The implied consent for erotic asphyxiation applies to the act that one is engaged in at the time of the choke out, not for a switch up once unconscious.
I would agree. Unfortunately that does not apply in this case, she gave prior consent on the occasion in question and on other prior occasions, she also did not have an issue until an argument over child custody months after the fact. The fact that it was overturned in the provincial courts after she admitted to lying about the facts should be where it ends.
The comparisons you are using are normal expressions of sexuality that do not bring about the risk of death, or cause brain damage when done 'properly'.
And just whose definition of normal sexuality are we using here?
While I get what you're saying, consenting adults don't end up in a court room anyway.... the courts didn't chase this case down.
You are correct but this case was brought about initially for revenge over a threat made in an argument and once it was overturned because of her lies it was hijacked by the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and not taken to the SCC by the original complainant.
Please don't get me wrong, if this was clear-cut sexual assault I would help you throw the book at the guy but for the court to rule on what I and my wife are allowed to do with prior consent in our bedroom is wrong.
I believe the next time I need surgery I will wake up and say I wanted to withdraw my prior consent but couldn't because I was unconscious and sue for millions and see where that goes with this precedent.
It raises that question only by implying that the woman was consenting and the charges were false and the sentence wrong.
Therein lies the rub. It was originally overturned because it was determined the charges were in fact false and she had lied about consenting to the specific act.
