Sexual assault case in Toronto Star article

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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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 ;)
 
winterwolf7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mominneed said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
It's completely possible and legal to consent to something ahead of time and have it done to you while unconcious, it happens every day, it's called "surgery".

I find it asinine that anyone would suggest that you can't consent to a sex act with the same level of foresight and thoughtfulness that you use to consent to having an internal organ removed.

Mominneed, the scenario you describe would still likely be seen by the courts as illegal, in that having the fight would have been indication to any reasonable person that consent had been withdrawn. This type of incident can be tried on a case by case basis.

It's also a logical fallacy to use an example of extreme situation and use it to try to show that any situation would be a problem. What if someone got really drunk and passed out in a car on the highway? I guess driving should be illegal then.
 
I think that whether this ruling be applied in a case it needs to be determined if consent had been given at some point... in this case it truely had. So in all honesty the ruling was unfair to the guy.

BUT speaking in the generality of the ruling and one that well have to tend to agree.
If a person were to get drunk the act of getting so is not a consent for sex. I wonder too that if someone were just sleeping they would have to be either really out of it or drugged to not be woken enough to realise what is going on. At some point a form of consent would be given and acknowledged.
Now that opens up a whole other can of worms... what constitutes consent.... and not consenting.
enough said and I'm not going there.
 
There is a huge difference to consent in advance for surgery - something necessary/desired which likely would not change as it's not based on emotions - and consent in advance to sex.

Can you consent when your intoxicated? Mentally handicapped? Unconcious?

I just don't agree with this practice regardless of how some people supposedly "enjoy" it as it takes away a basic right for women. The right to say NO at any time. And I also don't think you should be able to waive this right.
 
Women have a basic right to do what they want with their bodies. If what they choose is to participate in kinky sex acts that's their choice NOT YOURS.

There are also men who are into things like this. It's not gender discriminate. But you seem to only be all fired up about women being violated.

Yes there is a big difference between surgery and sex. Sex is more fun. Both require consent. Please explain to me what the word "consent" means. You seem to believe it means different things depending on the situation.
 
Mess said:
Women have a basic right to do what they want with their bodies. If what they choose is to participate in kinky sex acts that's their choice NOT YOURS.
AMEN!! Er..... :eek:

There are also men who are into things like this. It's not gender discriminate. But you seem to only be all fired up about women being violated.
Click to expand...

Mess is right, this is totally a two-way street. I wonder if you'd be as fired up about the whole issue if it were a man rather than a woman?

Interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wow, that is one smart and sick bitch. It was ingenious!!! Nice custody tactic.
I gotta say I would've never thought about that one. It only proves how women are more coniving then men. Can you imagine the guys face when cops showed up at the door? LMAO!!!!!
 
Its funny that it is rape when 2 people get drunk, then have sex and when they wake up the woman feels she did not want it. But what happens if the guy wakes up and realizes he did not want it? Would that be rape...what if they both woke up and realized that neither of them wanted it and since both consented while intoxicated it means that they raped each other... Just a thought.

This women consented to the act, and by consenting to pass out for the act she consented to acts being done while passed out, her moment to say no was up until it started, NOT months later when it is to her advantage in a custody battle. People have strange fetish's don't they, but I guess this guy will think twice before doing that again.
 
Rats!

Rats!

You mean I can't choke my boyfriend out then violate him with a sex toy while he's unconscious?

Damn, now what am I going to do Friday night?

Anyone see any good movies lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top