Not sure why the person who translated the commentary put it as "Sleeping 'sex'," when it's not only written as 'rape' but also fundamentally initiating any sexual act upon a sleeping person is inherently rape, as one cannot consent if they aren't awake.

Catloaf said:

Not sure why the person who translated the commentary put it as "Sleeping 'sex'," when it's not only written as 'rape' but also fundamentally initiating any sexual act upon a sleeping person is inherently rape, as one cannot consent if they aren't awake.

If you can read it and see it is wrong, you can easily correct it.

NWSiaCB said:

If you can read it and see it is wrong, you can easily correct it.

I could, but I also always assume that I'm somehow actually wrong.

Catloaf said:

Not sure why the person who translated the commentary put it as "Sleeping 'sex'," when it's not only written as 'rape' but also fundamentally initiating any sexual act upon a sleeping person is inherently rape, as one cannot consent if they aren't awake.

Because 姦 does have "debauchery" as basic meaning, and with her reaction in the end and the commentary I can't really call it rape.
And also, I don't care about legal definitions.

Catloaf said:

Not sure why the person who translated the commentary put it as "Sleeping 'sex'," when it's not only written as 'rape' but also fundamentally initiating any sexual act upon a sleeping person is inherently rape, as one cannot consent if they aren't awake.

What if consent was given before the person went to sleep?

200%depressed said:

What if consent was given before the person went to sleep?

That's a grey area. Closer to okay than rape, but not fully. As true consent requires the ability to be rescinded at any time. So it's okay once she wakes up, but between then and the time of initiation, it's technically ambiguous at best, but practically fine; few if any would object.