RTÉ journalist found guilty of sexually assaulting woman as she slept

Nothing happened though. She said no. He backed off.

That's it, there's a lot of grey areas when it comes to sex (not reflecting on this case, making a general observation). I can hand on heart say I've never had a 1 night stand, so I'm not sure how they work in general compared to couple sexual relations. I've know the women I've slept with for a while before sleeping with them, so I'm a one night stand virgin I suppose. But even in a relationship, there's no written contracts, or an easily accessible list of what they do like/want vs don't like/want. No people meeting on a night out have this kind of conversation that night. I'd imagine it would put a lot of people off tbh.

So the experimentation comes into play, and pushing boundaries for want of a better phrase. One persons boundaries are different to another's, and sexual history is to be taken into account. If they've had many partners, would be think further is normal, compared to someone who may have only slept with 1 other person, and just laid there. I've an ex who never would have given straight up consent to being fisted, but yet she enjoyed it when it slowly happened through experimental evolution. Some sight in fairness. Probably helps I have small hands.

I'm rambling...

Have you ever slept with someone who tried to wake you for sex

Or ever slept with someone?

Go up, turn on the bedroom lights, honk an airhorn and thrown a bucket of water over her first to make sure she is awake

Since 1990, yes.

Not when we're asleep, no.

What happens if you accidentally touch my lad while I'm asleep

Are you a separate beds kinda person

Or separate rooms

Hang on - are you suggesting _kisses_ when asleep aren't okay? :-/ Whatever about with an ONS, with a partner? Or maybe I'm misreading the posts.

I think it's more reasonable to say your man's behaviour was inappropriate because it was an ONS.

Any girl I've dated (never been one for ONS) whom I've asked (in a general hypothetical in advance kind of way, not specifically for that night) if waking them up by doing stuff/doing stuff while they're asleep would be okay, has been positive about it/said it would be hot/etc. One would hope that a jury wouldn't decide that that consent could be retroactively withdrawn. (Of course, they could deny it had been given in the first place, but that's a different issue..). Whether such consent could be assumed with an ongoing partner without having been explicitly stated might be a little greyer.

Once again an internet discussion that lacks any nuance. All women are the same and should be treated the same.

"I can grope my wife awake for sex, this lad should therefore be allowed do the same to a complete stranger he met that night."

"If you can't climb on top of her and fondle her tits while she sleeps, how else are you supposed to ask for sex? Do you expect me to wake her like a person with a gentle shoulder nudge?"

"But she said no after he'd already started fondling her and he stopped, we should be applauding him. What was he supposed to do ask before her started fondling her?"

Sam,

In terms of zinger lines that usually garner a lot of likes and are shoe ins after initial posts, this has not been a success at all.

Im christening what your say in your last paragraph as a White knight w@nk.

You are. I was answering a specific question.

Alternatively, get consent before you grope the tits of a woman you barely know, rather than doing it after she's gone asleep. Get up on her when/if she wants you to get up on her, not while she's asleep. Problem solved. It's amazing how uncomplicated these things can be.

Unsurprising that so many freaks on here think that getting a woman's consent before feeling her up is somehow "woke" or "virtue signaling".

Jesus Christ, how did this guy not get a written contract before he even spoke to her? He’s completely clueless, letting her into his house, then into his bed. Guy was so stooopid.

She may have had some kind of trauma in the past that aggravated what happened. I don't know. Something stood out.

But I think he knows he did wrong. The 'agree to disagree' thing in the article stood out as really...odd. As did him getting 'character witness statements'... that just seems creepy and odd. Especially when he admitted wrongdoing. I know character statements are becoming more normalised, but I tend to think they'd be more relevant for a non-sexual assault related case. It read too much like a 'deferral' thing.

As others have noted, when she went to sleep, consent was over. And he clearly did try and wake her up. But when she didn't wake up, he just went ahead, without her consent. I think he knew then that was wrong, but carried on. There were ways to initiate things, and the best way would have been to make sure she was awake. Even pull the 'I woke you up to ask what you wanted for breakfast' line, and then initiate intimacy.

If he was genuinely interested in her as a person, he would have been far more considerate. As is, the jury agreed with her.