More from the Department of "No Shit?" rulings: the supreme court argued that one cannot obtain consent from an unconscious person.
A man and a woman regularly practiced pretty risky sex - he would choke her until she was unconscious, then have sex with her. When she awoke one day to discover he had violated her butt with a dildo, she charged him with sexual assault. If one considers the definition of sexual assault to be "unwanted sexual contact" this case is gold-plated.
Just the fact that this case went all the way to the supreme court shows the prevalence of backward thinking that I liked to believe was on the way out the door in Canada. One commenter on CBC said it was ridiculous that it made it to court - "the woman gave her consent to kinky sex when she agreed to be choked into unconsciousness". My brain chuuga-chugged to a halt at this line. Surely, I reasoned, people understood that being unconscious, even willingly, was not a free pass to go nuts an a person's body? But the comment had the highest approval rating (110 at time of writing including the down vote I, and others, gave it), meaning there are people who agreed with this man.
This mentality, that people should be punished for enjoying sex, is the same mindset that believes it is impossible to rape a 'slut', or that a woman wearing skimpy clothes is 'asking for it'. Occasionally it is even the mindset that believes a person who has passed out from drinking is 'fair game'.
In this case, honestly, I think both parties should have known better: If he wanted something unusual, he should have talked to her about it beforehand or even obtained a written notice of consent*, just to cover her butt - excuse me - his butt, and I hate to say it but she should have known not to practise a risky sex act with someone she couldn't/didn't trust 100%, but without being in the relationship it is pretty hard to know how trustworthy he seemed, and people have been duped before.
All in all, it is another testimonial for the Yes means Yes principle: if you are not actively saying Yes (or have not written "Yes") then you are saying No.
On another note: the body of Mcpl Curnow was found, and I was interested in the details, but to watch the video I had to sit through a car advertisement. I am not sure why we allow this, it is so disrespectful to the bereaved.
UPDATE:
Having more fully explored the ramifications of this ruling it is evident that the court is prohibiting even prior agreements of sexual activity. Since one is incapable of removing consent while unconscious, it cannot be consensual. Not that people will stop, just that it adds an extra layer of caution to activities. A commenter on another story pointed out that this would disqualify sex while gagged, to which I must reply that it does not, any more than a mute person can no longer give consent to sex; the typical procedure is to have the gagged person hold a cloth in a free hand, should the cloth be dropped, consent is withdrawn.
A man and a woman regularly practiced pretty risky sex - he would choke her until she was unconscious, then have sex with her. When she awoke one day to discover he had violated her butt with a dildo, she charged him with sexual assault. If one considers the definition of sexual assault to be "unwanted sexual contact" this case is gold-plated.
Just the fact that this case went all the way to the supreme court shows the prevalence of backward thinking that I liked to believe was on the way out the door in Canada. One commenter on CBC said it was ridiculous that it made it to court - "the woman gave her consent to kinky sex when she agreed to be choked into unconsciousness". My brain chuuga-chugged to a halt at this line. Surely, I reasoned, people understood that being unconscious, even willingly, was not a free pass to go nuts an a person's body? But the comment had the highest approval rating (110 at time of writing including the down vote I, and others, gave it), meaning there are people who agreed with this man.
This mentality, that people should be punished for enjoying sex, is the same mindset that believes it is impossible to rape a 'slut', or that a woman wearing skimpy clothes is 'asking for it'. Occasionally it is even the mindset that believes a person who has passed out from drinking is 'fair game'.
In this case, honestly, I think both parties should have known better: If he wanted something unusual, he should have talked to her about it beforehand or even obtained a written notice of consent*, just to cover her butt - excuse me - his butt, and I hate to say it but she should have known not to practise a risky sex act with someone she couldn't/didn't trust 100%, but without being in the relationship it is pretty hard to know how trustworthy he seemed, and people have been duped before.
All in all, it is another testimonial for the Yes means Yes principle: if you are not actively saying Yes (or have not written "Yes") then you are saying No.
On another note: the body of Mcpl Curnow was found, and I was interested in the details, but to watch the video I had to sit through a car advertisement. I am not sure why we allow this, it is so disrespectful to the bereaved.
UPDATE:
Having more fully explored the ramifications of this ruling it is evident that the court is prohibiting even prior agreements of sexual activity. Since one is incapable of removing consent while unconscious, it cannot be consensual. Not that people will stop, just that it adds an extra layer of caution to activities. A commenter on another story pointed out that this would disqualify sex while gagged, to which I must reply that it does not, any more than a mute person can no longer give consent to sex; the typical procedure is to have the gagged person hold a cloth in a free hand, should the cloth be dropped, consent is withdrawn.
No comments:
Post a Comment