Legally, marriage never implies inherent sexual consent. Additionally, in California, if someone is drunk they are not considered capable of giving consent for sexual activities.
So by a traditional legal sense, she was not actually able to give consent even if she said she had...
Unless they've changed it in the last decade, Ohio law disturbingly enough specifically excludes "Spouse" from the crime of Rape - still sexual assault, but not actually Rape.
Well that is frightening. While I am asking a question about peoples opinion on implied concent, spousal rape is completly possible and unfotunatly does occur
1. I agree with exirabit, legally he's in the wrong as marriage does not imply consent. Sucks, because I don't actually think he was being malicious nor is he someone I'd consider a sexual predator, just made the wrong assumption. That being said, it doesn't change her experience of it or how she felt. Also, while this rule has the capability to screw some people over I think our society is better and safer because of it.
2. I disagree because he, being married to this person, has a reasonable expectation that on occasion they will have sex (insert witty marriage sex joke here). And unless she was clear about her desire for it not to happen in that moment then its hard for him to doubt that expectation. Doesn't change the legality of it, but it does lend an argument against the whole "her husband should acknowledge his wrong doing and they need to (possibly) work on things". Secondly we live in a society where the "I was drunk and not in control of my facilities" argument is only valid for the
( ... )
Tossing the legal issues aside (since that's not what you're asking) I would think that there was something wrong with her. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to feel violated, but I don't feel in this situation that her feelings necessarily make her right.
Was her husband drunk? Did she actively withdraw consent?I would think that if they were both drunk, it might have been hard for him to pick up on any signals she may have been tossing his way. But still in a marriage there is a reasonable expectation for sex and I personally don't feel that being drunk automatically cancels out marital sex the way it would stranger sex.
I struggled with this one a lot - see my husband's comment regarding the Ohio Revised Code. I just about crapped myself when I read that Ohio law doesn't consider "Rape" to include the spouse. It is sexual battery instead, which carries the same penalties. Anyway, it freaked me out, because I am very much aware that nonconsensual sex occurs between some spouses, and I would call it "rape" myself
( ... )
If the husband was drunk, was he too intoxicated to pick up what she was putting down? In what way did she attempt to withdraw consent? Was she so drunk that her "I do not consent" signals were not comprehendable?
There's a lot of this that is too damn vague - combined with it starting as consentual then becoming non-consentual, I find it really hard to side with her in that the Husband did a bad thing. Even with the presumtion he was sober, the "he should know I was too drunk to consent" thing is a cop-out to me.
Counceling wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think the lesson to be learned here is maybe one should avoid getting so hammered. Certianly, he should apologize for making her feel violated, but admit wrong doing...
As to the question of marriage automatically implying consent - no, I do not think it does. That being said, it isn't unreasonable for a spouse to assume (a word that goes nowhere good) consent, given a prior history. Then you add the whole impairment thing...
I say all this with the caveat that my opinions are
( ... )
Comments 11
So by a traditional legal sense, she was not actually able to give consent even if she said she had...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
1. I agree with exirabit, legally he's in the wrong as marriage does not imply consent. Sucks, because I don't actually think he was being malicious nor is he someone I'd consider a sexual predator, just made the wrong assumption. That being said, it doesn't change her experience of it or how she felt. Also, while this rule has the capability to screw some people over I think our society is better and safer because of it.
2. I disagree because he, being married to this person, has a reasonable expectation that on occasion they will have sex (insert witty marriage sex joke here). And unless she was clear about her desire for it not to happen in that moment then its hard for him to doubt that expectation. Doesn't change the legality of it, but it does lend an argument against the whole "her husband should acknowledge his wrong doing and they need to (possibly) work on things". Secondly we live in a society where the "I was drunk and not in control of my facilities" argument is only valid for the ( ... )
Reply
Was her husband drunk? Did she actively withdraw consent?I would think that if they were both drunk, it might have been hard for him to pick up on any signals she may have been tossing his way. But still in a marriage there is a reasonable expectation for sex and I personally don't feel that being drunk automatically cancels out marital sex the way it would stranger sex.
Reply
Reply
There's a lot of this that is too damn vague - combined with it starting as consentual then becoming non-consentual, I find it really hard to side with her in that the Husband did a bad thing. Even with the presumtion he was sober, the "he should know I was too drunk to consent" thing is a cop-out to me.
Counceling wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think the lesson to be learned here is maybe one should avoid getting so hammered. Certianly, he should apologize for making her feel violated, but admit wrong doing...
As to the question of marriage automatically implying consent - no, I do not think it does. That being said, it isn't unreasonable for a spouse to assume (a word that goes nowhere good) consent, given a prior history. Then you add the whole impairment thing...
I say all this with the caveat that my opinions are ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment