Sex With Sleeping Woman Not Rape Because She Wasn't Married

[ceg045]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013 ... d_case.php

[pamplemousse]

WTF?! The victim was asleep, so she COULDN'T consent! This boggles the mind.

[linnea27]

Wtf? This exact situation recently happened in my hometown except he was convicted, and rightly so. I cannot fathom any argument that concludes that this wasnt rape.

[Lillybee]

I have no words.

[Coconut Flan]

It sounds like his lawyer dug up some obscure (obsolete) law and used it to advantage. At least the guy served three years.

It makes my skin crawl though to think someone ever thought that wasn't rape.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

I think she was asleep when he started and she thought it was her boyfriend and went with it. She was kissing him. At some point she realized it wasn't him. Since he wasn't her husband he cannot be convicted (as rape through impersonation only applies if you are impersonating a spouse). They recommended the wording in the law be changed.

[fundyfunland]

WTF??!! Why does it seem like all rapes are being defended as "legit rapes" these days?

[fauxmenno]

This is disgusting. Absolutely fricking puke worthy. I was raped while I was sleeping and I would have probably killed the bastard who did it if the law had sided against me like that.

[kiwimusume]

Oh yeah, being married totally makes all the difference in the world to how completely, horribly creepy it must be to wake up to sex with what you think is your partner and then discover that it's actually somebody else who you didn't consent to sex with. The absence of a legal document totally makes that less violating. What the actual fucking FUCK?!

[ADoyle90815]

This is disgusting. Absolutely fricking puke worthy. I was raped while I was sleeping and I would have probably killed the bastard who did it if the law had sided against me like that.

I agree, and I hope that laws like this are changed to close this loophole. I'm not a violent person, but I would say that this would be one time when I would gladly go to jail for murder if the system fucked me over like that.

[Artemis]

We just have to accept that men do not take rape seriously. Really, really don't. It's never their fault, because it isn't a fault.

As far as they're concerned, if they want sex, they're owed it. Consent really doesn't matter - it's an irrelevancy. With that mindset, rape NEVER happens: the sexual act is one owed to all men, by all women, at any time, anywhere, just because the man wants it.

So any complaining she does afterwards is not because her right to consent/not to consent was violated, because she has no right to consent/not to consent. It's because she doesn't understand the situation vis-a-vis the sexual act.

She obviously doesn't understand that she has NO right to deny a man - any man - who wants sex with her.

If she understood that her function was to be penetrated whenever a man wants to penetrate her, she wouldn't complain.

How dare she complain?

How dare she choose who she has sex with, and who she refuses?

How dare she be so arrogant, and unwomanly?

Real women are always ready for sex with anyone who asks them. That's the function of women.

If she shows that she's not ready for/doesn't want YOU, then you should just use force to put her in her place. It isn't rape, it's just restoring the natural balance of life and teaching the woman how she should be. And if she complains afterwards, assure her that she wasn't raped, because she's a woman, and all women have a duty to have sex with any man who wants it. Just by being a woman, they're available.

So 'rape' as a concept doesn't exist. You can't commit 'rape' because the existence of the crime 'rape' implies that a woman has a right to consent or not to consent to sex, and therefore a concept such as 'non-consensual sex'. When there is no such right, and therefore no such concept, 'rape' as a crime does not exist.

It doesn't ultimately matter how women dress, what they do, or what they say - they are woman, and woman = available cunt.

[Dollypeeps]

What the ever living fuck. I am speechless.

[Aisling]

We just have to accept that men do not take rape seriously. Really, really don't. It's never their fault, because it isn't a fault.

As far as they're concerned, if they want sex, they're owed it. Consent really doesn't matter - it's an irrelevancy. With that mindset, rape NEVER happens: the sexual act is one owed to all men, by all women, at any time, anywhere, just because the man wants it.

So any complaining she does afterwards is not because her right to consent/not to consent was violated, because she has no right to consent/not to consent. It's because she doesn't understand the situation vis-a-vis the sexual act.

She obviously doesn't understand that she has NO right to deny a man - any man - who wants sex with her.

If she understood that her function was to be penetrated whenever a man wants to penetrate her, she wouldn't complain.

How dare she complain?

How dare she choose who she has sex with, and who she refuses?

How dare she be so arrogant, and unwomanly?

Real women are always ready for sex with anyone who asks them. That's the function of women.

If she shows that she's not ready for/doesn't want YOU, then you should just use force to put her in her place. It isn't rape, it's just restoring the natural balance of life and teaching the woman how she should be. And if she complains afterwards, assure her that she wasn't raped, because she's a woman, and all women have a duty to have sex with any man who wants it. Just by being a woman, they're available.

So 'rape' as a concept doesn't exist. You can't commit 'rape' because the existence of the crime 'rape' implies that a woman has a right to consent or not to consent to sex, and therefore a concept such as 'non-consensual sex'. When there is no such right, and therefore no such concept, 'rape' as a crime does not exist.

It doesn't ultimately matter how women dress, what they do, or what they say - they are woman, and woman = available cunt.

I have to agree with this. Obviously 'not all men' etc etc, but after some things that I have heard of/viewed on FB over the last while, I've come to the conclusion that even guys that I thought were fairly decent sorts have a surprising level of sexual entitlement which isn't always automatically visible...

[Peas n carrots]

This makes my skin crawl. I don't see how it makes a difference being married or unmarried. Are they trying to imply she lead him on b/c she thought it was her boyfriend.

I too, am feeling pretty dejected these days. Maybe things haven't changed a lot in the past 50 years after all.

[Artemis]

I have to agree with this. Obviously 'not all men' etc etc, but after some things that I have heard of/viewed on FB over the last while, I've come to the conclusion that even guys that I thought were fairly decent sorts have a surprising level of sexual entitlement which isn't always automatically visible...

I agree, not all men. Many men are capable of understanding that women have choice, and obviously not all men are rapists. (They're just Schrodinger's Rapists, to refer back to another thread) But unfortunately, even with decent men, when they understand that women have choice, it's always in an 'I'm allowing you choice' mode. Choice about the sexual act is not inherent in the state of femaleness: choice inheres to the male.

'Decent' men 'allow' women to have a choice, but despite that the underlying male entitlement to sex is always there, which is why you get the nice guy phenomenon:

'Look, I'm a nice guy - I gave her a choice, I wooed her, I did this and that for her: I proved I was a nice guy.'

But the woman doesn't choose him - for whatever reason. Then the underlying entitlement surfaces:

'I was allowing you a choice, but you didn't choose me. But because I allowed you a choice, I can always un-allow you that choice, and I'm going to do that now, because choice is only ever a possible option for you: for me it's a right.'

We have moved on slightly, I think, in the last 50 years, but in patriarchal societies, built on inherent male choice, the very concept of female choice is so abhorrent to some males that you get phenomena such as the Taliban, and Christian Fundamentalists, who use 'scripture' to justify their dominance; and the ostensibly secular MRA, and the National Centre for Men's Rights, which, not possessing an existing 'scripture' of its own, is gradually building one up by its blogs, writings, and 'charters'.

The premise of these organisations is that merely by fighting for equal and inherent choice for women, we are disadvantaging men: their level of unconscious and underlying entitlement is so high that they experience any attempt to give genuine inherent choice to women as inequity to them.

The reality of the situation is, of course, that some individual men abuse women, and some individual women abuse men. Many women who abuse men have themselves been abused by the patriarchal system: they have themselves become abusers; however the patriarchy uses them as examples of the ultimate wrongness and the inevitable result of giving women choice. (And arguably many otherwise decent men are ALSO abused by the patriarchal system: it doesn't have much going for it in terms of enabling true equality.)

Other women collude with the system of patriarchy to gain privilege - a bit like in any prison you always have the narks. They're the ones who are praised for being 'real women'. The Christian, Taliban, and MRA types use these women as an example of 'what should be': 'See, if you were all like this there would be no problems.'

We still have a long way to go, I'm afraid. Sometimes I think separatism is the only option - which is odd, because I am actually happily married, and have been for 25 years, to a genuinely good person, with whom I share masses of interests and who is a good friend. And despite this, when I look at and weep for the lack of true equality, and the abuses practised on women world-wide, sometimes I wonder if I've sold out and am colluding.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Seriously? Sleeping people cant consent to sex, so it would be rape to have sex with someone while they were sleeping. Why is that not common sense.

[cindyluvs24]

This makes my skin crawl. I don't see how it makes a difference being married or unmarried. Are they trying to imply she lead him on b/c she thought it was her boyfriend.

I too, am feeling pretty dejected these days. Maybe things haven't changed a lot in the past 50 years after all.

Things were changing until the Religious Right decided to bring us back to the Dark Ages. I propose we apply the notion of legitimacy to all crimes. We could have legitimate robbery, legitimate fraud, legitimate car theft.

"It isn't theft your Honor because I felt that the salesman wanted me to have that diamond ring. Why else would he have put it in the display case?"

[lilah]

Want to bet todd akin and his fellow legit rape cronies would argue that she was asking for it because she was drunk and sexually active with her boyfriend? It's always the woman's fault even when she's asleep.

[Claddagh]

This makes me want to pack up my things and move the hell out of California.

The woman was asleep for goodness sake! She couldn't consent and was tricked into thinking the rapist was her boyfriend. The terrifying thing is he's now got the chance to go and rape another victim.

[Artemis]

But Claddagh, it doesn't matter that she didn't consent. She was female, therefore rape was her lot. That's the thinking behind the sexual entitlement. Rape is just not taken seriously enough.

It's quite chilling.

[cindyluvs24]

Want to bet todd akin and his fellow legit rape cronies would argue that she was asking for it because she was drunk and sexually active with her boyfriend? It's always the woman's fault even when she's asleep.

Right? Of course, if it were a legitimate carjacking, the engine would have shut down and the car wouldn't work.

[RosyDaisy]

Sick, sick, sick! It's way beyond time to take that sexual entitlement away from men.

[BoomerLynn]

WTF?! That's it, I want off of this planet.

[Lillybee]

In 2011 a California rep. introduced a bill that amended this old law. However it is still stuck in committee because they don't want to pass any bills that would put more people in California's over -crowded prisons.

[Swamptribe]

Wow, the above is very well written, and very well put.