There’s an article on CTV’s website about a court case dealing with sexsomnia.
Basically, it’s sleep-walking, except you have sex with someone.
Believe or disbelieve as you will. Personally, I could see it happening in a case now and again. Some people eat while they’re asleep, some people talk while they’re asleep. The act of getting up, walking to the refridgerator, fighting to open tupperware, getting cutlery, chewing, then swallowing food, and going back to bed, doesn’t really seem all that different from having sex. Both are fairly complex activities; the difference is that one involves another individual (who, in this case, appears to have been passed out from drinking too much… not exactly a moving target…)
The details, of course, are extremely unclear from this article - so it’s really difficult to objectively talk about whether this is or is not a real condition.
What really caught my eye was this excerpt:
Nonetheless, a counsellor with the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre said she worries some men could pretend to have sexsomnia as a defense for forcing themselves on women.
There’s just so much wrong with a statement like this. Who cares if “other men will pretend” that they have this condition - there are two questions that need to be answered here. A) Is this a real condition? B) Did this guy suffer from this condition during the incidents?
“Oh, someone else might pretend to have it to avoid charges” is just such a steaming pile of bunk. What do they suggest as an alternative? That we punish a man who had a genuine medical condition because, possibly, someone else in the future might lie and say that they had a similar condition? “No officer, I’m speeding because my wife is about to have a baby!!” “Well, I can see that she’s pregnant, but if I let you off with a warning, then EVERYONE will say that their wife is pregnant; and frankly I’m too lazy to try and figure out if the woman is or is not going to have a baby, so here’s your ticket”
I understand that sexual assault is a sensitive and important issue, and that women (and men!) need to be protected from sexual abuse. All of that is unimportant here - what is at issue is single man’s guilt or innocence - the idea that he should be punished because someone else might lie and use a similar defense is just plain outrageous. Each case should be decided on its own merits.