NationStates Jolt Archive

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/07/spousal.rape.ap/index.html

Usually, rapes like the one described by the woman in September would be punishable by up to 14 years in prison in Arizona. But the man accused in the attack was the woman's husband, meaning the crime alleged is considered spousal rape.

The punishment: no more than 1 1/2 years behind bars, and perhaps no prison time at all.

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/07/spousal.rape.ap/index.html
I do not know

Well they were married, maybe she just wasn't doing her marital duties enough.

Maybe He was just trying to spice up their love life with a little roleplaying and the husband forgot to tell her.

What is wrong with these people?
Far too much.
That is absolutely outrageous.

Well, don't feel too bad. So in Arizona you can rape your wife with only a minor setback ... in Texas, since the Yates conviction was overturned, you can drown your kids and say, "Satan made me do it!".

Hooray for amurika returning to good Xtian morals!

Maybe He was just trying to spice up their love life with a little roleplaying and the husband forgot to tell her.

Good point.

One time, years ago, I came home from work early. I walked into the house, and saw the wife on all fours scrubbing the floor, only wearing underwear. Being a virile man, I was turned on. So I dropped trough and commenced taking care of business ;). After I was done, I punched her on the back of her head. She said "it was so nice, but why did you have to hurt me like that". I replied "You didn't turn your head to see who it was!!"

Considering that the majority of women who are raped or murdered are attacked by someone they know (boyfriend or spouses especially), this issue needs to be blown wide open to allow harsher penalties. Rape is rape...marriage doesn't mean you've sold your body to your husband (or visa versa). You have not given up your rights. You are not property.

Well, don't feel too bad. So in Arizona you can rape your wife with only a minor setback ... in Texas, since the Yates conviction was overturned, you can drown your kids and say, "Satan made me do it!".

Hooray for amurika returning to good Xtian morals!
Now that's a liberal attitutde towards late-term abortion. I wouldn't expect that from Texas.

Well this thread has gone down the tubes *glares at Johnny and Drunken*. :rolleyes:

Well, it can only be hoped that the law is changed due to this, or it becomes standard practise to ignore the law and charge with solely rape, much like the multitude of old English and Scottish laws that exist, but are ignored.

The only person, in that article, I can see disputing that the law needs to be changed is the defendents lawyer, and he has to argue against it for his clients sake, so you can hardly call it a seal of approval for the existing laws. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but at least something might be done about it, and the defendent may be charged with standard rape laws anyway.

Well they were married, maybe she just wasn't doing her marital duties enough.

You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.

Well this thread has gone down the tubes *glares at Johnny and Drunken*. :rolleyes:
Well come on. I dont' support rape, but I hold nothing so sacred that I can't joke about it. I think we argued about this very thing before. And I'm still waiting for that damn sandwich.

Well come on. I dont' support rape, but I hold nothing so sacred that I can't joke about it. I think we argued about this very thing before. And I'm still waiting for that damn sandwich.
A knuckle sandwich? It's on it's way:) *I'm thinking it at you, since in real life I abhore violence*
I know you like dark humour...and I'm sure it's funny to you. I just find it tasteless.
But each to their own...I don't HAVE to read your posts...

Hang him from the tallest yardarm!

Now that's a liberal attitutde towards late-term abortion. I wouldn't expect that from Texas.

rofl ... late-term abortion ... funny. :D

I found it odd as well. I guess some neocon judge's heads were about to explode when they had to come to grips with her drowning of her own children and her repentence in the realization that Satan was the one who actually did it.

Judge (talking to self): The Bible says not to kill, but that only applies to liberals who want abortions. However, society thinks this woman should be executed and I'd hate to lose my bench over something silly like this. What Would Jesus Do? Wait! She said in her trial that Satan made her do it! This poor woman was possessed by demons and has realized the truth - too late for her little ones, I'm afraid - and knows that Jesus is the only true path to righteousness - at least the State Sponsored version of Jesus, anyway - but she did commit a capital crime for which she should be punished. On the other hand, I've got all these women's groups out there screaming about post-partum depression and that she should be let go because her drowning her kids was her husband's fault. Does that mean her husband is Satan? I need to consult Billy Graham on this one because if I don't, George Bush won't get re-elected to a 3rd term in 2008 and if that doesn't happen then an army of John Kerrys will invade our homes and drink our precious spinal fluids and replace them with aborted fetus stem cells. If I let her go, the State Funded Christians (SFCs) will be happy with me, but so will the stinking liberal hippy women's groups. If I execute her, I could piss off the Catholics, but I'd also piss off the SFCs for executing a woman who defeated Satan by drowning her kids and then the liberals would be happy with me for pissing off the SFCs and then ...

http://www.unlc.biz/images/exploding-head.gif

Keru, it would seem that any theocracy, Christian or Islamic, has this sort of problem.

Remember the Iranian girl who was mentally retarded who was going to be punished for immoral behavior according to the Iranian interpretation of sharia?

Realistically, she couldn't be responsible because she was being sexually abused - in any rational system, she would be considered an innocent and ignorant victim.

But they were going to hammer her because God said so.

I don't think it's possible to reconcile religious law with real life.

Well they were married, maybe she just wasn't doing her marital duties enough.
Twat.

Keru, it would seem that any theocracy, Christian or Islamic, has this sort of problem.

True.

Remember the Iranian girl who was mentally retarded who was going to be punished for immoral behavior according to the Iranian interpretation of sharia?

Aye ... but that doesn't mean anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think it's possible to reconcile religious law with real life.

It's possible ... just most people don't try very hard. They get greedy and power drunk.

if I don't, George Bush won't get re-elected to a 3rd term in 2008 and if that doesn't happen then an army of John Kerrys will invade our homes and drink our precious spinal fluids and replace them with aborted fetus stem cells.
lol!

:sniper: THE DISCUSSION IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT FIRST STATES WOMENS RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS THE LAST BEING CONJUCAL RIGHTS NOW WITH MANY WOMEN CRYING WOLF SO MUCH NOWADAYS ARE WE TO SAY MEN ARE ALL BEASTS OR IS IT WOMEN CAN CONNIVE WHENEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT?
ANYHOW DO AWAY WITH ALL THESE LAWS CONJUCAL RIGHTS ETC BUT STOP PUTTING WOMEN ON PEDA STOOLS BACKED BY LAW MAKERS POLICE GOVERNMENT YO YO :cool:

:sniper: THE DISCUSSION IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT FIRST STATES WOMENS RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS THE LAST BEING CONJUCAL RIGHTS NOW WITH MANY WOMEN CRYING WOLF SO MUCH NOWADAYS ARE WE TO SAY MEN ARE ALL BEASTS OR IS IT WOMEN CAN CONNIVE WHENEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT?
ANYHOW DO AWAY WITH ALL THESE LAWS CONJUCAL RIGHTS ETC BUT STOP PUTTING WOMEN ON PEDA STOOLS BACKED BY LAW MAKERS POLICE GOVERNMENT YO YO :cool:
Wow not sure how to respond to the horrible logic and all caps

So I will just fluffle you :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: (cause you sound like you need more love in your life)

:sniper: THE DISCUSSION IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT FIRST STATES WOMENS RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS THE LAST BEING CONJUCAL RIGHTS NOW WITH MANY WOMEN CRYING WOLF SO MUCH NOWADAYS ARE WE TO SAY MEN ARE ALL BEASTS OR IS IT WOMEN CAN CONNIVE WHENEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT?
ANYHOW DO AWAY WITH ALL THESE LAWS CONJUCAL RIGHTS ETC BUT STOP PUTTING WOMEN ON PEDA STOOLS BACKED BY LAW MAKERS POLICE GOVERNMENT YO YO :cool:


Damnit... argument through uppercase assertion!
Therefore: the victim was the husband.


(I didn't even read the post as my eyes started to bleed, I just seen the allcaps and decided to steal from the God exists thread.)

Well, it can only be hoped that the law is changed due to this, or it becomes standard practise to ignore the law and charge with solely rape, much like the multitude of old English and Scottish laws that exist, but are ignored.

The only person, in that article, I can see disputing that the law needs to be changed is the defendents lawyer, and he has to argue against it for his clients sake, so you can hardly call it a seal of approval for the existing laws. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but at least something might be done about it, and the defendent may be charged with standard rape laws anyway.

Most likely, even if they change the law, this guy gets off easy. He would get grandfathered in since the law at the time stated that marital rape is different. =(

:sniper: THE DISCUSSION IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT FIRST STATES WOMENS RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS THE LAST BEING CONJUCAL RIGHTS NOW WITH MANY WOMEN CRYING WOLF SO MUCH NOWADAYS ARE WE TO SAY MEN ARE ALL BEASTS OR IS IT WOMEN CAN CONNIVE WHENEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT?
ANYHOW DO AWAY WITH ALL THESE LAWS CONJUCAL RIGHTS ETC BUT STOP PUTTING WOMEN ON PEDA STOOLS BACKED BY LAW MAKERS POLICE GOVERNMENT YO YO :cool:

So you think a man ever had a right to force a woman to have sex with him?

*pat on the head* That's nice. Run along and play now...

WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS
What rights have they eroded, dinosaur brain? Our right to earn as little as they once did? Our right to be left unmolested in the workplace? Our right to not get decent educations and respectable employment? Come on, clever clogs, let's hear which rights, or forever be though of as a capslocktard (by me if no one else).

And for the record, I'm a stay-at-home dad who does all the washing, cooking and cleaning, picks the kids up from school and still has time to do a part time job.

Anyone who thinks womens rights exceed mens rights needs their head examined.

Maybe He was just trying to spice up their love life with a little roleplaying and the husband forgot to tell her.
Ever heared the superman story?

:sniper: THE DISCUSSION IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS IT FIRST STATES WOMENS RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE ERODED MENS RIGHTS THE LAST BEING CONJUCAL RIGHTS NOW WITH MANY WOMEN CRYING WOLF SO MUCH NOWADAYS ARE WE TO SAY MEN ARE ALL BEASTS OR IS IT WOMEN CAN CONNIVE WHENEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT?
ANYHOW DO AWAY WITH ALL THESE LAWS CONJUCAL RIGHTS ETC BUT STOP PUTTING WOMEN ON PEDA STOOLS BACKED BY LAW MAKERS POLICE GOVERNMENT YO YO :cool:
Jebus man, I'm going to have to direct you here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=395818
Pay special attention to 1, 4, 5, & 6.

Rape under not terms is correct and in my eyes is one of the worst things someone could do!! However, i do not believe that it is correct for this women to tell the world; her and her husband have got to try and sort the problem! But i also believe that marrage is a waste of time anyway so... lol! :D

Let's ask Oprah!

Jebus man, I'm going to have to direct you here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=395818
Pay special attention to 1, 4, 5, & 6.
4. Use the smileys with the fucking guns sparingly, if ever. Subtract a small amount of cred every time you need to use one. At this stage, you can't afford much, so use your better judgement.
If you don't like guns, then start of with tighter gun controls. Perhaps don't allow newbies (sorry, refuse to use "n00b") possession of guns until they have proved they can secure them in a strongbox, safe, lockable cabinet, or effective brain. Once they have these things (preferably the effective brain) then allow them use of the guns in a strictly regulated environment, perhaps a "cun glub forum". Once they've posted the 250 salivating rants within the cun club forum they're allowed out onto the streets, armed with their guns, their BLOCK CAPITALS, but with their grammar left safely at home.

Just a thought. :D

Rape under not terms is correct and in my eyes is one of the worst things someone could do!! However, i do not believe that it is correct for this women to tell the world; her and her husband have got to try and sort the problem! But i also believe that marrage is a waste of time anyway so... lol! :D

Right. Don't put the bastard behind bars, just sit down and talk it out like rational people....

Of course, rapists are not deserving of such consideration, nor can you "work out" something like this. The man *deserves* to be castrated with a rusty butter knife, but since we are civilized people, all we'll do is put him in jail.

Ever heared the superman story?
No. What's the superman story?

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/07/spousal.rape.ap/index.html

"Spousal rape" seems like an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused:

"Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused:

Please tell me you are kidding?

If your wife said no, would you force her down onto the bed and force her to have sex with you? Would that not be rape?

Edit: You don't *own* your spouse. They still possess their own body and soul and you have only those rights to it which they grant you. If this is a joke, you should be ahsamed of yourself, because it isn't a laughing matter.

Now that's a liberal attitutde towards late-term abortion. I wouldn't expect that from Texas.
Weren't the liberals the ones who introduced the whole insanity defense bit?

Weren't the liberals the ones who introduced the whole insanity defense bit?
I don't know. I thought that one was around for a long time.

Please tell me you are kidding?

If your wife said no, would you force her down onto the bed and force her to have sex with you? Would that not be rape?

Edit: You don't *own* your spouse. They still possess their own body and soul and you have only those rights to it which they grant you. If this is a joke, you should be ahsamed of yourself, because it isn't a laughing matter.

No, I wasn't joking. And no, I would never force myself on anyone. And no, I don't think anyone "owns" anyone else. But how, considering that a marriage can be dissolved due to "failure to consumate the marriage," can the sexual act between husband and wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances? That would open up the possibility that any time a wife got ticked off at her husband, she could charge him with "spousal rape" and, absent some unlikely witness, he could be incarcerated on nothing more than her word that he actually forced himself on her?

What a sad world we sometimes live in. :(

No, I wasn't joking. And no, I would never force myself on anyone. And no, I don't think anyone "owns" anyone else. But how, considering that a marriage can be dissolved due to "failure to consumate the marriage," can the sexual act between husband and wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances? That would open up the possibility that any time a wife got ticked off at her husband, she could charge him with "spousal rape" and, absent some unlikely witness, he could be incarcerated on nothing more than her word that he actually forced himself on her?

What a sad world we sometimes live in. :(
If there's no evidence, just he said/she said, I don't think there would be enough evidence for a conviction. If the rape is rough enough then there will be evidence. It still allows the possibility of the woman framing her husband, but no system is perfect. If the guy's not getting any, you mentioned "failure to consumate" as a reason for divorce in your post.

If there's no evidence, just he said/she said, I don't think there would be enough evidence for a conviction. If the rape is rough enough then there will be evidence. It still allows the possibility of the woman framing her husband, but no system is perfect. If the guy's not getting any, you mentioned "failure to consumate" as a reason for divorce in your post.

"Failure to consumate" only works if there was never any sexual intercourse over the duration of the marriage, however long that might be.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. :(

EDIT: And what would be the standards of proof other than the testimony of the parties? If you accept physical evidence, such as cuts, scratches, brusies, etc., how would you prove that it was due to rape? It may have been the result of a beating, and the DA could make a case for abuse, but how would they prove rape???

No, I wasn't joking. And no, I would never force myself on anyone. And no, I don't think anyone "owns" anyone else. But how, considering that a marriage can be dissolved due to "failure to consumate the marriage," can the sexual act between husband and wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances?

Fuck you. People like you are the reason that women die at the hands of their husbands while everyone else stands by.

"Failure to consumate the marriage" means *never* having sex, not refusing one time out of a hundred. Consent once, twice, even 100 times does not equate to consent every time a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/etc. wants it. By your idiotic logic, a woman who has sex once can never be raped.

That would open up the possibility that any time a wife got ticked off at her husband, she could charge him with "spousal rape" and, absent some unlikely witness, he could be incarcerated on nothing more than her word that he actually forced himself on her?

You are a truly disgusting human being. We should take away the one recourse that women who are raped have just because you think a few women will abuse the system. I've got new for you, people abuse the system. It happens inside or outside of marriage. But very few do. And people like you are the reason that most women who are raped never even report it - and feel as if they did something to cause it.

What a sad world we sometimes live in. :(

Yeah, a world where people like you advocate standing by and allowing rape on the basis that someone might cry wolf.

Some guy in Georgia got 3 years in prison because he beat a pregnant woman to death. The reason it was only 3 years was because it was a "first time offense".

I hate the judicial system sometimes.

"Failure to consumate" only works if there was never any sexual intercourse over the duration of the marriage, however long that might be.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. :(

EDIT: And what would be the standards of proof other than the testimony of the parties? If you accept physical evidence, such as cuts, scratches, brusies, etc., how would you prove that it was due to rape? It may have been the result of a beating, and the DA could make a case for abuse, but how would they prove rape???

Injury in the vaginal area. How do you think they show the difference between normal rape and consensual sex?

"Failure to consumate" only works if there was never any sexual intercourse over the duration of the marriage, however long that might be.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. :(

EDIT: And what would be the standards of proof other than the testimony of the parties? If you accept physical evidence, such as cuts, scratches, brusies, etc., how would you prove that it was due to rape? It may have been the result of a beating, and the DA could make a case for abuse, but how would they prove rape???

Violent sex often causes damage to a woman's genitals, tearing, that sort of thing because of inadequate lubrication. I suspect that a woman who went to the doctor to be treated for this sort of vaginal damage and had the doctor record the damage could have a case for rape - particularly if there was other physical evidence of abuse.

A husband who forces his wife to have sex without her consent is raping her. You yourself recognized it as an activity you would personally never commit, so on some level you do recognize it as wrong, even if you don't want to term it rape, Eutrusca.

Fuck you. People like you are the reason that women die at the hands of their husbands while everyone else stands by.

By your idiotic logic, a woman who has sex once can never be raped.

You are a truly disgusting human being. We should take away the one recourse that women who are raped have just because you think a few women will abuse the system. I've got new for you, people abuse the system. It happens inside or outside of marriage. But very few do. And people like you are the reason that most women who are raped never even report it - and feel as if they did something to cause it.

Yeah, a world where people like you advocate standing by and allowing rape on the basis that someone might cry wolf.

I had to pause and think long and hard before responding to this idiocy.

I find your tone condescending, your words insulting, and your attributions totally inaccurate.

When someone weaker is being abused by someone stronger, I have never hesitated to intervene, sometimes at great personal risk. If you can't debate a topic in a calm, rational manner I suggest you either find someplace else to post your insults, or refrain from directing them at me when the only thing I'm trying to do is discuss the topic.

I had to pause and think long and hard before responding to this idiocy.

I find your tone condescending, your words insulting, and your attributions totally inaccurate.

When someone weaker is being abused by someone stronger, I have never hesitated to intervene, sometimes at great personal risk. If you can't debate a topic in a calm, rational manner I suggest you either find someplace else to post your insults, or refrain from directing them at me when the only thing I'm trying to do is discuss the topic.
Um, no. If you've had a friend who's been raped, you'd know how touchy this is. Sorry Eutrusca, but you've lost any respect that I've had for you. A wife can be raped by her husband.

I had to pause and think long and hard before responding to this idiocy.

I almost through the computer out the window when I read your idiocy, so I guess we're even.

I find your tone condescending, your words insulting, and your attributions totally inaccurate.

Totally inaccurate? You stated that rape cannot occur in marriage. In other words, a person cannot be forced into sexual acts if they have consented to sometimes provide them. That is idiotic.

If you force sexual acts upon someone, that is rape. Period.

Edit: Besides, attitudes like yours are exactly what leads women to die at the hands of their husbands. Women are told that these things are just a part of marriage, that they should be good little wives and deal with them. They feel that they are doing something wrong to deserve such actions, and as such, hide them from the public. Stating that people with attitudes like yours cause women to suffer severe psychological trauma and sometimes death is not inaccurate, it is exactly correct.

When someone weaker is being abused by someone stronger, I have never hesitated to intervene, sometimes at great personal risk.

And yet you claim that such a person should have no legal recourse because someone might cry wolf. So you would step in if you saw it, but a woman who is raped in private should just deal with it because the valiant Eutrusca wasn't there to save her.

If you can't debate a topic in a calm, rational manner I suggest you either find someplace else to post your insults, or refrain from directing them at me when the only thing I'm trying to do is discuss the topic.

There is no debate here. Rape is rape, and you are claiming that a woman should just deal with being forced into sex because she happened to sign a marriage license sometime or other.

I almost through the computer out the window when I read your idiocy, so I guess we're even.

Totally inaccurate? You stated that rape cannot occur in marriage. In other words, a person cannot be forced into sexual acts if they have consented to sometimes provide them. That is idiotic.

If you force sexual acts upon someone, that is rape. Period.

And yet you claim that such a person should have no legal recourse because someone might cry wolf. So you would step in if you saw it, but a woman who is raped in private should just deal with it because the valiant Eutrusca wasn't there to save her.

There is no debate here. Rape is rape, and you are claiming that a woman should just deal with being forced into sex because she happened to sign a marriage license sometime or other.

You really should try reading the posts you so vociferously attack. The last I remember posting before you started off on your totally unwarranted personal attacks, was a question about the standards of proof, or have you somehow conveniently forgotten that?

And this is just ridiculous: "So you would step in if you saw it, but a woman who is raped in private should just deal with it because the valiant Eutrusca wasn't there to save her."

Nowhere did I claim that "a woman should just deal with being forced into sex because she happened to sign a marriage license sometime or other," and to say that I did is decietful.

I suspect that you're trying to impress someone. Sorry, but it won't wash with me. Live with it.

That article really was disturbing, I wasn't even aware of this phenomenon.
How nasty does a woman's husband have to be to force sex on his own wife when she doesn't even want the dick?
So gross.

Um, no. If you've had a friend who's been raped, you'd know how touchy this is. Sorry Eutrusca, but you've lost any respect that I've had for you. A wife can be raped by her husband.

I've had several female friends who have been raped, and I definitely understand how devastating it can be. I can understand how a wife could be raped by her husband, but have focused on the standards of proof because it seems to me that the possibility of injustice for the husband could be very high indeed.

I'm sorry if you lose respect for me over asking about this, but that's certainly your perogative.

You really should try reading the posts you so vociferously attack. The last I remember posting before you started off on your totally unwarranted personal attacks, was a question about the standards of proof, or have you somehow conveniently forgotten that?

Perhaps you should look at the post I responded to, instead of worrying about posts you made afterwards.

And this is just ridiculous: "So you would step in if you saw it, but a woman who is raped in private should just deal with it because the valiant Eutrusca wasn't there to save her."

Nowhere did I claim that "a woman should just deal with being forced into sex because she happened to sign a marriage license sometime or other," and to say that I did is decietful.

You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape. I'm sorry if I assumed some amount of logical consistency.

I suspect that you're trying to impress someone. Sorry, but it won't wash with me. Live with it.

Impress someone? Who exactly would I be trying to impress? I don't need to impress someone to defend basic human rights.

I've had several female friends who have been raped, and I definitely understand how devastating it can be. I can understand how a wife could be raped by her husband, but have focused on the standards of proof because it seems to me that the possibility of injustice for the husband could be very high indeed.

I'm sorry if you lose respect for me over asking about this, but that's certainly your perogative.
And they are higher. It's a travesty of justice that someone can get away with ONE AND A HALF YEARS for doing that.

That article really was disturbing, I wasn't even aware of this phenomenon. How nasty does a woman's husband have to be to force sex on his own wife when she doesn't even want the dick? So gross.

I agree completely, and I wasn't aware of this either. All I'm trying to do now is find out what it's all about and what the sandards of proof are, while being attacked for reasons known only to those attacking. :(

I agree completely, and I wasn't aware of this either. All I'm trying to do now is find out what it's all about and what the sandards of proof are, while being attacked for reasons known only to those attacking. :(
The standards of proof are that of any rape: You must prove that it occured, and that you did not give consent.

I can understand how a wife could be raped by her husband, but have focused on the standards of proof because it seems to me that the possibility of injustice for the husband could be very high indeed.
Yes, agreed. Just becuase the word rape is used, it does not follow that the burden of proof should be dropped for the prosecution.

That would be another travesty, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

"Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse?

But how, considering that a marriage can be dissolved due to "failure to consumate the marriage," can the sexual act between husband and wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances?

I can understand how a wife could be raped by her husband,

Care to explain how these statements are compatible?

but have focused on the standards of proof because it seems to me that the possibility of injustice for the husband could be very high indeed.

No higher than they are in the general public. A wife claiming rape would be held to the same standards for proving it as any non-married woman. In fact, chances are, she would face even more grueling questioning and personal attacks than a non-married woman. You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?

I'm sorry if you lose respect for me over asking about this, but that's certainly your perogative.

Asking about proof is one thing. Outright stating, as you did in several posts, that it is impossible for someone to rape their spouse, is certainly worthy of a loss of all respect.

Perhaps you should look at the post I responded to, instead of worrying about posts you made afterwards.

You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape. I'm sorry if I assumed some amount of logical consistency.

Impress someone? Who exactly would I be trying to impress? I don't need to impress someone to defend basic human rights.

Here's my very first post on this topic: ""Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused: "

Where do I say: "You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape." I don't remember writing anything remotely like that. If you can quote me saying that I will immediately delete it and apologize.

Here's my very first post on this topic: ""Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused: "

Where do I say: "You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape." I don't remember writing anything remotely like that. If you can quote me saying that I will immediately delete it and apologize.
If you can't rape your spouse, rape can't occur in a marriage.

Here's my very first post on this topic: ""Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused: "

Where do I say: "You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape." I don't remember writing anything remotely like that. If you can quote me saying that I will immediately delete it and apologize.

See my post above.

Yes, agreed. Just becuase the word rape is used, it does not follow that the burden of proof should be dropped for the prosecution.

That would be another travesty, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Thank you, Eichen. At least someone here hasn't totally lost their ability to read.

Judge (talking to self): The Bible says not to kill, but that only applies to liberals who want abortions. However, society thinks this woman should be executed and I'd hate to lose my bench over something silly like this. What Would Jesus Do? Wait! She said in her trial that Satan made her do it! This poor woman was possessed by demons and has realized the truth - too late for her little ones, I'm afraid - and knows that Jesus is the only true path to righteousness - at least the State Sponsored version of Jesus, anyway - but she did commit a capital crime for which she should be punished. On the other hand, I've got all these women's groups out there screaming about post-partum depression and that she should be let go because her drowning her kids was her husband's fault. Does that mean her husband is Satan? I need to consult Billy Graham on this one because if I don't, George Bush won't get re-elected to a 3rd term in 2008 and if that doesn't happen then an army of John Kerrys will invade our homes and drink our precious spinal fluids and replace them with aborted fetus stem cells. If I let her go, the State Funded Christians (SFCs) will be happy with me, but so will the stinking liberal hippy women's groups. If I execute her, I could piss off the Catholics, but I'd also piss off the SFCs for executing a woman who defeated Satan by drowning her kids and then the liberals would be happy with me for pissing off the SFCs and then ...

http://www.unlc.biz/images/exploding-head.gif

doesn't the world realize by now that you cant please everyone?

Thank you, Eichen. At least someone here hasn't totally lost their ability to read.

Your first two posts explicitly state that rape cannot occur in a marriage. They don't say "Hey, she still has to prove it!" The say "this cannot occur."

Surely you are aware of the difference?

Yes, agreed. Just becuase the word rape is used, it does not follow that the burden of proof should be dropped for the prosecution.

That would be another travesty, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
It never is...

Let's ask Oprah!
lol

Here's my very first post on this topic: ""Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse?
That is not an oxymoron. A Marriage License is not a Pussy License.
In everyday life, a woman has every right to say "I have a headache, honey".
You do not have a license to bang her on the spot against her will.

Cases of "seperated, but still married" would be horrific if this logic were followed.

That is not an oxymoron. A Marriage License is not a Pussy License.
In everyday life, a woman has every right to say "I have a headache, honey".
You do not have a license to bang her on the spot against her will.

Cases of "seperated, but still married" would be horrific if this logic were followed.

See Eutrusca, I'm not the only one who can read.

Care to explain how these statements are compatible?

No higher than they are in the general public. A wife claiming rape would be held to the same standards for proving it as any non-married woman. In fact, chances are, she would face even more grueling questioning and personal attacks than a non-married woman. You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?

Asking about proof is one thing. Outright stating, as you did in several posts, that it is impossible for someone to rape their spouse, is certainly worthy of a loss of all respect.

The statements indicate an ongoing learning process. They were consecutive and followed explanations in response to my original post. I had never even heard of "spousal rape."

"You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?" Yesss, I have indeed heard that such is the case, something which does not surprise me, especially in light of the fact that a young woman of my acquaintence wasn't going to report what is now called "date rape" until I insisted that she see a doctor and the local police.

And quite frankly, after your overreaction to my posts on this topic, I have lost what little respect I had for you. So we're even.

See Eutrusca, I'm not the only one who can read.

At least Eichen had the common courtesy to respond in a calm, reasoned manner, which is something I can't say for you.

The statements indicate an ongoing learning process. They were consecutive and followed explanations in response to my original post. I had never even heard of "spousal rape."

"You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?" Yesss, I have indeed heard that such is the case, something which does not surprise me, especially in light of the fact that a young woman of my acquaintence wasn't going to report what is now called "date rape" until I insisted that she see a doctor and the local police.

And quite frankly, after your overreaction to my posts on this topic, I have lost what little respect I had for you. So we're even.
So then you withdraw your completely asinine comment that spouces can't be raped?

The statements indicate an ongoing learning process. They were consecutive and followed explanations in response to my original post. I had never even heard of "spousal rape."

"You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?" Yesss, I have indeed heard that such is the case, something which does not surprise me, especially in light of the fact that a young woman of my acquaintence wasn't going to report what is now called "date rape" until I insisted that she see a doctor and the local police.

And quite frankly, after your overreaction to my posts on this topic, I have lost what little respect I had for you. So we're even.

Please, show us a little respect. Don't act stupid. Your original post wasn't meant as an "ongoing learning process", and you know it, and we know it. You stated it as fact, and the only reason you posed it as a question was to sound that much more condescending.

Here's my very first post on this topic: ""Spousal rape" is an oxymoron. How can a man "rape" his own spouse? :confused: "

Where do I say: "You specifically stated that a rape cannot occur in a marriage. As such, you were stating that a woman should have no legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since, according to you, it isn't rape." I don't remember writing anything remotely like that. If you can quote me saying that I will immediately delete it and apologize.

If I may intercede for a moment:

Demipublicents: He is literally asking a question of how it is possible. His use of language does imply that he does think it impossible - calling 'spousal rape' an oxymoron could be considered inflammatory. But he did not specifically or categorically state that a rape cannot occur in a marriage.

Eutrusca: Your use of language in your original post implied a great deal more than you said literally. The edit you added to your post improved the situation by explaining that you were wondering about the burden of proof. If you had
not lead your statement with the oxymoron comment, Demipublicents probably wouldn't have flown off the handle. Given that rape is generally defined as forced sex without consent, it is not impossible that a husband could do such a thing to his wife. Yes, the burden of proof would be difficult - it wouldn't just be a matter of a semen sample - but calling 'spousal rape' an oxymoron is inaccurate and misleading if what you are actually asking about is 'how do you prove it happened?'.

Just my 2 cents. Feel free to tell me to butt out.

So then you withdraw your completely asinine comment that spouces can't be raped?

Although I never made such a statment, if I had I would immediately withdraw it. The "statment" was framed as a question: "How can anyone rape their spouse?"

If I may intercede for a moment:

Demipublicents: He is literally asking a question of how it is possible. His use of language does imply that he does think it impossible - calling 'spousal rape' an oxymoron could be considered inflammatory. But he did not specifically or categorically state that a rape cannot occur in a marriage.

Eutrusca: Your use of language in your original post implied a great deal more than you said literally. The edit you added to your post improved the situation by explaining that you were wondering about the burden of proof. If you had
not lead your statement with the oxymoron comment, Demipublicents probably wouldn't have flown off the handle. Given that rape is generally defined as forced sex without consent, it is not impossible that a husband could do such a thing to his wife. Yes, the burden of proof would be difficult - it wouldn't just be a matter of a semen sample - but calling 'spousal rape' an oxymoron is inaccurate and misleading if what you are actually asking about is 'how do you prove it happened?'.

Just my 2 cents. Feel free to tell me to butt out.

Ahh! Is that what Dempublicents is on about? So if I had said, "'Spousal rape' seems like an oxymoron to me," all of this could have been avoided???

Although I never made such a statment, if I had I would immediately withdraw it. The "statment" was framed as a question: "How can anyone rape their spouse?"
Which implies that spouses can not be raped.

Please, show us a little respect. Don't act stupid. Your original post wasn't meant as an "ongoing learning process", and you know it, and we know it. You stated it as fact, and the only reason you posed it as a question was to sound that much more condescending.

Sigh. Why would I want to sound "condescending?"

The first post was supposed to express a degree of increduility and was immediately followed by the question of how could anyone rape their spouse.

As with most things, people believe what they choose to believe. If you prefer to believe, like Dempublicents, that I favor spousal rape, so be it.

Which implies that spouses can not be raped.

No. It does not. Or, at the very least, it was not intended to imply that.

No. It does not. Or, at the very least, it was not intended to imply that.
Oxymoron:
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.



Calling spousal rape an oxymoron implies that spousal and rape are contradictory...and thus can never occur.

What a sad world we sometimes live in. :(

Incidently, Cap'n, if your wife would cry spousal rape on you for not picking up your socks, then you're better off without her. But ... this you already know.

Marriage is marriage. 55% of marriages in the US end in divorce in the first two years not because of the decline in morals or the rise in anything you can fault the liberals for, but because of one very simple thing: People get married for the wrong reasons.

I'll start a new thread on it.

iLock pending Moderator review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Fuck you. People like you are the reason that women die at the hands of their husbands while everyone else stands by.

"Failure to consumate the marriage" means *never* having sex, not refusing one time out of a hundred. Consent once, twice, even 100 times does not equate to consent every time a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/etc. wants it. By your idiotic logic, a woman who has sex once can never be raped.

You are a truly disgusting human being. We should take away the one recourse that women who are raped have just because you think a few women will abuse the system. I've got new for you, people abuse the system. It happens inside or outside of marriage. But very few do. And people like you are the reason that most women who are raped never even report it - and feel as if they did something to cause it.

Yeah, a world where people like you advocate standing by and allowing rape on the basis that someone might cry wolf.
Dempublicents: Official Warning - Flaming Attack the argument, not the poster. Do I make myself clear?

There is no debate here.
On the contrary, there is debate here.

Please, show us a little respect. Don't act stupid. Your original post wasn't meant as an "ongoing learning process", and you know it, and we know it. You stated it as fact, and the only reason you posed it as a question was to sound that much more condescending.
Borderline flamebaiting.

...

Everyone is now on notice to remain absolutely civil. Given the magnitude of this blowup, if there are any more attacks against players, regardless of how minor, I will hand out official warnings for flaming or flamebait. Saying that you've lost respect for someone is not normally considered flamebait severe enough to warrant Mod attention. However, given the circumstances, I will construe it as flamebait in this thread if it is posted again.

iUnlock. The discussion may continue. If you are not prepared to debate civilly, then do not debate at all. This is not subject to negotiation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

You should be throughly ashamed of yourself.

I can't be, as I have no dignity!

The statements indicate an ongoing learning process. They were consecutive and followed explanations in response to my original post. I had never even heard of "spousal rape."

I don't normally see naivete as an excuse in someone your age. However, you claim to know someone who has been date raped. How would you respond to the following comments:

"Date rape is an oxymoron. How can a man possibly rape his date"

"But how, considering that a man expects sex at the end of a date, can the sexual act between a man and his wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances?"

Neither of these holds any suggestion whatsoever of a problem with the burden of proof. They hold a problem with the very idea that the man could possibly commit rape.

And quite frankly, after your overreaction to my posts on this topic, I have lost what little respect I had for you. So we're even.

Frankly, a lack of reaction to attitudes such as the ones you expressed are a cause of quite a bit of harm in this world. If upholding the rights of my fellow human beings loses me your respect, so be it.

The first post was supposed to express a degree of increduility and was immediately followed by the question of how could anyone rape their spouse.

The question itself is something I would expect from someone much, much younger than you. How can anyone rape their spouse? The exact same way they could rape a non-spouse - by forcing sexual actions upon another.

As with most things, people believe what they choose to believe. If you prefer to believe, like Dempublicents, that I favor spousal rape, so be it.

I never said you favor spousal rape. However, your posts made it clear that you do not think a woman should have legal recourse should she be raped by her husband, since she might just be mad at him for something.

Dempublicents: Official Warning - Flaming Attack the argument, not the poster. Do I make myself clear?

I apologize for the language.

On the contrary, there is debate here.

I don't see how anyone can debate that forced sex constitutes rape - it is the definition of the word.

I apologize for the language.



I don't see how anyone can debate that forced sex constitutes rape - it is the definition of the word.

RONG.

Perhaps if people read this, it will give them a better perspective. clikythingy (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html)

A Brief Legal History of Marital Rape

Much of the scholarly attention that has been given to marital rape has emerged from the legal community. This has occurred because throughout the history of most societies, it has been acceptable for men to force their wives to have sex against their will. The traditional definition of rape in the United States most commonly was, "sexual intercourse with a female not his wife without her consent" ( Barshis, 1983 , p. 383). As Finkelhor and Yllo ( 1985 ) have argued, this provided husbands with an exemption from prosecution for raping their wives-a "license to rape" (See Drucker, 1979 ; Eskow, 1996 ; and Sitton, 1993 , for a discussion of the marital exemption). The foundation of this exemption can be traced back to statements made by Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th century England. Hale wrote, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract" (quoted in Russell, 1990 , p.17). This established the notion that once married, a woman does not have the right to refuse sex with her husband. This rationale remained largely unchallenged until the 1970's when some members of the women's movement argued for the elimination of the spousal exemption because it failed to provide equal protection from rape to all women ( Bidwell & White, 1986 ; Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985 ).

On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes. In 17 states and the District of Columbia, there are no exemptions from rape prosecution granted to husbands. However, in 33 states, there are still some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is most vulnerable (e.g., she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, etc.) and is legally unable to consent, a husband is exempt from prosecution in many of these 33 states ( Bergen, 1996 ; Russell, 1990 ). Table 1, based on the findings of the National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape ( 1998 ), is a state law chart that indicates which states have some exemptions from prosecuting husbands for rape. The existence of some spousal exemptions in the majority of states indicates that rape in marriage is still treated as a lesser crime than other forms of rape. This perpetuates marital rape by conveying the message that such acts of aggression are somehow less reprehensible than other types of rape. Importantly, the existence of any spousal exemption indicates an acceptance of the archaic understanding that wives are the property of their husbands and the marriage contract is an entitlement to sex ( Russell, 1990 ).

RONG.

Oh? Enlighten me.

Oh? Enlighten me.


Read the quote. It explains the history of marital rape. Also, as people who have studied the MSBE remember, rape can be accomplished by fraud at common law. (but only by fraud in the factum, not by fraudulent inducement).

Read the quote. It explains the history of marital rape. Also, as people who have studied the MSBE remember, rape can be accomplished by fraud at common law. (but only by fraud in the factum, not by fraudulent inducement).

(a) There is a difference between a general definition of a word and a legal defintion.

(b) The quote states taht every state now recognizes forced sex from a husband as rape, so it is a moot point anyways.

Look, Dempublicents, I honestly did not know that there was such a thing as "spousal rape." While I could have phrased it better, my first post was my honest expression of a degree of incredulity, and perhaps some dismay as well. Since it would be, in effect, a physical impossibility for me to rape anyone ( being so totally turned off by even the idea of such a thing ), the concept of even "date rape" was a new and totally alien idea to me when I first heard of it a few years back.

If anything I said offended you, I apologize. Such was definitely not my intent.

(a) There is a difference between a general definition of a word and a legal defintion.

(b) The quote states taht every state now recognizes forced sex from a husband as rape, so it is a moot point anyways.

I agree there is a difference between the general definition and a legal definition. Indeed, between jurisdictions there are differences in legal definitions (rape means something else in California than it does in New York), neverthless, if you are calling for legal sanctions it is the legal definition that counts.

Also, I understand that marital rape is now illegal in every jurisdiction, I was just trying to post something that explains why it is still treated differently.

Personally, I believe that "rape" is an outmoded term, and should be done away with for legal purposes, due to the confusion about what it encompasses, and becuase it is such an emotionally laden word. Different degrees of sexual assault make much more sense (I also prefer homocide with degrees v. Muder/Manslaughter). That way people can define rape in whatever way that they want and it doesn't matter. Also it's a clean break from the past. But that's just me.

"Failure to consumate" only works if there was never any sexual intercourse over the duration of the marriage, however long that might be.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. :(

EDIT: And what would be the standards of proof other than the testimony of the parties? If you accept physical evidence, such as cuts, scratches, brusies, etc., how would you prove that it was due to rape? It may have been the result of a beating, and the DA could make a case for abuse, but how would they prove rape???
is there an emoticon for a shocked espression?

'cause this post is just too much to respond to in words.

a woman's right not to be forced upon by anyone is not "feminism gone insane" if she does not want sex, she does not have to have it. regardless of the relationship she holds with the man who wants to have sex with her.

Look, Dempublicents, I honestly did not know that there was such a thing as "spousal rape." While I could have phrased it better, my first post was my honest expression of a degree of incredulity, and perhaps some dismay as well. Since it would be, in effect, a physical impossibility for me to rape anyone ( being so totally turned off by even the idea of such a thing ), the concept of even "date rape" was a new and totally alien idea to me when I first heard of it a few years back.

If anything I said offended you, I apologize. Such was definitely not my intent.

I apologize for flying off the handle and throwing insults. Rape, or any type of sexual assault for that matter, is a bit of an issue for me. I would say that about 3/4 of the women I have known in my life have experienced some sort of sexual abuse or assault, and I have seen first hand the type of damage it can cause.

Your comments seemed to suggest a lack of belief that rape within a marriage was rape at all, which, to me, was on par with those who make statements like "Well, he paid for dinner, so she has to sleep with him. It's not rape." By the time you clarified that statement, I was well past rationality.

I don't generally get so worked up over things, but this is just one of those things. I'm sure we all have our little bouts of insanity every now and then.

Suffice it to say that a woman (or man) can be raped if they do not consent. Neither prior consent nor relationship status have any bearing on whether or not forced sex is rape. And, as far as I am concerned, neither should have any bearing on treatment under the law.

I agree there is a difference between the general definition and a legal definition. Indeed, between jurisdictions there are differences in legal definitions (rape means something else in California than it does in New York), neverthless, if you are calling for legal sanctions it is the legal definition that counts.

Also, I understand that marital rape is now illegal in every jurisdiction, I was just trying to post something that explains why it is still treated differently.

Personally, I believe that "rape" is an outmoded term, and should be done away with for legal purposes, due to the confusion about what it encompasses, and becuase it is such an emotionally laden word. Different degrees of sexual assault make much more sense (I also prefer homocide with degrees v. Muder/Manslaughter). That way people can define rape in whatever way that they want and it doesn't matter. Also it's a clean break from the past. But that's just me.

The problem with different degrees of sexual assault is that it provides too many loopholes.

For instance, a few years ago, I was fighting to get the rape law in Georgia altered. The only thing that qualifed as rape was forced vaginal intercourse. By this law, a woman could be anally raped, or raped with various objects (for some reason beer bottles are often the object of choice) and it was not considered to be rape. The physical and emotional damage to the victim was the same, but the legal repurcussions to the rapist were next to nothing.

There is a reason behind you cannot rape your spouse.

Let me paint a very easy scenario: it is hypothetical but very easy to pull off.

A spouse finds out that the other spouse has commited adultry being very angry and vengeful accuses the spouse of rape.

By consenting to marriage to are in effect giving yourself to your spouse and them to you. You give up your body to them and vice versa. It is a mutual agreement.

Now with that said if you must physically harm your spouse to get sex then it is not rape but physical abuse or assault. Which IMO should carry stiffer penalties than are currently offered.

The problem with different degrees of sexual assault is that it provides too many loopholes.

For instance, a few years ago, I was fighting to get the rape law in Georgia altered. The only thing that qualifed as rape was forced vaginal intercourse. By this law, a woman could be anally raped, or raped with various objects (for some reason beer bottles are often the object of choice) and it was not considered to be rape. The physical and emotional damage to the victim was the same, but the legal repurcussions to the rapist were next to nothing.

Well, when I said do away with it, I meant completely redraft that section of the Penal Code. Right now in NY, there is rape, sexual assault and forcible sodomy. All with different degrees for different circumstances.

As in Georgia, rape is defined only as vaginal intercourse, however the situation you describe would not have resulted in the same outcome however, because, IIRC, the penalties for the two different circumstances would be the same. (They are classed in the same A felony category).

I am proposing a nice crisp gender neutral statute, that would cover these eventualities and eliminate a lot of the confusion. Esp. in same sex assaults. I would also like a sentence guidelines annexed that made it clear that the respective sexes of the parties was not a consideration in the sentencing process.

Obviously, its the kind of thing that should be produced by a comitee of interested experts however, and should go thorugh a fiew drafts, but I think it makes more sense.

There is a reason behind you cannot rape your spouse.

No, there is an excuse. There is a difference.

Let me paint a very easy scenario: it is hypothetical but very easy to pull off.

A spouse finds out that the other spouse has commited adultry being very angry and vengeful accuses the spouse of rape.

So? If they cannot prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt it won't stand in court.

Do you really think that anyone who has been raped just points a finger and the person immediately gets a jail sentence? We have trials in this country for criminal acts where a jury of 12 must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that a criminal act occurred. In truth, a married person raped by their spouse would have much more trouble convincing said jury of their case specifically because they would be thinking exactly the "rationale" you just stated.

By consenting to marriage to are in effect giving yourself to your spouse and them to you. You give up your body to them and vice versa. It is a mutual agreement.

Marriage is not slavery. You give yourself to your spouse, but you still retain control over your own body. It is always a person's right to say "no".

No, there is an excuse. There is a difference.



So? If they cannot prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt it won't stand in court.

Do you really think that anyone who has been raped just points a finger and the person immediately gets a jail sentence? We have trials in this country for criminal acts where a jury of 12 must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that a criminal act occurred. In truth, a married person raped by their spouse would have much more trouble convincing said jury of their case specifically because they would be thinking exactly the "rationale" you just stated.



Marriage is not slavery. You give yourself to your spouse, but you still retain control over your own body. It is always a person's right to say "no".

A vengeful person could pull it off with no problem they have sex with spouse and beg for it "rough" then go to the hospital for rape protocol.

Umm the guy is about dead far to much physical evidence for him to escape.

I hold that "technically" you cannot rape your spouse but as I stated I have no problem with hammering those that use violence to settle their disputes the penaltys should be stiffer in my estimation.

You are right it is not slavery you commit to this of your own free will and no true slave is there of their own accord. I feel you do not have a right to say no. Neither partner does. Not no just for the sake of no. Now the spouse should be sympathetic if the no is for a good reason and in a healthy marriage that should be no problem.

Wow. Referring to spousal rape as an oxy moron, or feminism gone insane is just wrong on so many levels. I didn't realize intelligent people could be so ignorant.

No, I wasn't joking. And no, I would never force myself on anyone. And no, I don't think anyone "owns" anyone else. But how, considering that a marriage can be dissolved due to "failure to consumate the marriage," can the sexual act between husband and wife be considered "rape" under any circumstances? That would open up the possibility that any time a wife got ticked off at her husband, she could charge him with "spousal rape" and, absent some unlikely witness, he could be incarcerated on nothing more than her word that he actually forced himself on her?

What a sad world we sometimes live in. :(
Coming from you this is a bit of a shock. Did you read the atticle at all?

Let me quote the article's first paragraph, "The 49-year-old woman was awakened around midnight by an assailant who choked her, dragged her by the hair and raped her so many times before the sun came up that she lost count, police say. When she asked if she would live, her attacker allegedly told her: "We'll see."

This was not about sex, let alone maritial relations. It was a violent attack meant to cause harm, humiliation and terror on the woman. It was a savage act that is socially unacceptable, not role playing.

"Failure to consumate" only works if there was never any sexual intercourse over the duration of the marriage, however long that might be.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. :(

EDIT: And what would be the standards of proof other than the testimony of the parties? If you accept physical evidence, such as cuts, scratches, brusies, etc., how would you prove that it was due to rape? It may have been the result of a beating, and the DA could make a case for abuse, but how would they prove rape???
The vaginal injuries sustained in a rape can be of such a nature that continued intercourse would be extremely painful. In the event of multiple acts of penetration it can be proven that no woman could or would agree to it.

This "spousal rape" just sounds to me like feminism gone insane. I have seen women abused by their husbands, and I think that's dispicable. But "rape?" Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me.
Repugnant. I can say nothing that Dempublicents has not already perfectly articulated.

Eutrusca, I would advise that you not attempt to obfuscate your nauseatingly insular worldview with semantics. You've done a modest job rescinding most of your previous posts under the guise of ineloquency, but I fail to see how you can reconcile the above remarks with your conveniently ambiguous new position.

Of course, rapists are not deserving of such consideration, nor can you "work out" something like this. The man *deserves* to be castrated with a rusty butter knife, but since we are civilized people, all we'll do is put him in jail.
Mot juste, muchacho. Sigh... :(

Repugnant. I can say nothing that Dempublicents has not already perfectly articulated.


I find that highly amusing.

While im against abuse both physical and mental, I do find it hard to believe there would be much proof in a case of spousal rape. In most cases the buises and such she would have sustained would give an indication of assault. Proving rape would be more difficult, damage to genitals isnt really sufficient proof but is an indication if this and brusing of arms and such to indicate being detained. It would give you a case but still hard to prove.

I think this is what Capt'n was on about.

I feel you do not have a right to say no. Neither partner does. Not no just for the sake of no. Now the spouse should be sympathetic if the no is for a good reason and in a healthy marriage that should be no problem.
first of all, your concept of marriage is hideous, and i am absolutely delighted that no legal definition of marraige accepts your vision. which, incidently, IS SLAVERY. if one person owns the body of another person, that is slavery. don't be too cowardly to call your beliefs what they really are.

now, here's what i find particularly interesting:

if neither partner has the right to say "no" then one could claim it's still an equal relationship, right? well, except that the male partner is almost always going to be physically larger, and the male partner is always going to be physically more capable of forcing sex (based on the anatomy in question). so, basically, the female has the "right" to force her husband to have sex, but in virtually all cases she will never have the ability to assert that "right." meanwhile, males will virtually always be able to force sex if they want to.

it makes me wonder if Van would support this same disgusting idea if men were the smaller and weaker gender, and if women frequently desired to anally penetrate their husbands with foreign objects. should men be expected to simply submit to such acts, even if they strongly object? would marriage mean that the male gives up any right to protect his own body?

ooooh, or here's another alternative! if each spouse owns the other's body, then that means a woman cannot be prosecuted for murder if she kills her husband for raping her! he belonged to her, and he consented to have his body used however she chooses, so if she chooses to engage in sex play that involves, say, arsenic, then he doesn't have the right to refuse :).

-snip snip-
They would both have the right to divorce, thus negating ownership, but I guess both would have to agree ;)

but it would go along way to dissolving the archaic custom of marriage

No. What's the superman story?
I couple felt for something kinky. The guy dressed up as superman and tied the woman to the bed, meaning to 'save' her. He climbed a closset, meaning to jump on the bed and then begin 'saving', but he fel trough the closset and get stucked. His wife was tied to the bed. It took a while before they were free.

They would both have the right to divorce, thus negating ownership, but I guess both would have to agree ;)
yeah, that's yet another problem with Van's model! if both people own the other, than divorce can't happen unless they both agree. if a woman is being beaten she doesn't have the right to seek divorce because her husband owns her and determines her freedom. she also has no legal recourse when he beats her, because Van has nicely invented a loop hole for abusers: they can just say they were having rough sex, and since she's his wife she must have consented. after all, if a man is allowed to force his penis into a woman, tearing tissues and causing her pain, then why should he not be allowed tear tissues and cause her pain by punching her, too? why should we restrict the ways in which married people are entitled to harm one another?

why would anybody enter into a marriage of Van's sort? i could never respect a man or woman who was prepared to cede ownsership of their body to me, and i certainly would never be stupid or pathetic enough to offer myself in that way.

I apologize for flying off the handle and throwing insults. Rape, or any type of sexual assault for that matter, is a bit of an issue for me. I would say that about 3/4 of the women I have known in my life have experienced some sort of sexual abuse or assault, and I have seen first hand the type of damage it can cause.

Your comments seemed to suggest a lack of belief that rape within a marriage was rape at all, which, to me, was on par with those who make statements like "Well, he paid for dinner, so she has to sleep with him. It's not rape." By the time you clarified that statement, I was well past rationality.

I don't generally get so worked up over things, but this is just one of those things. I'm sure we all have our little bouts of insanity every now and then.

Suffice it to say that a woman (or man) can be raped if they do not consent. Neither prior consent nor relationship status have any bearing on whether or not forced sex is rape. And, as far as I am concerned, neither should have any bearing on treatment under the law.

I agree. My only concern about "spousal rape" is the potential for abuse by someone being vindictive about something unrelated to rape.

Most of us have "hot button" topics which tend to drive us over the edge. If you've read many of my posts prior to this one, my "hot button" topic is veterans and military personnel.

Once again, my most humble apologies for not being more sensitive to the issue, and for posting without giving the impact of my post more thought.

Marriage is not slavery. You give yourself to your spouse, but you still retain control over your own body. It is always a person's right to say "no".

This statement just hit me. It made me realize that this is somewhat of a "hot button" issue for me as well. Although my ex and I are on very friendly terms ( being more of "brother and sister" now than spouses ), I still have considerable anger at her for deciding to "cut me off" because I lost my high-paying job with Exxon many years ago.

This may go somewhat toward explaining my initial dismay at learning about "spousal rape." :(

Wow. Referring to spousal rape as an oxy moron, or feminism gone insane is just wrong on so many levels. I didn't realize intelligent people could be so ignorant.

Give this a rest, please. I think I have adequately explained myself and have apologized for being less than sensitive when I made that post.

Give this a rest, please. I think I have adequately explained myself and have apologized for being less than sensitive when I made that post.

Unfortunately, you're now stuck. I understood what you said and know what you meant by it, but you're in a forum full of children.

Unfortunately, you're now stuck. I understood what you said and know what you meant by it, but you're in a forum full of children.

Sigh. :(

Well they were married, maybe she just wasn't doing her marital duties enough.


If she was holding out on him, for unreasonable reasons (and the bible says the only reason is for temporary religious purposes), he ought to have just divorced her, as awful as that sounds, since I believe ALL divorce is inherently wrong. Marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, 1 lifetime.

A wife can be raped by her husband.


True, but a lot of angry wives will cry wolf against their husband after a heated argument. How do I know this? I've seen it happen firsthand, my mother crying wolf against my father for one thing or another.

You are aware that the vast majority of rapes go unreported because the woman is afraid of the emotional repercussions of being interrogated, correct?




9 out of 10 rapes never get reported, that is a known fact.

Which implies that spouses can not be raped.


Maybe he was shocked, saying, like "Oh my... How can anybody rape their spouse?" a shocked disbelief that somebody would so such a thing?


Anyway, I think spousal rape is possible, but is probably very rare, and when a wife screams her husband raped her, the first thing I'm going to investigate is see what her motive for doing so is (ie. ask the neighbors if they've been having lots of arguments, try to figure out if she wants him put away in jail so she can marry the guy she's having an affair with)

Spousal rape is possible, I don't deny that, it just seems like the laws are written in such a manner that a wife who is either disgruntled or has something to gain, could get her husband locked up by just shouting, "rape" and then it becomes he said / she said.

If she was holding out on him, for unreasonable reasons (and the bible says the only reason is for temporary religious purposes), he ought to have just divorced her, as awful as that sounds, since I believe ALL divorce is inherently wrong. Marriage is 1 man, 1 woman, 1 lifetime.
The bible has no say in the matter, Marriage is a legal and emotional thing rather than a religious one.

Perhaps if people read this, it will give them a better perspective. clikythingy (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html)



Mentally impaired? So your wife claims, "I was depressed, he raped me", and then you're in jail.


Also, in regards to being asleep, I've heard some guys tell me their wives sometimes like to wake them up by oral sex, is that rape? Since they're technically asleep at the time it begins (or that their wife likes the same done every now and then)

The point is, the way the law is so clearly defined, black and white, written in stone, it is leaving a lot of room for abuse of the legal system to settle personal vendettas.

Do you see that?

I would say that about 3/4 of the women I have known in my life have experienced some sort of sexual abuse or assault, and I have seen first hand the type of damage it can cause.



3/4? Are you serious? That is... Wow, where do you live? South Africa?

Coming from you this is a bit of a shock. Did you read the atticle at all?

Let me quote the article's first paragraph, "The 49-year-old woman was awakened around midnight by an assailant who choked her, dragged her by the hair and raped her so many times before the sun came up that she lost count, police say. When she asked if she would live, her attacker allegedly told her: "We'll see."


Yes, and how many of us were actually there? I read an article stating Iraq had nuclear weapons, that really fell through, didn't it?

I don't believe or disbelieve this story, I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion, I'll just sit back and wait and see what develops.

All I will say is this, if that is true, it's disgusting, sick, wrong, and the man ought to be flogged until the cows come home, or hanged, or both.

I find that highly amusing.

While im against abuse both physical and mental, I do find it hard to believe there would be much proof in a case of spousal rape. In most cases the buises and such she would have sustained would give an indication of assault. Proving rape would be more difficult, damage to genitals isnt really sufficient proof but is an indication if this and brusing of arms and such to indicate being detained. It would give you a case but still hard to prove.

I think this is what Capt'n was on about.
Its pretty much the same with any other criminal case. You can't prove something for definate, you just have to make a guess based on evidence.

Mentally impaired? So your wife claims, "I was depressed, he raped me", and then you're in jail.


Also, in regards to being asleep, I've heard some guys tell me their wives sometimes like to wake them up by oral sex, is that rape? Since they're technically asleep at the time it begins (or that their wife likes the same done every now and then)

The point is, the way the law is so clearly defined, black and white, written in stone, it is leaving a lot of room for abuse of the legal system to settle personal vendettas.

Do you see that?

And leaving the law vague does the same thing

Some guy in Georgia got 3 years in prison because he beat a pregnant woman to death. The reason it was only 3 years was because it was a "first time offense".

I hate the judicial system sometimes.


I hate the judicial system also.....not only did he kill a woman
he killed an unborn child...thats two murders

In most cases a woman is inprisoned longer for killing a man than a
man is for killing a woman. I guess men's life's are more important than a
womans... well fuck that! :mad:

I hate the judicial system also.....not only did he kill a woman
he killed an unborn child...thats two murders

In most cases a woman is inprisoned longer for killing a man than a
man is for killing a woman. I guess men's life's are more important than a
womans... well fuck that! :mad:

Given that Earth may be one of the few repositories of life in the entire universe, every life is precious. Indeed, every living thing is precious.

And leaving the law vague does the same thing


All I can say is I know what rape is, and I'd know it when I see it. The bottom line is non-consensual, period, or non-valid consent (somebody drunk cannot consent, but then this gets into what is drunk?)

My father said that he dislikes the way some of the laws are worded, they can be interpreted as thus:

"A husband and wife have dinner and some wine with dinner. Each has two glasses, they later have sex, her consent is non-valid due to intoxication."

(And yes, in high school they told us having sex with a woman who had even 1/2 a glass of beer was rape, but I imagine they were just trying to scare us away from drinking and sex. They didn't need to scare me, I never had sex, never boozed it up, and never broke any laws, because of my personal values system. But I guess some people need to be scared into obeying the laws and doing the right thing, or into not doing the wrong thing, hence why we have laws so they can be punished if/when they do the wrong thing)


Anyway, basically most reasonable people ought to be able to recognize what rape is, when presented with a case.

All I can say is I know what rape is, and I'd know it when I see it. The bottom line is non-consensual, period, or non-valid consent (somebody drunk cannot consent, but then this gets into what is drunk?)

My father said that he dislikes the way some of the laws are worded, they can be interpreted as thus:

"A husband and wife have dinner and some wine with dinner. Each has two glasses, they later have sex, her consent is non-valid due to intoxication."

(And yes, in high school they told us having sex with a woman who had even 1/2 a glass of beer was rape, but I imagine they were just trying to scare us away from drinking and sex. They didn't need to scare me, I never had sex, never boozed it up, and never broke any laws, because of my personal values system. But I guess some people need to be scared into obeying the laws and doing the right thing, or into not doing the wrong thing, hence why we have laws so they can be punished if/when they do the wrong thing)


Anyway, basically most reasonable people ought to be able to recognize what rape is, when presented with a case.

But who is going to make the judgment call on what is rape if the law is so vague (or non existent) ? I understand getting into legal technicalities but leaving it up to human interpretation seems like a REALLY bad thing to do over the long term (meaning individual interpretation) if there are no guidelines or very few there will be no consistency in ruling no consistency whatsoever

(though I am not going to get into false reporting stats in the case of rape … whole other argument)
(sorry if I did not word my thoughts clearly ... if something is vague let me know)

first of all, your concept of marriage is hideous, and i am absolutely delighted that no legal definition of marraige accepts your vision. which, incidently, IS SLAVERY. if one person owns the body of another person, that is slavery. don't be too cowardly to call your beliefs what they really are.

now, here's what i find particularly interesting:

if neither partner has the right to say "no" then one could claim it's still an equal relationship, right? well, except that the male partner is almost always going to be physically larger, and the male partner is always going to be physically more capable of forcing sex (based on the anatomy in question). so, basically, the female has the "right" to force her husband to have sex, but in virtually all cases she will never have the ability to assert that "right." meanwhile, males will virtually always be able to force sex if they want to.

it makes me wonder if Van would support this same disgusting idea if men were the smaller and weaker gender, and if women frequently desired to anally penetrate their husbands with foreign objects. should men be expected to simply submit to such acts, even if they strongly object? would marriage mean that the male gives up any right to protect his own body?

ooooh, or here's another alternative! if each spouse owns the other's body, then that means a woman cannot be prosecuted for murder if she kills her husband for raping her! he belonged to her, and he consented to have his body used however she chooses, so if she chooses to engage in sex play that involves, say, arsenic, then he doesn't have the right to refuse :).



First the use of the word slavery. There is no such thing as a slave that willings subjects themselves to being a slave. That is a misrepresentation of a true slave. Also a slave cannot leave of their own free will which a husband or wife can do. When married you give consent unless something is wrong and the other partner is to be understanding in that situation.

I am offended that a pascifist such as myself is told #1 that I am cowardly and #2 that that is slavery when I have displayed that your definition is very poor indeed.

The rest of your argument falls on the very false premise of slave and is therefore a strawman.

Why do you think that the rape laws state against someone unwilling that is not your wife ?

I know my own beliefs do not try to self impose your false perception of my beliefs as some sort of truth. If I did not come across as clear or was misunderstood I do apologize this is a very very touchy subject and perhaps without being able to see body language to see the real truth in this situation then misunderstandings will fly about.

Personally if married and my wife said she did not want to have sex I would respect her decision. I do not condone nor believe in violence.

I hope this clears up some or any misunderstanding but please do not think or state that what I believe is some sort of slavery this is blantantly wrong and will defend my integrity.

:) :fluffle:

First the use of the word slavery. There is no such thing as a slave that willings subjects themselves to being a slave. That is a misrepresentation of a true slave.

Um ... not quite accurate. In some sub-cultures within most large nations there are many "slaves" which have become so by their own choice.

Um ... not quite accurate. In some sub-cultures within most large nations there are many "slaves" which have become so by their own choice.

If you can leave you are not a slave!!

If you can leave you are not a slave!!

Dependency can be learned. Many of those who initially "choose" to become slaves will become totally incapable of making any decisions without the consent of their "Masters." This is fact, not supposition.

Dependency can be learned. Many of those who initially "choose" to become slaves will become totally incapable of making any decisions without the consent of their "Masters." This is fact, not supposition.


And "many will not" which makes your point invalid. They are still free to leave which is NOT slavery. Slavery implys being held captive. Self slavery does not apply here. I am not speaking of the slave to the corporate machine I am talking about one held captive through physical dominance if you wish to nitpick the definition that is fine I will not I have made my point very very clear.

I rest on my case I do not condone slavery and my ideal of marriage is nowhere near slavery and to take a couple sentences from a message board and then make the claim that my ideal of marriage is slavery is irresponsible reasoning. Not you but bottle. It is totally outlandish to project to know what my ideal of marriage is from but a few sentences.

Also of note I am using the Judea-christian example of marriage which is most commonly used in the USA and the definition that most people define it from which comes from the bible.

I do not necessarily hold to the ideas of the judea-christian ideal of marriage but simply argue from their position.

A vengeful person could pull it off with no problem they have sex with spouse and beg for it "rough" then go to the hospital for rape protocol.

In which case the defense lawyer would bring up in court that the person wanted it rough and it would come down to a he-said, she-said kind of thing. Again, the jury is going to be very unlikely to side with the victim in this case.

Meanwhile, how many people do you think are going to get that vindictive over an argument?

I hold that "technically" you cannot rape your spouse but as I stated I have no problem with hammering those that use violence to settle their disputes the penaltys should be stiffer in my estimation.

This statement is no different from making a statement that you cannot "technically" rape your date. They agreed to go on a date with you, so obviously they agreed to everything that goes along with it.

You are right it is not slavery you commit to this of your own free will and no true slave is there of their own accord.

There is nothing in marriage that says "I will have sex with you whenever you feel like it, whether I want to or not."

I feel you do not have a right to say no. Neither partner does. Not no just for the sake of no.

I hope that, should you ever plan on getting married, you tell your potential spouse this. At that point, unless your potential spouse is horribly weak-willed and needs psychiatric treatment, the marriage will probably be cancelled.

Now the spouse should be sympathetic if the no is for a good reason and in a healthy marriage that should be no problem.

Yes, and every marriage out there is healthy.

Anyway, I think spousal rape is possible, but is probably very rare, and when a wife screams her husband raped her, the first thing I'm going to investigate is see what her motive for doing so is (ie. ask the neighbors if they've been having lots of arguments, try to figure out if she wants him put away in jail so she can marry the guy she's having an affair with)

These are the same questions that any halfway decent defense lawyer would also be asking.

Spousal rape is possible, I don't deny that, it just seems like the laws are written in such a manner that a wife who is either disgruntled or has something to gain, could get her husband locked up by just shouting, "rape" and then it becomes he said / she said.

No one can just scream rape and get someone locked up. As with any crime, rape must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As with any crime, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. And, as I have pointed out numerous times, a married woman would have a much more difficult time proving rape, as most jury members would think the same thing you do.

3/4? Are you serious? That is... Wow, where do you live? South Africa?

Nope. I live in the US of A. You'd be surprised how many young girls (often before they even hit puberty) are coerced/forced into sexual acts. You'd also probably be surprised how many are sexually assaulted at some point after and never report it.

"A husband and wife have dinner and some wine with dinner. Each has two glasses, they later have sex, her consent is non-valid due to intoxication."

...so is his.

All I will say is this, if that is true, it's disgusting, sick, wrong, and the man ought to be flogged until the cows come home, or hanged, or both.

Of course, due to the idiocy of the law in that state, the most he could get is a year an a half in jail.

In which case the defense lawyer would bring up in court that the person wanted it rough and it would come down to a he-said, she-said kind of thing. Again, the jury is going to be very unlikely to side with the victim in this case.

Meanwhile, how many people do you think are going to get that vindictive over an argument?



This statement is no different from making a statement that you cannot "technically" rape your date. They agreed to go on a date with you, so obviously they agreed to everything that goes along with it.



There is nothing in marriage that says "I will have sex with you whenever you feel like it, whether I want to or not."



I hope that, should you ever plan on getting married, you tell your potential spouse this. At that point, unless your potential spouse is horribly weak-willed and needs psychiatric treatment, the marriage will probably be cancelled.




Yes, and every marriage out there is healthy.

To compare a date with marriage is beyond ludicrous I will not debate with pure nonsense and illogic.

Like I said in the previous posts I may have worded some of this poorly andwill apologize and take the responsibility for any misunderstandings that will come as a result.

I am using judea-christian marriage as the example if you wish to nitpick the definition of judeachristian marriage be my guest.

It says that you become as one. So I ask how can you rape yourself? or is the bible lying when it states you become as one?

First the use of the word slavery. There is no such thing as a slave that willings subjects themselves to being a slave. That is a misrepresentation of a true slave. Also a slave cannot leave of their own free will which a husband or wife can do. When married you give consent unless something is wrong and the other partner is to be understanding in that situation.

So if a woman just isn't horny one night, but her husband wants sex, she should pull divorce papers out of her butt?

Why do you think that the rape laws state against someone unwilling that is not your wife ?

Because, for thousands of years, a man was considered to own his wife. It was a form of slavery.

Personally if married and my wife said she did not want to have sex I would respect her decision. I do not condone nor believe in violence.

According to you, she can't say no if she wants to stay married - she gave herself to you.

Of course, due to the idiocy of the law in that state, the most he could get is a year an a half in jail.

Just out of curiosity, what is the usual penalty for forcible rape absent a marriage relationship?

Just out of curiosity, what is the usual penalty for forcible rape absent a marriage relationship?

I'm sure it varies by state. However, according to the article, someone who committed the exact same offense outside of marriage could get up to 14 years.

To compare a date with marriage is beyond ludicrous I will not debate with pure nonsense and illogic.

Why would anyone ever voluntarily get married if they have to give up their own free will to do so?

I am using judea-christian marriage as the example if you wish to nitpick the definition of judeachristian marriage be my guest.

Like all doctrines, the Judeo-Christian idea of marriage has changed over the years. Much like all societies at the time, marraige in the Bible was a form of ownership - the man owned the woman. I doubt you will find many Jews or Christians who still feel that way.

It says that you become as one. So I ask how can you rape yourself? or is the bible lying when it states you become as one?

If I attach two Legos together, I have formed one structure. However, I still have two different Legos. Marriage does bind you into one entity. However, you are also still your own person, with your own free will.

If I attach to Legos together, I have formed one structure. However, I still have two different Legos. Marriage does bind you into one entity. However, you are also still your own person, with your own free will.
exactly; marriage is a union of two individuals, not the formation of a single entity. anybody who tries to make their marriage a complete fusion is not only going to fail utterly, but is also going to destroy their relationship, their Self, the Self of their partner, and any children unlucky enough to be produced before said union collapses or degenerates into abuse.

So if a woman just isn't horny one night, but her husband wants sex, she should pull divorce papers out of her butt?



Because, for thousands of years, a man was considered to own his wife. It was a form of slavery.



According to you, she can't say no if she wants to stay married - she gave herself to you.

this is a mistruth I already stated that if my wife said no I would respect her decision. Marriage is about giving NOT GIVE AND TAKE, you get into marriage for give and TAKE you will be in trouble.

I have a great question for you. If your wife is sleeping and the husband was to penetrate her at night without violence. ( that is sexual battery ) is he guilty of sexual battery? Likewise if a wife takes her husband and does things to him while he is sleeping is she guilty of gross sexual imposition?

I said "technically" for a reason a reasonable man is not going "force" his wife nor would be beat her with physical violence. When married you are allowed to touch your spouse.

Why do you think it is called "YOUR" husband and "YOUR" wife ???
You are indeed "giving" yourself to each other.

Violence is wrong do not try to imply that I condone slavery which is violent I have stated that I am against violence and slavery I will not state it again. To bring it up again I will consider it baiting.

americas justice system is corrupt and messed up

this is a mistruth I already stated that if my wife said no I would respect her decision. Marriage is about giving NOT GIVE AND TAKE, you get into marriage for give and TAKE you will be in trouble.

You stated very clearly in an earlier post that a married person does not have the right to say no.

I have a great question for you. If your wife is sleeping and the husband was to penetrate her at night without violence. ( that is sexual battery ) is he guilty of sexual battery? Likewise if a wife takes her husband and does things to him while he is sleeping is she guilty of gross sexual imposition?

These are grey areas and can actually occur when both are technically asleep. If one of them wakes up and asks the one acting to stop, and they do not - that is rape.

I said "technically" for a reason a reasonable man is not going "force" his wife nor would be beat her with physical violence.

We aren't talking about reasonable people here. We are talking about the type of person willing to commit rape.

When married you are allowed to touch your spouse.

...unless they say no/ask you to stop.

Why do you think it is called "YOUR" husband and "YOUR" wife ???
You are indeed "giving" yourself to each other.

I call my advisor "my" boss and she calls me "her" student. Does that mean that she can do whatever she wants with me?

Violence is wrong do not try to imply that I condone slavery which is violent I have stated that I am against violence and slavery I will not state it again. To bring it up again I will consider it baiting.

You have stated that you are against the use of the word slavery. However, if someone does not have the right to say "no", as you have stated, that *is* slavery - whether you like the use of the word or not.

exactly; marriage is a union of two individuals, not the formation of a single entity. anybody who tries to make their marriage a complete fusion is not only going to fail utterly, but is also going to destroy their relationship, their Self, the Self of their partner, and any children unlucky enough to be produced before said union collapses or degenerates into abuse.

I agree completely!! That is not my law or line of reasoning that is the line of reasoning given in the bible.

this is a mistruth I already stated that if my wife said no I would respect her decision. Marriage is about giving NOT GIVE AND TAKE, you get into marriage for give and TAKE you will be in trouble.
you have said that the man has the right to take what his wife is unwilling to give. she isn't GIVING him a damn thing, he is simply taking what he wants. it's not a gift if you steal it, kiddo.


I have a great question for you. If your wife is sleeping and the husband was to penetrate her at night without violence. ( that is sexual battery ) is he guilty of sexual battery? Likewise if a wife takes her husband and does things to him while he is sleeping is she guilty of gross sexual imposition?

if they had previously discussed such things and both agreed it was okay, that's fine. if not, it is sexual battery. either way it's pretty creepy.


I said "technically" for a reason a reasonable man is not going "force" his wife nor would be beat her with physical violence.

and yet the MOST COMMON REASON for an American woman to be in the emergency room is because her husband or lover beat her. the MOST COMMON CAUSE of serious injury to adult women is domestic assault. but of course, those aren't reasonable men, right? and we should just assume all marriages will include reasonable men, right?

When married you are allowed to touch your spouse.

not against their wishes, no. you NEVER are automatically entitled to touch or use your partner's body, regardless of if you are on a first date or in your 50th year of marriage. if you touch them and they say "stop" you MUST STOP, or you are guilty of battery. if you attempt to have sex and they say "stop" then you MUST STOP or you are committing rape.


Why do you think it is called "YOUR" husband and "YOUR" wife ???
You are indeed "giving" yourself to each other.

it's called "MY" school, so does that mean i own it and can do with it whatever i choose? if i have "MY" child, does that mean that i can rape them whenever i like because they belong to me? use of the possessive does not suffice.


Violence is wrong do not try to imply that I condone slavery which is violent I have stated that I am against violence and slavery I will not state it again. To bring it up again I will consider it baiting.
slavery is not always violent. slavery is quite often coercive, and is a matter of removing options until the enslaved party has no option but to "consent" to be enslaved.

it's not baiting, it's simply the DEFINITION OF SLAVERY IN MY DICTIONARY. slavery, n 1: the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage, thrall, thralldom, thraldom] 2: the practice of owning slaves [syn: slaveholding] 3: work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay.

if you believe that a married woman has no right to say "no" to sex, then she is under control of another person. according to you, her husband can claim ownership of her. i would say that forcing somebody to have sex against their wishes constitutions "work done under hard conditions," so the only way for it to not qualify as slavery would be if the husband pays his wife each time he rapes her...and that would make the marriage nothing more than institutionalized prostitution.

a slave is also defined as "one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." you have specifically stated that you believe a married person is the property of their spouse, and thus belongs to the household.

notice that nowhere in the definition of slavery does it say that a person is not a slave if they "consented" to be in that position. a person may, effectively, sell themselves into slavery, and that does not in any way violate the definition of the word.

what you propose IS SLAVERY. that's what the word for your beliefs is. just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean we are wrong for using that term.

Another point I would make I would indeed bet my life that the man in the story provided did not do that nor hit his wife for the first time.

I would bet my life as with most violent offenders it happened.

Violence has signs it does not just appear from thin air.

I am not saying that anyone deserves what they get so please refrain from that usage of illogic.

Marriage like I said is about giving both parties give it is a give give situation.
This will be come to light in the dating process, that is one of the things dating is for to find a potential life long partner.

No one deserves violence but I must question ones sense of reason of marrying an abusive person or staying married if it did happen to appear out of thin air. They should leave immediatly or call the authorities who should then throw the violent offender in prison and the victim will be free.

Nope. I live in the US of A. You'd be surprised how many young girls (often before they even hit puberty) are coerced/forced into sexual acts. You'd also probably be surprised how many are sexually assaulted at some point after and never report it.


I have a good idea, I went to a high school full of pigs who talked about who they got drunk and took advantage of.

It really made me sick, having to be put up with people like that, people who, if it weren't for the laws protecting them, I quite likely would have mowed down. I hate how the laws are stacked to protect people like that.

When people talk about proof, well, when you hear Student A saying, "Hey man wasn't that great, that b--ch passed out and got it up the a-s", well what more proof does one need that the person in question is a rapist criminal and ought to be hanged?

A lot of what I heard though was second-hand gossip and somewhat suspect, but a great deal was from good friends of the person in question.

The thing is, nobody ever filed charges against the people, I mean you can't just let them get away with it. But I know how the legal system works, and as sad as it is for me to say, nothing really ever comes of it, it's basically a waste of time.

I'd probably tell a woman, she's better off just telling her brother or male cousin, what guys it was that assaulted her, and then let them handle the perps in their own way...

Let me tell you this, I know a guy, who when his wife was assaulted, he and some friends, "took care of" the perp, and well that was the last woman he ever raped, hell that was the last thing he ever did...

I'd probably tell a woman, she's better off just telling her brother or male cousin, what guys it was that assaulted her, and then let them handle the perps in their own way...

Let me tell you this, I know a guy, who when his wife was assaulted, he and some friends, "took care of" the perp, and well that was the last woman he ever raped, hell that was the last thing he ever did...
i simply learned self defense and became comfortable with using a butterfly knife. i have had several uncomfortable situations where men attempted to force sexual contact, and i have resolved each one by demonstrating that i am fully prepared to remove the reproductive organs of any person who tries to use my body against my wishes.

EDIT: and yes, that rule most certainly applies to my boyfriend, and he knows it. in fact, he has commented several times on how much he respects me for it. he's not whipped, by any stretch of the imagination, but we have a code word that means "STOP" in any context, and we both have agreed to obey it without exception.

you have said that the man has the right to take what his wife is unwilling to give. she isn't GIVING him a damn thing, he is simply taking what he wants. it's not a gift if you steal it, kiddo.


if they had previously discussed such things and both agreed it was okay, that's fine. if not, it is sexual battery. either way it's pretty creepy.


and yet the MOST COMMON REASON for an American woman to be in the emergency room is because her husband or lover beat her. the MOST COMMON CAUSE of serious injury to adult women is domestic assault. but of course, those aren't reasonable men, right? and we should just assume all marriages will include reasonable men, right?

not against their wishes, no. you NEVER are automatically entitled to touch or use your partner's body, regardless of if you are on a first date or in your 50th year of marriage. if you touch them and they say "stop" you MUST STOP, or you are guilty of battery. if you attempt to have sex and they say "stop" then you MUST STOP or you are committing rape.


it's called "MY" school, so does that mean i own it and can do with it whatever i choose? if i have "MY" child, does that mean that i can rape them whenever i like because they belong to me? use of the possessive does not suffice.


slavery is not always violent. slavery is quite often coercive, and is a matter of removing options until the enslaved party has no option but to "consent" to be enslaved.

it's not baiting, it's simply the DEFINITION OF SLAVERY IN MY DICTIONARY. slavery, n 1: the state of being under the control of another person [syn: bondage, thrall, thralldom, thraldom] 2: the practice of owning slaves [syn: slaveholding] 3: work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay.

if you believe that a married woman has no right to say "no" to sex, then she is under control of another person. according to you, her husband can claim ownership of her. i would say that forcing somebody to have sex against their wishes constitutions "work done under hard conditions," so the only way for it to not qualify as slavery would be if the husband pays his wife each time he rapes her...and that would make the marriage nothing more than institutionalized prostitution.

a slave is also defined as "one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." you have specifically stated that you believe a married person is the property of their spouse, and thus belongs to the household.

notice that nowhere in the definition of slavery does it say that a person is not a slave if they "consented" to be in that position. a person may, effectively, sell themselves into slavery, and that does not in any way violate the definition of the word.

what you propose IS SLAVERY. that's what the word for your beliefs is. just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean we are wrong for using that term.

I believe they have a right to say no.

Like I said my choice in wording was poor and lead to this misunderstanding.

I repeat they have a right to say no just so it is very clear.

I believe they have a right to say no.

Like I said my choice in wording was poor and lead to this misunderstanding.

I repeat they have a right to say no just so it is very clear.

If a person has a right to say no, then if they are forced into sex, it is rape.

If a person has a right to say no, then if they are forced into sex, it is rape.


I concur!

I repeat they have a right to say no just so it is very clear.
therefore, you believe that it is quite possible for a woman to be raped by her husband, or a man by his wife. because they retain the right to say "no," and if their spouse forces sex anyway then it qualifies as rape.

therefore, you believe that it is quite possible for a woman to be raped by her husband, or a man by his wife. because they retain the right to say "no," and if their spouse forces sex anyway then it qualifies as rape.

Vangaardia Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents
If a person has a right to say no, then if they are forced into sex, it is rape.




I concur!


Perhaps you missed this post.

I will repeat I concur.

Vangaardia Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents
If a person has a right to say no, then if they are forced into sex, it is rape.




I concur!


Perhaps you missed this post.

I will repeat I concur.forgive me for having belabored that point, i was simply incredulous...i am delighted to hear that you have been convinced on this point! YAY!

I'm sure it varies by state. However, according to the article, someone who committed the exact same offense outside of marriage could get up to 14 years.

Rather glaring disparity there, yes?

With almost all marriages, the moment you contact a lawyer about the marraige, it's over. :(

Rather glaring disparity there, yes?

Yes, and that is the problem. Why should being married allow you to perform a despicable act and practically get off scot-free?

forgive me for having belabored that point, i was simply incredulous...i am delighted to hear that you have been convinced on this point! YAY!

No problem forgive me for my posts which were lacking in depth. I was trying to make an illustration of judea-christian marriage and tried to condense too many thoughts in a little space and it came out completely wrong and certainly not how I intended.I failed miserably The error is completely my fault I take full responsibilty upon looking at them I can see no other recourse but to assume what you did. Again my apologizes for the incomplete posts. I must learn that my ideas do not tranfer well to other people if not complete.

:fluffle: