«

»

Dec 01 2005

Raper’s Delight

Sexsomniac
Why is acquitted rapist Jan Luedecke smiling under his fashionable hoodie?

A day without the story of another misogynist response to another sexual assault is like a day without the persistent melancholy precipitated by round-the-clock oppression by a dominant culture whose constant refrain is "none takes pity on thy pain, O thou most ingrateful, savage, and inhuman creature!" Today’s tale of slime, which scrapes the lurid, clammy underside of a new low, comes to us from Canada.

That’s right, I said Canada. Here in the United States we think we’ve cornered the market on flagrant delight in the hideous. We occasionallly forget that, even though sometimes its inhabitants speak French, well-scrubbed, sensible Canada is just as capable of accomodating gross crimes against humanity as the next nationful of honky patriarchalists.

I allude to this story from Ontario in which a drunken asshole boor was acquitted of rape using the good old "sexsomnia" defense.

What is sexsomnia, you ask? Why, it’s a "sleep disorder." The symptoms include raping women while you’re asleep. If you "suffer" from this disorder, as does the recently acquitted Jan Luedecke, and you live in Canada, your life’s young dream of flitting from town to town sticking it wherever you please with nary a care in the world has been given the green light. Because although sexsomnia is supposedly a "disorder," it apparently does not rise to the level of a "mental disease," which designation would have had restrictive legal consequences for the somnorapist Luedecke. Although rapists already have it pretty good the world over, in Canada, the coveted sexsomnia diagnosis is a free pass to even the most reluctant pussy! It’s a frat boy’s dream come true!

Defendant: "Did she say ‘no’? How should I know? I was sexsomniating!"
Judge: "Oh, you were sexsomniating! Well, congratulations, my boy! Here’s your Get Out Of Jail Free card. And don’t worry; if any of your rape victims ever gets pregnant, we’ll force her to carry the fetus to term and then punish her with a lifetime of discrimination and poverty."

The peabrain judge in the case, whose name, I kid you not, is Otter, opined, “His conduct was not voluntary.”

Whoa! Didn’t see that one coming!

Do I even need to mention that author of the article on this asinine case, as do all authors of articles on rape, felt it necessary to remark that Luedecke’s victim "had been drinking"? Because lard knows, even when the blame for a given rape is officially a medical "condition" brought on "by alcohol, sleep deprivation and genetics (!)", in a culture where responsibility for the male boner is the exclusive purview of women, it is considered unsporting not to cast at least one or two aspersions on the victim.

I leave you, my young onions, with this howler from a University of Toronto law professor: "News of the success of the sexsomnia defence may give rapists ideas."

UPDATE: I appear to have overlooked, in the comments to yesterday’s post, an astute remark by reader Aymayzed, who identifies the aforementioned article as "the new clothing that porn has to wear in order that hard working men can still laugh at and generally degrade women during their working day." Noting that access to traditional internet porn is largely blocked by employers, Aymayzed says "news is the new porn shop."

Thanks to Mad Woman In The Attic and Joolya for the link to this repellent tale.

80 comments

1 ping

  1. delphyne

    “Luedecke previously had sleep sex with four girlfriends, court heard.”

    Luedecke had previously raped four girlfriends. How marvellous that previous crimes are now proof of innocence.

  2. Ms Kate

    I’d heard of “waking up having sex” before, but usually only as a orgin myth surrounding an otherwise mysterious pregnancy.

    Then again, we are talking two people who consensually went to bed together without benefit of clothing.

    So he may have gotten it on with previous girlfriends in their sleep (and I don’t think that is rape, necessarily, as I have woken up in such a situation with my husband and my body was into it to), but putting on a condom and going prospecting is a new one.

    And why, exactly, is this man allowed to drink AT ALL given his history? Couldn’t the court have ordered sobriety as prevention?

  3. manxome

    “He only suspected he had had sex after using the bathroom and discovering he was still wearing a condom”

    Because landing on the floor with your Fruit of the Looms around your ankles and a pissed off woman above you on the couch doesn’t provide any hints at all. Especially when it’s something that’s revealed to be a standard in your relationships.

  4. manxome

    Ms Kate, I too have woken up to “such a situation”, and it’s called rape. It’s just not up to another person to determine, without you being available at that very moment for consent to service their emergency boner, whether you or your body would be into it or not. We are not inatimate objects. They can give consent to their damn hands.

  5. Sarah

    Even if it isn’t his fault, surely he shouldn’tbe allowed to go free to do this again??

  6. TeenageCatgirl

    Your BODY was into it? I’m guessing then your husband obtained direct permission from your vagina, which obviously fancied a bit.

    How the hell is that NOT rape? If I woke up to find my boyfriend using me as a masturbatory aid, I would literally kill him.

  7. Joolya

    in a culture where responsibility for the male boner is the exclusive purview of women

    And not just the perverted culture of Canada, either – this reminds me of my friend’s Yeshiva school concerts, where the girls chorus could only sing in front of female friends and family because their siren-like voices (chuckle) would so tempt and arouse the males that they would be unable to control their lustful thoughts and urges about those hot seventh graders in long skirts . . .

    Gimme a frickin break. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

  8. BitingBeaver

    Twisty, you rock.

    Isn’t it just lovely that this judge ruled that rapists now have a lovely ‘condition’ which, conveniently, exhonerates them from the crime of rape.

    And Ms. Kate, I have to say that I too have woken up in that situation, as in, I was asleep and woke up (several times) with my x husbands pecker firmly implanted in my mouth. To which I screamed, slapped him silly and told him it was rape. Of course, as my husband there wasn’t shit I could do to him because upon saying ‘I Do’ I (unknowingly) gave up any rights to my body.

    At the time I tried like hell to excuse it (for my own sanity) but it became perfectly clear what it really was later on.

    Obviously, he’s my X now.

    Anyway, I’m disgusted by this and Twisty, as usual, hits the nail on the head.

  9. Shrinking Violet

    If he had “sexsomniated” a man, there would have been an entirely different verdict!

  10. MzNicky

    I’m confused. If he didn’t know what he was doing, due to his sleep deprivation and being drunk and genetically fucked up and all, how did he manage to wriggle his wienie into a condom? Doesn’t that prove premeditation or something? Not that it meant anything in this particularly misogynistic case, apparently.

  11. ^^^^

    Man, shrinking violet, did you ever call THAT one correctly. Excellent point. I sometimes think homophobia is nothing more than fear of having one’s own misogyny backfire. Because to patriarchy, a man who fucks/gets fucked by men is no better than a lowly chick. And being done like a chick is the worst thing imaginable.

    F.T.P.

  12. Sam

    Sexsomnia, not rapesomnia. Fucking patriarchy.

    If a group of Canadian women found this rapist man and one of them ripped off his dick while under the uncontrollable spell of their own version of “assaultsomnia” I would shed no tears.

  13. Tony Patti

    “His conduct was not voluntary.”

    The patriarchal world views every instance of male arousal as involuntary. There’s no controlling these evil women who spend their days trying to force us to rape and batter them.

    I have a hard time believeing in things I find it difficult to internalize. I am guilty of wondering, at times, if homosexuality is real simply because I can’t fathom being aroused by a man myself. Then I remember all the men I have loved dearly, even though they didn’t arouse me, and I have to admit that it makes sense to many men even if I don’t get it myself.

    Likewise I often find myself resisting the belief that men objectify women. Because I myself am aroused by arousal, I would like to think that everyone is aroused by arousal. You can even understand the sick and twisted rationale for rape that this theory affords: Men like to think that they can create arousal even by force, thanks to their superheroic sex powers. Pure delusion every time, but there’s an element of arousal there that props up my weak and highly personal Unified Theory Of Sexual Relativity.

    And then I get the wake up call: There are millions of men out there who seem to have absolutely no need for exterior symbols, much less actual signs, of arousal that to them sex is nothing more than sticking their dicks in something attractive and spewing into it for whatever purely physical pleasure such a hollow and worthless act could possibly afford.

    Such a thing is so incredibly alien to my whole concept of sex and love that I admit I find it really difficult to believe, though there you have it.

    When good men react defensively to the idea of objectifying women it’s probably because they don’t understand the concept in the more abstract sense of why women strip or pose naked or even in the more concrete sense that they too could never really understand the urge to fuck a human body while it is asleep, no matter how cute and charming a compliment the woman might consider such a necrophiliac act.

    I understand the woman who let her lover do it to her without rancor. Since the episode was simply an unusual seduction in her case, it’s just as well. But sticking your dick in an unwilling woman’s body – particulary the mouth, for crying out loud! – while she sleeps is at the extreme end of the sickest shit I have ever heard about.

  14. Elise

    Something like this happened in my family, actually – about 5 years ago one of my sisters was molested by one of my brothers, who had no history of similar acts (that we know of) and DID have a history of sleepwalking. Needless to say, it nearly destroyed my previously very close family. I don’t think that ANY kind of non-consensual sex is OK, intended or unintended. And I am deeply, deeply angry with my brother over the situation. But my anger stems less from his using the “excuse” of sexsomnia than his refusal to do anything to investigate or treat it. Believe me, after the event my family found out a LOT about sexual sleep disorders, and they do actually exist. I don’t know if the rapist above actually had a sleep disorder, but there are people who have them, and I believe my brother is one of them. However, as some commenters indicated below, this should NEVER be an excuse for inaction; the appropriate approach is treatment and intervention, at the very least to insure that the sexsomniac recognizes what they’re capable of and knows to take precautions to prevent future occurences. I also think those precautions should be enforceable by law. This is an area that is not well understood as yet, but I don’t think it should be dismissed out of hand; if sexsomnia is a legitimate disorder (and there are good reasons to think this may be true), there’s a far better chance of preventing sexsomnia related rapes if we recognize it early and intervene than if we dismiss it as a fictional excuse for rapists. Just my two cents – I know I’d never wish what happened to my family on anyone.

  15. Joolya

    I sometimes think homophobia is nothing more than fear of having one’s own misogyny backfire

    I love this comment – so true!!!

    PS I prefer the term “somnambulosatyrisis”. Although “rape” is probably the most accurate descriptor.

  16. boomy

    i’m with mznicky. sleep rape? mayyybeeee. sleep putting on a condom? i don’t think so.

  17. joolya

    exactly, Boomy. Thanks for bringing this article to our attention, too.

  18. Deborah

    Having sex with a woman while she is asleep is definitely rape. It was a habit of my first husband’s, and it took twenty years before I stopped having nightmares about it.

    A man having sex while asleep (“sexsomnia”) is definitely real. I had a boyfriend who did it. It was weird. I was awake, I thought he was awake, we’d have sex, he wouldn’t respond to conversation. Sometimes he’d fall into a deeper sleep in the middle, just stop and roll over. Happened two or three times before we put our heads together and figured it out.

    Having sex while asleep but putting on a condom? Bullshit.

  19. PrissyNot

    The condom does it for me. He was not asleep; it’s hard enough to deal with those things when you’re conscious, much less when you’re un. This was definitely a case where the patriarchy is happy to find yet another excuse to debase and degrade the sex class without actually taking any type of responsibility for it . . . take him out back and shoot him in his sleep – that’ll do it.

  20. Kyra

    I hope his next victim—if he has one, although I hope not—has enough of a vengeful streak to hang around for a second night, this time wearing one of those South African anti-rape device things, or else hammering a big nail through a ping-pong ball and inserting it pointy-side out.

    And then, watch how the patriarchy suddenly decides it’s a problem once HE’S suffering consequences from his own disorder, rather than some woman being the only one to have to deal with the consequences of his disorder. Can’t win, can you? But it’s fun to think about.

  21. piny

    Look, the man has a terrible disease. He deserves our sympathy, not our ignorant condemnation.

    How would you like to go to sleep every night knowing that you could wake up a rapi–I mean, in the throes of a seizure not to be confused with sexual assault in any way?

    Christ almighty on a fucking pogo stick.

    She can at least be thankful there weren’t any twinkies at the party, right? He could’ve unwittingly shot her to death.

    >>If he had “sexsomniated” a man, there would have been an entirely different verdict!>>

    What I’d like to know is, how has Mr. “Don’t blame me, I don’t know what I’m doing!” not committed sleep-induced sexual assault on a guy already?

  22. Steph

    I live in the same city as this fucktard. If I happen to see him while driving around, I believe I’ll develop a case of drivesomnia.

    I’m still hoping the Crown will appeal. There is no double jeopardy in Canada. If the Crown (state) has new evidence (like sexsomina while wearing a condome is complete bullshit) or grounds for an appeal they can re-try the bastard.

    Even the right-wing tabloid press thought this was completely fucked and they’re usually as pro-patriarchy as they come.

  23. piny

    >>I live in the same city as this fucktard. If I happen to see him while driving around, I believe I’ll develop a case of drivesomnia.>>

    “Your honor, clearly the defendant had no idea of what she was doing. She didn’t even attempt to brake!”

  24. Mandos

    This doesn’t make it right, but a bit of context here. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an acquittal of someone who claimed a sleepwalking defence in an, um, very complicated murder case.

    http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1992/1992scc75.html

    So sleepwalking defences like this do work in Canada under certain conditions.

    Let me take the liberty of noting that Ms Kate does not appear to feel as though her husband raped her. Since she doesn’t feel as such, it’s kind of odd to see people telling her that she was. Of course, if she had NOT wanted it then it would have been rape. Of course a man who does such a thing effectively leaves it up to the woman to decide what it is after the fact.

  25. Ms Kate

    I don’t consider my husband to have raped me BECAUSE I don’t know for sure if I “sexomniated” him (men do have erections in their sleep ya know) and I was pretty goddamn wet and had been having a rauncy dream just prior.

    I know other women who have experienced the same. Ignorance of biology or human behavior, however “revolutionary” or “feminist” is still ignorance. People’s adjacent naked bodies find each other during sleep. Deal.

    Under this “absurd” definition worthy of Idealist University students, shouldn’t he charge ME with rape?

    KEY DIFFERENCE HERE: My situation did not involve a condom and two fully dressed people sleeping separately. If he pulled off clothing and practiced safe sexomniation, that IS rape.

  26. Anonymous

    Why, pray tell, is this man not being excoriated in the press for “putting himself into a dangerous situation” when he knew he had a tendency toward “sexsomnia”?

    Where are the condemnations for his deeply reckless act of drinking and then sleeping next to a woman he knew he might wake up having “non-consensual sex” with? Did the judge say “You stupid shit, what were you thinking by getting drunk and passing out next to a woman when you know you have this condition?”

    It is, after all, absolutely inarguable that this guy put himself into a situation where he could get into a spot of legal trouble.

    But I’ll be interested to see if he gets the same kind of lashing that rape victims generally do over supposedly leaving themselves vulnerable in one way or another to the event. I won’t hold my breath.

  27. Trailhead

    Why, pray tell, is this man not being excoriated in the press for “putting himself into a dangerous situation” when he knew he had a tendency toward “sexsomnia”?

    Where are the condemnations for his deeply reckless act of drinking and then sleeping next to a woman he knew he might wake up having “non-consensual sex” with? Did the judge say “You stupid shit, what were you thinking by getting drunk and passing out next to a woman when you know you have this condition?”

    It is, after all, absolutely inarguable that this guy put himself into a situation where he could get into a spot of legal trouble.

    But I’ll be interested to see if he gets the same kind of lashing that rape victims generally do over supposedly leaving themselves vulnerable in one way or another to the event. I won’t hold my breath.

  28. Ms Kate

    Well put Trailhead! If he had previous issues and KNEW it was linked to alcohol, why the hell is he off the hook? (even if it was limited to times he was already in bed with a partner).

    As for “cutting down on drinking and taking medication”, bullshit too. He should be ordered to be on that stuff that causes major puking for even one beer, given his “hunt and peck” history with alcohol.

    Better yet, he should be in jail. If he was sexual during sleep walking, then why did he pick a woman to go after and not another man or the family dog or, for that matter, the insinkerator? With a condom? (after all, don’t rapist use condoms to prevent dna testing?)

    Given this “unwillful” conduct business, how long is it until this “sexomnia” defense is used to get out of child support as well? Even in cases of vague consensuality?

  29. Trailhead

    I am struggling not to choke on my tongue from laughing at the insinkerator possibility.

    But really. It highlights a stark difference between the two situations. What do we do with him? Make excuses and let him off the hook. But let a woman do anything but wrap herself up in a chastity belt and lock herself in a padded room, and she’s “incredibly stupid to put herself in that position.”

    I am sorry for the double post. I have an itchy clicker finger sometimes.

  30. Tapetum

    Umm, Steph? There actually was a case several years back (in Oregon? Washington state?) where a man ran over two girls while asleep. He had gotten tired while driving, and pulled over to take a nap. They got stranded (out go gas, if I’m remembering correctly), and knocked on his window for help, but didn’t wake him up. Apparently they triggered a sleep-walking like episode, though, for a minute or two later he started the car up and drove the car about half a mile, running over the girls in the process, before going back to sleep.

    I definitely believe in the existence of sexsomnia. On the other hand anyone who’s experienced it who doesn’t take extreme precautions to avoid raping someone while asleep is at the least guilty of criminal negligence in my view.

  31. Trailhead

    Tapetum, I think your last sentence contains the salient point. I don’t necessarily disbelieve the existence of sexsomnia (though the condom thing does give me pause in this instance).

    But I remember an (American) case from law school in which a person susceptible to seizures decided to drive a car, had a seizure while doing so, and killed someone. This person was convicted of manslaughter, at least in part on the ground that it was criminally negligent for a person with frequent, uncontrollable seizures to drive a car. One can certainly disagree with the outcome of that case for all manner of good reasons. But I wonder whether the alleged sexsomniac’s own negligence was even an issue at his trial. I know nothing of Canadian law, but it would be interesting to see.

    But beyond the legal issue, I’m guessing that condemnations of his own stupidity won’t exactly roll off the tongues of people reading about it the way they do with rape victims.

  32. Dot

    The alcohol. The condom. The rape.

    A few years ago in AZ, a man who murdered his wife claimed he was asleep when he did it. He beat her, and when that didn’t kill her, then he drowned her in their swimming pool. I don’t remember the specifics of his being found out, but he had plastic bags and shovels and what-not in his car to bury her. Every detail was planned. But of course he was only sleepwalking.The jury didn’t buy the “defense.”

    The beating, the drowning, and the burial equipment: premeditated murder.

  33. Ron Sullivan

    I’m thinking that ol boy needs a chastity belt for himself. Anything else suggests negligence on his part, as Trailhead’s latest post suggests.

  34. chessie

    The Judge is a Dick

  35. Kyra

    “Why, pray tell, is this man not being excoriated in the press for “putting himself into a dangerous situation” when he knew he had a tendency toward “sexsomnia”?”

    Because if the patriarchy insists that it isn’t rape, then he doesn’t risk being convicted of rape, therefore he hasn’t put himself into a dangerous situation. He’s just put some woman into a dangerous situation. Which she should have avoided, of course.

    And of course the patriarchy insists that it isn’t rape—defending women from someone who’s likely to force sex on them is never worth inconveniencing men by requiring them to avoid sex with women they haven’t gotten clear, unambiguous consent from, is it?

  36. Rene

    This is indeed a repellent tale, but I must congratulate you on the hilarious headline.

    My sleeping mother once cooked an elaborate breakfast and then threw it away and went back to bed. I doubt she ever raped anyone, though.

    Rene

  37. Pinko Punko

    I am not commenting on this man’s defense, I do know someone that told me he has woken up multiple times and found he was having sex with his fiancee. I do not know whether he was lying, etc. The problem with this person’s defense is that I don’t doubt that this behavior is possible, but the goal of defense attorneys is to use the realm of the possible and enlarge the realm of the presumed probable, and this is where a sliver of doubt can magically and bullshitly become a reasonable doubt. The way the patriarchy is acting here of course, is the sliver was enough in this man’s situation, while some retarded 18 year old in a case where evidence was destroyed in bad faith by the prosecution could still be put to death in Texas.

  38. Dim Undercellar

    Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

    Sexsomnia is complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. Yes, I’m ignoring “the pain” of “the sufferers” of “this disease”.

    It’s really fucking hilarious that Battered Woman’s Syndrome is considered to be a load of crap (when it seems pretty clearly connected to PTSD), but rape can be excused by claiming a not-quite-mental-illness that never existed before men started needing thin excuses to rape their wives or else the courts would be forced to put them on probation or something.

    Lorena Bobbit was a victim of phallodectomysomnia.

  39. laughingmuse

    I’m going to have to agree with Dot on this one. There are sleeping/moving disorders. Fortunately in my experience, I have only witnessed the sleepwalking/sleep peeing kind.

    Having sex while asleep is entirely possible.

    I would like, however, the court to take into account that, intentions aside, this woman had been raped. The man’s intent may vary, but unless he’s pleading temporary insanity, he KNEW he has a sleeping disorder, and got drunk and passed out next to an unknown woman.

    Maybe our courts would charge him with the equivalent of “manslaughter” instead of “premeditated murder”, but the fact remains that he did assault a woman and stick his penis inside of her without her consent.

    I’m SO glad that the judicial system is worried about the rights and protection of women as well as men. WOW. GOOD JOB.

  40. Auntsnow

    Wait a minute. He gets a “get out of jail free” card because his “sexomnia” was brought on because he was drinking.

    But the woman is at fault for being raped because she was drinking too?

    Men can’t be blamed for what they do when drrunk, and men can’t be blamed for what they do when women are drunk.

    Nice.

  41. jaye

    This bullshit defense–because of his amazing ability to use a condom in his sleep–flies in Canada, but in Houston a woman suffering from postpartum depression and is a poster woman for the insanity defense gets convicted of murdering her children because mental illness isn’t real to Houstonians.

    Simply the jury and the judge wanted to punish the victim for drinking with a man. And in the above mentioned Andrea Yates case, the jury wasn’t stupid, just mean.

    Clearly it was sexual assault. How can she consent if she is asleep? But he can put on a condom while he is asleep? No consent means rape. Perhaps the jury could have considered the disorder in mitigating his sentence, but that isn’t a defense to rape. She didn’t consent in her sleep.

  42. Dim Undercellar

    I’m starting to ‘get’ that rape is not the crime of having sex with a woman against her will without her consent. That’s not a crime in a Patriarchy. Rape, apparently, is the crime of violently injuring a woman while taking her viginity under otherwise-chaste circumstances.

    It’s a property crime.

  43. Kelley

    Steph,

    Since you live in the same town as this asshole, AND Canada has no provision for double jeopardy, perhaps there is a way you can make his life hell without the oh-so-appealing solution of drivesomnia, and its ensuing criminal liability.

    Numerous letters to the editor pointing the out the bullshit “defense” and the absolute idiocy of the judge are a good starting point. Perhaps a community meeting? Posters with his face and the prominent caption RAPIST plastered all over town would be fun, too!! It’s not much, but its a start and could lead to more exposure, thereby putting more pressure on the crown to retry this asshole. So long as the poster solution does not run afoul of Canadian slander/libel laws (with which I’m not familiar), it could work!!

  44. PrissyNot

    Yes, DimU, rape is a property crime, because women are, after all, property. Also, what local paper do we write/email to? I would like to know, because I would like to see such a campaign started. They should NOT be allowed, and by “they” I mean the patriarchy, to just stamp this guy as “handicapped” and send him on his merry little way? He even looks merry behind that hooding piece of sweatshirt . . . and one is allowed to comment on other people’s behavior, especially if it’s been touted in the newspaper already . . .

  45. bitchphd

    I wonder if the victim can file a civil suit. Ok, he has “sexsomnia,” he’s not technically guilty of criminal rape inasmuch as rape is, apparently, a crime of *intent*, not action. Nonetheless, she was raped, and by him. Surely she can sue his ass.

    Also, what everyone else has said about condoms (::cough::bullshit::cough::), criminal negligence, and chastity belts.

  46. Kelley

    My question is, if rapesomnia, I mean, sexsomnia, can be used to vitiate the intent element of a rape charge, what does this do to the reasoning behind DUI laws???

    For example, a drunk driver could just as easily say that he/she is an alcoholic. Since alcoholism is considered a disease, can they now claim they cannot control their drinking, and any damages/injury/death “involuntarily” caused by getting behind the wheel of a vehicle be excused because they were “sick”, and unaware of what they were doing? What about alcoholic blackouts? Seems the “reasoning” of the Canadian court could be extended to this and other situations.

  47. CafeSiren

    Since the issue has come up of “what if the sexes were reversed,” I bring to you an article about a Norweigan woman convicted (at trial and appeal) of raping a sleeping man:

    http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1151867.ece

    One wonders why the article doesn’t mention whether the “sleeping” man was, in fact, passed-out drunk, whether he was wearing provocative clothing, whether he had a history of promiscuity, or what the hell he was doing falling asleep where a woman he didn’t want to have sex with could get to him. We have a right to know these things, after all — otherwise, how will we know if this man was, in fact, trying to cover up for a consensual act that he later regretted?

  48. CafeSiren

    …and to Bitch Ph.D.: I had the same thought that you did about a civil suit. If they can’t prove culpability (and *shame* on the prosecutors for not being able to do so!), then surely they can prove harm. And if Canadian civil procedure is anything like U.S. civil procedure, then a jury only needs a majority, rather than a unanimous decision (required by criminal trials), to make the defendant cough up.

  49. Pinko Punko

    Of course she should be able to sue, and the laws on the books should allow him to do jail time for his actions, regardless of his control. I would love to claim bullshit on his problem, but I can’t do it, that being said the manslaughter/murder comparison is apt, and there is no way that he should just walk. It suggests the problem is the law in this case, possibly not the judge and the jury. Feel free to disabuse me of this notion.

  50. Kyra

    Cafesiren:

    You forgot the most obvious assumption: he was obviously aroused. Therefore he must have wanted it. Therefore he’s lying and trying to ruin this poor innocent woman’s life.

    Also, was he flirting with her earlier? How was she supposed to know that he’d changed his mind? After all, interest = consent.

  51. Mandos

    Actually, as I said before, Canada allows this sort of thing in more than rape. The drinking would not be a way to convict him in Canada either. IIRC the Canadian Supreme Court upheld a different assault acquittal based on a drunkenness defence—don’t think it was a rape case.

  52. reddecca

    I don’t disagree with anyone’s analysis of this case.

    But I don’t think putting on a condom proves anything either way. I’ve carried out conversations in my sleep, I’ve opened doors, and moved objects, I’m as dexteritous in my sleep as I am awake.

    I just think the outcome of this case is completely misogynist even if he does have sexsomnia.

  53. TeenageCatgirl

    I find it remarkable that if this guy does have ‘Sexsomnia’ he only ‘Sexsomni-izes’ women.
    The whole thing has the distinct whiff of boy-cow poop to me.

  54. TeenageCatgirl

    Mandos> re: Ms Kate being raped or not.
    That’s what happens when you put personal information on the web, people have opinions on it.

    And whether or not someone regards themselves as raped is not really a reliable way to guage rape or not. Plenty of obviously raped women have been indoctrinated to believe it was their fault.

  55. funny

    delphyne, your comment #1 is about the most ignorant thing I’ve seen all day. “sleep sex” is not inherently rape. Its up to his past girlfriend to descide if its rape or njot, and they appear to have all descided it was just sleep sex. ignorant fool.

    As to the article, putting on a condom is fairly hard for a sleepwalker, but not impossible. Here the victim herself seems to have corroborated that he was asleep, which is why the judge dismissed it. If she claimed he was awake, the case would have continued.

  56. Twisty

    Funny: I Blame The Patriarchy is a blog where one is considered an ignorant fool if one fails to properly employ the shift key, or if one spells “not” with a “j.” That sort of thing.

    “Sleep sex” is one of those dangerously patriarchal euphemisms, like “death tax.” It’s rape, dude. Rape.

  57. dave

    she asked for it… c’mon now!

  58. Delphyne

    “delphyne, your comment #1 is about the most ignorant thing I’ve seen all day. “sleep sex” is not inherently rape. Its up to his past girlfriend to descide if its rape or njot, and they appear to have all descided it was just sleep sex. ignorant fool.”

    All I can say is LOL. Which is what I actually did when I read this (in a kind of, “ha, ha, ha you cannot be serious way”)

    “As to the article, putting on a condom is fairly hard for a sleepwalker, but not impossible. Here the victim herself seems to have corroborated that he was asleep, which is why the judge dismissed it. If she claimed he was awake, the case would have continued.”

    He was probably pretending. I’ve seen a guy act falling down, out of control drunk in order that he could grope the women around him whilst being given the excuse of alcohol for his actions. Ten minutes later when he thought he was unobserved he’d miraculously sobered up. It gave me a very useful insight into the mind and actions of rapists and molestors.

  59. delphyne

    Speaking of ignorance – “molesters” not “molestors” and the inverted commas should end after “serious”.

  60. MSN

    This was just on the news, and there was a similar case in Mass where the guy raped 10 DIFFERENT WOMEN who lived in a college dorm and was ACQUITTED on grounds of sexomnia. From the pictures, it looked like it happened at UmassAmherst, which is the most dangerous campus of its size in the country, gee wonder why? I have to say, I have been on juries and many of the people on the juries are morons, and I don’t think that’s representative of a jury of our peers. In my case, a woman who walked into a supermarket ablebodied and walked out basically crippled for life and unable to work due to slipping on a pool of detergent was given nothing because the 18 year olds and cranky older people believed there and “too many unnecessary lawsuits” and “she needed to take personal responsibility, accidents happen, if somebody slips on my icy driveway it’s their fault, I feel the store is being persecuted.” The case was decided completely on prejudice, not on evidence, and that’s got to be a thousand times worse in a rape trail. Would they acquit a guy who goes around shooting people and claims it’s in his sleep? I doubt it, because even if his defense were true, he’s a grave danger to public safety. But if it doesn’t affect them, they don’t care.

  61. funny

    Was Amherst trying to cover it up? Was he rich? He should have been kicked out of the dorm on the first offence. After two offences, I would expect the court to say: Fine, your innocent of “rape”, but your a menace, so your going in a nut house until doctors figure out what to do with you.

    Its like “not guilty be reason of insanity”, it just moves you from a place that can’t rehabilitate you to a place that can. And I’m sorry if people can’t accept that rehabilitation is the ultimate goal, your just a sad sad human being and I feel sorry for you.

  62. Mandos

    “And whether or not someone regards themselves as raped is not really a reliable way to guage rape or not. Plenty of obviously raped women have been indoctrinated to believe it was their fault.”

    Yes, but they key word here is “fault.” These women recognize that something bad and unwelcome has happened, and they’ve been indoctrinated out of their natural moral sense that tells them its the rapist’s fault. This is quite different from a case where it is welcome.

    I agree in principle that it is possible to tell someone that they are suffered an injury when they don’t believe they have. In this case, the injury is largely dependent on the perspective of the victim, however, since rape, as I understand it, is primarily a crime against a woman’s psyche more than it is against her body. Or that is how it has been described to me.

  63. U

    If someone isn’t suffering, do you really one to tell them that they should be? Didn’t this go out with Freud & psychoanalysis?

  64. darkymac

    MANDOS
    Yes, but they key word here is “fault.” These women recognize that something bad and unwelcome has happened, and they’ve been indoctrinated out of their natural moral sense that tells them its the rapist’s fault. This is quite different from a case where it is welcome.
    Perspicuous perspicacity. In a paragraph, you’ve presented the central training mode for sexual slavery. I vote 1 for your continued contribution here.

    Correct me please, but I read your reply as having taken the “their fault”of TEENAGECATGIRL to be the rapist’s fault, when I read it differently: “their” meaning the raped.
    However, in a wonderful way, your reply to TEENAGECATGIRL expands on her primary observation that the decision about the nature of rape continues to be the province of the Patriarchy. “Fault” is in that sense not the key word in her observation, even if it becomes the key word in your expansion of her observation. The key word in her observation is “gauge”. Judge. Measure. Very much what is done by the Patriarchy and what is not permitted, still, to be the province of the raped.

    Thus your final observation
    In this case, the injury (that of an induced perception of injury) is largely dependent on the perspective of the victim, however, since rape, as I understand it, is primarily a crime against a woman’s psyche more than it is against her body.
    remains bogged in the Patriarchy’s training method for sex slaves: the sex slave may be permitted a degree of wriggle within the bonds, and the Patriarchy has been finally (in the last 30 years) forced to start to include the raped’s words, their voiced desire, in the Patriarchy’s judgement of the putative act of rape. This has induced the addition of the wondrous double-think/double-speak of “does no mean yes or no?” to the Patriarchy’s arsenal of brainwashing tools for sex slaves.
    But the idea that rape is a violation of psyche is simply an extension of the “gauge” idea of TEENAGECATGIRL. There is nothing arcane or psychoanalytical in plain violation of the person that needs the complicating invocation of injury to the “psyche”.
    Except when the Patriarchy has so tied up the autonomy of women in its design for sexual objects that any claim of injury to the person (except in violent assault, in which case one is in the realm of the undeniable and which the Patriarchy is presently squirming about in getting much so-called SM, B&D, what you will, redefined into acceptable sexual activity) is routinely defined as a misapprehension of the reality of sexual interaction.

    There is a very plain way for rape to be avoided – at least outside the very much more complicated dynamics of the Patriarchy’s mandated sex slavery institution called marriage, where this discussion can’t realistically go without a lot of definitions made clear – and that is for nobody to touch anybody without anybody’s express consent every step of the way. This makes rape unnecessary as a separate offence on the books; all violation of the person is assault. Psyche has bugger-all to do with it and restraint and lack of license to assault has everything to do with it.

    Women know this. It’s about justice and the original news item is plainly the Patriarchy continuing with the brainwashing.

  65. Mandos

    “Correct me please, but I read your reply as having taken the “their fault”of TEENAGECATGIRL to be the rapist’s fault, when I read it differently: “their” meaning the raped.”

    No, I took it as the raped, not the rapist’s. The other reading to me is rather absurd. From there, I’m not at all sure how the rest of your observation follows from that exchange. In fact, I’m not even sure how the exchange follows from your reading, which I cannot obtain anyway.

    “There is a very plain way for rape to be avoided – at least outside the very much more complicated dynamics of the Patriarchy’s mandated sex slavery institution called marriage, where this discussion can’t realistically go without a lot of definitions made clear – and that is for nobody to touch anybody without anybody’s express consent every step of the way. This makes rape unnecessary as a separate offence on the books; all violation of the person is assault. Psyche has bugger-all to do with it and restraint and lack of license to assault has everything to do with it.”

    This very much also depends on there being no qualitative difference between sexual touching and other forms of touching in relation to the mind and that there is no relevant concept of “bodily integrity” and that if there were, rape would not differ qualitatively from other assault crimes.

    I must say that that’s a massive empirical and conceptual burden for your argument to bear.

    Even worse, if for the sake of argument you are fully correct and rape is not qualitative different from other crimes, then I suggest you’ve actually LOWERED the burden of consent for sexual contact. Because in actual life we do not ask for consent every step of the way. My parents do not explicitly ask for my consent when they embrace me on meeting me when I visit them, and so on, and so forth… “Every step of the way” is, in non-sexual contact, quite abnormal, if we are talking about the mechanics of daily life. So in making rape equivalent to all other assaults, are you willing to embrace this weaker notion of common-sense consent?

    Somehow, I think not.

  66. darkymac

    MANDOS
    The other reading to me is rather absurd. From there, I’m not at all sure how the rest of your observation follows from that exchange. In fact, I’m not even sure how the exchange follows from your reading, which I cannot obtain anyway.

    Equally for me there is no logic in your having got any further in any kind of exposition of the observation made by TEENAGECATGIRL unless there was some kind of way to read “their fault” in the alternative I wrung (admittedly in extremis in trying to defend your strange detour) out of it.
    There is clearly nothing more to be added here then except that I note the absence of any explanation of why you chose to emphasise “fault” over TEENAGECATGIRL’s highlighting of the reactions of well-trained sex slaves. And I want to try to emphasise again that your exposition of the central point about indoctrination These women recognize that something bad and unwelcome has happened, and they’ve been indoctrinated out of their natural moral sense that tells them its the rapist’s fault. is one of the best most clear descriptions of the state of women’s position in the judgement of rape today. There was no irony in my vote for your contribution. My problem was with all of your following argument. This is quite different from a case where it is welcome. is stating the bleeding obvious and is where I take exception with everything the Patriarchy does in prescribing how sexual activity is to be done.

    There isn’t much more to be got out of your reply to me that I haven’t repeated in too many other fora.
    In particular your furphy about embracing relatives being the paradigm for consensual touch in the wider society of unrelated individuals leaves me saddened.
    Around here, any uninvited touch from an acquaintance is assault. “Sexual touch” is a red herring in that arena.
    I expected more from your record on this site.

    Today was an exception to my return to an offline life. I hope you won’t interpret my silence from now on as disapproval or disengagement from some interesting exchanges.

    all the best

  67. TeenageCatgirl

    Darkymac, I love you.

  68. TeenageCatgirl

    Mandos: actually, plenty of women who regard having brought rape on themselves don’t regard their experience as rape, they know they didn’t enjoy it, and the ‘fault’ you speak of comes in here.
    I sometimes dream about pissing when I’m alseep with a full bladder, that doesn’t mean I’d be perfectly content for someone to shove a catheter in to do the job for me.

    Of course, we wouldn’t need any of these arguments if men were prepared to keep their dicks out of women they didn’t have consent from first, would we?

    And by the way, (not that hugging and sex are in any way similar) your relatives may not ask your permission before hugging, but I’m pretty certain if you woke up to find them doing it you’d think it was a little odd…

  69. Mandos

    “”This is quite different from a case where it is welcome.” is stating the bleeding obvious and is where I take exception with everything the Patriarchy does in prescribing how sexual activity is to be done.”

    It wasn’t obvious from teenagecatgirl’s remark. She was arguing that someone who claimed that sex was welcome after the fact could still be said to have been raped.

    I didn’t know that my contributions were up for a democratic vote. Should I be campaigning?

    I’m not sure what you mean by the rest of your post, but I won’t pursue it since you are leaving.

    Farewell.

  70. TeenageCatgirl

    Except in this circumstance, Mandos, the ‘welcomeness’ of the sex was established after the sex had begun, which is not quite the same thing as normal, welcome sexual activity.

  71. Mandos

    “actually, plenty of women who regard having brought rape on themselves don’t regard their experience as rape, they know they didn’t enjoy it, and the ‘fault’ you speak of comes in here.”

    This was sort of my point. It’s clearly unwelcome in this case. The question is, is it possible for it to be welcome after the fact? ie, is there such a thing as retroactive consent?

  72. Mandos

    “And by the way, (not that hugging and sex are in any way similar) your relatives may not ask your permission before hugging, but I’m pretty certain if you woke up to find them doing it you’d think it was a little odd…”

    But (sans sex) people do embrace each other in their sleep.

    All nitpicking aside, the point is that most human relations don’t involve explicitly obtaining consent, even if consent is necessary—that is, implicit consent exists in most human relations. I’m willing to agree that this should not be the case for sex.

  73. TeenageCatgirl

    Well I’m sure if a good buddy of yours walks up and decides to give your testicles a feelin’ you’ll be perfectly happy.

    And I wasn’t referring to the canadian court case, I think considering the woman attempted to get a conviction that was pretty UNwelcome, I was referring to what you mentioned in the first place, Ms Kate’s rape/not rape.
    And no, there is no such thing as retroactive consent, that’s only accidently not rape.

  74. TeenageCatgirl

    And Mandos, if you’re willing to agree that implicit consent should not be the case for rape, then why are you making a point that all human interactions involve implicit consent?

  75. jon

    Do you consent to being bumped on the subway or on a busy sidewalk? Has anyone ever tapped you on the shoulder to get your attention? Are these cases of assault?

    About Ms. Kate’s comments earlier. Those who said that she was raped. Bullshit. Do you believe those that go to S&M clubs are guilty of or victims of assault, or even aggravated assault. She doesn’t feel that she was raped. If that’s the way she feels we have to accept what she says.
    As to if this guy had committed “sexsomnia” on another guy, there would be only one verdict, if the case ever got to trial, at least in the case of the average straight man, being the “sexsominiated” guilty of rape/sodomy and banishment to some penal colony. Plus going to hell for having sez with a man. Although I think the man would be just as abused by the press as a woman. “Why didn’t he fight back? What is he some sort of fruit or women to not fight back?” That sort of thing.

  76. maurinsky

    My husband suggested it was time for someone, either one of the victims or one of the families of the victims, to develop justifiable homicidesomnia

  77. TeenageCatgirl

    “Plus going to hell for having ‘sez’ with a man”?
    So homosexuality is worse than rape? I also like the way you claim that a male victim of rape would be hounded as much as a female victim, and demonstrate this by using the ‘insult’ of calling him a woman. Nice. Of course this contradicts your argument somewhat, since if a man is likened to a woman for being raped, being raped must then be associated with women in particular, making a nonsense of the idea a man who has been raped would be treated identically to a woman who has.

    I’m surprised this needs pointing out, but knowingly going to an S&M club is somewhat different from being taken there whilst sleeping, just as shoulder tapping and accidental bumping are rather different from inserting a penis into someone’s body without consent.

  78. jon

    First of all. It is called a typographical error. If you look at your keyboard you will see both the “z” and “x” keys are next to each other, in an awkward position. Secondly, “I” never said that homosexuality is worse than rape. I was saying that from the position of this judge and many other men, if a man was raped by another man he would be considered less than a man. I never said that was my opinion. When I was commenting about S&M clubs I was pointing out the flaws in the arguements that Ms. Kate was raped by her husband. My statements about being jostled or touched on the shoulder were criticisms of your comments that any touching that is not explicity permitted is assault. You never said that it only applied to sexual contact. I would think that my statement about sending someone to a penal colony would make you realize that the whole part of that comment was sarcasm. Do you not watch the news? Do you not see stories almost everyday of some right wing reactionary saying that gay people are going to hell. I was saying that the media and much of the public would say that about the raped man.

    I hope you never read any history, or else you may think that Martin Gilbert loves Hitler and Nazi Germany, why else would he write so much about them.

  79. TeenageCatgirl

    Pissy, aren’t we?
    Well, I’m sorry your comment didn’t make sense. And yes, I do watch the news, however nothing in your comment indicated sarcasm. I’m well aware of why you used the S&M club analogy, my point was it was a false analogy, the two things are in no way similar, and so that cannot point out the flaws in the argument at all.

    And I didn’t say any touching without permission is assault.

  80. Frumious B.

    This is an old thread, but still deserves comment. As a disclaimer, I am not a medical specialist who studies sleep disorders. It appears from the comments that no one else here is, either. I did spend a summer working in a sleep disorders lab back in high school, so I can claim some small, probably outdated, very general knowledge of sleep disorders. There are many types of parasomnias, which is the general name for disorders which involve getting up out of the bed and doing things that are normally done only while fully awake. Sleepwalking is probably the most commonly known, but behaviors don’t stop at just walking. People in the midst of a parasomnic event can engage in surprisingly complex behaviors. Here is an account of a teenager rescued a crane onto which she had sleepwalked: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8479615/ You might think that maintaining balance while walking across a narrow, metal beam would be an act achievable only by a fully awake person. Clearly, this is not the case.

    The case which Twisty discusses is not the first time the “sleepwalking”defense has been used in a violent crime. There have been a handful of murders which used it. Some resulted in acquittal, some in conviction. Google results of “sleepwalk murder” are here: http://tinyurl.com/7e2zk. The questions raised in each of these cases are many, but here’s a short list: Can a parasomniac complete a complex action or set of actions? (The answer to this is pretty well established as yes.) Are the complex actions performed in this particular case of the sort that a parasomniac can commit? And most importantly, is the accused a comfirmed parasomniac? The answers to these questions, gentle readers, are best determined by a medical professional who specializes in sleep disorders. Parasomnia can in fact be diagnosed in a properly equiped sleep lab. The ramifications if all who have used a parasomnia defense for violent crimes were asleep when they committed the crime are certainly far-reaching. These people are clearly a threat to others whether they were awake or asleep. There are treatments for parasomnia which include behavior modification (sleep hygiene) and possible medication. I’m not sure what legal precendents exist for court enforced medical treatments. It would be very difficult to enforce a prescription for sleep hygiene. Plus, there is the civil rights issue. Yes Virginia, even criminals have civil rights.

    What all this boils down to is that it may be possible that Mr. Luedecke was telling the truth. It is also possible that he was lying. We cannot know without proper medical documentation, and none has appeared on this blog to date.

  1. The continuing exploits of Britain’s merry rapists at I Blame The Patriarchy

    [...] be your guide you through the mists of time. November of 2005 is when Ontarioian (?) ass-carbuncle Jan Luedecke was acquitted of a rape charge on grounds that he ’suffers’ from a ‘medical [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>