Sexual assault case in Toronto Star article

[billm]

Well, what do you think of this?

Woman can?t consent to sex while unconscious, says Supreme Court - thestar.com

[dinkyface]

Well, it's good be informed that you can't asphyxiate someone and then continue to *** them. Who knew?

[winterwolf7]

I read the article on Yahoo and was actually pretty sickened. This woman consented to participate in that kind of rough sex, up to and including unconsciousness, and sounds like she really enjoyed it.

Then a few months later when the relationship goes sour and her ex partner wants to try to go for custody of their children, she calls the cops on him, changes her story, and tries to frame him for rape.

And succeeds.

He goes to jail for 2 years, loses his custody, probably loses all his access, and has his life ruined with a criminal record. Then his ex recants her testimony, admits it was in fact consensual, and the supreme court upholds the conviction against her ex.

It really sickens me to watch anyone able to get away with that.

[Rioe]

It's not as sensational a headline to most people if you read it that way. I feel bad for the guy and think the woman is a piece of work, but honestly, I'm sure the BDSM community is not surprised that the legal system doesn't understand them.

I do think that because of how we can't hold a woman's sexual history up for scrutiny when judging a particular instance of sex, though, that there's a tradeoff and unfortunately this situation falls on the bad side.

But if she recanted publicly, I don't understand why his appeal wasn't allowed! She should be charged with Mischief or Perjury or whatever!

[Mominneed]

You have to be kidding me with these responses. In what way is an unconscious woman able to conset to a sexual act? In what way is an unconscious woman a willing participant? What kind of man enjoys this objectification? I for one, am glad for the ruling as a protection for women

[winterwolf7]

Mominneed, the point is that the woman in question had consented that she would be unconscious during the part of the act in advance. This wasn't an attacker who overpowered her, or who took advantage of her while she was drugged or drunk. This was her significant other during consensual BDSM acts. She had NO ISSUE with what happened until months later when she saw an opportunity to use it to stop her ex from applying for custody of their child.

One of the things about BDSM is that it can be quite dangerous and extreme and requires an extremely high level of trust to entrust your partner with your safety and give them total control of the situation. It's not for everyone, and the betrayal of that trust by this woman is one of the most hurtful things you can do to someone.

No one is advocating that it's OK to rape unconscious women, but there's a big difference between abuse/sexual assault and consensual S&M acts. And there are MANY men and women who enjoy being objectified this way and surrendering to their partner. It's a bit off topic for this forum though

[billm]

Originally Posted by winterwolf7

I read the article on Yahoo and was actually pretty sickened. This woman consented to participate in that kind of rough sex, up to and including unconsciousness, and sounds like she really enjoyed it.

Then a few months later when the relationship goes sour and her ex partner wants to try to go for custody of their children, she calls the cops on him, changes her story, and tries to frame him for rape.

And succeeds.

He goes to jail for 2 years, loses his custody, probably loses all his access, and has his life ruined with a criminal record. Then his ex recants her testimony, admits it was in fact consensual, and the supreme court upholds the conviction against her ex.

It really sickens me to watch anyone able to get away with that.

Well put! Its hard to believe what the law did to this guy. He did nothing wrong in anyway, and in fact it was his ex who is the criminal, lying to screw her own child and former husband out of a relationship - sickening is the word.

[billm]

Originally Posted by Mominneed

You have to be kidding me with these responses. In what way is an unconscious woman able to conset to a sexual act? In what way is an unconscious woman a willing participant? What kind of man enjoys this objectification? I for one, am glad for the ruling as a protection for women

Did you read the article, or just the title?

And who says she didn't enjoy it (the before and after unconscious parts of course )? Maybe it was her idea! Either way, it was consensual, and not a crime of any sort.

[billm]

Another article.

DiManno: Supreme Court?s consent ruling infantilizes women - thestar.com

I think that this shows clearly that on individual cases, the courts can screw you royally all the while following laws that sound good, but when the details of the case are ignored, injustice can happen.

This is a scary case for the men going through separation with children. The father was steamrolled by the system, all because of the mother's desire to control access to his own children by any means available.

[Mominneed]

I still think the court ruled the right way on this one. No one should ever lose the right to say "no" even in the middle of it. I think this means it's illegal to engage in this kind of sexual act and both parties need to be aware of this fact if they decide to engage anyway. I know I'm gonna get flack for this, but hey, what if you promised you'd have sex with someone later that night but had a fight, got stinking drunk, passed out and said person had sex with you while you were unconcious - would this be okay? The drunk person never had a chance to change their mind and I think this is the crux of the issue. You may believe that 2 consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish but I think this is wrong. A person should ALWAYS have the right/ability to say NO at any time.

Can't speak to the woman bringing this up later but I certainly don't believe everything I read. If that's what she did intentionally then I think it's pathetic and cruel. But that doesn't change the situation. Criminally he should be held responsible but potentially family court given ALL of the relevant information would see it for what it is. The courts aren't completely oblivious to these tactics....

Okay, I'm sure I've invited lots of heated responses...Discussion is always good but please lets keep it not-personal...I just don't have the energy for it these days!