Your relationship and how you and your partner choose to treat it, is irrelevant in as much as it constitutes any significant argument, let alone a valid one for sexual activity without consent -and "implied consent" does not constitute "consent".

Neither is a written, verbal or ritual contract a substitute for actual consent. In fact in most, if not all cultures, there is a concept similar to or the same as our concept of 'marriage'.

'Marriage', in all cultures is a contract which assumes that the parties to it have an expectation of, willingness, and even (particularly for males) a right to sexual intercourse. Whatever the process or ritual of solemnisation of the marriage thus endows what you would call 'implied consent'.

The fact is, however, that in an inestimable but very large proportion of marriages - I would suggest almost all - there are times when one or other partner does not desire, is not comfortable with or is actually distressed or abused by sexual activity. In other words, it happens against their will, despite your notion of "implied consent".

Your argument is a specious one and without validity. It not only makes the mistake of generalising from the specific but also fails to recognise the wider contexts in which relationships exist.

That you and your partner are apparently in full harmony at all times and totally trusting of knowing how one another feel at any time, even when one of you is non cognisant of events, is fortunate. To suggest that this is true of most relationships runs in face of all evidence.

Worse still, as do so many responses to the original article, it gives solace and excuse to those who would abuse.

I am sure that such is not what you intended nor condone but, unfortunately, it is what your view achieves. It has no merit and is unsound.