting to were made in response to the op scenario where it was absolutely not agreed beforehand, and where we were asked how we would feel if it happened in our current relationships. We were never asked "is it ok for other people in other relationships to want to be sleep-sexed?". By jumping on our responses, you're effectively doing what you accuse us of - telling us that our personal opinions on our personal relationships and boundaries are wrong.

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.
That's more what I was meaning by tacit consent; the notion that your partner thinks to themself, 'I know Sdaeriji won't mind this; indeed will enjoy this'.

A recognition that this is OK behaviour.

By jumping on our responses, you're effectively doing what you accuse us of - telling us that our personal opinions on our personal relationships and boundaries are wrong.

That's a load of horseshit. Other than Neo B's comment about being "uptight", there has been nothing but recognition and respect for those of the opinion that this behaviour would be wrong in their relationship.

I think people are taking the "uptight" comment WAY too seriously. Geez, people.

Stop being so uptight. :D

(In seriousness, I don't recall anybody calling anybody prudish in this thread, although I suppose I might have missed it.)

That's a load of horseshit. Other than Neo B's comment about being "uptight", there has been nothing but recognition and respect for those of the opinion that this behaviour would be wrong in their relationship.

And frankly, I only said that (jokingly) because when they were talking about how they're personally not into it, they gave the impression of it being wrong generally, not just for them. I'm not the only one who perceived it this way.

That's more what I was meaning by tacit consent; the notion that your partner thinks to themself, 'I know Sdaeriji won't mind this; indeed will enjoy this'.

A recognition that this is OK behaviour.

Assuming I will enjoy it is a long way from the defined consent that has been mentioned in this thread.

That's a load of horseshit. Other than Neo B's comment about being "uptight", there has been nothing but recognition and respect for those of the opinion that this behaviour would be wrong in their relationship.

Um, no. This whole line of discussion started with this post:

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.


Telling anyone who thinks the OP's scenario is unacceptable to us that we are just making a big deal out of nothing because WE don't trust our partners the way SHE does is pretty damned insulting. Again, as someone who loves submission, if I told anyone who had said, "I would totally not be cool with my partner just choking me without asking," "Geez, why are you making a big deal out of it? It's so sad that you don't trust your partner enough to choke you," I would be way out of line.

And frankly, I only said that (jokingly) because when they were talking about how they're personally not into it, they gave the impression of it being wrong generally, not just for them. I'm not the only one who perceived it this way.

No, you weren't and they blew away any hope of it only being an impression by explicitly stating so later on, but calling them "uptight" would be akin to me calling you "easy" for being into it. A rather douchebaggy way to say something, don't you think?

Um, no. This whole line of discussion started with this post:



Telling anyone who thinks the OP's scenario is unacceptable to us that we are just making a big deal out of nothing because WE don't trust our partners the way SHE does is pretty damned insulting. Again, as someone who loves submission, if I told anyone who had said, "I would totally not be cool with my partner just choking me without asking," "Geez, why are you making a big deal out of it? It's so sad that you don't trust your partner enough to choke you," I would be way out of line.

Then I rescind my comment. I must have a pre-programmed filter in my brain for anyone with an internet handle like "Peanut Butter n Jellie".

Assuming I will enjoy it is a long way from the defined consent that has been mentioned in this thread.
Aye, exactly the reason I'm exploring this line of thought.

I'm trying to get a good understanding of your consent.

Aye, exactly the reason I'm exploring this line of thought.

I'm trying to get a good understanding of your consent.

In the strictest sense, there is none. I have not made mention of it or in any other way implied that I want her to do it. It is something that, given my proclivities elsewhere, she might assume I would enjoy, but there's been no explicit mention. Of course, if she were ever to stumble across these posts, then I guess she'd have all the consent needed, right?

No, you weren't and they blew away any hope of it only being an impression by explicitly stating so later on, but calling them "uptight" would be akin to me calling you "easy" for being into it. A rather douchebaggy way to say something, don't you think?

Only if I were trying to be mean or judgmental. I do think people (in general) are a bit uptight on this issue, not for not being "into" that stuff, but for getting so riled up over it.

I mean geez, when I said it I didn't even specify anybody BECAUSE it was a general statement. For whatever reason certain people assumed it meant them and got all defensive.

Lighten up, folks. Nobody's judging you.

Lighten up, folks. Nobody's judging you.

^This.

Telling anyone who thinks the OP's scenario is unacceptable to us that we are just making a big deal out of nothing because WE don't trust our partners the way SHE does is pretty damned insulting. Again, as someone who loves submission, if I told anyone who had said, "I would totally not be cool with my partner just choking me without asking," "Geez, why are you making a big deal out of it? It's so sad that you don't trust your partner enough to choke you," I would be way out of line.

I think you took that a bit out of context. She's reacting to those whose position seemed to indicate not only that they weren't into this stuff, but that NOBODY should be, or that anybody who did such a thing is necessarily sick or dysfunctional or whatever. PB&J is talking about someone being able to do those things and it NOT be a symptom of some sort of mental illness because it's based on trust.

K, in my particular context, I don't really need to discuss EVERYTHING before it happens...that sort of takes the fun out of things. Big things like being drugged unconscious and fucked...well, okay that requires discussion. Him deciding he wants to spit on me while he fucks me, because he's pretty sure I'll like it (I do)...I don't need to sign a waiver before it happens.

It's not just about trust, it's about communication, verbal and non, and it's about knowing what your partner is into.

K, in my particular context, I don't really need to discuss EVERYTHING before it happens...that sort of takes the fun out of things. Big things like being drugged unconscious and fucked...well, okay that requires discussion. Him deciding he wants to spit on me while he fucks me, because he's pretty sure I'll like it (I do)...I don't need to sign a waiver before it happens.

It's not just about trust, it's about communication, verbal and non, and it's about knowing what your partner is into.

My wife and I were joking about that last night. She was fixing dinner and I came up behind her and asked permission to put my arms around her, then to nuzzle her neck, then to kiss her, then... well you get the idea. Do you remember hearing about some University where they wanted to require the students to sign waivers before engaging in intimate activity in order to try and mitigate the date rape problem?

But yeah I mean, we all agree that things that could be potentially touchy need to be clarified first if for no other reason than to avoid making our beloved uncomfortable, even for a moment. I think prettymuch everybody here knows the difference. If I object to anything in this thread it's the idea that something like a sleep pounce must, by its nature, be an act of dysfunction or selfish, uncaring wrongness.

For my part, I don't get off on rape fantasies or doing sleeping women, but neither do those things offend me in the context of people who have made their best efforts to be clear, communicative, and open with each other. Some people really get off on the idea of sex with a women who's asleep. Is that sick? I don't think it is... and if their wife is cool with it then she's cool with it. What's the problem? Is it an act of rape? Well maybe by some strict legalistic definition. Does it apply in our practical every day life? Well no, not unless someone is trying to use force which is wrong no matter what they're doing.

Can we all agree on that much, at least?

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.

Agreed, this is a topic for another discussion.

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.

I understand, but we need to always remember, and this is not about abuse or rape, that when there's consent between a couple about certain things that can and can't be done intimately, then there's no problme. If I allow my partner to have sex with me whilst sleeping, then to me, the act is not rape.

I'm a law student (in UK) and this is rape, no matter what the circumstances. There was no explicit consent to sex at that time, therefore it is legally rape.

If she had consented to the idea of him doing it once she was sleeping that night then that would probably count as explicit consent as it expresses a time and not a general idea.

Just as a further point, rape can only be done by a man inserting his penis into a mouth, vagina or anus. Any other undesired sexual activity is not rape but sexual assault.

I think you took that a bit out of context. She's reacting to those whose position seemed to indicate not only that they weren't into this stuff, but that NOBODY should be, or that anybody who did such a thing is necessarily sick or dysfunctional or whatever. PB&J is talking about someone being able to do those things and it NOT be a symptom of some sort of mental illness because it's based on trust.

Eh, I can only go by what people say, not what I somehow psychically know they must really have meant, and when someone says that "you guys" (not "a few of you" or "the people who seem to think that this is unacceptable even if it's been discussed beforehand") are "making a big deal out of it" because "apparently" most people don't trust our partners like she does, it's not really reasonable to expect people not to get irritated and defensive. What she meant may have been perfectly charming, but what she said was condescending as heck.

Also, did anyone actually say it was inherently sick or dysfunctional even if it had been discussed and agreed upon by both partners before PB&J posted that? I honestly don't recall such a thing, although I could be mistaken; it seems to me like the majority of people here have simply said that it is seriously not okay to screw someone without any form of consent. Like Sin said, you obviously don't need to discuss absolutely everything you do beforehand, but things which legally constitute rape are pretty darn far over the "you need to ask first" line.

Assuming I will enjoy it is a long way from the defined consent that has been mentioned in this thread.

So which is it? Is it okay to have sex with someone's unconscious body without their permission or not? You keep defending it, and yet now it seems you're saying that her assumption you'll enjoy is not actually enough.

So which is it? Is it okay to have sex with someone's unconscious body without their permission or not? You keep defending it, and yet now it seems you're saying that her assumption you'll enjoy is not actually enough.

I think he's saying that the idea of "permission" is a rather vague and amorphous one.

. Like Sin said, you obviously don't need to discuss absolutely everything you do beforehand, but things which legally constitute rape are pretty darn far over the "you need to ask first" line.

As I said earlier, rape is, at minimum, doing something that a reasonable person would have believed it likely you did not have consent to do.

That's the least restrictive standard, and it's not used very often.

So which is it? Is it okay to have sex with someone's unconscious body without their permission or not? You keep defending it, and yet now it seems you're saying that her assumption you'll enjoy is not actually enough.

Her assumption is enough for ME, but it seems to not be enough for the people in this thread who have deemed me selfish, disrespectful, and dysfunctional.

This thread has devolved into a string of personal attacks and preferences. Sheesh.

Her assumption is enough for ME, but it seems to not be enough for the people in this thread who have deemed me selfish, disrespectful, and dysfunctional.
Which was who exactly?

Which was who exactly?

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.

That would be Cabra West. Unless I'm not to believe that the things she would think of her boyfriend were he to engage in this activity ("a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness") she would not think identically of me. Of course, if you try to maintain that I should not interpret her comment as such, then I would suggest you get off the "he called me uptight" horse.

This thread has devolved into a string of personal attacks and preferences. Sheesh.

Don't most of the threads on NSG turn out like this?

Heck, most of the time?

Also, did anyone actually say it was inherently sick or dysfunctional even if it had been discussed and agreed upon by both partners before PB&J posted that? I honestly don't recall such a thing, although I could be mistaken; it seems to me like the majority of people here have simply said that it is seriously not okay to screw someone without any form of consent.

I'm not gonna go quote mining over it, but that was definitely the tone at the beginning of the thread. Considering I inserted the idea of discussing it ahead if time as one of the hypothetical circumstances in the OP scenario and people STILL said it was wrong. Some did point out it MIGHT be a mitigating circumstance while a few others did take it as an exception.

So yah, people did say it.

Considering I inserted the idea of discussing it ahead if time as one of the hypothetical circumstances in the OP scenario and people STILL said it was wrong.

Er, no, you didn't. You said:

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

(emphasis mine)

...and when asked for clarification, you specified discussing it at some point far removed in time. That "ever" and that clarification make a big difference. Quite a lot of us pointed that out. "Well, seventeen years ago, you mentioned in passing that you might not object to this!" is not a particularly reasonable basis for assuming consent tonight. "You told me this afternoon that you'd be totally cool with me doing this" is. That shouldn't really be a hard distinction to grasp.

Like I said, I may have missed the post where someone said, "It's sick and dysfunctional even if the wife said it was totally okay before she fell asleep" - I'm no more eager to reread the entire thread than you are - but I really don't remember that, and if you truly don't understand the difference between the two scenarios above, that may explain why you got that impression.

Her assumption is enough for ME, but it seems to not be enough for the people in this thread who have deemed me selfish, disrespectful, and dysfunctional.

In the end, her assumption may be enough for you. But that doesn't mean she should just make the assumption. Some people are ok with being smacked around during sex. Some people are ok with acting out rape fantasies. But one should never assume that one's partner is ok with such things.

I don't know that anyone has called you disrespectful, but I would say that, should your SO would be acting in a disrespectful manner by engaging in this sort of behavior without discussing it with you first - regardless of whether or not you're ok with it in the end.

As Sin pointed out, this isn't to say that you need to explicitly discuss every single sexual act before going for it. But there is a difference between this type of act and most others. Generally, if you're not ok with a sexual act, you can express that at the time that it is initiated. If you've never discussed sleep sex before and you're not ok with it, you can only express that after the fact.

Just my two cents.

That would be Cabra West. Unless I'm not to believe that the things she would think of her boyfriend were he to engage in this activity ("a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness") she would not think identically of me. Of course, if you try to maintain that I should not interpret her comment as such, then I would suggest you get off the "he called me uptight" horse.

I'm confused. Didn't you say you were the one who would be ok with someone having sex with you in your sleep, but not the other way around?

As such, even if you were to interpret this comment in the worst possible light, it still wouldn't be calling you selfish or disrespectful.

tell ya what my gf is sleeping right now. I will test out the question. If you don't hear from me in 5-10 years it was rape.

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

Already done earlier in the thread.

Already done earlier in the thread.

Damn. What page? (I missed it.)

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

That, to me, is acceptable too.

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

I'd rather she wait till morning. Great way to wake up and start the day!

I'd rather she wait till morning. Great way to wake up and start the day!

How about in the morning before he has woken up yet?

Her assumption is enough for ME, but it seems to not be enough for the people in this thread who have deemed me selfish, disrespectful, and dysfunctional.

Her assumption that you would enjoy it based on what she knows of you and your preferences?

That would be Cabra West. Unless I'm not to believe that the things she would think of her boyfriend were he to engage in this activity ("a very clear and alarming sign of some dysfunctionality, hinting to a definite lack of respect and some enormous level of selfishness") she would not think identically of me. Of course, if you try to maintain that I should not interpret her comment as such, then I would suggest you get off the "he called me uptight" horse.

The OP asked how people would feel if this occurred within their own current relationship - my fiance knows me better than anybody in the world, and has no doubt how I'd feel about something like this. If he were (and he wouldn't) to sleep-sex me, it would be from either a complete disregard for my feelings or from the desire to hurt me. In this context, I see nothing wrong with Cabra's description.

The situation you describe with yourself as a happy recipient of an act done to please you has few parallels with this and I see no reason to ascribe her description to yourself.

I think this thread is difficult because is not always obvious whether people are talking about their individual circumstance, as requested by the op, or in a more general way. I doubt there's anybody here who actually objects to individuals working out what suits them and their partner and having lots of happy sex in whatever way they like.

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

It was brought up earlier in the thread, but...

I wouldn't see how it would be any different. Apparently, Norwegian law agrees:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1027927.ece

Now, with prior consent, that would also be another issue altogether. My husband likes to be woken up by being coaxed, as it were. This is something he and I have discussed and I know that he enjoys it. So it's ok.

Um, no. This whole line of discussion started with this post:


Thank you for clarifying this - I should probably have quoted that post myself.

Now to turn this thread around and see how the reverse works -

How about a woman who coaxes her man into a hard-on while he sleeps, and then proceeds to give him head/ride him/etc?

Still rape.

Still rape.

I want to be raped, then... :(

Still rape.

Technically, no. You can only be raped by a man inserting his penis into an anus, vagina or mouth. Legal definition.

"in England and Wales was redefined from non-consensual vaginal or anal intercourse, and is now defined as non-consensual penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth" <--wikipedia (I'm not rooting through all my law books to find it).

I want to be raped, then... :(

Have you told her you want her to do it?

Have you told her you want her to do it?

I would if I had a "her" to tell.

I would if I had a "her" to tell.

Then it would be fine.

People in consenting relationships do all sorts of things that, outside of that consent, would be considered sexual assault or rape. If you tell a woman you want this done, and she's into it, more power to both of you.

Then it would be fine.

People in consenting relationships do all sorts of things that, outside of that consent, would be considered sexual assault or rape. If you tell a woman you want this done, and she's into it, more power to both of you.

Yay! :)

What about the thing with a helium balloon, two bits of twine, the Eiffel Tower, the remote control submarine, and the turkey baster?

I feel kinda bad....my girl managed to sneak her way into my dorm this morning while I was asleep....and woke me up by shaking me awake. I thought of this thread when i realized it was her (yeah, sad, i know) and got kinda depressed that she didn't wake me up by "enjoying" me, if you catch my meaning.

Lolz, go figure :P

Technically, no. You can only be raped by a man inserting his penis into an anus, vagina or mouth. Legal definition.

In the UK.

Canada finally modernised its sexual abuse laws.

I think this thread is difficult because is not always obvious whether people are talking about their individual circumstance, as requested by the op, or in a more general way. I doubt there's anybody here who actually objects to individuals working out what suits them and their partner and having lots of happy sex in whatever way they like.

^This.

I think this has led to a lot of the arguments here.

Okay so here's a question.

A lot of people have mentioned that it would be demeaning to be treated like a sexual object, to be used bascially as a masturbatory tool. Others have been saying, oh it's not like that.

But what if it's EXACTLY like that? Your partner wants to objectify you and demean you, and not only that, wants to get off on doing it.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who finds that hotter than a brazilian transvestite during Carnival?

Okay so here's a question.

A lot of people have mentioned that it would be demeaning to be treated like a sexual object, to be used bascially as a masturbatory tool. Others have been saying, oh it's not like that.

But what if it's EXACTLY like that? Your partner wants to objectify you and demean you, and not only that, wants to get off on doing it.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who finds that hotter than a brazilian transvestite during Carnival?

If it's consensual go for it. If it's not, that's really uncool.

If it's consensual go for it. If it's not, that's really uncool.
Clearly.

But what I like most about it is that it's on the cusp of not being consensual...because you have no safe word when you're passed out.

Clearly.

But what I like most about it is that it's on the cusp of not being consensual...because you have no safe word when you're passed out.

That's a bit too far for me personally, but I guess if you like it.....haha.

I suppose you can't have a panic attack when you're passed out, so maybe I wouldn't care. LOL

Like I said, I may have missed the post where someone said, "It's sick and dysfunctional even if the wife said it was totally okay before she fell asleep" - I'm no more eager to reread the entire thread than you are - but I really don't remember that, and if you truly don't understand the difference between the two scenarios above, that may explain why you got that impression.

I guess the best answer to that is simply to point up to the poll, where as of this post, 57 people have voted it's catgeorically wrong no matter what.

I guess the best answer to that is simply to point up to the poll, where as of this post, 57 people have voted it's catgeorically wrong no matter what.

The vote was "Is it rape?" not "Is it wrong?" Sex without consent is rape. That's clear cut. What is less clear is the level of implied consent* in relationships where one party is known or can reasonably be assumed to enjoy this activity.

I think its interesting too that lots of posts refer to the pleasure of being woken up this way, where although one partner my start things off, the other gets the opportunity to say stop or to relax and enjoy it. In the original scenario, one party tried to ensure that the other remained unconscious, denying any opportunity to consent or not, or to participate which changes things in my view. Even Neesika who would consent to being unconscious throughout wants to participate by watching the movie later.

*I'm not attempting to speak about the law here.

The vote was "Is it rape?" not "Is it wrong?" Sex without consent is rape. That's clear cut. What is less clear is the level of implied consent* in relationships where one party is known or can reasonably be assumed to enjoy this activity.


Part of that voting option is the phrase "No circumstances excuse it."

I would if I had a "her" to tell.

Well, whe you do have a "her", tell her this.

Part of that voting option is the phrase "No circumstances excuse it."

None of the circumstances in your OP include "She had agreed that her husband could do this before she fell asleep".

Clearly.

But what I like most about it is that it's on the cusp of not being consensual...because you have no safe word when you're passed out.
That's fine for you, Nees, but it does not change the fact -- as I know you know -- that sex without consent is rape.

Now if the person on the receiving end wishes to allow that to happen under specific desired circumstances, that is that individual's right to do.

But it doesn't change the fact, that as the OP laid the situation out, the described behavior is rape.

Yeah, there's nothing like being completely asleep, dreaming about eating a ham sandwich, and waking up to find someone balls-deep in your ass.

None of the circumstances in your OP include "She had agreed that her husband could do this before she fell asleep".

Of course not. That would have been a bit obvious, no?

Yeah, there's nothing like being completely asleep, dreaming about eating a ham sandwich, and waking up to find someone balls-deep in your ass.

Personal experience talking?

Of course not. That would have been a bit obvious, no?

That probably why people voted "No circumstance excuses it" or whatever.

Personal experience talking?

Don't ask, don't tell.

Personal experience talking?

I was thinking of saying something like that but you beat me to it:p

That probably why people voted "No circumstance excuses it" or whatever.

Dude if you want the last word that badly, take it. Want me to put that in a bag for you?

Don't ask, don't tell.

Wink, wink, nudge nudge, say no more!

Part of that voting option is the phrase "No circumstances excuse it."

When you made the poll option did you mean "no circumstances imaginable excuse it" or "non of the circumstances listed excuse it"? I read it as the latter.

tell ya what my gf is sleeping right now. I will test out the question. If you don't hear from me in 5-10 years it was rape.
Is this post *before* the Ed Carle thing?

When you made the poll option did you mean "no circumstances imaginable excuse it" or "non of the circumstances listed excuse it"? I read it as the latter.

I had in mind the former, but I can see where that was unclear.

Dude if you want the last word that badly, take it. Want me to put that in a bag for you?

Nah, I'll eat it here. Omnomnomnom