A judge in a rape trial in South Australia is concerned that a rape conviction against a man who had sex with an unconscious woman may adversely affect his life and so is considering his verdict carefully.
First some background: the man and woman met at a pub and agreed to consensual sex. During foreplay the woman, who was intoxicated, fell asleep. The man continued despite the fact that his partner was unable to consent to the act. For me, that makes it rape, no technicalities.
The judge is concerned because there is a possibility that she may have consented if she were awake. Maybe she would have. But the point is that she didn’t get the opportunity to consent. The judge should also consider that maybe if she were awake she would have withdrawn her consent too.
Why is it so hard to make people understand that just because she has a vagina there is no implied consent?