Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty

The perversion is that he didnt respect her right to say no. She doesnt sign a consent form to be the sex slave of her husband when she marries unless she is part of a médiéval religion. It is something I hate about muslim relationships and the assumption about the lack of autonomy of women.
And seriously, i am surprised you think sex for fun is a perversion.

 

Did I ever say what he did was 100 percent good? My claim has only been that what he did wasn't anywhere near as bad as rape, and that the government should not get involved.

If she really wanted out of there, she could divorce him.

 

You are once again trying to define what other people think a marriage is.
As for sécularisation marriage, since France is a secular country, every couple has by law to have a civil ceremony. The religious one is optional.
An excellent idea.

 

If she made it clear she didnt want sex, and he forced her it was rape.
No matter what the relationship.
He has no rights over whatcshe does with her body in exactly the same way as the state has no rights over her body.
NO ONE OWNS IT BUT SHE HERSELF.
Orherwise you are half way to condoning slavery.

 

Why on earth is saying no to being taken by surprise from behind a reason to divorce??
Do you think marriage is merely a question of sex on demand??

 

Well, if it's not a reason to divorce, it's not a reason to have the husband prosecuted and sent to prison.

 

I guess it depends what type of marriage. That's why I suggested two different legal categories of marriage. If the woman wants more legal protections, she's going to have to give up other rights. It's a trade-off.

 

Assault is a criminal offence.
So is the specific kind of assault called rape.
Rape is when sex is non consensual.
You work it out.

 

According to your definition.
When it happens inside a marriage, at least partial consent already exists.

That depends on exactly what sort of physical force or threats were used, and what injuries were actually inflicted.

"Sexual assault" is something completely different from "assault". I wasn't talking about that.

It is perfectly natural for a husband to have sex with his wife. This isn't "sexual assault" (in the absence of any other additional assault or obviously illegal and horrible threats).

I don't think you should view this in terms of black and white. Trying to apply the same rules that concern other situations to marriage is not a good thing to do.

 

I think you have forgotren the term used in religious ceremony...Honour . You promise to HONOUR each other.
Why on earth should either give up any rights? Just honour and respect each other!
You dont OWN each other. Tak8ng a woman from behind in a private space is a zillion miles away from "honour". Even further when she says no!
You still are defining marriage as a domestic convenience forcwhen you want sex. You want to include that in your marriage and create another marriage where that is not the case.
Getting personal, I note you are only 34 years old. I dont know who has been éducation you about the relative hierarchical position in society and the home between men and women. The days of obedient humble uneducated sex slaves who also clean yourhouse, cok your meals, look agter your children and, if she has time, goes to work too, are well and truly over.
Now if you can find a woman who complies with all that, fine. But dont include them in your général référence to "women". She would be a massive anomoly.

 

That is a red herring.

We are talking about the government getting involved. The morality is something separate from the legal aspects.

Maybe you have difficulty separating the two in your mind.

 

The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
1 Corinthians 7:4

Something tells me that's not the type of marriage you are talking about.
So it seems the society needs two different types of marriages.

 

Sorry.
Legally rape is assault and when it is not consensual, sex is called rape and rape is a form of assault.
Consensual sex is normal and not rape. I Nevers said it was. Come on. You are now struggling to défend nonconsensual sex.

 

However in your versé she has the right to say no by having authority over his body.
Doesn't she?
It is about mutual respect, not dominance and force.

 

It sounds like you're just playing semantics and word games.

We are talking about what should be (this is a political forum), not what the current law is.

 

All I'm saying is the government should not get involved, not unless it is a very severe situation and the government needs to get involved.

 

And current law is not political??
You dont discuss crurent law in this forum?

 

Are you trying to say things should be a certain way because that's what the current law happens to be?

How about this argument: Things should be a certain way because that's what the law was 70 years ago?

 

That is not what you said.
You said that a man who forces himself on a woman should not be charged with a criminal act of assault.
Government law legally passed.

 

That is not what I said.

I said that it's a little bit different when it's inside a marriage.

Most states have exceptions written into their laws for marriage. A little bit different rules apply.

 

The law is current and has not been changed.
There is no time limit to law other than amendment.
The entire suprême court of the US rests on law made up to 200 years ago.

 

Then you will have no problem if we change these laws and go back to what the laws were 70 years ago?

 

Not according to corinthians.

 

We are now in the realms of make béliève..

 

So it is your claim that the laws now are the same laws we had 70 years ago?

If so, I think you are out of touch with reality.

Have you watched the film Marnie ?