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 t