Generally speaking, regardless of what your local laws are, "don't have sex with unconcious people, ever" is a good policy to have as a human being.

Absolutely! But much like protocols (strict in what you emit, liberal in what you accept), reality is complicated and not conforming to a desired standard.

How so? What’s complicated about determining whether someone is conscious before having sex?

I'm not sure if that's the correct way to call it, but I've seen (and acted myself) "half-asleep" state many times. Apparently, I was able to answer even moderately complex questions (mostly things like "where are the car keys" or "which food did you give to our cat yesterday") and looked quite awake, yet I have absolutely no recollection of it happening. I also sometimes give answers or say things I wouldn't say normally, ie. two days ago in such a situation I apparently asked my wife why did she wrap herself with tinfoil from head to toe (obviously, this was in my dream, but I said it out loud). We have a good laugh out of this from time to time.

So yeah, I can imagine myself giving a clear "yes" to something in that state despite being consciously unaware of the entire thing. I'm not sure if "approval" like that should count court - I'm just giving you an example of one possible complication for "determining whether someone is conscious", be it before sex or otherwise.

This recent development in English law strikes me as inhuman. It turns the kissing of a sleeping lover into a violent sexual assault. Passion and spontaneity become criminalized.

Yeah I know, the same way each time I touch someone in the street, I get arrested for violently assaulting them. I'm really tired of trying not to touch anyone. /s

I know someone that was raped while not being conscious. She didn't want to have sex with that person. While trying to press charge, she found others persons that had similar experience with that guy. The cops told her tough luck, not to stay with people she didn't trust (it was a friend...) and they threaten her of making false accusation (the prosecutor herself seemed surprised of that and the cops angrily answered that she wouldn't be accused of that, luckily). The prosecutor has not enough proof to go further with it... there should have been at least someone else in that room that could testify.

That's the current state of rape accusation. Pretty far from your "kissing of a sleeping lover" being criminalized.

Is there an incident of a kiss on a sleeping lover being prosecuted?

> It turns the kissing of a sleeping lover into a violent sexual assault

No, it doesn't.

This is over the line and breaks the HN guideline against taking threads further into generic flamewar. Please don't do that. This somewhat-specific flamewar is bad enough as it is.

Also, please stop using HN for ideological battle. We've given you a ton of warnings about that already.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How is it suppressing the male sexuality? Do you honestly think it is a normal part of the male sexuality to have sex with unconcious women/men?

>It turns the kissing of a sleeping lover into a violent sexual assault. Passion and spontaneity become criminalized.

Right...

That doesn't really seem to eliminate such grey areas. Exactly how many seconds/minutes/hours are allowed to elapse between the question/answer "May I have sex with you?" ... "Yes", and the act taking place? When does consent expire?

Consent doesn't extend forward in time, it must be continuous.

Citation?