Sorry Florian, maybe I never got the humour of the article, maybe we’re getting our wires crossed, maybe I'm just not that worldly wise, maybe I should have written a reply when I wasn’t tired out after a hard days work(hence all the typo’s).

A worst case scenario? I can think of none in relation to consensual sex, unless you’re hinting at something really weird. So yeah, more than a little hint would be welcome.

What I was referring too was; when there’s an agreement, when does the agreement cease to be applicable. Generally most would agree that it is when the deed is done and the partners decide to go their separate ways. If they stay together in bed, the likelihood of more action is obviously a strong possibility. If one or both partners fell asleep, the man or woman may wake up horny and get frisky with the other, naturally expecting them to still be attracted to the idea of sex as they are still in bed and by implication - still a willing partner.

It would be just a bit strange to agree to a 30 minute bonk and once the alarm goes, that is that. Sex is sex and its own momentum takes over, also its own actions. I’m not suggesting that sex becomes some kind of monster, but that the situation can be full of surprises and unexplored/unknown desires coming into consciousness and acted upon.

Obviously there are some people who are completely screwed up in a dark way, but that’s why we have introductions, the chat up process. That should be enough to assess the mental stability of a potential partner (even for a one night stand).

Many people do find the one night stand attractive for that reason, they don't know the other person very well and there’s a dangerous element involved... alternatively they can do or have done things they normally would not do or have done. That’s why a lot of people cheat on their partners as they need the thrill of someone new or something dangerous, the attention is exceptional for the ego!

When it's someone famous, obviously other factors come into play too.

So there are many factors to consider.

To me rape is force, it is uninvited, unwelcome. Can a husband or partner rape? Of course. If a woman says no - no means no. Same applies for males too.

But a real worst case scenario after agreeing to a night of lustful fun, I cannot think of, apart from getting a disease down there. For a male it may be awakening to find something up his rear end that he'd rather not have. But even then, he should be understanding enough and simply manoeuvre the action in another direction which is pleasing to both rather than scream rape.

It's like when I wrote... The basic problem surrounding sexual etiquette is one of knowing what a person enjoys or is likely to enjoy without having to ask directly. Good sex is about the element of surprise, spontaneity, exploration, etc. If we had/have to ask "can I touch you there", "would this be alright", "can I screw you while you sleep", it just becomes too absurd to bother with - use your own hand it will always consent.

What I meant was, if you’re sensitive to another then you won't need to ask permission, nor ask directions, it is part of the interaction, the nonverbal sexual communication. If you began an act that the other did not find pleasing you should quickly realise that and change course. Their body would retract, tense up, they may push your hand away, etc.

Sex is about opening up, about giving as much as receiving. To have to think about asking permission would just interrupt the flow. And the author of that article was suggesting thought/verbalisation should be the key of control. If she’s not saying “Yes there”, her partner gets into a flurry of failure asking if she’s ok. Pathetic, poor guy will have performance anxiety after a few months of that. Plus a sensitive lover does not “try to please”, he/she does give pleasure.

I've said, some people do enjoy being wakened from sleep to find their partner giving them oral sex, playing around or actually having full intercourse (this could apply to a woman being on top of a sleeping man).

So yeah, of course it is about respecting one another, as I thought I made clear with various points. The problem with etiquette of any kind though is it takes away sensitivity, takes away responsiveness, takes away spontaneity. It puts you in thinking mode rather than free flowing action mode. It is conformity at it most invasive.

Obviously there are unpleasant surprises, but these can be quite accidental too. When my wife began nursing she was based in the casualty dept and has some stories to tell concerning the sexual mishaps of both sexes – very bizarre stuff.

But sex is sex, that is the point. It's not just about sticking a penis into a vagina nor slipping a vagina onto a penis, there are psychological aspects at play too, reasons for certain behaviours which cannot be judged too quickly nor superficially.

So I’d still say she’s not on using Assange as an example of a rapist, nor can sexual activity with a sleeping but willing partner be construed as rape. Okay the guy or gal may get slapped down for trying such behaviour, but surely it is easily forgiven and forgotten if the intent was to give pleasure rather than to take. Intent is everything in life, isn’t it?

I mean I just re-read the article and it still smacks of... I’m right, they’re wrong. There are no exceptions to the rule that penile insertion is rape if a woman does not firstly say aloud, ‘yes, fuck me’.

I hope that sounds as crude to you as it does too me, because that’s what sex will become if these extremists get their way. Just as religions have made sex dirty, nasty, corrupting, etc. My point here is, not all consent is verbal. My wife and I have always lead one another on, without drawing up contracts, without getting our parents to witness that we’re in full agreement that we’re about to have sexual intercourse and exactly what that should consist of. Some things just don’t need to be said, just as religions and laws have no right to set boundaries as to what is acceptable or not.

When I re-read the article I noticed the comments, and there’s a guy saying the same thing… “I did hear a woman on the radio recently say that waking up to an orgasm always put a smile on her face for the rest of the day”.

The reason I said; "The article comes over as written by someone very smug as she assumes that the sexual act between the woman and Assange was merely for Assange's own gratification rather than both", is quite simply due to the tone of the overall piece. It is simply very superficial and flippant. As the comment above clearly shows, some women obviously enjoy being awoken to orgasm.

The whole article is insinuating that Assange is a rapist, which is totally unjustified until we know for sure that he did rape these or another woman. She presents no real content in her article to give us any idea of what she’s referring too.

Rape is too serious a matter to be treated with such flippancy and sex is too natural to be controlled by such repressive ideas concerning the nature of consent.

Sex is about doing, both partners in partnership… the partnership of pleasing one another, not just one. Why confuse such a simple action by unnecessary intellectualism?

Her piece reads simply as more propaganda against Assange, and men in general. Why use Assange as an example? Why not just use a convicted rapist? Why not pick on the legal system? The penal system? The causes of rape? Why target a man whom the press have already declared guilty – that is guilty without trial.

Personally, I’m more concerned with the allegations that it is the Assange case is a CIA smear campaign, of which there is some evidence. And I’d add that no, I’m not an Assange fan as such, I have little interest in what he’s revealed. Everyone knows that politics and most politicians are completely and utterly corrupt.

I do not find it a funny article, just a piece of trash which takes a low aimed swipe using biased opinion without reflecting upon others, and that is simply not a nice thing to do.

Hi Jason



Actually, I was making a general comment about the stuff discussed in this thread and how it has been discussed. I didn't have anybody in particular in mind.

Yes, the definitions matter, as they do have an impact on suffering, so it's good they are discussed.

However, those who cause this kind of suffering have a great interest in endlessly debating the definitions, since this binds up resources, creates doubt and confusion, and draws attention away from what was done to the victims.

Always interesting how the kilesas work, subtly altering perception.

These last three paragraphs were not directed at anybody personally either, just a general observation.

Cheers,
Florian

Jason, let’s look at this “problematic kernel” a little more. To me, it really is a soft centre, once chewed - easily digested. But please do be unforgiving in your replies as I feel you’ve been holding back somewhat and I’m open to a full on dialogue.

I have stated, and you have challenged the statement… “Initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established”.

However, your replies so far have failed to satisfy me as they appear to be reactionary. Obviously you could say that about what I’ve written but I am expanding upon catchphrase answers such as “bizarre and disturbing”. You have to give us more meat, the why of it.

So, an agreement has been established between two people that they will spend the night together in the throes of passion, no strings attached full blown sex. That agreement holds good until they separate or dissolved the said agreement.

Sex for a night, is sex for a night. It’s about sharing, surrendering your body and mind with the other just as they surrender their body and mind to you.

So why, if they follow exactly what the words mean, why describe that as “bizarre and disturbing”?

Let’s take another scenario. These two consensual sex maniacs are going at it like olympians about to hit the zone. The guy gets the idea that he’d like to try anal sex. So he pulls out and begins rubbing against her butt, then without warning tries to thrust inside her butt. “What the fuck, she screams”, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry” says the now deflated macho man. “I thought”, “Well, don’t think, next time see if I want to do that”, the woman says with rightful indignation.

So there are ways to go about doing whatever you want to do. If he approached in a different way, it may have been alright. She may have allowed him to express his scatological desire.

Does he have to expressly and explicitly ask permission? I’d say no. Done in a gentle loving manner the woman may allow entry into that “unnatural domain” (a quote from a Christian minister on homosexual sex which obviously has a parallel here). If she’s not into that, she would simply move his penis elsewhere, with nothing more mentioned about the attempted buggery.

So consent isn’t necessarily about either partner verbally agreeing, but implying, allowing, surrendering. Just as non consent isn’t necessarily about voicing “No”, it can come via a silent gesture or manoeuvre.

This isn’t “stereotypical BS male justification rationale”. It’s what it can only be. Agreeing to sex is agreeing to be permissive. An agreement which is taken as “use my body as you will.”


“initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established.”

So the agreement is in place, no one can possibly dispute what consensual sex is. The problem may arise from the acts which constitute sex, but why?

Jason you said… “It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point.”

For that particular act? It’s just inserting a penis into a vagina which a few minutes prior was completely welcoming. Do you get that? It’s not assault, it’s not rape. The guy is under the impression that the woman still wants him, that the initial agreement is on-going. It may be a wrong assumption (as most assumptions are), but it is based on their sexual relationship thus far. Which is in all fairness is very superficial and entirely open to interpretation by either person.

Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?

I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.

And twisting it to… “where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.” Only a desperate idiot would attempt sex under such conditions – apart from the heavy sleeper, all of which would be non-consensual – i.e. rape.

Can’t you see the contradictions within your thoughts? I’ve been talking of consent, implicit and explicit consent to sex. Obviously if someone wants to have sex with a blackout drunk or whatever they have a desperation problem, a confidence issue that needs looking at. You are blowing what I’m saying way out of proportion, twisting it saying into something entirely different. Why?

Arousing a sleeping partner by a sexual act is not attack. Superficial judgements such as “disturbing” mean nothing. A full moon is disturbing to some. Should we blow up the moon or help the person get over their problem?

It’s like nowadays, little boys aren’t allowed to play fights, to pretend. It’s so pathetic and a complete infringement upon their right as a human being – denying them survival skills, instilling fear of spontaneous action, breaking confidence, etc.

We’ve got too many people trying their best to implement their own agenda. Soon if a man even looks at a woman, it will be classified as a form of rape. Understand where your ideals are leading, look at how they are distorting a simple truth.

Society wants performing monkeys who obey the social norms of the day, but these norms are mostly not normal to a rational balanced person who leaves conformity to the cretins who deserve it... "go on off to war, be patriotic", "here try this new super drug", "GM food will save the planet", "Sex is just for procreation and remember, only one child per family"... blah, blah, blah.

Seriously Jason, lighten up… “This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities”.

She said “No”, because she wanted the guy to do something for her, something she feels would get her off – out of her mind. If she said, “Ok, here’s what I want you to do… Step 1: be rough. Step 2: be masterful. Step 3: tear my clothes off. Step 4: bring my clit to life. Step 5: ravage me with your throbbing cock. Oh, by the way, remember to surprise me”.

Well sorry, but game over. She’d know what was coming as she’s had to instruct the guy. If he read her body language he’d know she wanted it rough, she wanted domination, she wanted to completely surrender to her sexual impulse. Sexual interaction isn’t about the guy leading. Firstly it’s about assessing the situation, getting a feel of your partners needs on that particular occasion. Predictability become sterile, breeds boredom, stupidity, death. A real danger to any relationship.

But really, why twist it? Why blow it all up, way out of proportion. There’s no need to enter unnecessary scenarios which are just a figment of your imagination.

Let it go, be simple about what sex is, about what rape is.

“Oh but she could get hurt”. “She needs to apply guidelines”. “She needs to think of others”. Why is she “putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position?” She just wants to play and play hard. Why spread the implications of that simple lust outward, into universal proportions?

That to me is BS rationale. She wanted what she wanted, knew the risk involved but was willing to dive in headfirst. Who cares if she lacks social etiquette or isn’t nicely polished around the edge. The guy chickened out in her eye’s, he just didn’t get the joke.

“She’s crazy”. No, she’s just sex crazed, big difference. Satisfaction is all she asks, but everyone judges her, calls her names, would have her locked in jail so that they can play within the safety of thier preset guidelines and padded rooms. Bunch of namby pamby, conformist fools who don’t have an inkling of their own true nature. And that isn’t name calling – that’s the scientific definition.