If you’re prone to being triggered, I’ll say right away that this issue revolves around rape. So I’ll keep it below the fold.
I got so excited over this ruling that I immediately had to go pee.
A case reached the Supreme Court of Canada recently, wherein a man was charged with sexual assault. The woman consented to being choked until she passed out, but apparently he went further while she was in that state then he was supposed to. The case brought up the issue of consenting while unconscious. Of course we held our breath and waited for that ruling to come out, but lemme tell you I was worried sick about what would happen.
Well….the ruling was 6-3 AGAINST the idea of “advanced consent”, sending a very strong message that if you have sex with someone while they’re unconscious, IT’S RAPE. Not that we already didn’t know that already. Now, I know some people are going to be like “but MA, what about couples who like a wakey-wakey sexcapade?” Well, I think it’s pretty clear that those with clear consent in their relationships aren’t going to be the ones charging each other. In Canada, you have to take reasonable steps to get consent, and in these kinds of cases it does not apply.
Now, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows, because obviously 3 judges thought that what the man did was totally cool….3 male judges. 3 male judges in favour of decriminalizing “advanced consent”, even when it oversteps the boundaries of what your consent was. The most cringeworthy quote from the linked article was:
The three dissenting justices argued that it would further women’s right to autonomy to create a new doctrine of “advance consent,” so that unconscious women can have “sexual adventures.”
……what the FUCK does that even mean? ”Sexual adventures”? Yeah, because my idea of a good time is being like “yes, hon, you can kiss me but that’s it”, passing out, and then waking up knowing I was RAPED. Weeeeeeeee!!! ADVENTURE!!!!! Now excuse me while I throw up in my mouth a little.
The article brings up many good points in regards to the ruling, the idea of consent and how the law of consent works in Canada. It’s nice to see an example of justice going right in regards to sexual assault, and I am thrilled that this precedent will probably help out a lot of women.
I’m impressed that six of the nine justices could get beyond the idea that this woman consented to being choked until passing out (pretty kinky stuff), but that didn’t automatically mean she was consenting to every other action that happened after that. Way to go!
It doesn’t hurt that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are women. It does mean that only 2 of the 5 men saw the light, though.
Women of Canada, rejoice in your (mostly) enlightened judiciary! I feel reasonably certain that this would not happen with the men of SCOTUS.
Wondering’s point about women on the court is also a good one. There’s been some pretty consistent evidence that courts with women justices tend to have more pro-woman rulings. Famously, Ruth Bader Ginsburg schooled her male SCOTUS colleagues—in a persuasive way—on cases involving the strip-searching of a 13 year old girl, maternity leave, and pay equity. The male justices simply didn’t “get” the issue because of their own privilege and lack of personal experience.
Well, I think it’s pretty clear that those with clear consent in their relationships aren’t going to be the ones charging each other.
This isn’t how charges are brought, of course. The Crown brings charges, and historically has shown great willingness to bring charges when people engaged in consensual but illegal sex (here I’m thinking primarily of gay say, say things like the Klippert case, but probably there are others). Those couples in the wacky-wacky sexcapades are the only difference between the majority and the minority in this case.
I’m skeptical that there’s any actual value in this (since anything that wasn’t consented to beforehand would be illegal either way.) In practice, it seems like it only provides additional leverage for the police/crown to harass people if they deem them “perverts”.
Now, I know some people are going to be like “but MA, what about couples who like a wakey-wakey sexcapade?” Well, I think it’s pretty clear that those with clear consent in their relationships aren’t going to be the ones charging each other.
Slightly off topic, but this gets right to the heart of my annoyance with rape apologists and their insistence that there’s this big grey area that emasculating courts are waiting to exploit when it comes to consent. Consent is only complicated if you make it complicated. Possible TMI, but my husband loves to be woken up with sexual acts, and I hate it and think it’s completely unacceptable. Somehow, we’re able to hold those two ideas simultaneously without him ever assaulting me in my sleep. Because consent is pretty clear when you listen to each other.
My husband raped me in my sleep several times. I’m still working through it in counselling. It was God awful horrific and he’s a freaking sociopath. It’s taken a lot of thereapy to realize that. It’s hard to believe my spouse – my partner – could rape me. Over and over. I mean, God, the first time, as traumatized as I was, I thought he just couldn’t possibly get it, right? He couldn’t possibly have MEANT to do that. But he did. And he did it again and again. And it was horrific. And he laughed at me when I woke up, totally traumatized. He laughed at me. My husband. The man I was supposed to spend forever with. He laughed. Every time. And then he admitted it was premeditated and he knew it was wrong AND that I’d be really upset. And that’s when I realized just how horrible he was. That he knew. And he did it anyway. And then he laughed at me and smirked, so proud of himself.
He never hit me. Oh, no. That would be too clear cut. He always had to find ways to mess with my head.
And this sure did. Now I understand why it’s used in warfare. OMG. It’s horrible.