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

This conversation is done.
I am not going to débate with someone who misrepresents me when he has nothing more to say about the subject.
If you want to discuss the relevance of laws made before you were born, you need anorher thread.

 

Sorry, your words seemed to give the impression that you were saying that.

 

How about the reverse? Every couple can have a ceremony, but making it "legal" is optional.

The woman will be under no obligations... and neither will the man to her...

 

Why the reverse?
Marriage is a legal contract. It is everywhere.
In France church and state are mutually exclusive. One is Legally Married . If you want to add a religious tone then you can but just a religious service is not a legal contract.
This also by luck nullifies the other religious marriages as not being legal unless administered by a representative of the state. Christianity becomes equal to islam etc in the eyes of the law.
BTW I was amused to see you ready to ignore 70 year old laws on the basis of age but rely on those written thousands of years ago and which you clearly dont understand.
I think you had better think it out again

 

And yet that was not your initial claim. You claimed there was no rape in any of the books when clearly they're full of it.

No, I clearly didn't enjoy any of them. Didn't read any of them. I just know how to find information.

Ohhhhhh, I see. So if a woman is forced to say "yes" then it's not rape. Got it.

They were a success because clearly women love to read about rape fantasies and being controlled.

 

So a woman who doesn't resist can't be raped, regardless of her verbal statements?

 

I personally don't think sex for fun or for relief of tension is a perversion.

But I was posting to a fundie christian. That's why the poster seems to think a woman must succumb to a man's needs. She is the property of man in a marriage according to many fundie's. IMO.

I was being sarcastic.
Notice the other poster did not bring up the man should leave the wife if she isn't fulling her womanly duties of the marriage.
Only the woman should seek a divorce.

 

Didn't I say this is about women being property of a man when married?

 

A political forum it is. Yet you brought religion into a political forum.

 

You're making a disingenuous comment. You obviously didn't bother to read the conversation. The comment was only made in response to someone else who brought up religion.

You should really STOP replying to single posts out of context from the conversation in which they were made.

 

The poster you responded to never brought up religious until you responded to Pixie about it.
Stay up to date on your responses or reread your conversations. Then you won't make disingenuous comments.

 

There is implied blanket consent to sex in marriage. If a man is a brute, divorce him. Sucks to have been forced to have sex, but she will have an option. Divorce courts do NOT treat men kindly. He has a built in reason not to be a brute. Brutes are punished.

But, without this outlook, men will have lost the one avenue toward legitimate, guaranteed legal sex available to them. A wife could consent to sex and turn around and destroy her husband claiming rape, even if false.

I think Camille Paglia made this point when a guy in a state DID get convicted of raping his wife.

 

Suppose you had a wife who really liked to receive oral sex. Suppose you didn't mind this, but demanded that she have showered in the past few days and not be menstruating when you do it. Suppose she disrespects these preferences of yours and coerces you into doing it under circumstances you disagreed with. Wouldn't that be a violation of you? People have needs, sure, but being married doesn't imply they can't "not feel like sex" sometimes or in certain circumstances. Honestly, it would be better to cheat on a spouse than rape them if things are really as bad as they can be. And file for divorce just to keep things honest if you can't meet each others needs for whatever reason, though finding a way to work it out is often the better choice. It can be hard in an unhappy marriage with kids and property. Marrying the wrong person can be a nightmare. Reminds me of why it's a bad idea to wait for marriage to have sex. You don't even know if you're sexually compatible and suddenly you have this serious legal commitment.

Bottom line though. Being married to somebody doesn't mean you can't commit crimes against them. I guess context matters, and previously established patterns can imply consent, but an explicit no still means no. Rape of any kind will often run into the he-said-she-said problems.

 

That is just circular logic.

(Maybe if you bother to think about it, you'll be able to see it)

I think what you really meant was that you don't believe a wrong committed between husband and wife should be treated differently than it is between two people who are not married.

 

I will state it more directly: Marital rape exists, is a crime, and should be a crime. Sexual slavery is not implied by the marriage contract in secular countries.

 

Whether it is a crime is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether it should be a crime.

Yes, I will grant that there are forms of "marital rape" that are much more easy to be considered "rape" than others, and where the government should punish the man.
In an ideal world, we should never confine all scenarios to a cookie-cutter approach, because there can exist more extreme situations.

There do exist situations where I think the man should be punished but it should still not be called "rape", and there probably do exist some extreme situations that are so horrible I would be willing to call it rape.

However, the conditions for "marital rape" to exist are not exactly the same for ordinary rape that occurs between two people who are not married to each other.

We can argue what "marital rape" should mean, but we would be arguing over semantics.

 

When she explicitly says no, and he does it anyway, and it's not part of some previously discussed sexual game, that's rape. If they've had sex many times before, and he has sex with her while she's drunk or asleep, that's where it can be different from a new sex partner.

From a policy perspective, I would suggest that somebody who raped their wife is less of a danger to the community than somebody who snuck into a bedroom and raped a stranger, but it still qualifies as rape.

 

I will respectfully disagree with you. It's not so simple if they are married.

You're trying to apply rules that apply elsewhere to marriage.

 

So you lose the right to say no to sex with your partner if you're married? Neither partner has the right to ever refuse the sexual advances of the other?

 

If he forced himself on her before the marriage was consensually consummated, like in the film Marnie, then that could be a borderline case, and I might be more inclined to consider that "rape", but even that was technically not illegal at the time the film was made.

 

Maybe view it this way, if it helps you understand. If you agree to marriage, you are - in effect - consenting to your spouse being able to rape you ONE time, without legal punishment.

They do, but that right is much weaker in a marriage.
You are confusing and conflating together moral and relationship rights with legal rights. Not the same thing. The wife may be being violated, but that is something for the two to work out in their marriage. (This is assuming that what is being done to the wife is closer to the spectrum of what reasonable women in a marriage consent to, rather than something more extreme. An analogous situation applies in the other direction too).

There is also duty and obligations, which don't completely take away rights, but do mitigate them somewhat.

I know some of you only want to think about rights and don't want to think about duties or obligations.

 

You seem to be disingenuous in citing that quote, not bothering to read or think. This actually had nothing to do with religion, if you bothered to read my post. (The fact that "religious marriage" was in quotation marks and the fact that "secular humanist church organization" was mentioned in the same sentence should have been one clue to you)
If you had bothered to read and understand the conversation this post was made in, and what it was responding to, it would be more obvious to you.

The reference to the verse in Corinthians was only to try to make the point that there are two different perspectives on marriage that exist in society, contrary to the claim of the other poster that everyone agrees.

 

If you didn't bother giving a quote from the bible in a topic that isn't religious, you'd have a leg to stand on.
But you went to show how women must submit to the man. Just like Islam wants women to do also.
Stop being so disingenuous and admit, you posted a bible verse essentially stating women are property of men. At least be big enough to admit it.

 

That is a sick post.

Is the man allowed one beating also, if she steps out of line?

 

Oh please, it's between husband and wife. (You can claim that she was "violated", but there is nothing "sick" about the sexual component. Sex between husband and wife is perfectly natural and normal)

It does not necessarily involve any physical assault.

One almost gets the feeling you don't view marriage as being any different from two people who are just casually dating.