I don't know WHAT is the most disturbing part of this, but this is incredibly upsetting:

The woman's sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. "She believes her sister's husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness," Kelly said.

Yikes. Yikes yikes yikes.

More thoughts as they roll in:

It disturbs me that this woman doesn't have a voice, due to her coma - who can be her advocate? Who speaks for her and looks out for her? Her own sister and husband aren't.

Unfortunately, the courts are probably right in that the husband had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The standard for that is pretty high, and I don't think I've ever read any case suggesting that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy that gets cancelled out when you use it to perform an illegal act. I just wish the police and the judge who signed off on the search warrant had been smarter about this. I absolutely agree that they should have instead performed medical tests - with the woman under the staff's medical care, I think they would have been well within their right to do that.

The journalistic angle exasperates me; journalists seem to be really, really good at not understanding the nuances and defintions of the words they choose. They perpetuate so many misunderstandings because they look for a sensational angle or because they just don't know what they're writing about. I smack my head on the table every time I see a news article declaring that a jury found someone "innocent." The only thing I can ever think of in these situations is writing letters to the editor.

I don't see why taping the room is being considered an invasion of privacy. The article states that the police obtained a search warrant before installing the camera.

From the article...
Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.

I'm no expert on the legalities of search warrants, but we have a legal procedure in place to obtain permission for a search when there is reasonable evidence of a crime. If the procedure is followed, I don't see how Mr. Johnson's rights were violated.

Nursing home staff suspected that the husband was raping his wife. The article does not say what made the staff suspicious (ie. noises from the room, comments from Mr. Johnson)

The staff took their suspicions to the police.

The police found enough justification to pursue a search warrant.

A judge found enough justification to grant a search warrant. (I am making a huge assumption here. This is how I understand the search warrant process to work)

The police acted on the warrant, by installing a video camera in Mrs. Johnson's room.

Mr. Johnson was caught on tape raping his comatose wife.

A search warrant is no guarantee that the search itself was Constitutional. It's a requirement that's supposed to be a stop-gap that provides a judicial check on the police to make sure their searches are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean that they ARE. So the warrant isn't Constitutionally required, but it's just a tool to make sure that the searches are.

Although, honestly, the more I read it and the more my coffee kicks in and the morning-brain wears off, I'm doubting my own analysis because the quick research I'm doing shows that all the cases I'm thinking of were warrantless.

The comments on the article are actually disturbing me more than the article itself. It seems the generally consensus is that he was just *loving* her.

If that's their idea of romance, there's going to be a lot of other hurt women...

There are so many things wrong with this all together but what bothers me most is that family members "believe she ‘‘would be perfectly happy to feel the love of her husband in that situation,"he said."

Believing and knowing are two different things. She's comatose for christsakes, you don't "believe" anything when it comes to sex, she's not having a say in it!! How can her family be sticking up for this guy? As for the headlines, what can you really expect? I mean they're out to exploit it any which way they can. But come one "Coma Sex"? I can't even get my thoughts straight, this is so foul,beyond foul. I had to sign up and leave a comment over there.

OH MY GOD.

I just tried to leave a comment on the Chicago Sun Times article, whose headline is "Coma Sex Gets Husband Accused of Rape," and the comment board told me "Please edit or remove the following word(s), then resubmit your content: SEX, RAPE."

I simply stated: ""COMA SEX" = RAPE. "COMA SEX" > [does not equal] SEX. Hopefully, this comes back to court with proper evidence, i.e. a rape kit. You know, obtaining evidence the legal way? And are you serious, tongue? That a man should pleasure himself elsewhere because his WIFE is ill? Give me a break. I bet you would feel differently if this situation were the other way around, if the husband were the stroke victim and his wife were trying to get some from his unconscious self."

The user "tongue" wrote so eloquently: "Would you prefer that he would commit adultery and go find another woman or a street woman, get a disease and bring it back to his wife. You are not wrong you are hard up but at this point he is not thanks to his wife. (sic)"

This is incredibly disturbing and pretty nauseating. Wow.

I think the reason the media has framed this issue as "sex" instead of "rape" is because society is genuinely conflicted over this. This is not saying that being married equals consent--certainly any wife has an absolute right to NOT consent ANY time she wants.

In this case the question is, absent anything suggesting the wife didn't want to consent, is it a fair presumption that she would consent? I don't think this is an easy question, which is why even the woman's own sister is upset the police chose to press charges.

The other thing is we're on the outside looking in. Couples have 'sleep sex'--yes, like sleep walking, only sexually--where neither party 'consents'. If the man thinks its likely his wife would consent, and absent a suggestion otherwise, is it reasonable to presume consent in this specific case?

TheBrawn- I KNOW! I KNOW! it wouldn't let me do it either. I said the title of the article should "Coma Rape" and it made me take it out and it didn't even put my post up. I am so pissed. It would be rotten if the tables were ever turned on them but those posters seem like the type of people that would brag about being raped while comatose.

Do NOT read the comments there, DO NOT DO NOT! They ruined my morning. Most of them have to do with how he has a right to have sex with his wife (no matter what apparently), how her body belongs to him, that it was a nice thing to do for her. EEWWW EWWWW EWWWWWWWWW!

Sly,

I think that

A) sex doesn't just need an absense of no, it needs a "yes" (morally speaking)

and

B) it's too important of a decision to just leave to guesswork or assumptions.

And then there's the whole question of WHY someone would want to pleasure themselves on a person in a coma. Sex is something two people share - this woman isn't just there for her husband to pleasure himself on. When she wasn't in a coma, they were pleasuring each other, (I hope). If he wants to have physical comfort from her now, he can hold her hand, kiss her forehead, stroke her hair, etc. Those are reasonably less invasive things a loved one can do to both comfort him/herself and try to reach the coma-bound loved one through touch.

LittlePunk: I KNOOOW, too late though. Let the morning anger begin.

And alixana, I agree to the nth degree with your statements! Reading the comments here always reminds me that there are intelligent, thinking folks on the net...

Ugh. I also made the mistake of reading comments to the article.

So, what do we know?
1. Mr. Johnson had sex with his comatose wife
2. Mrs. Johnson was in a coma, and therefore was unable to consent to sex
3. A scary amount of people are under the impression that a married woman is contractually obligated to have sex with her husband.

My thought is that Mr. Johnson honestly did not think he was doing anything wrong, and a lot of people agree with him. That is the truely tragic part of the story.

Of all the weddings I've gone to, I've never once heard a reference to unconditional access to sex mentioned in the marriage vows.

How do we get across the fact that even in marriage consent needs to be obtained to have sex.

That's so gross. Why would anyone want to have "the nasty" with a comatose person? Unless they were seriously mentally disturbed. How could you do that without realizing that something was seriously wrong? I don't even want to know what it would be like to "do it" with someone who was unable to respond properly and that just laid there.

I, too, wonder why the police chose to use a camera instead of performing a rape kit (a kit seems like the safest legal option). The only thing I can come up with is that consent issues for the exam itself could arise, but I would imagine consent for medical treatment is implied. Another possibility is that the police felt like a camera would be less invasive for the victim and just didn't forsee the court ruling it an illegal search.

Have any of you who are so outraged ever lived with your significant other, slept in the same bed every night, etc?

To me, this could go either way, and only the couple involved really know what their situation is. Its possible that the wife hated her husband and would feel very violated if she woke up and found out he had been having sex with her. But its also extremely possible that they have a history of sex initiated in the middle of the night when one person is asleep, and aren't bothered by it.

Its true that its important to be clear that a wife is not obligated ot have sex with her husband. If he forces her, it still counts as rape. But the line is in a different place. If I'm asleep and some random guy starts doing stuff to me, that counts as rape. But if I'm asleep and my boyfriend starts doing stuff to me, I'm fine with that. There's implied consent, and even explicit consent becuase we've talked about it before. Now if I woke up and told him to stop I'd expect him to stop, but if I don't specifically say stop there is implied consent.

In this case, in the absense of any other info, there's no reason to assume what the wife would have wanted. Unless prosecuters can present evidence that she had told people before going into a coma that she did not want her husband having sex with her wehn she was unconcious, they can't meet any burden of reasonable doubt.

Terabithia, the point is that the wife could not consent. Since she is in a coma, she can neither say yes, nor can she say no.

You write "Now if I woke up and told him to stop I'd expect him to stop..." That's the problem. She can't wake up.

And you do not need to hate your partner to decline having sex. There could be a thousand reasons, including the fact that you're unconscious.

We cannot assume that she would consent. And since the definition of rape is sex without consent, then, well, she has been raped by her husband.

At the risk of being flamed for it, I agree with Terabithia. I don't see every sexual act with my partner as a situation where she (or I) require explicit permission before going forward. In some cases, just as Terabithia's situation, we have discussed cases where we've pre-consented to activities while one of us is asleep.

Do I think it's weird to have sex with someone who is in a coma? Yes, I think that's just one step above having sex with a dead person. It's just creepy and weird, and I know I wouldn't want to do it. But, in absence of knowing the relationship between the husband and wife, whether or not she's consented to "sleep" sex, or if they've even discussed this exact situation, "If one of us is ever in a coma...", I think it's jumping to conclusions.

I suppose this is another item to add to a living will, though, just in case.

"In this case, in the absense of any other info, there's no reason to assume what the wife would have wanted. Unless prosecuters can present evidence that she had told people before going into a coma that she did not want her husband having sex with her wehn she was unconcious, they can't meet any burden of reasonable doubt."

You know, it's so common for people to have "coma sex" caveats added to their living wills...

NO. Unless the opposite of the situation you just described happens (wherein the coma patient makes it explicitly known that her husband is allowed to have sex with her comatose body--ya know, because this is exactly where my mind goes, if I should become comatose), the presumption to any sane person would be, NO CONSENT ABLE TO BE GIVEN (OR GIVEN BEFOREHAND) = RAPE.

Terabithia,

i have lived my SO, slept in the same bed almost every night... etc... since about '03, so i think i'm "qualified" to respond to your question here...

and, sometimes, one of us will "initiate" sex in the middle of the night... for sure... however, that sex is for mutual pleasure... i fail to see how lovemaking can even happen if one partner is comatose... that's simply using someone else's body to masturbate. and, despite that my partner and i have had some mid-sleep late night sessions, i would never, in a million years, think of doing something like this.

i hear your point, though, that, barring any prior consent or testimony from the wife, there will most definitely be the presence of reasonable doubt that she may have either (a) considered her body to be a possession of her husband or (b) otherwise been okay with her husband using her body in this manner.

for me, though, i see sex as an exchange, a conversation... and a very intimate one, at that... and, while i think it's beautiful to talk to someone who is unconscious, or to hold his/her hand... i wouldn't discuss even try to discuss family finances or in-home labor-divisions... and certainly not try to have sex... nonetheless, the kind of high-level conversation involved in lovemaking.

if sex becomes just about one partner using the other partner's body for pleasuring oneself, that seems to me to get away from the idea of a partnership and toward the idea of an ownership, which just doesn't sit right.

Its possible that the wife hated her husband and would feel very violated if she woke up and found out he had been having sex with her.

And because the feeling of violation is a possibility, hate or love for the husband aside, the husband should absolutely err on the side of caution. Why would anyways WANT to risk their loved one waking up and feeling violated? Not only has she had a stroke, but she's been in a coma, and then to add a feeling of violation on top of that would just be a terrible thing to do to someone. She wouldn't have to hate her husband to feel violated. She would just have to be squicked out at the idea that she was comatose and he was humping away on her.

Presumably when you're asleep and your boyfriend starts doing something, the point is that you'll wake up and share and enjoy it. The woman in the coma does not wake up. She does not get to wake up and say either, "That feels good, I'm so glad you woke me up for this," or, "I'm tired, I'm not in the mood right now, please stop." She's reduced to an immobile object that doesn't have a voice, doesn't share in the pleasure, and doesn't have a choice to say yes or no.

I don't understand the appeals court decision at all (which I haven't read because I'm unable to locate it). Of course, anyone visiting a spouse in a nursing home would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the police obtained a search warrant before installing the hidden videotape. Why does this violate the Fourth Amendment? The Fourth Amendment prohibits illegal searches unless a warrant is obtained based on probable cause. It is the issuance of a warrant that permits the police to violate one's privacy -- to tap your phone, to open your mail, to invade your home and look through your drawers -- within the parameters specified in the warrant. The only thing I can think might have happened is something was defective about the warrant or the police exceeded its bounds.

That's what I was starting to wonder, too, crshark, after I realized the cases I was basing my initial opinion on were warrantless searches. Journalists never, ever do a good job explaining a court decision, so I'm wondering if the quotes they took about reasonable expectations came from analysis of whether it was a legal search even if a warrant was defective?

sly –

In this case the question is, absent anything suggesting the wife didn't want to consent, is it a fair presumption that she would consent?

Why is question at all? She is CANNOT consent, so speculation is beside the point. NO ONE has the right to determine consent for her, either, and it’s more than disturbing and disgusting to someone suggesting otherwise. It doesn’t matter if she would consent if it were possible for her to do so, she CANNOT consent, so any “sex” with her is rape. Full stop.

Terabithia:

Have any of you who are so outraged ever lived with your significant other, slept in the same bed every night, etc?

WTF?!? How dare you assume that we are outraged about a RAPE because we are not in a relationship?!?! This woman was in a COMA, not sleeping next to her husband in bed (though, not even sleeping next to him in bed gives him the right to “have sex” her whenever he chooses without her consent). Further, how dare you assume that every relationship is like yours with your boyfriend and that the same rules you have set in your personal relationship apply to everyone?

Now if I woke up and told him to stop I'd expect him to stop, but if I don't specifically say stop there is implied consent.

That’s what makes this RAPE. She’s in a COMA, she has no way of saying no or telling him to stop. SHE HAS NO SAY AT ALL.

Just for the record, I’ve been living with my husband for over a decade and we have never assumed consent. If he “had sex” with me while I was in a coma, that would make him a rapist.

Even in a coma, a your body is still yours. Human rights don't begin and end with consciousness.

One point that a commenter on the news site brought up was asking about other medical conditions, such as dementia, and how that impacts consent. While I think dementia is COMPLETELY different from being in a coma, I think there's kind of an interesting point to be explored, such as protecting the rights of mentally handicapped persons who may not be able to give consent. It's pretty clear in some cases, but what about cases of schizophrenia where the person may sometimes be lucid, yet not other times? I'm asking with genuine curiosity, how do you guys think we can best protect the rights and privacy of handicapped people (mentally or otherwise)?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone else find it odd that your next-of-kin can decide whether or not you're on life support (in many states), but can't be trusted to say whether or not you've consented to sex with them in this situation in a previous discussion?

I hope someone can post a link to the actual court decision or post the text of it. I can't figure out how the tape goes out of evidence either when there was a warrant obtained. Could be the reporting is bad and the warrant was ruled invalid for not having sufficient probable cause or some other defect. It seems pretty uncontroversial that a hospital room gives its occupants and relatives a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they didn't it a warrant would not have been needed. We have a reasonable expectation of privacy in homes but a warrant with probable cause for its issuance successfully pierces the shield.

This is sick. I can't believe how many people are defending a man's "right" to USE his wife's body however he wishes whilst she's in a coma.

Should he be permitted to anally penetrate her? Shove a broomstick inside her? Penetrate her mouth?

I bet if the sexes were reveresed, very few people would be insisting that a woman has a right to use her husband's body as a sex toy whilst he's in a coma.

And I'm so sure the couple had an agreement that, should one of them ever be in a coma, the other could use his/her body as an inanimate blow-up doll. Riiiiight.

"The court noted that the argument relies on proof of an alleged illegal act that has not been properly admitted as evidence."

They didn't have sufficient proof that a crime had taken place to get a search warrant to find evidence of the crime.

"Johnson's attorney, T. Christopher Kelly of Madison, sought dismissal of the video evidence, arguing on a number of grounds, including that the search warrant was improperly obtained. The state didn't contest that claim"

What was scary in the court ruling is that:

"On appeal, the state argued that Johnson hadn't proven he had his wife's permission to be in her room, and he certainly didn't have permission to sexually assault her. The District 4 court rejected this argument as nonsensical because Johnson's wife was unable to grant permission for anything."

So inability to give consent means defacto consent?

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/304461

What previous discussion, Allie?

I haven't read anywhere that the husband had had a conversation with the wife regarding whether or not she would consent to sex when unconscious... Unless, like many of the commenters on the news site, you buy the idea that marriage is a contract for unlimited bodily access.

I mean, really...

Also, I've had conversations with my loved ones about life support and such... I haven't had conversations about sex while comatose and I would hope that any and all partners I've had would assume that's not okay.

One note: Some have questioned why the police used a camera instead of a rape kit. In many nursing homes, cameras are used to help make sure that comatose or otherwise helpless patients are not abused by staff members, visitors, etc. If I were in a coma, I would want a security camera with someone watching it when my family was not there to protect my person.

djhop, thanks for that article. I'm trying to figure out - are they arguing that there was no evidence of sexual activity to justify a warrant, or that there was sexual activity but it wasn't illegal, and therefore the search was illegal? Are there still states that consider marriage a bar to a rape claim?

Allie,

You are not seriously suggesting that making possibly life-saving medical decisions for an adult that is incapacitated is in the same category as ASSUMING they want to have sex in their incapacitated state, are you?

And, you think it's reasonable to ASSUME (again, there's that word!) that this couple had a discussion about whether or not he could have sex with her if she happen to end up in a coma? My husband and I have discussed our wants if something like that were to happen to us...oddly, sex has never come up. Maybe because, when you spouse is comatose, there are bigger concerns than how the non-comatose spouse's sex drive. And, indeed, that the fact the this man did feel that his need to "have sex" trumped the health and safety of his wife is NOT normal behavior - it's rapist behavior.

One more time for the peanut gallery:

NO ONE CAN CONSENT TO SEX FOR YOU. IF YOU CANNOT CONSENT AND SOMEONE "HAS SEX" WITH YOU ANYWAY, THAT IS RAPE. PERIOD.

It's a disturbing reflection of our society when people are more concerned about the poor, poor man getting his rocks off than the health and safety of a COMATOSE woman.

I have just e-mailed my partner clarifying that I give consent for this situation.

I'm having trouble slamming this guy only because I'm sure that my partner will write back giving consent, too. What would people think if sleep-fetish sex had been a common part of this couple's life? What degree of specificity would have to be given for consent in this situation? Consent for sex while asleep? While in a persistent vegetative state? Would the word coma have to be used?

If he gets put in jail, and she wakes up and says she was actually fine with it, then what?

But, in absence of knowing the relationship between the husband and wife, whether or not she's consented to "sleep" sex, or if they've even discussed this exact situation, "If one of us is ever in a coma...", I think it's jumping to conclusions.

These sentiments reflect the prevailing opinion that women walk around in a constant state of consent. Consent is the default, whereas lack of consent requires proof. Here's a radical idea - women are fully human with complete rights to bodily autonomy and nobody gets a piece without permission.

...and people wonder why many feminists are uncomfortable with the traditional model of marriage. Such a large number of people STILL consider the wife the property of her husband - barely a human herself.

It disturbs me, the comments on that newspaper's page, how many people were also outraged with the cops and the employees for "butting in". Healthcare workers are required by law to report suspected abuse. Not proven, suspected. Which means regardless of how they found out what he was doing, someone recognized that not being able to give consent is a legal default of not having given consent. UNLIKE what a lot of those people commenting seemed to presume. I did have to stop reading, as I was so revolted by the number of people that said she basically consented by marrying him and wasn't it sweet. UGH. No, it's not sweet. He's forcing sex on a completely unresponsive, non-consenting body. It's disturbing that he even finds that arousing.

So what if the husband and wife were once swingers and he decided to resume that lifestyle with his comatose wife? There would undoubtably be others who could attest to this past "joint decision"--unlike the private conversation scenarios so many keep wanting to believe happened--would it be ok for the husband to give another man permission to "have sex" with his wife, simply because they'd done it before?

And... what if they were into sexual asphyxia before she went into the hospital, so he had prior permission to choke her, so if he chokes her people should just butt-out... you know, cause they like that.
Wow. Bad argument. I guess the answer is that you should refrain from questionable behavior unless all parties involved are able to speak for themselves.
Having "sex" with a person that isn't able to give consent is rape. It doesn't matter what they did before. That was then, she may wake up tomorrow and not even remember who he is... If a stranger did that to her, it's rape- right?
All the what-ifs really are pointless, the fact is that she is unable to speak for herself, unable to consent. She can't be signed up to buy a car today even if she verbally agreed to it yesterday because SHE IS IN A COMA.
I really do not get why this is at all unclear to anyone. It should be crystal.

The defense attorney argued "that the search warrant was improperly obtained. The state didn't contest that claim." That suggests there was a defect in the warrant, so the film was out unless there was no expectation of privacy. Not a controversial decision on the legal aspect if that's the case.

Pretty awful for folks to justify the behavior, though.

"I'm having trouble slamming this guy only because I'm sure that my partner will write back giving consent, too. What would people think if sleep-fetish sex had been a common part of this couple's life? What degree of specificity would have to be given for consent in this situation? Consent for sex while asleep? While in a persistent vegetative state? Would the word coma have to be used?

If he gets put in jail, and she wakes up and says she was actually fine with it, then what?"

We have 12 and 13 yr-old girls who have sex with adult men, and say they're okay with it -even once they've become adults. Does that mean those men aren't child rapists? Or should not be prosecuted for that particular crime?

We prosecute them because there are many cases when that situation is /not/ okay and does hurt someone, and laws are made to protect those who need it most. Also, our society generally wants to discourage adults from having sex with minors...

Just b/c you'd be okay having "coma sex" with your spouse does not mean everyone would, and it /certainly/ does not mean that those who wouldn't don't deserve legal protection. So it's a legal safe guard.

In the "what if" that she wakes up and says she was okay with it, I image they'd let him out of jail. But does that mean that his behavior was appropriate to begin with and not at all detrimental to society? I don't think so...

And yeah, what Halo said.

I do think that the Court should try to determine what the woman would want--with comatose patients Courts do it all the time, with life/death issues. Especially in this case imagine her horror at waking up & finding out that her husband is jailed. What if she was ok with it? It might be enough to send her back to a coma.

At the risk of being flamed, if DRs say handholding & talking to patients is good for them, I imagine lovemaking would be better...Not a DR, just a thought.

>And you do not need to hate your partner to decline having sex. There could be a thousand reasons, including the fact that you're unconscious.

My point was that the police can't PROVE her state of mind without direct evidence. An example of that was proof that she hated her husband before she went into a coma. That is obviously not the only reason someone would not want to have sex.

We are talking about putting a man in jail for something his wife may very well be perfectly ok with. For all you know they had a relationship where she always said it was fine for her husband to have sex with her while she was asleep; her being in a coma could easily fall in the same category. If she wakes up and is upset about it, well, then the police have a complaining victim and the case changes. If they have statements from her one way or the other, eg "My husband and I have sleep sex all the time" or "I would never let my husband initiate sex while I was asleep" then that helps make the case one way or the other, but without anything like that you're talking about sending a man to jail for something that very likely isn't hurting anyone.

I agree its kind of weird, but I don't think that is enough to put him in jail with no other evidence.

>I suppose this is another item to add to a living will, though, just in case.

Yeah, seriously. Unfortunately I doubt most couples think of something like this ahead of time. And anyway, from some of these comments I get the impression that a lot of people think you can NEVER pre-consent to something, and even if she had put it in her living will they'd still want him arrested for rape.

>And because the feeling of violation is a possibility, hate or love for the husband aside, the husband should absolutely err on the side of caution.

The husband is likely the only person who really knows what the situation is here. He might know in his heart of hearts that what he's doing is wrong, or he might know that his wife would approve of it. I'm talking about what the law can prove.

>Presumably when you're asleep and your boyfriend starts doing something, the point is that you'll wake up and share and enjoy it.

Since my name her is anonymous enough, I'll give some details. Sometimes my boyfriend humps me or goes down on me while I'm asleep. Sometimes I wake up but more often he asks me in the morning if I remember it and I don't. It doesn't bother me. I've also told him I don't want him actually having intercourse with me while I'm asleep, mainly because I get sore most of the time from sex and I think I would wake up being sore from it. But the point is, we sleep together all the time, we've had these conversations, we know where the line is for us. The husband in this case knows where the line is for them, we don't.

Its very debatable what the woman in the coma would experience. Depending on the type of coma, sometimes patients wake up and say they remember loved ones sitting with them and holding their hands. Maybe she knows deep down that her husband still wants to be with her and isn't off sleeping with someone else. Maybe she's completely inanimate and basically brain dead. I think the situation is pretty weird and its probably not waht I would do, but there are so many unknown factors that I think its presumptous to judge so harshly.

>WTF?!? How dare you assume that we are outraged about a RAPE because we are not in a relationship?!?! This woman was in a COMA, not sleeping next to her husband in bed (though, not even sleeping next to him in bed gives him the right to “have sex” her whenever he chooses without her consent). Further, how dare you assume that every relationship is like yours with your boyfriend and that the same rules you have set in your personal relationship apply to everyone?

What I am saying is that we don't have enough information to judge. What YOU seem to be saying is that we should assume every relationship is like you think it is, and send people to jail accordingly. What would you say to this woman if she wakes up and finds out her husband has spent years in jail for something she was actually fine with? What if her husband was killed or infected with HIV in jail or something else irreversible, are you going to explain to her how the evidence was so strong that it warranted putting her beloved husband in jail for a crime against her?

>Just for the record, I’ve been living with my husband for over a decade and we have never assumed consent. If he “had sex” with me while I was in a coma, that would make him a rapist.

Then your husband knows that and knows when he's crossing the line. That's great. Maybe this woman's husband knows that he was NOT crossing their lines. You want to send him to jail on a maybe.

>Just out of curiosity, does anyone else find it odd that your next-of-kin can decide whether or not you're on life support (in many states), but can't be trusted to say whether or not you've consented to sex with them in this situation in a previous discussion?

Very good point.

>I bet if the sexes were reveresed, very few people would be insisting that a woman has a right to use her husband's body as a sex toy whilst he's in a coma.

I suspect if the genders were reversed most men would love the idea of a woman wanting to have sex with him even while he was unconcious. Any men want to weigh in?

Another point that I'm curious about, maybe someone with a medical background can weigh in. Is it dangerous to have sex with soemone in a coma and leave semen in them? Seems like if they don't get up and shower it could get gross. Of course, if he used a condom that's a moot point, I'm just curious.

>I have just e-mailed my partner clarifying that I give consent for this situation.

I just had a conversation with my boyfriend about this, but maybe I should put it in writing... Well, I guess if we get married I will! Until then he's not my next of kin anyway so it probably wouldn't help.

Yes, sly, because sex with a comatose person is a life/death issue.

And since you're not a doctor, and I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN "MAKE LOVE" TO A COMATOSE PERSON, you should refrain from speculative faux-medical advice.

>We have 12 and 13 yr-old girls who have sex with adult men, and say they're okay with it -even once they've become adults. Does that mean those men aren't child rapists? Or should not be prosecuted for that particular crime?

I actually disagree with statutory rape laws. At the very least, I think they should call it something other than "rape" because there is a big difference between consensual sex with someone you shouldn't be having sex with, and actually holding someone down and forcing them.

My friend made an argument once, and I haven't thought through all the details but I think I agree, that maybe if the "victim" reaches some age like 18 or 21 she should be able to petition to have her "rapist" set free and his record cleared, because he didn't actually rape her. I guess there is potential for abusing that, so it might not work on a practical level, but morally I think that yes, if the girl grows up and still thinks there was nothing wrong with what happened, that man should not be in jail.

I know I'm getting flamed like crazy here, but you guys don't seem to realize that you are advocating very serious punishment for the person who is probably the most important person in this woman's life, for doing something that there is a very good chance she wouldn't even mind. What would you say to her if she wakes up to find out her husband has been killed in a jailyard fight because he had sex with her. What if it turns out she remembers it, like patients sometimes remember voices, and she liked it and it helped her wake up?

If the state can come up with some evidence of what she would have wanted, that might tip the scales one way or the other. But right now, there is just too much reasonable doubt to convict him of anything. At the very most, bar him from being alone with her, but don't send him to jail or anything.

Somewhat unrelated, but on the issue of consent and culpability, I just watched the beginning of an episode of Law and Order SVU where a guy raped his girlfriend's little sister in his sleep due to some sex-somnia disorder, and they said they couldn't charge him with anything because he wasn't conscious of what he was doing. My reaction was, well, if he knew he had that disorder and let a teenage girl sleep over at his apartment without warning her, then he is culpable for the results. I don't know what the law would really say in a case like that...

"We are talking about putting a man in jail for something his wife may very well be perfectly ok with. For all you know they had a relationship where she always said it was fine for her husband to have sex with her while she was asleep; her being in a coma could easily fall in the same category. If she wakes up and is upset about it, well, then the police have a complaining victim and the case changes. If they have statements from her one way or the other, eg "My husband and I have sleep sex all the time" or "I would never let my husband initiate sex while I was asleep" then that helps make the case one way or the other, but without anything like that you're talking about sending a man to jail for something that very likely isn't hurting anyone."

Your last sentence here is the most telling. Why in the world would you assume that? I know of a woman who had been raped in her past, for instance, who was very disturbed when she found out a partner had had sleep sex with her. And roughtly 1 in 4 women have been raped... (Not that you have to have been raped to find sleep sex disturbing... just an example).

"I suspect if the genders were reversed most men would love the idea of a woman wanting to have sex with him even while he was unconcious. Any men want to weigh in?"

Well, that's just buying into the stereotype that men want sex all the time from anyone. I know plenty of men who've been disturbed when women they didn't want to have sex with tried to have sex with them.

"'ve also told him I don't want him actually having intercourse with me while I'm asleep, mainly because I get sore most of the time from sex and I think I would wake up being sore from it."

If you get sore most of the time from sex, I think you may be doing it wrong. You may not be "turned on" enough... which is certainly one risk with someone in a coma. Psychological and emotional feelings aside, physical damage is possible in a case like this, when she's not conscious to experience/not experience pain...

"The husband is likely the only person who really knows what the situation is here. He might know in his heart of hearts that what he's doing is wrong, or he might know that his wife would approve of it. I'm talking about what the law can prove. "

That's just assuming the husband is "good" and "right". You don't even know this person, and I don't know why you'd assume that.

Not to mention, about 1 out of 5 husbands in this country have forced a sex act on their wife, according to studies. I'm definitely not going to assume all husbands are sensitive and caring towards their wives, as opposed to viewing them as sexual property.

This guy, now really: do you not think he was acting at least substantially in self-interest here?

If this guy hadn't discussed this specific scenario with his wife when conscious, and he didn't want to get put in jail, all he had to do was consult the freakin' laws: people can't give consent when unconscious. We expect all our citizens to know the laws, and not to break them. Simple as that.

My problem with the situation isn't so much with the tape being thrown out as evidence. If the warrant was improperly obtained or the police over stepped the limits of the warrant, then that's an issue for the courts to decide.

My main concern is that there is a whole lot of people who believe that the act of getting married implies a state of sexual consent. I think that the husband sincerely believed that he was not doing anything wrong, that he was showing his wife his love.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that sex without consent is rape. Even if you're married. With the wife in a coma, I don't see how this could be anything but rape.

"but without anything like that you're talking about sending a man to jail for something that very likely isn't hurting anyone."

Also back to this, what is the alternative?

The alternative is that he could have known the law, and not had sex with an unconscious person.

Why is that at all hard? Why would that be at all awful? Are our expectations for men really that low?

Most of the time someone drives drunk no one gets hurt. But sometimes someone gets /very/ hurt. And driving drunk is hardly necessarily. So it's illegal -d'oi!

i 100% agree that a woman in a coma cannot consent to sex. in fact i don't understand any sort of debate on this issue.

regardless, in ohio, it's *legal* for a man to have "sex" with his comatose wife. or to drug his wife and rape her. the laws were changed to criminalize most forms of marital rape, but not all, and comas are one of those exceptions.

which brings me back to the point i made on a previous post: the laws are not there to protect womyn. they are there to uphold the status quo.

feminist love, and disgust in response to this case,
jen

People are really bending over backward to try to excuse what this guy did. Maybe they had previously agreed to "sleep sex"? Well, why stop with that assumption? Let's assume that they had previously agreed to all sorts of other sexual activities too, like BDSM, swinging, and perhaps a little scat. So if her husband ties her up, chokes her, beats her, shits on her, and has other people have sex with her, we should all just throw our hands up and say, "Well, we don't know what she would have wanted." How about instead of excusing rape, we stop assuming automatic consent and start respecting bodily autonomy and integrity. And for everyone saying there are blurry lines - err on the side of caution and consent!

And what is this crap about the woman possibly waking up and being upset that her husband is in jail and then slipping back into a coma? Maybe she might wake up and find out her husband was RAPING her and then slip back into a coma (or worse). Stop excusing rape. It is disgusting and it has no place on a feminist site.

I don't think that a married person has a right to rape their comatose spouse.

But, what about having sex with your spouse while drunk? You can't give consent while drunk, so isn't it rape?

Well of course it is, Femgineer.

Sarcasm aside, I suppose I'll have to include this in my living will somehow---I'd be very traumatized to wake up and find my husband had been thrown in jail for something I had no problem with.

Long post, but I'm at work and trying to reply to everyone. :)

SarahMC: I don't see anyone saying this is a man's right. I see people saying
they wouldn't necessarily classify it as rape without further information. That
information is not likely to available to any of us. I also think there are
plenty of men that would give their partners permission to have sex with them
should they be incapacitated.

puckalish: I didn't say they did have a previous discussion. I said they may
have, and that's something that we likely would never find out. Also, you know,
most people didn't even have discussions about life support until the whole
Terri Schiavo thing, so perhaps this is another one of those wake-up calls. I
know if I was incapacitated, I'd rather have my partner playing with me than
with other people if it's likely I'll come out of it. Granted, we've had that
discussion too.

ShelbyWoo: I think death is a bit more violating than rape. But, perhaps that's
just me. I didn't say that this man did or did not have his wife's consent
prior to her falling into a coma. I said there's not enough evidence to jump to
any conclusion, including all the ones you're also making about her health,
safety, his motivations, etc. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what
the two had discussed prior to this development, and I'd imagine she didn't put something like this in a
living will.

FrumiousB: I disagree. My statement reflects that my partner and I have given
consent to each other to do pretty much whatever, and I'd imagine most couples
have similar relationships. I do not feel that any person is in a perpetual
state of consent, man or woman, but I do think that people in relationships who
are sexually active with one another likely have some degree of implied consent
and trust between the two of them. If you don't, well, then we're both speaking
from our own experiences, and I don't see how either of us is more right than
the other.

SarahMC: I'm not one of the people who considers a woman to be the property of
her husband (or vice versa). But, I suppose if you just want to dismiss any discussion on the
issue in favor of your own views, this is probably a good statement to make. But,
it's not accurate.

kaylagrrl: Perhaps, but it'd be really weird to be swinging with a comatose
patient. Creepy.

Halo: I think the best course of action would be NOT to engage in such things.
But, whether or not it's rape depends on the situation and the circumstances,
and apparently the commenters here are very divided. But, if the woman had
purchased a car the day before, and was now in a coma, she'd likely still be
responsible for the car payments and she'd already agreed to the terms. Is that
the same as giving pre-consent (or whatever you'd call it) to one's partner, so
that all sex stuff is acceptable regardless of the situation? I don't know.

I suspect if the genders were reversed most men would love the idea of a woman wanting to have sex with him even while he was unconcious. Any men want to weigh in?

And, this is not just for you, but I've heard something along these lines plenty of times in relation to this article:

Maybe she knows deep down that her husband still wants to be with her and isn't off sleeping with someone else.

I mean, come on... screwing an unconscious person, whether due to a stroke or drugs or any other reason, is about the actor's pleasure, not about the unconscious person's pleasure... and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Also, there's a really great point that sex, particularly penetrative sex, can hurt... but if one partner is not conscious, there's no way of knowing if any harm is being done. Gosh, wouldn't it suck to be in a coma and wake up with internal injuries or pain resulting from contact you weren't even around to enjoy? I would be pretty pissed off...

Also, I don't think this guy belongs in jail... He ought to be there for his wife when she wakes up... but he needs to be made clear on how his actions were inappropriate and even violent (in terms of denying the agency of his wife), given some kind of treatment for his grief and perhaps given some kind of community service that would help him understand the harm that non-consensual sex can cause. I'm open to other ideas, too, but what he did was not right by any understanding I can muster.

Terabithia. It sounds like you're so used to being used sexually that you don't even feel like you have boundaries. I can't imagine sleeping through sex. Do you have any sense of your body being your own, or has it been invaded so many times that you can't draw any lines? If you aren't experiencing any pleasure from a sexual experience, even experiencing the pleasure of your partner, then why are you allowing sex? Are you your boyfriend's sexual slave, and doesn't it bother you that you are an object to fuck to him, whether you are conscious or not? I feel bad for you, being sore in the morning and not having any of the pleasure. Your body is your own, whether you love your boyfriend or not. You can't give someone nonconsensual access to you; it's an impossibility. Talk about passive. Your boyfriend is a corpse-fucker. Wake up! Say no! I would have more sympathy for you, but you want a comatose woman to continue to be raped because poor rapist! He might have a deal!

"Honey, mind if I bypass your sass and go straight to that ass?"

"Sure, fuck me in the hospital. Fuck me in the coffin. I don't care! I am not a person!"

Let's say the husband has an STD and she hadn't been having sex with him because of it. Now that she is in a coma, he has unfettered access to pass it on. Who are YOU to decide for this comatose woman whether she has a means of preventing her husband from having sex with her when she cannot consent?

Sounds like Andrea Dworkin is necessary reading around here. It's so appropriate that this comes up, because I'm almost done with "Intercourse."

I am just flabbergasted at how lack of consent doesn't flutter any eyelashes with some people. It's rape. Shouldn't even have to argue this. And women here and elsewhere are defending marital rape. That's what we're trained to do, I guess, reinforce the privilege.

Seriously, Terabithia. Do some battling for yourself; let the rapists defend themselves.

manifestadestiny: Wow, that's low. So disagreeing with your exact views means we've been "used" and are defending rapists? Right.

So before each sexual act, do you sign consent forms in triplicate?

Allie,

I won't respond to your consent form commment, b/c I think that's trite and not addressing the issue and you know it.

I also think manifestadestiny used some harsh language. I will say this though: I don't have sex if I'm not enjoying it. I definitely don't have sex if I'm experiencing more pain than pleasure. Most men can say that. Plenty of women can say that.

Now can you say that about yourself? (I think that's more what manifestadestiny was getting at, that that's a reasonable thing for a woman to expect, and that some of your prior posts left some doubt as to whether /you/ expect that...)

Its ridiculous that my comments about a hypothetical situation apparently require me to defend my own situation, but I guess I can' just leave these comments standing without any response, so here goes:

>Terabithia. It sounds like you're so used to being used sexually that you don't even feel like you have boundaries. I can't imagine sleeping through sex. Do you have any sense of your body being your own, or has it been invaded so many times that you can't draw any lines?

My goodness. And you people are accusing me of making assumptions about other people!

For the record, I have only ever had sex with one person, I waited until we'd been together for months, and we moved along very slowly with everything, and I was 21 at the time. He was very good about respecting my boundaries and my limits and he still is. Being "used" doesn't even enter into the situation. I like cuddling in my sleep. If my boyfriend is asleep and I cuddle up next to him, am I "using" him? You're being ridiculous.

And since it seems to be upsetting people, I'll also say that I have talked to a doctor about the soreness with sex issue, and changing my birth control prescription has helped quite a bit. Because of this issue, we make sure to always do lots of foreplay and stuff so I am turned on enough, and to use lubricant. I actually wish I could have sex a little more spontaneously sometimes-- but it isn't very comfortable without extra lube, so we don't do it. My boyfriend would never pressure me to do something I didn't want to do.

>I feel bad for you, being sore in the morning and not having any of the pleasure.

You must have misread something because I specifically said that that is why we DON'T have sleep-sex.

>So before each sexual act, do you sign consent forms in triplicate?

Seriously. Some people can't seem to deal with grey, everything must be black and white.

ALL I am saying here is that we don't have enough information to send this guy to jail. This situation could definitely go either way and without more information, there is lots of reasonable doubt as to whether he has done anything seriously wrong. Our legal system is based on the idea that its better to let 10 guilty people go free than wrongly convict one innocent person. This guy might be a sleazeball but so far I see no proof of it. Granted, I don't know anything more about this case than that one article, so I freely admit I might be completely wrong about this particular case. But based on the information given, I don't think we know enough to judge one way or the other.

Attacking me personally because I said we should hold off judgement IS pretty low, but if it makes you feel better have fun. You know nothing about me, and your comments show that.

>But, if the woman had
purchased a car the day before, and was now in a coma, she'd likely still be
responsible for the car payments and she'd already agreed to the terms.

How DOES that work? I'd imagine it depends how likely she is to come out of the coma, but I never thought about something like that. I guess your next of kin would have to figure it out with the car company, right?

Ninapendamaishi: My point is that I don't require my partner to ask me each and every time whether or not I want to engage in some sort of sexual activity before she does anything to me, and she doesn't require me to ask her. Whether this involves activities while we're awake or one of us is asleep, it doesn't matter. We've discussed this and know where each of us stands.

Since it seems there are at least a few others here with similar relationships and consent arrangements, and it's something that we did long before reading about a situation like the topic of the post, I don't find it unreasonable to expect that there are many other couples who have similar arrangements. Because of that, in the absence of additional information about this couple's activities, I don't feel that labeling him a rapist and throwing him in jail is warranted. I think the situation is not black and white.

Whether or not *I* want to engage in sexual activities with a comatose person is entirely different. I don't want to because I think it'd be weird, and I think it'd be like having sex with a dead person who just happened to be warm. But, a lot of people do things I wouldn't do, and that's not a place where I feel I'm entitled to judge them.

That said, if my honey wanted to sex me up while I was in a coma, she has my full permission to do so. I'm consenting to it, even though it hasn't yet (and hopefully never will) happen. Since we can't say what has been discussed between the man and the woman in the story prior to her coma, I'm not so quick to label him a rapist.

Terabithia: People (or their estates) are still responsible for prior obligations even if they've died. That's something that normally gets worked out with lawyers, wills, lawsuits, etc. But, unless the creditor decides a debt can just "go away", it doesn't.

If you are in a relationship where you DO require your partner to get a fully sober and awake yes before each and every touch, then you certainly have a right to expect your partner not to touch you if you're in a coma, and your partner should know that boundary.

But a lot of us are in relationships where we are ok with a certain level of sexual activity without explicit permission for each act, and we have different boundaries. For instance, I've never had anal sex and I don't want to, so if my boyfriend started trying that without asking me, whether I was awake or asleep, I'd be pissed. But he knows that and he would never do that. I certainly don't mind if he kisses or gropes me without asking, or while I'm drunk, or while I'm asleep, and he knows that too. Only the people involved know what their agreement is, although cases like this show that maybe this is another thing, like DNR orders, that needs to be put in writing before its too late...

"Sometimes my boyfriend humps me or goes down on me while I'm asleep. Sometimes I wake up but more often he asks me in the morning if I remember it and I don't. It doesn't bother me. I've also told him I don't want him actually having intercourse with me while I'm asleep, mainly because I get sore most of the time from sex and I think I would wake up being sore from it."

I'm responding to this, your quote. I am asking about your boundaries because it doesn't bother you that your boyfriend has sex with you without you being awake. You don't want to judge someone as being a rapist because you don't have those boundaries and you think that other women might not have those boundaries either. Sex without conscious consent? Meh. It gets to the heart of your argument, and is the reason I am responding to you personally.

Allie, I am awake and alive. I give enthusiastic consent when I give it, and my husband is not allowed to objectify me because I have...what's the word? Oh, agency.

Okay, here's the story: a woman's husband is imposing nonconsensual sex (rape) on her in a home. Now here's your argument: "So before each sexual act, do you sign consent forms in triplicate?". Ha, ha. That's funny because it is ludicrous that a woman be able to consent to sex. No, wait. It's ludicrous that a woman be conscious in order to consent to sex. That's the argument of a male needing protection from rape prosecution or a woman who believes that sex-positivism means that all sex is positive.

There are actual victims in this world. There are victims and there are agressors. You want us to wait for the woman to wake up and decide she's been victimized before we prosecute. We should also have the luxury of raising the dead and asking them whether they feel they have been victized before we prosecute for murder. Is rape a crime? Should it be prosecuted?

>I am asking about your boundaries because it doesn't bother you that your boyfriend has sex with you without you being awake.

Again, I specifically said he does NOT do this because I think it would probably make me sore. Unless you're counting other foreplay-type acts as sex, in which case, no, it does not bother me. We have a very close trusting relationship and for us its like cuddling in our sleep. If you don't want to do that, that's great, but its ridiculous for you to tell me I"m not consenting to something that I am clearly saying I am perfectly happy with. Maybe I"m oversharing a little for an internet forum, but it seems relevant to point out that people can have very happy healthy trusting relationships that involve sexiness happening at night when one or both partners might be asleep or very groggy. I'd be horrified if, for example, I got very drunk and had sex with my boyfriend and he was somehow prosecuted for rape because technically I wasn't sober enough to give consent. Now, if he actually did force me to do something I didn't want to do, obviously I would want the law to recognize it as a crime. I am not at all defending marital rape. But as you can see from the comments on other sites and even the commenters here who are brave enough to risk getting flamed, there are lots of people who are in relationships where they have consensual sex when they are not fully sober or conscious. If they are happy with that, they aren't victims and no crime has been committed.

Allie and Terabithia:

You're right that the situation (may) not be black and white. Which is why the law (in most states, I guess, especially the more liberal states) errs on the side of protecting the potential victim. What's so bad about that?

Again, I ask you: what's so important about getting one's rocks off that you (male or female) should not err on the side of protecting a potential victim and restrain yourself?

Also Allie and Terabithia, maybe you should google the term "affirmative consent" and learn some more about that concept. It does not always mean a very explicit verbal conversation has to be had everytime sex is had -consent can also be physical. But either way it can't happen with a comatose person. They're not an active participant in any way in that case.

Honestly now, do you honestly think the wife ever anticipated a situation like this and honestly anticipated her husband would have sex with her in a situation like this? Because I honestly think that's pretty unlikely.

"If my boyfriend is asleep and I cuddle up next to him, am I "using" him? You're being ridiculous."

For /most people/, sex is a more intimate activity than cuddling. However, there are instances (like with people who have been abused, etc.) when cuddling is a sensitive activity. I've noticed sleeping people can often do things like "actively cuddle". Certainly I would be hesitant to cuddle with anyone if it would require a great deal of work manipulating their body while they were asleep.

"And since it seems to be upsetting people, I'll also say that I have talked to a doctor about the soreness with sex issue, and changing my birth control prescription has helped quite a bit. Because of this issue, we make sure to always do lots of foreplay and stuff so I am turned on enough, and to use lubricant. "

Unfortunately, modern medicine is a pretty male-dominated field and is not always well-oriented to dealing with problems like this. Have you considered that there may be something psychological at play as well?
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/pink/from_ow_to_wow_demystifying_painful_intercourse

I'm sure I'm treading on delicate ground now, but I'll just mention that I /have/ heard of people who experienced pain with a first partner or two, and then with a later one did not, and wound up just concluding they "clicked" chemically better with the later person, or something...

Look. I have sympathy for the situation. Really, I mean, it's fucking sad in so many ways. But part of the reason why we have laws is to provide some minimum standards. Are the laws perfect? No.

I mean would those people who are OK with this, have objection if the woman had gotten pregnant? Or what if the video tape showed that he was being forceful? What if she's getting yeast or bacterial vaginitis---conditions that are being missed on routine examination because her medical providers are assuming (and rightly so) that she isn't having sex?

People who are using their little anecdotal stories to justify how THEY would feel are still awake, conscious and able bodied at the end of the day. Doesn't this woman get the benefit of the dignity of the last bit of bodily autonomy that she has? I mean damn. I get queasy and bummed seeing how they practically jam food down people's throats in the nursing home because staff is on such a tight schedule supposedly.

Lastly, I'm with puckalish. I would hope that our justice system is capable of dealing with extenuating circumstances such as these accordingly. We need not treat the man like a sexual predator, but at the very minimum he shouldn't be allowed to continue.

A few people here have said the the default assumption should be lack of consent not consent. If the man has some evidence that she did, in advance, consent to it or because of conversations would consent to it, maybe OK. But in this situation the burden should be on him to rebut the presumption of non-consent.

The difference between coma-sex and underage partner sex (statutory rape) is that in the former the man knows his "partner" is powerless to grant consent. In borderline statutory rape cases, where the young women look and act and consent like an adult, the man may not have formed an intent to have sex with a minor. He's guilty nevertheless of rape. Several states have a sliding scale of age prohibitions now, such that partners close to the same age don't run the same risk. But if a 30+ year old guy is ready to go with someone he thinks is 18, maybe he ought to ask for ID.

"If you are in a relationship where you DO require your partner to get a fully sober and awake yes before each and every touch, then you certainly have a right to expect your partner not to touch you if you're in a coma, and your partner should know that boundary."

"I'd be horrified if, for example, I got very drunk and had sex with my boyfriend and he was somehow prosecuted for rape because technically I wasn't sober enough to give consent. Now, if he actually did force me to do something I didn't want to do, obviously I would want the law to recognize it as a crime."

And how would feel, if your bf did something you didn't want him to do while you were sleeping (let's say anal sex, since you mentioned that) and in court the defense lawyer argued "how could he or anyone know you didn't want it, b/c you were asleep" and he wasn't convicted? Because that, dear Terabithia, is not an uncommon scenario.

It's sad, and it might not jive with your personal experience, but there are actually a heck of a lot of women in this country in relationships with men who do not have a ton of respect for their boundaries. There are plenty of well-respected studies that back that up.

Laws are made by people -of course they're imperfect. Of course they're not going to reach a satisfactory conclusion, in everyone's eyes, in every case.

But feminists fought for a lot of laws regarding sexual violence in the 1970s and onwards because the fact is /a lot/ of women /are/ raped by their intimate partners, and society and the legal system has historically not granted the women many rights or been very sympathetic to them. As it stands now, it's still an imperfect system -what're you gonna do? Should we go back to the way it was thirty years ago when there were far, far fewer legal protections for women when it came to sexual situations (often none for women in marriage), so that we make sure no man /ever/ is unjustly jailed?

But I think this man's case is fairly straight forward. He had no reason to think is comatose wife was really wanting him to have sex with her just then. He could have just, not done it...

manifestadestiny: Your argument seems to be that people cannot consent to before the situation actually presents itself. I disagree.

Does that mean that I think this man didn't rape his wife? No. It means that there's not enough evidence, presented to me anyway, to determine whether he did or did not receive consent from her, similar to what some of us seem to have in our relationships.

As for being objectified, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't make it true.

Not that I think this is the case, but I'm curious what opinion would be. If he presented a signed, notarized, living will that said that not only is she to be kept alive if she's in a coma, but he's also free to have sex with her at his discretion, would you accept that as consent? Or would you still say that it's impossible for her to consent before the fact?

Considering you have no problem telling me, a living breathing person who is saying she is in a happy and healthy relationship, that I am being "used," I'm not surprised you consider that you have a right to judge everyone else's situation.

>Which is why the law (in most states, I guess, especially the more liberal states) errs on the side of protecting the potential victim. What's so bad about that?

Well, I guess I don't know exactly what the law was trying to do. If they were just trying to obtain an order to keep the husband from having any more unsupervised visits with his wife, then you're right that they are erring on the safer side. But if they are trying to put him in jail, as I assumed because they called it sexual assault, then I think they are erring on the side of wanting to severely punish a person who may be innocent. That is not the safer side to err on.

>Unfortunately, modern medicine is a pretty male-dominated field and is not always well-oriented to dealing with problems like this. Have you considered that there may be something psychological at play as well?

I've seen two doctors about it, both female and very helpful, and I've done quite a bit of research on my own as well. Its not at all uncommon for the pill to cause dryness and make sex less comfortable, but since I'd be way more uncomfortable worrying about getting pregnant, I've made my choice. Maybe I haven't been clear: I certainly enjoy sex, but I am often sore after. Its not like I'm doing something I hate. If I didn't want to have sex, I wouldn't.

> In borderline statutory rape cases, where the young women look and act and consent like an adult, the man may not have formed an intent to have sex with a minor. He's guilty nevertheless of rape. Several states have a sliding scale of age prohibitions now, such that partners close to the same age don't run the same risk. But if a 30+ year old guy is ready to go with someone he thinks is 18, maybe he ought to ask for ID.

I may be wrong, but I've heard that even if an underage girl is using a fake ID (for example to get into a bar) and the man has no idea that she's underage, he can still be prosecuted for statutory rape. That's messed up.

>And how would feel, if your bf did something you didn't want him to do while you were sleeping (let's say anal sex, since you mentioned that) and in court the defense lawyer argued "how could he or anyone know you didn't want it, b/c you were asleep" and he wasn't convicted? Because that, dear Terabithia, is not an uncommon scenario.

Of course he would know, because we've talked about this and we know what levels we're both ok with.

Allie, Terabithia: You are speculating that this couple had an agreement to have sex with the other person even if one is comatose, and that what I would call outrageous, amazing speculation is coloring your view of a rape. You have no basis to speculate about that other than by looking at your own relationship and your desire to express an infinite yes.

The law has other ideas. It states that consent is necessary. She has no agency. I agree with the law of consent in this case because I agree with women being actively involved in the decision to have sex.

The decision AND the act.

manifestadestiny: Rape is sex without consent. Your position is that there's no way she could've ever consented prior to the fact. I say I don't know if she did or not, because I don't know her, her husband, or anything about them other than what a terse article has provided. I don't think that's enough to decide that, without a doubt, he violated her and raped her.

It doesn't color my view of rape. Rape is rape. But rape isn't rape if there's consent, and that's what's at issue as far as MY argument goes. You may feel that people can't consent to things before they happen, but I disagree, because we do it all the time. In this case, it's certainly an odd situation, but the fact that at least some of us feel differently than you do illustrates that your views aren't universal, and neither are ours. We can keep going back and forth about this, but I doubt either of us is going to agree with the other, so it's probably pointless to do so.

I wanted to hear Manifestdestiny's answer to the question about what if the woman had consented in a living will. Just out of curiosity.

"Considering you have no problem telling me, a living breathing person who is saying she is in a happy and healthy relationship, that I am being "used," I'm not surprised you consider that you have a right to judge everyone else's situation."

I didn't tell you you were being used. Ever. I asked a couple of questions.

"Well, I guess I don't know exactly what the law was trying to do. If they were just trying to obtain an order to keep the husband from having any more unsupervised visits with his wife, then you're right that they are erring on the safer side. But if they are trying to put him in jail, as I assumed because they called it sexual assault, then I think they are erring on the side of wanting to severely punish a person who may be innocent. That is not the safer side to err on. "

The law was seeking to protect unconsenting women from having men have sex with them. There is not, so far as I'm aware, a law dealing with the specific situation of a comatose wife. There are, however, laws in a number of states against having sex with an unconscious person, which most commonly are applied in situations of having sex with a black-out drunk, etc. So when you're talking about the court ruling regarding a punishment, that's a fairly different discussion.

And FYI, in case you're not aware of it, every law sometimes results in innocent people being punished. Look at all the men put to death for murder who were later found to be innocent. It's not like all laws /not/ dealing with rape are perfect either. Should murder not be illegal, since sometimes innocent people are punished?

"I may be wrong, but I've heard that even if an underage girl is using a fake ID (for example to get into a bar) and the man has no idea that she's underage, he can still be prosecuted for statutory rape. That's messed up."

Why? He's the adult. We take responsibility for our own actions in this world, and we're all supposed to know the law. Unknowingly buying alcohol for minors could get you in the same sort of trouble. But, realistically in this case, often times these men /are/ let off the hook...

"Rape is sex without consent. Your position is that there's no way she could've ever consented prior to the fact. I say I don't know if she did or not, because I don't know her, her husband, or anything about them other than what a terse article has provided."

You know what? The /only/ person who could know if, in this specific instance, she would have wanted to have sex with him, is her. And she can't answer, because she's unconscious. Thus the law protecting her...

">And how would feel, if your bf did something you didn't want him to do while you were sleeping (let's say anal sex, since you mentioned that) and in court the defense lawyer argued "how could he or anyone know you didn't want it, b/c you were asleep" and he wasn't convicted? Because that, dear Terabithia, is not an uncommon scenario.

Of course he would know, because we've talked about this and we know what levels we're both ok with. "

You missed my point completely, and didn't answer. I am suggesting he knew you didn't want it, and did it anyway, and then argued in court he didn't know. Because /that is common/.

"Not that I think this is the case, but I'm curious what opinion would be. If he presented a signed, notarized, living will that said that not only is she to be kept alive if she's in a coma, but he's also free to have sex with her at his discretion, would you accept that as consent? Or would you still say that it's impossible for her to consent before the fact?"

We don't allow people to sign an all-access pass to their body like that when they'll be conscious (because that's what marriage used to mean legally, but no longer) so why would we allow people to do that in the case that they'll be /unconscious/? Furthermore, do to above-mentioned possibilities for pain and other medical complications, I think the chances of someone agreeing to something like this is not huge.

Let's for a minute assume the /likeliest/ scenario here (crazy, I know...) Let's assume that this was never a situation she had thought about or anticipated, because I imagine that's the case with most couples. Let's say she wakes up one day, and finds out he'd had sex with her while unconscious. Do you not think, at the least, it would creep out a lot of women just slightly? I think most people are not comfortable with the idea of having sex with an unconscious body... And again, his action was /totally unnecessary/. He wouldn't have been hurt in the least to /not/ have done this.

What do you want to do legally though, Terabithia? Do you think sex with an unconscious person should always be considered consent? If not, what would you have a law say?

"You know what? The /only/ person who could know if, in this specific instance, she would have wanted to have sex with him, is her. And she can't answer, because she's unconscious. Thus the law protecting her..."

Unless she'd otherwise made her wishes known ahead of time. Again, as I stated earlier, if you can choose to essentially KILL your spouse (by removing life support) based on your word alone, why don't your words have the same weight if you said she consented to sex with you in such a situation?

"We don't allow people to sign an all-access pass to their body like that when they'll be conscious (because that's what marriage used to mean legally, but no longer) so why would we allow people to do that in the case that they'll be /unconscious/? Furthermore, do to above-mentioned possibilities for pain and other medical complications, I think the chances of someone agreeing to something like this is not huge."

Possibly not. But, if your spouse (or next-of-kin or whatever) can essentially make all the decisions for you in the case of you being incapacitated, I find it funny that the line is drawn at sex. Is it creepy to have sex with a comatose person? Yeah. But that's my opinion.

"Let's for a minute assume the /likeliest/ scenario here (crazy, I know...) Let's assume that this was never a situation she had thought about or anticipated, because I imagine that's the case with most couples. Let's say she wakes up one day, and finds out he'd had sex with her while unconscious. Do you not think, at the least, it would creep out a lot of women just slightly? I think most people are not comfortable with the idea of having sex with an unconscious body... And again, his action was /totally unnecessary/. He wouldn't have been hurt in the least to /not/ have done this."

I think it might creep her out. But it might not. I don't know them or their situation, so I can't say that any more than I can say that their relationship would not have allowed hot, lifeless coma sex. Why is it that if we base our opinions of the situation on our relationships and experiences, we're wrong, but if you do it, it's reasonable and would more accurately reflect her state of mind?

I'd assume she's married to him because she loves and trusts him.

As far as whether or not having sex with an unconscious person should always be considered consensual, I'd say no, it would depend on the relationship. If you give your partner an orgasm so strong that they pass out, and you continue to stimulate them, are you raping them? According to the opinions here, it would seem so.

Allie, your spouse or next of kin may make medical and legal decisions for you, while you are incapacitated. But only because someone has to make those decisions, and the law assumes that the spouse or next of kin will have the patient's best interests at heart. No one has to have sex with a comatose woman. That decision does not have to be made by anyone. So the law doesn't allow it.

But why isn't it a doctor, a lawyer or just some random person who makes the decisions? Because ideally, it's believed the spouse or next-of-kin can be trusted to make decisions that honor the patient's wishes and beliefs. My point is to say that I find it silly that you can be trusted with your spouse's life, but not their genitalia.

and yes, before anyone goes and says it, I know that courts will sometimes appoint a legal guardian for people when their spouse or family either can't be found or makes bad decisions

Thanks for the heads up, I'm making sure my prenuptial agreement gives me sexual rights to my wife in the event of a coma.

I'm sure there are women who'd prefer that to waking up divorced.

>I didn't tell you you were being used. Ever.

Someone did upthread, and I was responding to that person. Scrolling up, it was someone called ShelbyWoo.

>Why? He's the adult. We take responsibility for our own actions in this world, and we're all supposed to know the law.

What can he do besides check her ID? If she is purposely using a fake ID it shouldn't be his fault.

>I am suggesting he knew you didn't want it, and did it anyway, and then argued in court he didn't know.

That is a tough case. But in that case there would be a complaining victim, so while it would still be he said she said, it would be a very different situation than this one. There's always a difference between what is wrong and what can be proven to have happened.

Ugh, Marcus, that's disgusting. I mean, what is a partnership if it's only good as long as there's fucking?

Really, I mean, I like to think that us men are a little more substantial than to leave our significant others if we can't fuck them while they're comatose.

And, Lilitu, thank you... clear, concise, and almost stupidly obvious.

Actually, Terabithia, it was someone called manifesta destiny, not ShelbyWoo and not a.k.a. Ninapendamaishi.

Oops, you're right, the post from ShelbyWoo was a different flame, I misread. On these comment threads I tend to just respond to the content-- I don't know who any of the people are, and the names are so tiny at the bottom of the posts that I usually don't read them.

This isn't stupidly obvious--that's why so many people including those who know the women best--think there's nothing wrong here...and the law isn't clear in this case.

god, nothing depresses me more than rape apologists.

many thanks to regular commenters trying to educate allie and terabithia.

a quick question: rape is the one of the hardest crimes to prove-- allie and terabithia, why do you want to make it even harder? and don't kid yourself, nothing is going to happen to this guy in terms of him actually serving jail time.

I read over half these comments and was APPALLED that anyone is actually arguing this point in the husband's favor.

No surprise that all those "arguments" consisted of was "what-ifs." "What if they had a history of sleep sex? What if she woke up and said it was fine? What if what if what if?"

Yeah, what if, because NONE OF US KNOW and we will not know until that woman wakes up. And until she wakes up, you CANNOT just assume that there's some handy explanation behind it. You could what-if until your face turns blue. Someone mentioned erotic asphyxia--if they'd caught him choking her, would it be okay, because WHAT IF they were into that?

It's been said a million times already but obviously it must be said again: comatose sex is non-consensual sex. Non-consensual sex is RAPE.

"I'd assume she's married to him because she loves and trusts him."

Yes, and unfortunately in this world, trust is sometimes given where it isn't deserved, or someone betrays your trust. Not uncommon, at all.

That's why we have, you know, laws against domestic violence, partner rape, child abuse, etc...

And plenty of people have argued it isn't the state's business to interfere in all of those "personal" "intimate" situations as well. Well, I happen to appreciate the state's effort to protect people (especially women and children), b/c we certainly don't live in a culture where individuals always put those people's well-being first, or where those people always feel confident standing up for themselves...

"As far as whether or not having sex with an unconscious person should always be considered consensual, I'd say no, it would depend on the relationship."

But you didn't answer my question. I asked you what you would have a /law/ say, specifically... Because you're complaining about one law present in many states, but you don't really present an alternative. Just because a law does not perfectly and clearcut-ly settle every case, does not make it a bad law. Or if it did, all our laws are bad laws.

Ok, i didnt read all of the comments, but i searched the page for the word "catheter" and didnt find matches

Comatose patients have catheters. I'm stuck on HOW this guy would have done it and thought that it was "ok". It would be SO easy for nurses and doctors to realize something was up. There are so many steps he would have to take in order for the act to happen. If the case gets tossed completely out i hope he gets mental help. This kind of stuff scares me.

Also, Terabithia, don't think everyone who disagrees with you is "flaming" you, okay? ShelbyWoo was simply stating, loudly and clearly, that comatose individuals cannot give consent for sex. And, as Lilitu pointed out, power of attorney relates to consent for medical and financial matters which must be settled in absence of the individual - not to consent for sex.

Allie,

I'd assume she's married to him because she loves and trusts him.

In the past, I've had good discussions here, even if I disagreed with people. Apparently, this isn't going to be one of those times. I've had my relationship with my partner questioned, been labeled a rape apologist, and a number of other things. I never once, ONCE said that rape was acceptable. But it isn't rape if it isn't rape, and in some cases, the picture isn't so clear. Yeah, it makes things easier when it's black and white, but the world is full of shades of gray. I'm sorry that so many of you fail to see that.

Anyway. I'm done. Pat yourselves on the back, because you've made it where I just don't feel like discussing this issue any further. But, I still disagree with you.

It is really deeply upsetting that anyone can say rape is one of those gray issues. No. Rape is not a gray issue. There is a simple distinction between rape and sex, and that's consent. Consent, sex. No consent, rape. I beg someone to try and argue that.

O.M.F.G. I really, honestly can't BELIEVE how far people will go to make excuses for this guy. I mean, do people really going around making living wills stating their consent to future coitus while unconscious? Is it possible? Well, damn near anything is possible. Likely? Um...

Sure, yeah, it's sad. Hella sad. Poor woman, lost to the world. Poor man, misses his wife. I'd say it's also sad/awful that this man is so clueless about consent. In addition, I think it'd be awful sad if this guy is so deranged by his mourning that he has convinced himself that he's going to pull a Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming trick via coma "sex" (since we're obviously rolling out the crazyland scenarios today).

I'm really so disturbed by the defend-the-husband comments that I want to believe that this incident is too much for you to stomach, so you must be trying to sugarcoat it in love and trust, to drive away the sickening feeling one gets reading this story.

But, everyone, really, REALITY CHECK TIME. THIS IS RAPE. The woman COULD NOT CONSENT. The husband was using her, like a Real Doll. She was comatose, largely absent from the moment (ie present in [lifeless!] body alone). If she felt anything, experienced anything, she couldn't express herself, she'd be trapped in her own body, for chrissakes!

If anything about what this guy did, or allegedly claimed to be trying to do, seems normal to you, please think it over a bit more. Really. PLEASE.

Yeah, it's all sad and fucked, but that doesn't excuse a damn bit of it.

I suspect that neither side will love me for this but...

the questions are

1) Was the coma 'rapid' or slow in onset? (In other words, might they have discussed this while she was 'compos' and reached some understanding? )

and

2) Does her husband hold her 'durable power of attorney for health care' aka is he her 'legal' voice of consent?

If he has these two things, then this is not rape. It's just kinky ( or perhaps dreadful and sad) sex.

If someone else holds the legal power over her person ( and does not agree with the action ) and/or she expressed a desire to NOT have such contact while still competent ( either directly or by general opinion and attitude ) then this is a crime.

But until someone answers those two points? I can't see how anyone can make any solid yes/no proclaimations.

And yes - I know that generally a power of attorney for health care would not include power of sexual consent - but there is at least one legal judgement that it also does not give the guardian power to *forbid* sexual contact that the ill person wants and consents to - so it is indeed possible for her to have made agreements of consent before becoming utterly comatose. (If her health decline so allowed - which I do not know.)

If the wife awakes, and decides that his husband should be pardoned, would that be a possible solution?

*Sigh.* One day, everything won't be so sad. I have to believe this. There are so many people who are in comas or unable to care for themselves who are getting abused physically and specifically sexually in people's care. This man's defense was that the rape was a private matter. It didn't get thrown out because of a claim that she had okayed it or that those are the sexual games they used to play together. He claimed that it was a private matter. The nursing home did not have a "coma sex consent" clause on record or they wouldn't have called the police.

"On appeal, the state argued that Johnson hadn't proven he had his wife's permission to be in her room, and he certainly didn't have permission to sexually assault her. The District 4 court rejected this argument as nonsensical because Johnson's wife was unable to grant permission for anything."

This is similar to the case a few weeks or a couple months back discussed here, I believe, about the woman who was raped by a taxi driver in California and they /couldn't/ prosecute because she was passed out when she was raped...

"The court also rejected the state's claim that Johnson's visits were not consistent with historical notions of privacy when he used the room to have sexual intercourse with his comatose wife. The court noted that the argument relies on proof of an alleged illegal act that has not been properly admitted as evidence."

Because they wouldn't allow the evidence.

"Kelly [the husband's attorney] said that he didn't think Johnson's wife needed protection from her husband and that the state has never proven a sexual assault occurred, as the tape isn't clear and consent remains an ambiguous issue."

The tape wasn't allowed to be judged clear or not. "Consent remains an ambiguous issue." Spoken like a true rape apologist.

"If the wife awakes, and decides that his [sic] husband should be pardoned, would that be a possible solution?"

Exactly, Qwerty. Could somebody please wake her up? That would be a big help. We need to know if his crime should be pardoned.

I threw up in my mouth about ten times reading the rape apologies in this thread.

So let's keep assuming consent in the absence of a victim's contradiction. Keep this in mind next time the police find the raped, beaten body of a woman. Even if they can find the guy who did it, even with the evidence on tape, he can get off scot-free because the victim cannot defend herself and confirm that she did not consent.

The excuses will come from all directions. "Some women like rough anonymous sex. With strangers. In the woods. With duct tape over their mouths. In my personal relationships, I happen to be into erotic asphyxiation so it's possible he accidentally choked her to death in the throes of sweet lovemaking. Which she probably would have been okay with." "What about him? It's unfair to ruin his life! We don't know what happened so we should just trust that he as her husband/boyfriend/neighbor/boss/stalker/stranger had her best interests at heart. Because men never hurt women."

I am absolutely fucking disgusted with the willful ignorance on this thread.

*****TRIGGER WARNING*************
*****TRIGGER WARNING*************
*****TRIGGER WARNING*************
*****TRIGGER WARNING*************

This thread has made me go there. I shouldn't read this stuff this late at night.

I am saying this as someone who was given a date rape drug and raped while unconscious, and woke up completely naked in a strange bed, with weird disjointed memories of the previous night, a massive headache, weird psychoactive dissociative feelings, and my motherfucking attacker hovering over me saying the vilest shit. Please do not ever call me a rape apologist. I have been on the very nasty side of what probably happened. I am a mild mannered vegetarian who stopped eating meat because I couldn't stand to see fish die, but I still, three years later, have fantasies about bashing my attacker's head in. Since we are assuming all sorts of nonsense about everyone because we disagree with their opinion, I wanted to get that out there before I started writing what will follow.

BUT, here is the argument that I see being made that is generating so much anger:

1) A rape probably occurred

2) The behavior, even if a rape did not occur, is extremely deviant and unappealing to a LOT of people

3) Despite the fact that 1) and 2) are true, it is perhaps not good to instantly convict this guy in our heads because

3a)We don't know these people at all

3b)It is possible that there was some sort of prearranged consent. It is hardly assured, and it is pretty unlikely, and it is possible, so

3c)If this is the case, it is of course incumbent upon the husband to provide evidence of this consent.

Now, all of this is unlikely, because he probably would have provided this evidence very early during the pretrial period in an effort to get the charges completely dismissed, rather than attempting to use this procedural argument.

BUT, when discussing this more generally, it is possible for people to want to think about how this situation might affect them, and to what level they might be willing to give consent in a similar situation to this. To some, the response is "I actually wouldn't mind that much." To others, it is "this is the worst thing I've ever heard."

In the end, though, we don't know these people. We don't know the situation they're in, and prejudging based on a one page essay mostly focused on legal proceedings rather than evidence might end up being misguided. It probably won't, but it might be.

In my area people can't pre-consent to sex. It has to be possible to withdraw consent during the act or it's rape. That's why having sex with dead people is illegal, even if they gave consent before they died.

bittergradstudent,

I actually don't have that much trouble with the argument as you framed it. But, I don't think that's actually what the "controversial" people were arguing. I got the impression that they were actually arguing, as opposed to the burden of proof being on the husband to prove that he had consent, that in absence of further proof either way, we should arrive at a non-guilty verdict. Which is, I believe, considerably different than what you're suggesting...

And like I said above and like WonderBunny said, I just can't imagine very many lawmakers would want to allow pre-consent for sex anyway (well except for maybe those who still think husbands should have an all-access pass to their wives' bodies). Because I just don't see pre-consent for sex being a healthy thing for /anyone/ -at the best unnecessary, at the worst definitely unhealthy.

I started to respond to some other comments, and then I read this post by Allie:

"In the past, I've had good discussions here, even if I disagreed with people. Apparently, this isn't going to be one of those times. I've had my relationship with my partner questioned, been labeled a rape apologist, and a number of other things. I never once, ONCE said that rape was acceptable. But it isn't rape if it isn't rape, and in some cases, the picture isn't so clear. Yeah, it makes things easier when it's black and white, but the world is full of shades of gray. I'm sorry that so many of you fail to see that.

Anyway. I'm done. Pat yourselves on the back, because you've made it where I just don't feel like discussing this issue any further. But, I still disagree with you."

As soon as I read this, I realized it all applies to me too. So I'm out.

Ok, one more thing since I just saw another post:

"I got the impression that they were actually arguing, as opposed to the burden of proof being on the husband to prove that he had consent, that in absence of further proof either way, we should arrive at a non-guilty verdict."

I've said a bunch of times that I think we do not have enough evidence from the article in question to condemn the guy. I have said they should try to find evidence either way; this includes the husband trying to present some. No one has said that we should assume with no further investigation that he has consent, just that we should not condemn him so quickly.

I suspect he argued the privacy issue in court because his lawyer told him he could get the case thrown out quickly that way, not necessarily because he didn't have any other arguments as well.

And now I think I'm out, unless someone comes up with a point that is actually interesting and new and not just angry venting.

Wow, I am just so amazed and sickened to see so many people making excuses for a rapist. What is so complicated here? You can't have sex with someone who is unconscious. That's it, that's all there is to it!

Allie, you say you aren't a rape apologist, but you say that this wasn't rape. So, um, what? This is CLEARLY rape. CLEARLY! And you are excusing it, so yeah, that makes you a rape apologist.

What do you and Terabithia MEAN when you say there isn't enough evidence? There is a tape of him raping her. What more evidence could you possibly need?

Here is a nice discussion of the issue of consent:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/16/the-new-page-of-consent/

Check it out.

Terabithia,

But what I mean is,

What if he /can't/ prove there was any sort of "consent"/agreement between him and his wife, etc. (The issue aside of whether someone should even /be able to/ grant consent ahead of time...)
/Obviously/, a court is not going to be able to prove that there never was a verbal agreement along those lines...

So what then? Most of us are saying unless he can prove there /was/ an explicit agreement, he should definitely be considered a rapist. You seem to be saying that unless the court can prove there /wasn't/ an agreement of any sort (which once again, is /impossible/) that he /shouldn't/ be convicted of rape... Am I wrong?

Terabithia, "angry venting" is a visceral response to a man raping a comatose woman and getting away with it. Having to articulate the reasons why it is rape (and this thread is loaded with excellent reasons, most of which you haven't even taken the time to consider or respond to, because if you did, you would understand and admit that you are a rape apologist) is infuriating. It is not up to us to dazzle you with our arguments; the burden of proof is on you to show that you have sympathy for and a commitment to the woman who has been victimized. If you don't, and you insist one more time that you are not sure she has been victimized, it is a waste of time communicating with you or considering you a feminist ally.

I just wanted to thank a.k.a. Ninapendamaishi for all the work you've done. WonderBunny: a great highlight post. Those who didn't want to go crazy traveling to crazy town to teach, but nonetheless showed your disgust at this rape and the defense of the man, thank you! You all kept me sane.

"Exactly, Qwerty. Could somebody please wake her up?"

If you were being sarcastic, i think you're being deliberately obtuse.

Annie M: "2) Does her husband hold her 'durable power of attorney for health care' aka is he her 'legal' voice of consent?"

I'm going to count to ten...

Now...how in GOD'S NAME did holding a "durable power of attorney for health care" get translated into "legal voice of consent"?

You have just got to explain this one to me, because there is no way in HELL, legally, morally, any way at ALL, that one person--any person--husband included, sister, mother, ANYONE--can give sexual consent for another.

No. Way.

I must have totally misunderstood you. This is what I thought you said,

"Would everyone stop arguing about whether it is rape or not if the wife woke up and told us it wasn't rape?"

Did you say that?

I also heard, "possible solution" to mean a way to finish the debate on this board. I heard, "should be pardoned," where pardon means he's done something from which he would need a pardon to be freed.

I also heard you telling a joke, like you were Goddess and you were going, "You want me to wake her up and ask her so we can end this?" or "Let's just wake her up and get this all straightened out." So I was humorously agreeing with you.

Then I heard you say, "If pigs could fly, then would we know that pigs can fly?"

After that, I said to myself, Qwerty is probably trying to figure out if we'll accept consent after if we won't accept consent before. Are we firm about consent being during the act. Or do we believe that crimes against the state don't matter if no one presses charges, which has been the case in more than one crime.

So you can see how you were confused by my response.

Alright, ladies! Time to go add a line in our wills....
Jesus Christ this is disgusting.

You can proselytize all you want about this but I am going to consider the side of the journalist and not necessarily the actors.

He was charged w/ a felony, meaning that in the State's opinion, he raped his wife.

He and his family however, do not feel that he has necessarily done anything wrong.

The only FACT that stands between these two opinions is that sexual intercourse occurred between a man and his wife. Whether it was consensual or not or whether it is considered rape or not is not up to the writer to opine. At worst, the writer could have gotten away with writing that the man allegedly raped his wife. There is no way for any of us to know what was the state of this couple's relationship - whether she would have felt it was rape or not. The state is acting on her behalf and if she does wake up and disagrees with this, she and/or her husband can bring a civil case against the state and/or the hospital. She could sue the newspapers for libel if they are not careful.

Andrea Dworkin wanted to weigh in:

"The society with police power behind it imposes both restrictions and obligations. It punishes forbidden behavior but it also punishes failures to comply with mandated behavior. Many laws about sex are laws demanding sexual compliance, especially from women. Compliance can occur behind closed doors, out of the public view; but it is not private at all--it is a social act in conformity with a social requirement;the compliance itself is a building block of the society as a whole. Breaking the law is widely construed to be antisocial; forbidden acts are said to hurt society as a whole; they are social, not private, from the point of view of the law. Intercourse has never been comprehended by law as a private act of personal freedom except in one limited sense: those who belong to men as chattel property or who are used by them as sexual objects (the modern equivalent of chattel property) can be encompassed in a man's privacy such that they disappear altogether inside it. The state can manage a sudden and sensitive respect for privacy when it functions as a prison cell for a woman or a child or a slave or any civilly inferior person. A woman, for instance, inside a man's privacy, will never be able to reach or invoke the law even if he is breaking it on her body. Privacy in sex means that a man has a right to shield himself from state scrutiny when sexually using civil inferiors."

--Intercourse, pg. 148.

I don't think I should be able to consent in advance to my husband putting his penis in my vagina while I am in a coma. I am going to research the succes rate on coma-rape cases.

If I find that people who have sex with their coma-tose spouses are typically found not guilty, I am very likely to start lobbying for legislation specifically banning sex with people who are in a coma in my state.

Consent is a fluid thing. Something I consent to today, I might not consent to tomorrow. And maybe, just maybe, someone who thought it was a good idea to let their spouse have sex with them while they are comatose changed their SILENCED mind after the first time the spouse started penetrating her.

Also, I suggest that people get an idea of what the likely punishment is for certain crimes before they start decrying how awful it is. Especially "statutory rape." In my state it is called Criminal Sexual Abuse, and in certain situations it is only a class A misdemeanor. It is only punishable by up to a year in Jail. It isn't even a felony, and the defendant can't even go to Prison.

We've decided that minors can't give consent to sex because we feel that they will be unduly influenced. I think it is appropriate to decide that comatose people aren't capable of giving consent either. Because they aren't.

I am totally not excusing what this guy did, but there is a bit of a gray area here.

No one would prosecute this guy for kissing his comatose wife or for curling up in bed next to her and snuggling with her (that's even been dramatized on many movies to be a sweet scene).

But obviously she can't give consent for those activities either. If a nursing home employee kissed me or fondled her then that would be sexual assault. Clearly it's NOT sexual assault in the case of a husband, even though she's just as unable to give consent to him.

I agree that sex seems way over the line, but the point is that there IS an arbitrary line - it's not as simple as "she can't give consent so touching her in any way is totally wrong."