I know it’s often been the source of much amusement (yes Polly, I’m looking at you), but I’m actually quite stunned by Pamela Stephenson Connolly’s Sexual Healing column in this week’s Guardian:
The reader’s problem is described in the headline as “My boyfriend can climax only by initiating sex while I’m asleep“, and here’s how she describes it:
“When we first started sleeping together, my boyfriend was unable to climax, despite our best efforts. However he initiated sex again while I was sleeping and through this he was able to climax. This has become a regular problem – not able to climax, and then waking me up later in the night. It’s not particularly a turn-on for me. After sex, or attempts at sex, he’s quite cold and impassive, and doesn’t want to talk about it. I don’t understand this behaviour and it’s building up a lot of frustration in me. What should I do?”
Now I’m assuming that like me, a lot of people reading that are thinking “Run, run the fuck away now! And fast!”
Stephenson Connolly on the other hand, has this to say:
“There are several reasons why a man might have difficulty reaching orgasm. It’s possible that he may not be sufficiently aroused by vaginal intercourse. Sometimes this problem occurs in men whose masturbation style is a rough one; they can’t easily make the transition. Sometimes intrusive images enter a person’s head and distract him, and sometimes anxiety gets in the way. Perhaps he requires his partner to be more passive, for some reason. Sometimes medication is the culprit.
Try to talk to him when he is relaxed (not during or immediately after sex). First reassure him with something positive you enjoy about his love- making style, then ask him: “How might I help you climax?” You might also inquire: “What occurs between your first attempt and when you wake me up that makes all the difference?” A little detective work may earn you a better night’s sleep.”
Seriously? The man is “initiating sex” while his partner is sleeping, and all Pamela Stephenson Connolly can suggest is to “try talking to him about it”?
Still, I’m glad to see that some of the commenters under the piece have picked up on what’s going on here, even if Stephenson Connolly is oblivious to it.
Here’s the relevant clause from the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
75. Evidential presumptions about consent
(1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—
(a) that the defendant did the relevant act,
(b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and
(c) that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(2) The circumstances are that—
(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(b) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;
(c) the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;
(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(e) because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
(f) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
(3) In subsection (2)(a) and (b), the reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began.
I don’t know about you, but personally I think the Guardian has a responsibility here to point out that what’s going on in this relationship is actually unlawful. Or if they have evidence that it’s not, for example if there’s more in the reader’s letter that explains the situation better, to include some of that explanation in the published piece. Otherwise it looks as though both Pamela Stephenson Connolly, and the Guardian as her publisher, are condoning rape and encouraging a woman to remain in an abusive and damaging relationship. And I’m pretty sure that that’s not really the kind of message they want to be giving out.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
I think people probably pointed this out, but said comments were removed. A heck of a lot of them were moderated. But yes, great post. She should run the heck away or reasonably cry the R word.
It’s like the Guardian also let Naomi Wolf do the problem page…
But, but it’s not rape because within the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 there is this very important clause – namely ‘taking account of all circumstances surrounding the incident.’ In other words it is a cop-out clause because juries will assume it is a man’s right to have sexual access to a long-term female even she is sleeping because she is already in a sexual relationship.
Don’t believe me? Look it up in the Act. Furthermore, the woman didn’t say no did she? And how are we to know (sic) if the woman didn’t just wake up just prior to male penetrating her and saying that magic word ‘yes!’ After all it is just one female’s word against the mighty male and we all know men are the only members of the human race who are innately truthful and respectable! Women are always seeking to deny men their natural sex right to women – because men denied such rights will supposedly die of spontaneous combustion!
I can’t believe the number of Guardian commenters that twigged to the rape (and potential necrophiliac) angle – Guardian comments are usually dominated by MRAs.
PSC is a puppet of the patriarchy. Her idea of normal heterosexual relations is that ‘men will be men, and women should just stfu about it and submit’.
The rather serious angle that PSC has ignored is that this guy only gets off when his partner does NOT consent (or participate). Not only are these the makings of a serial rapist, but in all probability, a serial rapist killer, obsessed with necrophilia. Whilst reporting this dude for rape will probably see him let off (they were in a consensual relationship), the important thing in pressing the charges is that his prints will be taken, and I guess used when he does go on to rape/murder other women. Sadly, more women are going to be raped or killed by this dude before he is stopped.
Yes, the sensible advice is “get the fuck outta there! Run!”
I’m not sure she is in fact implying he molests her while she is actually asleep, as she does say “he wakes me up”. I think it’s a confusing description but i read it differently to you, and therefore don’t take such a strong stance on this particular case study.
M2M
You need to re-read it.
However he initiated sex again while I was sleeping and through this he was able to climax. This has become a regular problem – not able to climax, and then waking me up later in the night.
The second part indicates that she was awoken later AFTER he had penetrated (raped) her whilst asleep. Not awoken her for “sex” later on. He cannot climax when she is awake. Get it yet??? Stop apologising for rapists.
To you from failing hands I throw the torch Cath.
I’m stunned as well. Dear reader, your boyfriend is a rapist. Ditch him.
I don’t think it’s clear what is actually going on, it
needs to be clarified. Does “initiating sex” mean he wakes her up
first or does it mean that he starts molesting her in her sleep?
Even if it was the first and not the second I’d ditch him for being
a selfish jerk.
. However he initiated sex again while I was sleeping and through this he was able to climax
I don’t see how you can ‘initiate sex’ with someone who’s asleep without starting to have sex with them while they’re asleep.
What else would ‘initiate’ mean in that context?
Oh and while we’re on the subject Cath, have you seen this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345265/Bouncer-raped-drunk-woman-posing-Good-Samaritan-home.html
A rare case of a an actual rape being reported in the Mail, but that’s not what struck me.
Anthony Armstrong was working on the door of a pub in Blyth, Northumberland, which the 25-year-old victim had become severely intoxicated. When the doorman found her slumped in a toilet cubicle he helped her up and said he would drive her home.
However his apparent kindness turned to rape on the way back when she asked him to stop the car as she felt sick.
In a gross breach of trust, Armstrong attacked her outside his Land Rover before dropping her off at her home nearby.
Jailing Armstrong for four years, Judge John Evans, at Newcastle Crown Court, told him: ‘It must have been evident she was in an appalling state and initially you acted in a way which was entirely commendable. At that stage your intentions were honourable.
Eh? So does his honour SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that he offered her a lift home in all innocence and it was only when she threw up that the thought of rape entered his head?
I don’t see how you can ‘initiate sex’ with someone who’s asleep without starting to have sex with them while they’re asleep.
What else would ‘initiate’ mean in that context?
I agree, within the context, it is difficult to interpret this in any other way. If she meant “he would wake me up for [to have] sex later on” then she would have said it this way. But using the word ‘initiate’ whilst “she was asleep” means he either sexually fondled her (sexual assault) or penetrated her (rape). Either way, this dude is well on the rapist scale and definitely has a rapist mentality.
Readily giving this dude, and others like him, the benefit of the doubt, is exactly one of the reasons the rape conviction rates are in the shitter, particularly those few that end up to trial. Rapists are now using “sleep fucking [walking]” as a defence these days (has been used at least twice in the last few years, with successful results). So this benefit of the doubt BS just needs to stop if rape victims are to receive justice.
Eh? So does his honour SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that he offered her a lift home in all innocence and it was only when she threw up that the thought of rape entered his head?
Good grief. How dumb does His Honour really need to be?
Or is vomit-fetish some well known fetish we are not yet aware of?
Lots of rapists do at least some planning, even if only plying the intended victim with alcohol first, that is still PLANNING TO RAPE. Other planning includes drugging the victim, getting her to a location under false pretenses, lying about other people being or not being there, etc. Disbelieving the planning aspect requires one to believe that menz just have ‘uncontrollable urges’, which is probably what Judge Dickbrain was thinking. And frankly, if this line of thinking is correct, then the perps need to be locked up behind bars for life, because, as their excuse goes, they couldn’t help their urges. Funny how these uncontrollable urges don’t strike in the middle of a crowded police station or other venue. Me thinks that perhaps the perps might just be able to control the ‘urges’.
Via Feminist Law Professors, I happened across this list (which has appeared in various forms on various blogs over the years. No’s 8 & 9 seem relevant here.
Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!
8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.
9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!
http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2009/09/sexual-assault-prevention-tips-guaranteed-to-work/
The judge in the case of the rapist bouncer is clearly of the wrong mindset that rape is something that occurs in the spur of the moment, i.e. inflamed arousal caused dude to pounce.
In the PSC ‘sexual problem of the week’ there is clearly an omission of consent if he initiates sex while she sleeps and it’s also clear there’s an element of planning to the whole act. Creepy indeed and the advise given jaw droppingly awful.
This scenario is clearly dysfunctional however you look at
it, but not really surprising. There’s quite a bit of kinky
diversity out there and a lot of it has to with male sexuality that
has become increasingly narcissistic and disconnected from the hard
core reality of well… fucking. Course lots still perform the time
honored bedroom ritual, however unsatisfactorily – but let’s face
it there are so many seductive alternatives out there in pornland.
It’s hard to know what is going on with this guy… possibly sexual
passivity (of the masturbatory variety) has produced a need to
objectify living breathing women as fantasy objects along porno
lines before being able to ‘finish’. That he can only cum if she is
passive, feigning sleep or whatever suggests some deep seated
inhibition or complex. Very strange. But raising legal red flags is
a bit of an overreaction. The partner specifically says that he
AWAKENS her later. At most it’s a pain for her to have to deal with
but hardly a crime. What surprises me is that she puts up with it.
Must be a bit like sleeping with Nosferatu. The comment up-thread
“get the fuck outta there! Run!”… well yeah… but how about
taking it to some “expert” who knows about such weirdness. There’s
bound to be at least one.
But raising legal red flags is
a bit of an overreaction. The partner specifically says that he
AWAKENS her later. At most it’s a pain for her to have to deal with
but hardly a crime.
After he’s had sex with her, or started having sex with her? And you’re saying that’s not a crime?
So you’re saying it’s not a crime to rape someone if they know they’ve been raped?
Maybe we need to explain the nature of time. If only Stephen Hawking were here.
You can’t consent to something AFTER it’s happened.
You might not report it to the police, you might not make any objection at all, it still doesn’t mean you consented.
Cath, I noticed you tagged this piece with “Daily Mail
shite” would “Guardian shite” not be a better tag? You could throw
in that Naomi Wolf piece as well.
I definitely think there should be a guardian shite tag….
It’s only a rebutable evidential presumption. If she stood up in court and said it wasn’t rape that presumption would be rebuted. I can see some of you would like to see this overturned and it to be replaced with an irrefutable presumption, but I’m not sure what good that would do. I think she probably has a better idea of what’s going on than we do.
If it was not disturbing to her on some level, then she would not have written in to the problem page. This is not some sort of ‘kinky sex’ thing.
Many women are in fact, technically and legally raped, but due to rape myths, do not realise it is rape, even though they know ‘something just is not right’. Because the usual rape myths go along the lines of stranger-jumping-out-of-bushes. The fact is, the vast majority of rapes are committed by a male the victim knows (and frequently the partner/bf).
For the males that are finding the ‘initiating sex whilst sleeping’ difficult, what exactly would you call it if your male buddy started fondling your genitals/anus, and attempted or succeeded penetration, whilst you were still asleep? Experimentation, or attempted rape?
On consent, it is NOT perpetual btw, and true consent is able to be withdrawn at any time, even DURING a sexual encounter. Just because some female signs up to be some dude’s girlfriend, does NOT mean she gives some kind of indefinite/perpetual consent, for him to penetrate her whenever he feels like it. She has the right to body integrity and autonomy. She is not a blow-up doll.
It’s only a rebutable evidential presumption. If she stood up in court and said it wasn’t rape that presumption would be rebuted. I can see some of you would like to see this overturned and it to be replaced with an irrefutable presumption, but I’m not sure what good that would do. I think she probably has a better idea of what’s going on than we do.
Well she certainly has a better idea of what’s going on than you do James. Of course if she says she’s consented then a court would not convict her partner of rape. However the problem as presented does not say she does. And if she lies on oath about having consented, then it’s still rape, legally speaking, and she’s committed perjury.
The point I am making is that consent cannot be given retrospectively. It simply can’t be done. Refusing to make a complaint, for whatever reason, is another kettle of guppies.
Lots of women are raped and don’t complain to the police. It’s still rape.
If you don’t want to be accused of rape, don’t have sex with someone when they’re asleep unless they ALREADY gave their consent. And for your own protection, I’d make sure that you can prove that in court if need be.
Because sleeping people cannot consent to sex. It’s the nature of sleep.
PS, I think you mean ‘rebutted’. Not ‘rebuted’.
I should also add, before the rest of the MRAs descend that many men are also raped and don’t complain to the police.
However assuming that James and Jonesing are male, I’ll take it as read that they’ll be perfectly happy if somebody comes and buggers them in their sleep and then says ‘sorry, I thought you consented’.
this is very upsetting and i really think the guardian should have a right to reply from a rape crisis centre or something to this problem page article. this basically says to other women who may be concerned about their partner’s behaviour, or may be questioning whether they have been raped, that they should just not worry about it and let him have his way.
Well you can write to the readers editor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/page/readerseditor
cheers polly, might just do that.
Ugh, I saw this and my jaw dropped.
I do think there’s some ambiguity about whether he is actually penetrating her while she’s asleep, sexually touching her, or waking her up in some non-sexual way and then ‘asking’ for sex. (Or a combination of the last two).
Not sure it matters though.
NONE of these behaviours are OK. Even if he’s ‘only’ for example shaking her and saying ‘Fancy a shag?’ or whatever, until she wakes up – that’s NOT OK. I doubt he’s taking no for an answer, or asking for sex so much as assuming consent, and I’d be very doubtful that someone who has just been woken up is capable of consent anyway. A still half-asleep ‘uuuurgh’ is not consent.
Whatever, all these behaviours are on the rape spectrum. It’s deeply creepy and misogynist that he can seemingly only get off when she’s either asleep or has just been woken up so is passive. Some men do seem to want a blow-up doll, not a real live woman. True story, a friend of mine was seeing a guy who complained that she ‘moved too much’ during sex. Thankfully, she had the sense to tell him to fuck off. Which I hope the reader does to this douchewad.
I wanted to clarify that I absolutely believe this behaviour is rape – as I said, someone who has just been woken up is unlikely to be able to consent, and/ or she clearly feels coerced. Which is rape.
I didn’t want to suggest she calls the police because, sadly, I am cynical as to the chances of the case succeeding. I wish that wasn’t the case but it is.
Is there an award for ‘Worst Sex Advice Column’ we can nominate PSC for?
What knowledge, expertise and qualifications does Pamela Stephenson Connolly have to give her the right to dispense her ‘advice’?
@ Doug
And your point being is?
@ Doug
PSC did some psych degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Stephenson
A bit of paper doesn’t make it right though.