Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The best idea since raw toast.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Advance Conjugal Directive

Because their comatose state does not excuse philandering
  (+10, -12)
(+10, -12)
  [vote for,

This is a form of an advance directive that would provide consent to allowing your partner to continue engaging in intimate relations with you, should you be unable to provide consent due to declining medical or mental health.

As with any advance directive, the executor can place limitations on this consent ... I.E. No more than two conjugal visits per month and absolutely no anal.

MikeD, Mar 16 2010

Somebody has been watching a little too much Kill Bill http://www.youtube....0A0&feature=related
Fast forward to 2:30 [zeno, Mar 17 2010]

More like this, Zeno http://www.youtube....watch?v=ZoQk7ZNSFhc
You're fluent in Norwegian, right? [MikeD, Mar 18 2010]

Sleep Related Erections in Vegetative Males http://www.ncbi.nlm...gov/pubmed/11083604
[rcarty, Mar 18 2010]

Music therapy for the comatose http://www.ncbi.nlm...ocmed00135-0007.pdf
Quiet singing - may correspond to a gentle approach to sex? [nineteenthly, Mar 19 2010]

NY Times: Woman in coma impregnated by rapist. http://www.nytimes....t.html?pagewanted=1
[rcarty, Mar 20 2010]

Feminsting: Husband raped comatose wife. http://www.feminist...rchives/010994.html
[rcarty, Mar 21 2010]

Daily Mail: Wife comes out of coma after husband gives her "bloody good rollicking". http://www.dailymai...upport-machine.html
It doesnt say rollicking is sex, but it doesn't say it's not sex. It's not though. [rcarty, Mar 21 2010]

http://tvtropes.org...DudeShesLikeInAComa Just Some Reference Material [Postscript, Mar 22 2010]

thefreedictionary.com: Motive http://legal-dictio...ctionary.com/motive
"motive not necessary for conviction." [rcarty, Mar 24 2010]

Supreme Court of Canada rules against [MikeD] http://www.theglobe...les/article2037117/
MikeD goes free on account of being American [rcarty, May 27 2011]


       Revolting and sick. [-]
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 16 2010

       Thought this idea would be a new grammatical tense.[]
Aristotle, Mar 16 2010

       "Hi honey, what is it you wanted me to sign ? ahh, well... Hey! what's this about falling asleep in front of the TV?"   

       //absolutely no anal// there goes the san francisco votes.   

       What about zombies ?   

       Is Cialis going to be a spouse-administered prescription ?

       too twisted [ ] ... ask a lawyer or priest depending on your choice of definitions of "marital fidelity".
FlyingToaster, Mar 16 2010

       This is almost funny.
calum, Mar 16 2010

       I'm ashamed to say it made me laugh.
wagster, Mar 16 2010

       Ignoring the fact that this idea is probably evil most of the time, i think i can see another problem: when is someone dead? If a spouse was in a persistent vegetative state, doesn't this tie the other spouse into the marriage? I don't know what happens at the moment, but it seems to me that it would be hard to get a divorce in these circumstances.
nineteenthly, Mar 16 2010

       [marked-for-deletion] gross-out humor
xaviergisz, Mar 16 2010

       //Revolting and sick//   

       I see only three other options:   

       1. Cheat on your incapacitated spouse   

       2. Celibacy   

       3. Divorce/Pull the plug   

       1 & 3 are rather distasteful, and 2 is only likely in the rarest of consummate relationships.   

       I figured my idea would be a realistic alternative. Besides, the familiar feel of your life-long lover could be the metaphoric light that leads you out of your vegetative state ... Just think of it as a modern day sleeping beauty.   

       You wouldn't deprive the world of such a beautiful love story? Would you, [Bunsen]?
MikeD, Mar 16 2010

       I wonder if it would help the comatose awaken.   

       I would be capable of #2.
RayfordSteele, Mar 17 2010

       The fact that you find marital infidelity or divorce more distasteful than raping an unconscious coma victim, a conscious person of reduced mental capacity and/or a braindead semi-corpse says all I need to know about you.   

       If you think this is funny, it says more than I need or want to know about you.   

       [marked-for-deletion] disgusting.   

       [21-Quest] I am more convinced than ever that you are a troll.
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 17 2010

       Recently, a man actually got his comatose wife pregnant. The baby was delivered successfully. Oh, by the way, [-]. You might as well get a blow-up doll.
DrWorm, Mar 17 2010

       Sex with a person incapable of giving consent is rape. Consent can be withdrawn once given. If the person is incapable of withdrawing consent, they are incapable of giving it. No contract can enforce an illegal act.   

       We used once to believe that the marriage contract was a statement of permanent consent. As the reality of marital rape sunk in, we recognized this was not so.   

       Besides, get the hell away from me, corpse-humper.
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 17 2010

       minus the umm... unique trappings it's a variation on the married sailor's dilemma which has been asked literally for millenia.
FlyingToaster, Mar 17 2010

       Well this is right up, (down?), there with Necrophilostitution. (-)   

       "Let me just put on a little music to set the mood m'love. I think Cultured Club will do nicely."
<album scartches faintly as needle is dropped>

       Coma coma coma coma,
coma chameeeeleon.
He cums and goes.
He cums and go-o-o-os.
Lovin would be easy 'cause your pallor ignites my dreams,
in theses scrubs so green.
Theses scrubs so gree-ee-ee-een.

       It's odd, I don't feel one way or another about this at all. Neither repulsed or laughing. Just kind of...okay yeah...
blissmiss, Mar 17 2010

       4. Masturbation. 5. Voluntary castration.
Mustardface, Mar 17 2010

       I'm seeing this as a satirical nod to recent discussions (based on various recent news stories) around the issue of assisted suicide. And in those terms, I think it's quite clever in that it takes an idea that is probably debatable and puts it in terms that are distinctly black and white.
zen_tom, Mar 17 2010

       The rules:   

       Rule number one: no knuckle sandwiches under no circumstances.   

       Rule number two: no monkey bites, no hickeys, in fact no leaving no marks of no kind.   

       Lube up and you're good to go.
zeno, Mar 17 2010

       //4. Masturbation. 5. Voluntary castration//   

       [Mustard], how do these differ from celibacy?
MikeD, Mar 17 2010

       Somehow only Boy George fits. Not certain why.   

       2 fries' lyrics make more sense than the original song.
RayfordSteele, Mar 17 2010

       [Bunsen], If this idea is rape, then so is the coveted "wake-up blow-job".   

       [Zeno], No, the idea came to me when my fiancé jokingly told me that if she was asleep when I got home then to just take what I wanted. But if we were to pin a movie to this, I think "Kill Buljo" would be, at least, more humorous.
MikeD, Mar 17 2010

       Advance Conjugal Directive sounds like Prime Directive sounds like Categorical Imperative.   

       When medical authorities ask whether your spouse should be taken off life support the loss of sexual gratification with her lifeless gourd should not be a consideration. It's a morbid level of objectification. Statistical increases of people on life support would raise questions.   

       And what about cryonics? Although legally dead, those in this emerging branch of medicine consider it the 'preservation of life'. Should developments be made that challenge current legal definitions, those who were formerly considered to be dead could be preserved indefinitely for the above mentioned morbid ends.
rcarty, Mar 18 2010

       Why would you want to have sex with someone who is being cryonically preserved, [rcarty]? They are "frigid" by definition.
jurist, Mar 18 2010

       I'd prefer it if that sentence read "Why would one...". I guess the answer is frigidity is no longer grounds for divorce.   

       But I was thinking more in terms of improbable science fiction realities such as in one possible instance when a husband and wife sign an agreement in the present, and are both cryonically preserved. In the future he is revived in full, but in her case, only to a vegetative level as was her condition prior to preservation. Would such a relationship be normalized in the future perhaps even to the extent of a "Weekend at Bernie's" type society? One can only speculate as to the answer.   

       Can males attain erection while vegetative, off to search...   

       "The sleep-related erection characteristics of patients in vegetative state are similar to those of normal individuals. These findings may have implications for the assessment of the reorganization of REM sleep during recovery from vegetative state and may further help in our understanding of the pathophysiology of vegetative state. More studies are needed in larger groups of patients" [LINK].   

       Perhaps the post can be edited in light of this possibility.
rcarty, Mar 18 2010

       I can think of a related and somewhat more serious idea: persistent vegetative state as grounds for divorce.   

       On the cryonics issue, that would be about seventy-odd Kelvin, wouldn't it? Is it practical in those conditions?
nineteenthly, Mar 18 2010

       If there was such a provision in the law, most wives would have grounds to leave their husbands.   

       If by "it" you mean sex, and "practical" you mean enjoyable then no. But that's not what I meant. I'm not advocating sex with the frozen dead.   

       I was simply musing about how definitions of life can change based on scientific advancement, changes in pro-life discourse, and our drawing ever closer to an impending zombie apocalypse.
rcarty, Mar 18 2010

       It partly depends on preference though, doesn't it? Rule thirty-four implies that there are people out there who are turned on by thinking about literally frozen people. I'm sure i could find it easily: it's a whisker away from statue fetishism or the doll thing.
nineteenthly, Mar 18 2010

       One of the joys of the Halfbakery is that an idea as bad as this can give rise to an annotation as inspired as [2 fries]'.
hippo, Mar 18 2010

       'Besides, the familiar feel of your life-long lover could be the metaphoric light that leads you out of your vegetative state '   

       ...and then it would lead me to a divorce court after realising that any hole's a goal.   

       Utterly repugnant.
Nelipot, Mar 18 2010

       //Utterly repugnant//   

       Stroking his/her hand, talking to him/her, even kissing him/her ... these are easily accepted ways to show affection to a spouse in a vegetative state. Who has the moral authority to draw a line in this obviously grey area? I personally find homosexuality to be revolting and sick, but as long as it's coital acts are performed in privacy, I couldn't care less about it.   

       //after realising that any hole's a goal//   

       <sarcasm/> Because if it were only about sexual gratification then infidelity wouldn't be a more pleasurable course of action. <sarcasm/>   

       //it would lead me to a divorce//   

       Then don't sign the damn paper. This obviously isn't for you. Would you argue that there are no couples out there whom would not be perfectly comfortable with this alternative?
MikeD, Mar 18 2010

       For all i know, it could arouse someone in more ways than one to do this. It's not completely beyond the realms of possibility that that would happen. If playing favourite music is supposed to do it, surely experiencing the more emotionally intense attentions of one's partner might too.   

       I'm just saying, is all.
nineteenthly, Mar 18 2010

       The way the post is written seems to make this idea a privilege for males only maybe making it gender neutral and nonsexist would help. Please refer to link regarding vegetative male erection.
rcarty, Mar 18 2010

       Actually, you've converted me, [MikeD]. However, i would still be a little concerned about how to establish that no coercion had taken place.
nineteenthly, Mar 18 2010

       I did not intent this idea to be gender-exclusive, [rcarty], the summary line just doesn't seem as witty using a unisex pronoun.
MikeD, Mar 18 2010

       I thought "no anal" was just an example of the kind of thing you might want to rule out, just as you might want to agree on not involving a goat or something.
nineteenthly, Mar 18 2010

       //Sanitary clause// Is that how you would describe a cleaned up Santa Claus?
xenzag, Mar 18 2010

       There are situations where this does come into play and yes as part of a guardianship it can be specified that a partner may continue to sleep with and conjugate with a disabled person who has lost the ability to communicate consent in the conventional way. It has been reported that in certain neurodegenerative disorders sex drive and sexual pleasure is the last window that the individual has open. sad but true and sometimes it strikes down people in their sexual prime so why not? If he/she requests that their partner have access to their body for mutual gratification who is harmed?
WcW, Mar 18 2010

       // If this idea is rape, then so is the coveted "wake-up blow-job". //   

       If the sleeper wakes up, withdraws consent, and the act continues, then yes, it is.   

       If the sleeper is incapable of waking up and withdrawing consent, then yes, it is.   

       /edited to clarify generality/
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 18 2010

       [19thly] is spot on, [Quest]. The //no anal// is just an example. DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) directives can be tailored to include ventilation but not CPR, or CPR and ventilation but not electrical shock. This would be much the same.   

       [Bunsen] your argument is self exclusive and illogical. I would also venture to say: ad hominem, given the amount of personal attacks you have made in your annotations.   

       An example of your self-contradiction: //Sex with a person incapable of giving consent is rape.// //If you wake up, withdraw consent, and the act continues, then yes, it is [rape].//   

       It would seem your first statement precludes the wake-up blow-job altogether, and your second statement allows it's initiation under the pretenses that it will be deemed consensual when the ability to do so is recovered.   

       Do you hold both of these statements to be true? I don't see how we can continue to debate the issue until one of them is embraced and one is discarded.
MikeD, Mar 19 2010

       Even if the choice is between rape and never regaining consciousness, i.e. if a sexual assault is the only way someone is going to come out of a coma, some people would prefer the former in the abstract. If consent has been given in advance, that swings the balance more in favour of sex in this situation.   

       It does seem that there's a problem here about unknowns. I presume that no research or data are available on this matter, but i have a hypothesis that if it's true that music of a particular emotional significance to a coma victim can lead to them regaining consciousness, it may also be true that either sexual arousal by itself or the emotional associations with a partner making love with one could also cause this to happen. That doesn't seem far-fetched to me. If at some point someone decides freely to make such an agreement as this and it turns out that it succeeds in bringing people out of comas where other methods fail, that would be a potentially very useful discovery. Not allowing anyone to do this even if they want to potentially prevents that discovery from being made. I honestly don't know whether such a thought is extraordinary.   

       There are at least two other aspects to this. One is that if some people really do have consciousness in a dream world during a coma, sex could be incorporated into that in a positive or negative way, like an erotic dream. It might not be possible for an outsider to know which way round that was.   

       The other is, suppose a couple wanted a baby and couldn't have one simply because this was forbidden, and their values didn't allow masturbation. This might be a potential solution if consent has been given.   

       All of what i've just written is problematic. For me, there are just too many unknowns in this. For instance:   

       * Do some people genuinely experience a dream world when comatose?   

       * Is it really true that music can arouse someone from a coma or is it just a myth propagated by healthcare workers to make relatives and friends feel less powerless?   

       * Can a pregnancy be brought all the way from conception to term with an unconscious mother?   

       I don't know the answers to any of these questions.
nineteenthly, Mar 19 2010

       There are many cases of a mother being pregnant and the giving birth while comatose. The possibility of conception would seem to be a given.   

       //It would seem your first statement precludes the wake-up blow-job altogether, and your second statement allows it's initiation under the pretenses that it will be deemed consensual when the ability to do so is recovered.   

       Do you hold both of these statements to be true? I don't see how we can continue to debate the issue until one of them is embraced and one is discarded. //   

       I think the operative term here is "wake-up". Pleasuring a concentual partner while still asleep becomes an erotic interlude or a piss of ya sod moment but it never goes un-noticed and I think that this is the sticking point.   

       [ Fries ], the problem to me would seem to be the entire term being passed in a comatose body, not the possibility of a baby surviving the mother becoming comatose. I don't know how early in a pregnancy this has happened with the baby surviving.   

       Dead on with the sticking point, i'd say.
nineteenthly, Mar 20 2010

       See link.   

       The article raises another question that hasn't been addressed here. What if the conscious- unconscious coitus results in pregnancy?   

       Would a legal agreement have to stipulate that contraception should be used and what to do in the case of contraceptive failure?   

       I've read radical feminist science fiction of societies without men. Would the antithesis be a world where all the women are vegetative?
rcarty, Mar 20 2010

       The answer to that question is, no. It would be the thesis.
rcarty, Mar 21 2010

       // ad hominem //   

       I was using "you" in the general sense, not you specifically [MikeD]. Edited for clarity.   

       Any other "personal attacks" are based solely on the fact that you seem to think this is a good idea, and your subsequent statements in annos. Given the content of your proposal and the support you argue for it, it doesn't seem too outlandish to apply the term "corpse-humper" ~purely~ as a rhetorical device in the context of this discussion. It's an expression of my disgust at what you propose; a disgust I am clearly not alone in feeling.   

       I am not, of course, suggesting that you do in fact hump corpses, or advocate such.   

       As it's generally accepted * that the comatose have no consciousness of their surroundings, it's not (for the sake of this discussion) the welfare of the comatose partner that concerns me. It's the mentality of the person who could, or would, go through with such an act, consider it "sex", and think it a less distasteful "realistic alternative" than one or any of your other alternatives.   

       Let me put my objections in other ways:   

       1/ If the partner consented, in their will, to sexual relations post mortem, would you consider that less "distasteful" than any of options 1 -4? If the partner is in a permanent vegetative state, showing no signs of brain activity, and is being kept alive by machine, what is the difference? The fact that the body is still warm and flexible because the plug hasn't been pulled yet?   

       2/ Take your other example of a person of diminished mental capacity. If it is so significantly diminished that they can no longer consent to sex or withdraw consent, then they must perforce have the equivalent mental age of a minor.   

       Sexual relations with an actual minor is rape, whether their consent, or the consent of an adult guardian, is given.   

       By the very act of making an advance directive, the person is acting as the guardian (in loco parentis) of their future, child-like self. Is not the consent given by the person when of sound mind and body roughly equivalent to a parent saying "sure, go ahead, screw my twelve year old daughter"?   

       What of the case where the conscious, able partner themselves becomes the legal guardian of the unconscious one? Can you say, "conflict of interest"?   

       Consider: a 21 year old woman who has the mental age of a five year old. She consents, her legal guardian consents; I'm not clear on the legal status, but IMHO the moral status is pretty unambiguous, and I would personally find it as "distasteful" as your proposal. Even if she was hawt.   

       3/ If by some strange happenstance, all of the earth's women were to become comatose, would you consider "sex" with the comatose less distasteful than consenting homosexual relations between conscious and willing males?   

       4/ A person consents to sex with another specific person. Shortly thereafter, s/he is drugged into unconsciousness by accident (by an unrelated third party). Said person then proceeds with the sex act on the unconscious person. Do you really think the defense of consent would stand up in court? Would you call this a "beautiful love story"? **   

       As to your arguments referencing the "wake up blow job": I would never consider it OK to perform the act unless it had been discussed and OKed at some point previous, but that's probably just me. I have been woken up by the supposedly coveted act by someone with whom I quite specifically did not want to have sex of any kind. To her credit, she stopped when asked. I've also had the pleasure of waking up to one from a loving partner who had my prior permission.   

       In ~either~ case, if and when consent is withdrawn, the act must stop or legally and morally it is assault. If the person involved is incapable of withdrawing consent s/he is incapable of giving consent. I fail to see how you fail to see that.   

       // the operative term here is "wake-up" // Precisely, [2 fries]. The issue of consent can be considered unknown until the sleeper is awake enough to express it. Where consent is permanently unknown and unknowable, it ought IMO be considered not to exist.   

       // It's a morbid level of objectification. // Precisely, [rcarty] and you raise valid ancillary arguments.   

       [WcW]: I'm interested to hear that: can you reference it?   

       It does bring up an interesting dilemma: the ability to ~communicate~ consent is not the same as the ability to ~form~ consent. A disabled person, conscious and of sound intellect, would obviously be able to formulate consent or non-consent, but may be unable to communicate it clearly. My concern is with persons of diminished intellectual function or diminished consciousness.   

       * (although not necessarily true. Some recent research indicates to the contrary)
** (yes, I know there's a hole in this argument, feel free to drive a truck through it)
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 21 2010

       Illustrating your continued self-contradictory nature will be difficult, now that you have edited all your annos, however:   

       //I am not, of course, suggesting that you do in fact hump corpses, or advocate such//   

       This would seem to be a blatant untruth seeming how you directly referred to me as a //corpse humper// which did "get my goat" only for the fact that corpses are not a part of this idea and have not been included in the annotations on this idea except by you (up until this particular anno, of course.)   

       I believe the majority of your objections stem from the faulty assumption that this legal document was thought up under the premise of owning a living fuck doll. It is not. I, personally, would not deem it appropriate to continue sexual relations with a spouse whom had no chance for recovery. *I* would pull the plug. Both for my spouse and myself were either of us in such a non-recoverable state.   

       I also don't understand how you continue to not see that intent. I must assume you prefer to attribute the worst possible scenario of the implementation of this idea to my moral character.   

       As to point 3, yes. I also would not have a problem inseminating a woman regardless of her consent to propagate the species. To not do so would be genocide. I wouldn't enjoy doing so, but feel free to infer that I would. I would also entertain celibacy before buggery, but to each his own.   

       Let's try an exercise, [Bunsen]. For the sake of this debate, let us assume the state of the spouse is recoverable and will last 5 years.
MikeD, Mar 21 2010

       Also, let's try debating one or two points of contention at a time, only.
MikeD, Mar 21 2010

       Then wait five years, if none of the other options posited are to your taste.   

       // now that you have edited all your annos //   

       No, only the one you specifically referred to, and which I have marked as edited.
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 22 2010

       Waiting five years is a hard row to hoe, [Bunsen]. I've gone as long as eight months, due to deployments (thank god for mid-tour R&R). And there is something to be said for the passion and intensity of sex after yearning for such a time ...   

       I honestly don't know if I could go without for five years. My better half has made it explicitly clear that she would, without hesitation, prefer that I make love to her comatose body before venturing elsewhere.   

       I have to say, that I would agree with her (for both ends of the scenario).
MikeD, Mar 22 2010

       //As to your arguments referencing the "wake up blow job": I would never consider it OK to perform the act unless it had been discussed and OKed at some point previous ... //   

       Isn't that prior consent what MikeD is proposing?
Loris, Mar 22 2010

       That's the major point of contention. [MikeD] says if prior consent is given, sweet action with the comatose is kosher. [BunsenHoneydew], on the other hand, says that in this case prior consent cannot be valid because the comatose person is not in a position to withdraw consent.   

       I can see both sides of the argument. The spouse consented knowing full well they would be unable to withdraw consent, similar to a DNR request, but it may not be possible to make an agreement between parties when the object is illegal ie. rape eg. X agrees that Y can have sex with X without his or her consent.   

       In terms of appraising the value of the idea all that may be neither here nor there. If the intention of the agreement is to keep the conscious partner satisfied, I don't think it would.
rcarty, Mar 22 2010

       I for one would rather a partner had sex with my comatose body than with someone else, and I cannot imagine marrying anyone capable of waiting five years for sex. If I love someone, I cannot see why I would refuse them consent, and if I love someone before I go into a coma, I cannot see why I would stop loving them at some point during the coma... unless the coma was related to something that person had done.   

       Why shouldn't I? If I doubted my spouse's ability to refrain from using my body in a manner I disliked, I just wouldn't have that person for a spouse.   

       Admittedly, I would be a bit disturbed if my partner said to me "How will I get laid if you go into a coma?" But no more than I would be if my partner said to me "How will I be able to maintain this lifestyle for myself if you die?"   

       Would I find sex with my partner's comatose body preferable to divorce, celibacy, masturbation, or castration? I... don't think so now... But If I had a spouse, I would not consider sex with someone else to be a suitable option. I don't think I would fuck my comatose spouse. But if my spouse had planned for such a potential desire, I would consider it a generous offer... one which I sincerely hope I wouldn't want to accept.
ye_river_xiv, Mar 23 2010

       sp. "their comatose state"   

       Carry on...
pertinax, Mar 23 2010

       Wow, you guys are still at it.   

       What if I masturbate next to my sleeping wife and I touch her body to excite myself without waking her up. Rape? Would your wife be angry if you did that? Or would she be flattered? Would you even tell her about it?   

       What if you worked in a hospital and you caught someone raping a comatose person. You would have to stop the act and call the police. But what if they are married? I would let that slide provided they clean up after..   

       What if it is not actual intercourse but a tittyfuck? Would that be ok? Or if you wrap the coma hand of your wife around your john thomas?   

       Did I gross you out yet [Bunsen]?   

       Seriously though, I think [Bunsen] has a good point if it ever came to court. But I think you are forgetting something. When a man loves his wife he wouldn't do anything bad to her and it is nobody elses business.
zeno, Mar 23 2010

       Just asked the wife, she is with [BunsenHoneydew] all the way. Damn.
zeno, Mar 23 2010

       you two know each other ?
FlyingToaster, Mar 23 2010

       [Bunsen], I still want to contend the point that sex with a comatose spouse with prior consent is rape.   

       You say that a wake-up blow-job with prior consent (which I must say is a bit bureaucratic, IMHO), from a spouse is not rape because of the recipient’s ability to wake up and withdraw consent.   

       Does the recipient not also have the possibility of sleeping through the entire ordeal? Possibly incorporating the sensation into a wet dream? If the recipient ejaculates whilst still in a state of slumber, has the act just become rape?   

       If so, then you're definition of rape hinges on the completion of the act, which would be vehemently disagreed with by most if not all rape victims, (I would imagine).
MikeD, Mar 24 2010

       Completion of the act is important in court. The lawyer will argue "no sexual gratification" and therefor no motive for rape so no rape.   

       On a side note, in my country a man has been convicted of rape for forcing a sausage into the mouth of a woman. And rightly so IMO.
zeno, Mar 24 2010

       //The lawyer will argue "no sexual gratification" and therefore no motive for rape so no rape//   

       Most rapes, strictly psychologically speaking, are less about sexual gratification and more about a sense of empowerment, from what I have studied.   

       I couldn't see how a man, or woman for that matter, could be absolved of sexually assaulting a person under the premise that they didn't finish.
MikeD, Mar 24 2010

       Are you sure about that [zeno]? The general formula for conviction is intent + offence = guilt.   

       If my viewings of detective shows have informed me correctly, motive is a factor for determining whodunnit. In most rape cases that's not the question, as the rapist is known by the victim. [link]
rcarty, Mar 24 2010

       Funny you should say that [rcarthy]. I watched an episode of law and order special victims unit and a comatose woman was impregnated to get stem cells for some rich basterd.   

       The only thing they could pin on the docter who got her pregnant with a was rape. But because he didn't use his penis the lawyer argued there was no gratification, no rape.   

       The rich guy who donated the sperm later wanted custody of the child. The grandparents could do nothing about it.
zeno, Mar 25 2010

       Let's say I touch you in a private area because I catch you when you fall down the stairs and save your life. No sexual intent, no harassment.
zeno, Mar 25 2010

       [Zeno], I see your point on the falling down the stairs scenario, but shirley a woman putting a dick in her mouth couldn't be anything other than sexual intent, unless said dick was recently bitten by a venomous snake.
MikeD, Mar 25 2010

       Or if the guy was having an astma attack.
zeno, Mar 26 2010

       Well, I was just walking around in this abandoned hospital, and I'd... just finished peeing, so my weiner was hanging out of my pants. And I found this room with a girl chained to a bed, and... in my rush to help get her out, I must have slipped, and fell, and landed with my dick in her mouth.
ye_river_xiv, Mar 26 2010

       //Or if the guy was having an astma attack//   

       Ha! What a dedicated first responder!   

       [river], that excuse works, (marginally), the first time you use it. Each subsequent time fosters more suspicion, however.
MikeD, Mar 26 2010


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle