What Sex Laws Should We Have?

For anyone reading this that has not followed the blog, lets list some simple facts. I preach, I have only been with one woman in my whole and have turned down plenty of opportunities, I have three daughters, am a pacifist and all of this can be easily seen by reading previous posts. I believe the most complete connection we can have with another, the chance to be one only occurs between a man and a woman; but, I don't think people go to hell for being gay and preach to gays without ever telling them to change. Don't think you know my beliefs or try and place your hangups or biases or bigotry on me and don't presume to know my opinion. Read what I have to say and think. That means to just listen.

Some people would say that we should not have laws about sex. That would mean that things like child molestation, necrophilia (if you don't know that word, you don't need to), bestiality and rape would all be legal. I don't believe in that, I think they should be illegal. I believe we can outlaw non-consensual sex, that is violence against another. I don't believe you should be allowed to force yourself on anyone or being that has not expressed consent or allowed things to proceed further. At some point you do have to say no or consent may have already been rightfully presumed. We have to figure out where that line might be.

I believe a man can rape a woman even if they are married. Yep, it has to be consensual. I don't believe that the rules of the game are the same when you are not married. There is a reason. My wife enjoyed sex with me and I enjoyed sex with her, for 25 years. If my wife had a complaint it was that we did not have enough sex. The Pimpernel does not tell stories or lie. My wife also liked waking up to sex and when I was rested enough I would wake her up sex, I would please her as she woke, as she was in that in-between place, in between dreaming and waking. I assure you, men enjoy waking the same way if their wives choose to so surprise them. Is that consensual sex? Heck, my wife and I had sex drunk after more than one party. Was that consensual on either of our parts? It felt good and the time and we both enjoyed it and neither ever complained.

I have no interest and am turned off with having sex with two women or entering a woman from behind. These things hold absolutely no attraction to me. A female friend of mine once asked me if I would engage in such activities if my wife had really wanted to experience them. The answer to two women is simple, NO. I would not do it. I am not interested in sex, I am interested in being with someone who attaches to me completely. That left one question and I still cannot answer that. Today, I think my answer would be yes. I would want to please my mate in whatever way I could without violating my own principles. Don't forget I am a pacifist.

What if I really wanted to have sex from behind and my wife did too. Would it be wrong to do such a thing? Should that be illegal? Mutual consent for something that can be done safely? At what point in time do we deem consensual acts to be illegal? Sex with children is easy to put aside, consent requires understanding and a 5 year old does not understand what sex means. They cannot give consent. A corpse cannot give consent, an animal cannot give consent, a person in a coma cannot give consent; but, a person who consents to have drunk sex in advance of getting drunk can give consent.

My wife and I got drunk on our honeymoon night and had sex. Would you wish to jail me because she was drunk? A college girl who is not engaged who gets drunk and a young man who wobbles her to his room and then sleeps with her while she is asleep is not sleeping with the woman in a consensual situation. He is a criminal. He has no idea as to what she expects from him, she is passed out. I had a right to expect more from the woman I married and had children by. I already knew what she liked and what we had come to expect from one another over time. She liked it when I woke her up with sex.

The issue I am discussing is called "informed" consent. It means more than saying yes or no. It refers to reasonableness of exceptions. Let us consider an extreme example of factual situations that might occur. Let us assume that the douche bag, Stephan Hawking, was with a woman. Let us say that he typed out, "Lets have sex" to the woman and it took 20 minutes for him to write it out. Now, let us assume that she said yes, undressed him; put him on the bed and made love to him. If he got back in his chair and typed out, "No, I changed my mind, lets not have sex" after they slept together, would she be guilty of rape?

Now lets talk about how the media manipulates the truth to get you to react.

Yahoo - Reuters - California passes 'yes-means-yes' campus sexual assault bill.

The media portrays this as a competition between two sides, the sides that say everything is rape and those who say everything is legal so long as there is not a complaint.  Is that true, is that really the question, is the question that simple?

Let me ask this question. A woman goes to a frat party and someone slips her ecstasy, she approaches a man who has no idea that she is high and she starts rubbing him and he gets turned on and starts making out with her, they end up in bed and she has sex with him, is he guilty of rape when he didn't know she had been drugged?

None of this is or will ever be an issue in my life. It is still worthy or consideration when looking at the bigger question, consent. Where is the point of no return? Or what must someone do to indicate that they have reached that point or changed their mind?

Look beyond the headlines and emotions, ask yourself the deeper questions. Agree, disagree with me; but, don't simplify the issues, address them and I will posts responses that are not foul.