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

How do we make sure the wife didn't inflict those light injuries to herself to get the man arrested?

It happens.

 

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

"
"You knew how to obtain a protective order," he stated.

"I don’t think I did," she said.

Rehkemper showed her a copy of a protective order filed in connection with her first divorce more than 20 years earlier.

"The attorney who represented me did that," she said.
"

 

Oh just stop it. This is just ridiculous.
It is however far more common for a man to kill a woman. You hear about attacks on women frequently, as she was perhaps out jogging or walking her dog or waiting for a bus and bodies found in woods days later.
I dont think I have ever heard of the reverse situation.

 

I posted a story about a woman who did exactly that, and got the man sent to prison. The woman nearly got away with it too.

Take a look what a false rape accusation can be do

 

Look.
One incident does not condemn half the population of the earth.
Get your own mâle half in order first.

 

I'm in favor of women's rights, but am not in favor of where feminism has taken us, or is taking us.

It seems to me first everyone was encouraged to have sex outside of marriage, but that created new problems, so new rules were needed, governing what can be the tricky aspect of consent, in casual non-marital sexual relationships. But then, at the end of a lung tunnel, people finally are wanting to apply those rules to the original institution of marriage.

This would have been seen as totally absurd 50 or 60 years ago.

 

both genders often kill in a crime of passion when their lover cheats on them

personally, I think adultery should still be a crime

domestic physical abuse is less likely to happen when you can use the courts to punish the other for their wrongs against you

 

So this is your answer to "there's no rape in any of the 3 books" when given this example of clear rape?

You asked me if I liked it?

The question is, why did you say there was no rape when there clearly was.

Obviously you liked it enough to buy "all 3" as you said.

70+ million women bought what is basically a rape fantasy book and loved it as much as you.

 

Like I said, we could have the "conservative marriage" and the "liberal marriage", two separate legal options for people to choose from.
Same sex couples would not be eligible for the conservative marriage. I think that would fit the needs of everyone in society.

 

we already have that

we have government (secular) marriage, then we have what ever other marriage you want

I choose government marriage, if you want a religious one, have at it, no one will stop you

and no one forcing you to get the government (secular) marriage, can just get the religious one if you want

 

No we don't.

 

sure we do, we have legal marriage, and we have religious marriage, many choose both, but they do not have too

 

I was obviously referring to two different levels of legal protections and obligations. Two different legal categories.

If a liberal woman loves the feminist idea of consent, she can enter into a liberal marriage. But she will have no recourse if her husband sleeps around with other women. Neither will she be entitled to any alimony payments.
Also, if she has a baby with another man out of wedlock, her husband in this liberal marriage will not be on the hook for it.

 

why would we need that, marriage is marriage under the eyes of the law

if you're trying to say Republicans do not commit adultery, lol, you must be kidding

 

No it wouldn't be. We are already debating in this thread exactly what laws should apply to marriage.

Rather than argue, why not just have the law create two different types of marriage?

 

I think you nailed it perfectly, A MARRIED WOMAN IS THE PROPERTY OF THE MAN. So if he wants to have sex with her, it has to happen.

As you said, "The woman DOES have an obligation to her husband. It might not be every night, but the woman should give him what he wants at least two times a week... or at least once a week."

The same holds true of a woman who wears provocative clothing, IF SHE GETS RAPED, it's her fault for wearing that type of clothing. Do you agree with that also?

 

Why didn't he leaver her? IF she wasn't giving him his sexual perversions, why didn't he get a divorce?

Sex between married couples should be done in a bed under the covers for the purpose of procreation. Else it's just perversion.

As your story goes, he was trying to have sex in the shower. What a pervert.

 

If HE is dissatisfied, HE needs to get a legal separation and probably move out of that house...certainly our of the same bedroom at least.
But oh wait, he was trying his sexual perversion in the shower according to the OP.

But I get it, women are just property. Aren't they.

 

marriage is marriage, why would we change that, why do you think your legal marriage should be different from someone elses

if you want something new to name your marriage, let us know what you want to call it

 

No it isn't. Leftist Progressives obviously have different ideas about what "marriage" should be.

How about the conservative marriages can just be named "marriage", and the liberal marriages can be named something else, like "domestic partnerships".

 

no we don't, legal marriage is legal marriage, you seem to be wanting to add more to it

nope, if you want a new name for the Trump like marriages, have at it - how bout "Stormy Marriages"

 

I enjoyed them very much because I have a sensé of humour and am able to tell the différence between fiction and fact.
Clearly you enjoyed at least one of them too.
As for rape, the définition includes a clear "no" by the victim. She didnt resist.
BTW the séries was pretty badly written so why do you think they were such a success?

 

Something we can agree about.

I think the wife should have to put up clear and strong resistance for it to be considered a "sexual assault". Either that or the husband's use of force or threatening should have been very excessive and unreasonable.

 

Once again you are laying down your définitions as those others should follow...the neon light of the right.
Just like legislators, you assume the right to define why people marry and what they include and accept in their relationship.
It is no one elses business what people accept within their own personal lives and relationships.
And it has zéro no, aucune connection with political ideology.
You really should stop criticising other peoples personal lives because they are not like yours.

 

If I suggested two different options for marriages, then no one is being forced to follow one particular definition, are they?

If it's no else's business, then they don't have to get married, do they?

You could go get a "religious" "marriage" at a secular humanist church organization, and the government doesn't have to recognize it.