[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Sparkle, given your strange notions regarding consent and rape, I think that you should read these:

I was wondering you would jump into this Matt D, as it was your bizaare notions of what makes a person guilty of sex crimes that spurred me into this discussion.

Does being in a "loving relationship" automatically give a man the right to penetrate his partner while she is asleep?

Having sex with someone whilst asleep is beyond weird, and not something I can at any level relate to. I think having sex with a sleeping partner could also be rape. However, I wouldn't go so far as to automatically assume rape (as you do) - as I clearly stated in my original post that you referred to. Context is the word here Matt.
I never stated it couldn't be "rape", just that it wasn't for a third party (such as yourself or myself) to automatically infer rape. Consent can be given the night before, you know.

Perhaps you would also like us to return to the days where marital rape was legal?

Wooah, certainly no pun intended but that's somewhat below the belt there.
I mean yes, after all since I'm merely inferring that it is up to the woman (in this case) to decide whether or not she's been raped and not you (in this case) then clearly I must think that marital rape is A-okay. She is the man's property after all...

So that's what you think of me?
Well here's what I think. I think it's men like you with your overly simplistic logic and dogmatic attitude to women that have given all us men a bad name for decades. Since, is it you (in this case) who's treating the woman like she's property and can't make her own decisions, as you have decided for her (benefit) and made it clear that she could not have consented and she was raped whether she thinks so or not, the pretty little defenseless thing.

If this were back in 1840, you'd be dictating that if a woman's vag lubricates during sex then it isn't rape. Of course you know better now since you're armed with more knowledge, but yet your approach and attitude remains the same.

It may surprise you to know, a woman can decide for herself whether she was raped or molested without your help. Same applies to all people, not just women.

However, there is a situation where your approach does apply and should apply. In the case of a mentally retarded person being awoken to having sex, but yet not being able to understand what rape is. Then in that case, your approach will come in very handy. We could use you then.

Until then, let adults decide for themselves.

Someone who is asleep cannot consent to sex, and sex without consent is rape.

See above.

It is that simple.

If only.

It is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone without consent. And it is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone who is sleeping or otherwise unconscious and cannot even be asked for consent in the first place!

Does what you are inferring not go without saying? I mean it's rather obvious, yes? But you seem to think that in order for a couple to have sex, one partner (the male in this case), must have a written invitation.
Many couples develop a feel as far as how far they have consent.

And also, lets not forget that Assange has already denied all these claims anyway.

You cannot just assume consent just because your partner has previously consented. That goes for long term relationships and one-night stands.

I'm not comfortable with the "You" in the sentence as this has nothing to do with me, but I'll assume it's an oversight on your part.
I agree that a person can't just automatically assume such things. But you have to remember that couples get up to all sorts of things, and rarely does one partner ask "permission" before doing so.

If my wife and I have sex when we go to bed, that does not give me the right to have sex with her the next morning while she is still asleep.

Well that is up to your wife to decide, not me (as a third party). That's where we differ.

Consider also:

Assange and the complainant were not in a "loving relationship".

Consider also:

Assange has denied all the allegations.

The complainant has specifically accused Assange of penetrating her vagina with his penis while she was asleep and unable to consent.

Hold on there. I never read that she claimed rape, or that consent was not given. I've only read that she alleges she was asleep, but not that she complained or stated that Assange didn't have consent previously in one way or another.

That is a clear allegation of rape under Swedish law, and a clear allegation of rape under English law.

Well, considering the way you worded the above, and your interpretation of the word "consent" (possible written invitation), then yes.

You cannot penetrate someone without consent, and you certainly cannot penetrate someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious. To do so is rape.

If indeed a person does not have verbal consent, then clearly we're talking potential rape. But again, that is up to the "victim" in this case to decide as we don't really have all the sexual details. And from Assange's track record, I'm not sure I want to read them.
Maybe she woke him up by having sex and he thought he'd return the favour?
Seems a bit of a stretch, but until we hear his side of the story it's kinda hard to draw any definitive conclusions.

There is a difference between a man being woken by a woman touching him, and a woman being woken to find that she has been penetrated in her sleep.

There sure is a difference, and I made it clear I was referring specifically to the issue of consent, in which case there is not. A sleeping man can give just as much consent to being fondled as a sleeping woman can consent to being penetrated. Fondling and penetrating someone sexually without consent are both crimes and can result in prosecution, which was the pretext for my example.