What’s your view on this?

[Jvlu]

I looked at something recently that I wanted opinions about.

Here’s the scenario: 2 people are friends. They have been friends for a long time and have often shared a bed platonically together.

On one occasion after a party, friend 1 invites friend 2 back to their place. They get ready to sleep in the same bed. On this occasion, friend 1 is wearing fewer clothes than usual and spoons up into friend 2.

This surprises friend 2 since usually there has been no such contact, intimacy or proximity. Friend 2 in their drunken state interprets this as a sign friend 1 may want more than friendship, and moves a hand to a more intimate area. Friend 1 says no, not to touch them like that, and friend 2 stops straight away and apologizes. They fall asleep together, friend 2 apologizes and friend 1 hugs friend 2 the next day before friend 2 leaves.

What has happened here? Has friend 2 done nothing more than tested a boundary, been rejected, and respectfully apologised? What about friend 1’s role? is there more to this?

What do you mean by fewer clothes, though? Did they jump into bed in negligee or a baggy T shirt? Because you are suggesting that the 'fewer clothes than usual' was taken as a green light.

I think it's odd that the next natural step from a cuddle for friend 2 was to grope their friend in an intimate area. I would have been really pissed off about that.

"Bare bum cheeks on crotch" kind of negligee. It's pretty clearly explained that the contact was more than what both had usually engaged in, and that that contact was more sexually charged than just a hug/cuddle

Forget, move on, no more bed sharing is the ideal reaction in this situation.

"Check each other's wishes" and "explicit indication" are the linguistic details that need to be translated into behavioural signals we can all agree on. I agree that if two people are not sure, in an ideal world people would use language to communicate these signals. In this scenario, once boundaries were expressly stated in clarified language, they were respected. But real life isn't ideal and sometimes behavioural cues are interpreted prior to any expression of language.

Are you really expecting that in a situation, everyone will always ask in actual language "do you want to snog?" or "do you want to touch my willy/fanny?" I'm sure you can remember many snogs you've had over the years that did not involve making a verbal request of the other person that you wanted to snog. As ideal as such verbal requests would be, I think that expectation completely overlooks the subtleties of human interactions. Mistakes will be made along the way, for sure, and further awkwardness might ensue, but I think we have to build the latent awkwardness/discomfort of some human interactions into how we model how the world works. Not everything that's awkward/uncomfortable should be classed as assault and rightly so. As I interpret this, neither F1 nor F2 have assaulted anyone in this situation. Imprudent, unwise, clumsy, sure, but there's no real villain or criminal here.

"Bare bum cheeks on crotch" kind of negligee. It's pretty clearly explained that the contact was more than what both had usually engaged in, and that that contact was more sexually charged than just a hug/cuddle

Well I don't think it is 'pretty clearly explained' that contact was more than just a cuddle. And that's the problem, isn't it. Because not everyone shares your view that friend 1 invited friend 2 to touch them in an intimate area by their behaviour. I don't think that the next natural step was groping.

You are acting as if you are completely impartial and you have not revealed their sexes etc but you have a clear bias and you're challenging anyone who thinks that friend 2's behaviour was not ok. Why invite opinions?

Well I think you’re making a bit of a semantic jump from intimate touch to grope, but presuming person 1 is the little spoon and person 2 is the big spoon, while it’s not an explicit green light to sexual intimacy it’s certainly a green light to physical intimacy, no? We’ve not been given many details, so perhaps person 1 was so drunk that they just pulled off most of their clothes and fell into bed? Either way, consciously or semi consciously person 1 put both persons in a situation where boundaries were pushed.
And I’ll have to agree with @Jvlu about signals of consent vs spoken consent; it’s hard to imagine a reality where consent is verbally sought and given in the run up to a sexual encounter.

@decayingmatter I think we can assume that OP is person 2, yes. Or certainly on their team. And probably a man.
Anyway, it all sounds a bit teenagery to me tbh.

It sounds like you're just trying to justify your inappropriate actions. You're friend 2, aren't you?

I think the impropriety bagan with the bare bum cheeks snuggled against the crotch tbf.

@Palmfrond I agree. Both behaved inappropriately.

My view is simply that there is no clear single culprit or perpetrator of greater blame in situations like these, and that all involved parties should take responsibility for facilitating an ultimately inappropriate series of events that neither person was comfortable with

Sorry but if someone puts their arse cheeks in your crotch and you're not comfortable with that you don't then make your own move. You say "I'm uncomfortable with that."

Both parties should take responsibility for their actions. Neither behaved well.

What part was friend 2 uncomfortable with?

Do people really class someone moving their hand towards an intimate area when cuddling in bed as sexual assault??!

To me it's a natural way for someone to make a move - as long as they stop immediately it's made obvious it's not welcome.

It hardly sounds like one friend forcing themselves on the other. Both were comfortable enough to keep sharing a bed, hug the next day and remain friends.

Either OP is the friend 2 and is over thinking whether they over stepped a boundary; or OP is friend 1?

Do people really class someone moving their hand towards an intimate area when cuddling in bed as sexual assault??!

Yes if they actually touched the area, which it sounds like they did.

Do you think friend 1 putting their arse cheeks in friend 2s crotch was sexual assault too? Does that not generate a reasonable expectation in friend 2s mind that the situation is of a sexual nature? If you do agree on that, then legally there's no sexual assault since a court has to agree there is no reasonable basis for any belief in consent, implied or affirmative, verbal or behavioural.

www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/3871/factsheet-what-is-sexual-consent I hope this document clears some of this up. Friend 1s behaviour can reasonably be interpreted as sexual in nature, even if the intentions that truly guided the actions were not sexual. Friend 2 misunderstood a situation many people probably also would; friend 2 definitely overstepped a boundary, but as soon as existence of that boundary was clarified they did not persist. I find it hard to square all of these messy details with the objective severity of sexual assault charges; I don't think those kinds of allegations should be tossed around so lightly

This is what Rape Crisis UK says about this:

"If you're in a sexual encounter with someone and they ask you to stop and they don't stop, you're committing a sexual offence. It's as simple as that."

Friend 1 gave friend 2 reason to believe the situation was sexual. Friend 2 interpreted the situation as a sexual one. Once friend 1 clarified that friend 2 had misunderstood the encounter as sexual, friend 2 stopped. On Rape Crisis's definition, there's no sexual offence here, unless it can be argued that friend 1's behaviour gave friend 2 absolutely no reason to think the context was sexual.

Are you really expecting that in a situation, everyone will always ask in actual language "do you want to snog?" or "do you want to touch my willy/fanny?" I'm sure you can remember many snogs you've had over the years that did not involve making a verbal request of the other person that you wanted to snog.

There’s bit a of a road between a snog and touching intimately. I don’t mean folk have a protracted discussion before sex in that kind of setting but if someone started spooning, wearing little in the way of clothes, and that was a change in behaviour without any indication prior that they were interested I’d expect there to be some kind of verbal communication about it even in the way of recognising the change in level of intimacy.

Neither person acted well, friend one needed to be clear about their intention before bare arse against crotch contact, and friend 2 should have checked before slipping the hand. Mixed messages on the part of friend 1, and a bit of overstep on the part of friend 2 - I’m sure there were ways for them to check/test the waters that didn’t involve going straight for the fanny (if that’s what happened - you haven’t clarified what the intimate touch was).

Neither have covered themselves in glory, while I don’t think it could be called sexual assault on either part.

My view is simply that there is no clear single culprit or perpetrator of greater blame in situations like these, and that all involved parties should take responsibility for facilitating an ultimately inappropriate series of events that neither person was comfortable with

@Jvlu I don't think that's good. It's like saying 'she led him on' about a victim of sexual assault.

^This is what Rape Crisis UK says about this:
"If you're in a sexual encounter with someone and they ask you to stop and they don't stop, you're committing a sexual offence. It's as simple as that."^

@thersdio That only really describes half of the scenarios or less. I imagine most women have been groped etc without their consent when they didn't want it at some point. Random blokes etc. That is also sexual assault.

As far as friend 1 was concerned, they weren't in a sexual encounter and person 2 grabbed the other by the p-word or whatever.

There is a big difference to grabbing someone in the street or in a club who you don't know and have no reason at all to think wants to be touched sexually, compared with being in bed with another person scantily clad, which is a typical sexual context, add to that being in intimate proximity, making a move, and being rebuffed. The point is that friend 2 was given reason to think the encounter might have been sexual, even if that belief was mistaken. Once the context was clarified there was no further transgression.

friend 1 is wearing fewer clothes than usual and spoons up into friend 2.

The clothing, relatively irrelevant - except in terms of the skin/contact involved in the tricks and "spooning up to".

The spooning up to ..... That is a completely inappropriate thing to do in a platonic situation.

It gives the strong (understatement) impression that 1 wants/I'd open to sexual contact.

Unless extremely "loose" spooning puts buttocks and genital// genital areas in contact. It is not a platonic, non sexual behaviour/action. It is done with intimate/sexual partners.

Friend 2, imho, completely understandably thought 1 was initiating/open to sexual contact.

Not sure whether they then touched 1's genitals, buttocks it another intimate areas of the body like breasts ... Genitals would be a bit full on, breasts for example, more understandable and measured.
In any case, it's not remotely surprising or aggressive or anything in the circumstances.

2 then stopped immediately when 1 protested/rejected, and later apologised.

I don't understand why 1 thinks it's appropriate to "spoon up to" platonic friends. Especially if they're the opposite sex. (Because spooning is a common sexual position for heterosexual couples, but not so much same sex couples).

If it was a female spooning up to a male, I'm sorry but she's being unreasonable to expect him not to see that as an invite/initiation for sexual contact. You should probably not press your arse and genitals against men's penises - especially in a bed - if you want totally platonic friendships.

I actually feel a bit sorry for 2 and feel like they shouldn't really have had to apologise.

*in terms of

As far as friend 1 was concerned, they weren't in a sexual encounter

If I spooned up to a man, anywhere but especially in bed, I'd consider myself in a sexual encounter.

(He might touch me in response, he might not - but I'd not consider the touch surprising or aggressive or i appropriate given I'd just put my buttocks & genitals in contact with his genitals).

Thinking otherwise is treating them like some kind of non human teddy bear, who doesn't have normal reactions to or interpretations of genital/sexual/intimate contact (and one that imitates a sexual position).

if someone started spooning, wearing little in the way of clothes, and that was a change in behaviour without any indication prior that they were interested I’d expect there to be some kind of verbal communication about it even in the way of recognising the change in level of intimacy.

Drunk, sleepy people don't tend to go in for conversations about the changing dynamic of the "relationship" ... 1 seemingly backed their buttocks up against 2's crotch in bed (wearing underwear?), 2 thought (entirely naturally imo) thought they were initiating sexual contact.

It would be ideal if in their drunk, sleepy, tired, lain down state 1 had said "I feel like spooning but there nothing sexual in it, ok" or 2 had said "youve put your ass against my crotch, what do you want here, can I touch your x?" but I don't think 1 in 10 couples would have.

I'd actually say it was more 1's responsibilty to make it clear their "spooning up to" was platonic (though its somewhat ridiculous to make it so). It wasn't 2 who initiated that level.of contact.