The tag implication #42565 sleep_sex -> questionable_consent has been rejected.

Reason: I feel like having sex with someone who is unconscious is questionable at best, and legally speaking, having sex with an unconscious person is considered rape. After all, how can you consent if you're not awake? However, I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate for this site's purposes, so I'll leave it up to moderator discretion.

EDIT: The tag implication sleep_sex -> questionable_consent (forum #320901) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

lugia98075 said:
The tag implication #42565 sleep_sex -> questionable_consent has been rejected.

Reason: I feel like having sex with someone who is unconscious is questionable at best, and legally speaking, having sex with an unconscious person is considered rape. After all, how can you consent if you're not awake? However, I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate for this site's purposes, so I'll leave it up to moderator discretion.

cool, morality in artwork...again.

I agree it could technically be considered questionable consent but heres the thing..

Videos and art of someone having sex while the other is asleep has a 50/50 chance of being rape.. They didn't say yes and they don't have the ability to say no (until they wake up)

BUT ALSO, we (the viewers) Have no idea what the context actually is. I.E what the couple sex life is like, if the 2 talked about it before hand, if the artist even freaking said so...

Bottomline. We could just assume that every sleep sex image on this site is consensual unless stated otherwise by the artist, therefore earning it the sleep sex tag. If it is, in fact, stated otherwise by the artist then you get the questionable consent and rape tags ready at that point lol

These are drawings in a fictional if not fantasy setting, there's no telling the level of consent between two characters if there's not some active indication in the image that consent may be lacking. Aside from prior consent, there's also the potential for psychic communication from the sleeping partner. Or perhaps some dream ritual where the characters are fully aware and having sex in a lucid dream state, knowing their bodies are having sex outside of the dream too. The possibilities are only limited by the imagination.

Why putting sleep_sex at rape's wiki, op?

No.
pool:25386

Yea, it's entirely possible for a wife to come home really late from work, so the husband says beforehand "yea, go ahead and peg me when you get back, even if I'm asleep."...

Context is necessary in cases involving rape and questionable consent, and the lack of context shouldn't imply the opposite. sleep_sex should be used in any instance of a character having sex with another character, the latter being asleep. This can include rape or questionable consent, but it is not exclusively rape or questionable consent.

The request isn't for forced, it's for questionable_consent. It makes sense to me. We don't know which way it is, therefore it's questionable.
All of the complaints I'm seeing read as though you all assumed it was for forced.

furrin_gok said:
The request isn't for forced, it's for questionable_consent. It makes sense to me. We don't know which way it is, therefore it's questionable.
All of the complaints I'm seeing read as though you all assumed it was for forced.

But not every situation will be questionable.

strikerman said:
But not every situation will be questionable.

Just to play the devil's advocate...
From the TWYS point of view, where both external information and text are irrelevant, wouldn't a situation where one of the characters literally cannot consent due to being asleep be questionable?

furrin_gok said:
The request isn't for forced, it's for questionable_consent. It makes sense to me. We don't know which way it is, therefore it's questionable.
All of the complaints I'm seeing read as though you all assumed it was for forced.

“I consent”
post #2840797

What if a sleep-walker makes sex with someone also asleep? Would it be questionable consent for both characters, the one penetrated or any? Hmm~

furrin_gok said:
We don't know which way it is, therefore it's questionable.

There's a difference between unknown and questionable, subtle as it may be. If you don't know, then you don't know, it can be either way. If it's questionable, you have reason to doubt it exists but you can't verify it doesn't. Most of the images of sex here can't be verified that complete 100% mutual consent exists between the characters, that is we don't know which way it is, but we don't tag them as questionable_consent because they also don't suggest consent is lacking.

With this implication, it's essentially saying a character sleeping while having sex, ignoring anything else that may be in the image, is inherently enough to raise doubt about consent but can't be verified. This causes a problem in cases where there's other elements of the image that makes consent explicitly clear despite a character having sex while asleep. It goes the other way too, if there's elements making it clear that there is no consent, it would still be tagged questionable_consent even though consent is clearly non-existent (making it rape instead of questionable_consent).

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Why putting sleep_sex at rape's wiki, op?

I will admit, that was a mistake on my part, I didn't fully think it out before adding it, I have undone that edit.

Unrelated to the above, I didn't expect to go to bed and come back to such controversy. I myself love a good debate, but I am a bit sorry about bringing it to a tag implication post. if I had known it'd get this much attention, I would've made a non-tag related forum post. I would give my thoughts on the debate, but I'm not sure if I should be adding any more fuel to the flames.

lugia98075 said:
I will admit, that was a mistake on my part, I didn't fully think it out before adding it, I have undone that edit.

Unrelated to the above, I didn't expect to go to bed and come back to such controversy. I myself love a good debate, but I am a bit sorry about bringing it to a tag implication post. if I had known it'd get this much attention, I would've made a non-tag related forum post. I would give my thoughts on the debate, but I'm not sure if I should be adding any more fuel to the flames.

I say add your thoughts as long as it doesn't break the rules. If we don't talk about this. We may be changing a tag for better or worse. That's why we open to disagreements or agreements. Regardless, voices need to be heard from both sides.

As I said my 2-cents earlier, morality is out the window for artwork, I care litte if it's rape or not, if it looks like rape, I'll tag it. But SLEEP SEX, don't look like rape to me, looks like...well sex while sleeping.

watsit said:
If it's questionable, you have reason to doubt it exists but you can't verify it doesn't.

In other words, exactly what sleep sex entails. You have reason to doubt there's any consent, but can't actually verify it. Even if the character is wearing apparel that says "I consent," that's not consent.

With this implication, it's essentially saying a character sleeping while having sex, ignoring anything else that may be in the image, is inherently enough to raise doubt about consent but can't be verified. This causes a problem in cases where there's other elements of the image that makes consent explicitly clear despite a character having sex while asleep. It goes the other way too, if there's elements making it clear that there is no consent, it would still be tagged questionable_consent even though consent is clearly non-existent (making it rape instead of questionable_consent).

Can you give me any examples of that? From what I can see, it's absolutely questionable. There's doubt, not proof.

furrin_gok said:
Even if the character is wearing apparel that says "I consent," that's not consent.

If a statement of consent isn't consent, what is? These are fictional depictions of sex, often captured in a single image or page, we're allowed to take what we see at face value (and in fact we're supposed to for TWYS). If someone is communicating their consent, for instance by wearing apparel stating "I CONSENT" without some other indication that it's not true, we can assume consent for tagging purposes. We don't need to think of hypothetical background details, or doubt the details we do see, to apply tags. Otherwise, all pictures of sex should be tagged questionable_consent since it can't be unquestionably verified as (non-)consensual without outside information. Where's the consent on post #3032837, post #3033084, post #3034680, or post #3034649? None of those are unquestionably consensual, but we assume they are due to the lack of any details questioning their consent.

furrin_gok said:
Can you give me any examples of that? From what I can see, it's absolutely questionable. There's doubt, not proof.

Well, post #2840797 has communicated consent. Sure, you could imagine scenarios where the character wasn't really consenting, but you can do the same for any picture of sex. Similarly, post #2859011 makes pretty clear it wasn't consensual. And sure, you could imagine scenarios where the character was actually consenting, but the same goes for any picture of rape. Like I said, we can take what we see at face value, and these cases it's not questionable enough for the questionable_consent tag, in my opinion.

watsit said:
Where's the consent on post #3032837, post #3033084, post #3034680, or post #3034649? None of those are unquestionably consensual, but we can assume they are due to the lack of any details questioning the consent.

This is a bit of an aside, but you can find implied consent in many images like that. The last one, for example, features the characters kissing, which pretty much confirms that both parties are willing participants. Or, another common thing you can find in most of these images is the lack of struggling or resistance of any kind. To that point, a character being asleep could count as evidence of non-consent, and many of the sleep_sex posts can and should receive the questionable_consent tag in addition. However, as you pointed out at the end, sleep sex is not incompatible with things like an explicit statement of consent (as in the first example) or a clear depiction of a non-consensual situation (as in the second).

scaliespe said:
This is a bit of an aside, but you can find implied consent in many images like that. The last one, for example, features the characters kissing, which pretty much confirms that both parties are willing participants.

Ehh, not really. Two people kissing during sex doesn't confirm consent. Rape doesn't always result in a struggle, it's not unusual for the victim to submit and "go with the flow", to do what the rapist wants and how they want to avoid physical retaliation and get it over with sooner. In any case, implied consent was pretty much my point with those posts. We don't question consent for tagging purposes when there's implied consent like in those examples, yet actual expressed consent, on apparel designed for the state they were in indicating intent with the message in that state, means we should tag it as questionable consent? That doesn't make sense to me.

watsit said:
Well, post #2840797 has communicated consent. Sure, you could imagine scenarios where the character wasn't really consenting, but you can do the same for any picture of sex. Similarly, post #2859011 makes pretty clear it wasn't consensual. And sure, you could imagine scenarios where the character was actually consenting, but the same goes for any picture of rape. Like I said, we can take what we see at face value, and these cases it's not questionable enough for the questionable_consent tag, in my opinion.

I already told you, clothing doesn't count. What if the character didn't know what the words meant? What if it was put on afterward? What if it was meant to be directed at another character? The rape one however, I'd say a spiked drink does count as rape.
There are a lot of images tagged as both questionable_consent forced. This comes down to how strongly we want to split this--either a giant cleanup is necessary (An image would need to have at least two pairings to get both), or crossover is permissable. In the latter case, I'd say it's still worth implying this, but not in the former.

furrin_gok said:
I already told you, clothing doesn't count. What if the character didn't know what the words meant? What if it was put on afterward? What if it was meant to be directed at another character? The rape one however, I'd say a spiked drink does count as rape.
There are a lot of images tagged as both questionable_consent forced. This comes down to how strongly we want to split this--either a giant cleanup is necessary (An image would need to have at least two pairings to get both), or crossover is permissable. In the latter case, I'd say it's still worth implying this, but not in the former.

In all honestly, it sounds like you just don't like sleep sex in general. You're sounding like you're trying to grasping at straws to justified your statement by saying such and such shouldn't/should be this because we don't know otherwise. Taking what you've said to the basic extreme, we should take any kind of sex as "questionable_consent" because we have no idea if they're being blackmailed into this, being mind controlled into this, or just personally trained to be a sex slave from childhood.

furrin_gok said:
I already told you, clothing doesn't count. What if the character didn't know what the words meant? What if it was put on afterward? What if it was meant to be directed at another character?

What if the horse is under duress? What if the blaziken was caught off guard? What if chica is being forced into it? What if the vaporeon is being pressured? We don't tag "what if"s, we tag what we see. If we see a character communicating consent, we can assume consent is there without imagining some unseen reason that it's not meant. There is no indication in the image they're illiterate, there's no indication in the image it was put on after the fact, and there's no indication in the image that wasn't who it was intended for.

furrin_gok said:
There are a lot of images tagged as both questionable_consent forced. This comes down to how strongly we want to split this--either a giant cleanup is necessary (An image would need to have at least two pairings to get both), or crossover is permissable.

I'd say they're mutually exclusive for a given character, that a character can't be both maybe-forced and is-forced. You can't simultaneously know consent is lacking for forced and question if consent exists for questionable_consent. A post can have both tags if they apply to separate characters, but for a given character their consent can't be both questioned and unquestioned.

the_shinx said:
In all honestly, it sounds like you just don't like sleep sex in general. You're sounding like you're trying to grasping at straws to justified your statement by saying such and such shouldn't/should be this because we don't know otherwise. Taking what you've said to the basic extreme, we should take any kind of sex as "questionable_consent" because we have no idea if they're being blackmailed into this, being mind controlled into this, or just personally trained to be a sex slave from childhood.

There are no straws there. Clothing wouldn't be considered consent in real life, only spoken word. That should have been obvious.

A person who is sleeping cannot give or deny their consent. It's impossible. That's what would make it questionable.

furrin_gok said:
There are no straws there. Clothing wouldn't be considered consent in real life, only spoken word. That should have been obvious.

I think they were commenting about that part of your statement:

furrin_gok said:
I already told you, clothing doesn't count. What if the character didn't know what the words meant? What if it was put on afterward? What if it was meant to be directed at another character? The rape one however, I'd say a spiked drink does count as rape.

A person who is sleeping cannot give or deny their consent. It's impossible. That's what would make it questionable.

We're talking about fictional characters in fictional settings, so it's entirely possible for someone to consent while asleep. Some ways I can think of is by astral projection, telepathy or even by a character himself they could for example transfer their consciousness to an android and fuck their seemly by TWYS asleep body. Because of that I believe this should be a case by case not a straight up implication.

furrin_gok said:
A person who is sleeping cannot give or deny their consent. It's impossible. That's what would make it questionable.

In real life, a sleeping person can't legally give or deny consent. That doesn't mean they can't still give it, it can be expressed or implied in other ways. The same for many BDSM practices, which we don't inherently tag as questionable consent despite characters wearing muzzles or mouth gags where it's physically impossible for them to vocalize consent. We assume someone who is bound in BDSM gear and unable to speak has given prior consent. That doesn't mean a court would accept it of course, but the tag isn't legally questionable consent, it's questionable consent regarding the characters, not a court.

The tag implication sleep_sex -> questionable_consent (forum #320901) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.