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

Yet women in the US bought 70 million copies of "50 Shades of Grey"

 

So did i.
She consented. It was not rape, in any of the three volumes.

 

I support any arrangement couples décide on.

 

You do understand the meaning of consent yes?

 

I see you're not familiar with that book either.

 

That was never the question.

 

Sure.

14. ‘I wondered what your bedroom would look like,’ he says. [Christian doesn’t have permission to enter her home.]
I glance around it, plotting an escape route, no – there’s still only the door or window.
“No,” I protest, trying to kick him off.
He stops.
‘If you struggle, I’ll tie your feet too. If you make a noise, Anastasia, I will gag you. Keep quiet. Katherine is probably outside listening right now.’
Gag me! Kate! I shut up.

 

You do realize there are different possible interpretations of it, and different perspectives on consent?

A woman who has married a man has already given at least partial consent.


Then there was that ridiculous case where a woman consented to sex, and then she changed her mind in the middle of it, and tried to accuse the man of "rape" because he didn't pull out fast enough. So I guess there can be different takes on "consent".

 

We could have the "Conservative marriage", and the "Liberal marriage". Such a legal distinction already exists in Sweden.

 

She can get a divorce or a legal separation any time she wants.

That's why I made the statement "It is only possible for her to be raped ONCE"

 

It doesn't make it all ok, but it makes more ok.

Do we have to apply a black & white mentality to this?

 

I disagree.... but like I said below, also applies to Trump


but it's always hard to know if what an ex says is true or not

if they are separated and not living in the same house, be different

 

That's why it's usually none of our business and we should try to stay out of it.

 

Yes.

If the wife seeks a legal separation, it tells the whole world something is not well in that marriage. If I'm on a jury and the husband came over to his wife's separate new home, without being invited, and they are legally separated, and she claims he forced himself on her and wants to press charges, I will have no problem finding the man guilty of sexual assault.

(But there better be additional evidence if the wife wants his conviction to affect child custody or divorce proceedings. We shouldn't make the automatic assumption that just because a man has been convicted of something, that he did it.)

 

Are you seriously thinking a comment on a novel is supportive of any opinion?
I also note you read it too. Naughty naughty.
Did you enjoy it?

 

But you just said you should stay out of it.
Now you are apportioning blame.
It is far too easy, it seems, to poke noses into other peoples business. Ditto the state.
People need to stop trying to control other people. For a country that says it is the home of freedoms, the USA certainly likes to tell its population what it can and cannot do.

 

I believe government should stay out of the marriage bed, unless there is a very strong reason.

 

We were referring to apportioning money in a relationship.
I support any arrangement a couple prefers. Are you goung to try to legislate for that too?

 

Marriages exist, in part, to protect the man from legal actions.

In this modern-day society, any man who has sex outside of marriage is at risk of being accused of "rape".

(I've posted countless stories about that in this forum)

Marriage should be the one refuge for a man, where he is safe, or at least where it's not so easy for him to be accused.

 

It should stay out of anyones bed, married or not. Rape is also already covered under laws about assault.

 

I agree. If the man assaults and has sex with his wife, he does not need to be charged with rape, he can be charged with any of the other physical aspects of the assault.

Obviously if the wife is full of heavy bruises and terrible lacerations, that is not okay.

 

My original comment was in reply to a référence to MONEY.
ot sex.

Oh come on. Marriages exist because it used to be where a money exchanged hands as representative of the worth of a woman. Men have always been in control and certainly dont need protecting from anything.

 

So a few quick slaps around the face is acceptable?
Where i live there is a strong move to make hittite children illegal.
Because ANY physical attack is assault. And certainly on children.
The degree of damage is irrelevant.

 

That is totally untrue. These days, with ridiculous feminist-inspired consent laws, men are not safe.

I've posted SEVERAL stories about this in this forum.

The Australian rugby star who had sex with a woman even though she said "no", but she let him have sex with her. But then the sex was painful and she regretted it afterwards and claimed rape. Her mom was in the apartment the whole time and there were no screams. They met on a hook-up site to have sex, and the woman seemed all enthusiastic and into him at first but had suddenly changed her whole attitude and was reluctant to have sex when she realized the man was keeping a taxi outside, which implied he only wanted a quick bang and then was wanted to get out there.

The man who was convicted by a female judge of "rape" because the woman changed her mind in the middle of sex, and allegedly he didn't pull out fast enough.

Julian Assange, who suffered a whole disaster, with threats of international extradition, because a woman accused him of slipping off the condom when she wasn't looking. Even by her own admission in the police report, she realized the condom was off less than a minute after intercourse began but she let the sex continue after that.
He claims it tore when he put it on, so that is why he took it off. Even the forensic evidence performed turned out to be consistent with his claim.

 

sounds like a crazy case

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...rape-sex-intimate-partner-assault/2524826002/