How do you feel about spousal rape as a legal issue?

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No means no.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Rape is violent......Deano

wut

you still haven't provided any evidence of how this can be proved in a court.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Rape is violent......Deano

wut

you still haven't provided any evidence of how this can be proved in a court.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Thessassin"] yeah but you said rape requires force, so if she didnt resist then you didnt have to use any force, would that not be rape because no force is required?

Thessassin

Husbands can...and do rape their wives...and for all I know the reverse is true as well though not to the same percentage I'd wager just judging on physical differences in strength. Non consent is all it takes for it to be rape. However, when trying a case in court they generally have some corroborating evidence. They don't prosecute if they don't have a chance of proving their case. So while non consent is the only legal requirement for it to be cIassified as rape....that would probably not get to trial if that is all they have. Most it would get would be a PFA against the man.

Just because you are married to someone does not give you ownership over them. It's still rape if it is not consensual.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If she's not part of the act......there would be some signs. Not resisting as in fighting him off does not mean it's pleasurable.LJS9502_basic

Husbands can...and do rape their wives...and for all I know the reverse is true as well though not to the same percentage I'd wager just judging on physical differences in strength. Non consent is all it takes for it to be rape. However, when trying a case in court they generally have some corroborating evidence. They don't prosecute if they don't have a chance of proving their case. So while non consent is the only legal requirement for it to be cIassified as rape....that would probably not get to trial if that is all they have. Most it would get would be a PFA against the man.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Thessassin"] what im getting at is that you said in a rape case force is required, now i dont know american laws, but i figure non consent is enough for rape. you dont need the force part to make it rape. then again in canada we dont have "rape"

Plzhelpmelearn

Husbands can...and do rape their wives...and for all I know the reverse is true as well though not to the same percentage I'd wager just judging on physical differences in strength. Non consent is all it takes for it to be rape. However, when trying a case in court they generally have some corroborating evidence. They don't prosecute if they don't have a chance of proving their case. So while non consent is the only legal requirement for it to be cIassified as rape....that would probably not get to trial if that is all they have. Most it would get would be a PFA against the man.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If she's not part of the act......there would be some signs. Not resisting as in fighting him off does not mean it's pleasurable.LJS9502_basic

Husbands can...and do rape their wives...and for all I know the reverse is true as well though not to the same percentage I'd wager just judging on physical differences in strength. Non consent is all it takes for it to be rape. However, when trying a case in court they generally have some corroborating evidence. They don't prosecute if they don't have a chance of proving their case. So while non consent is the only legal requirement for it to be cIassified as rape....that would probably not get to trial if that is all they have. Most it would get would be a PFA against the man.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm confused what the difference between the first two options is. In what case of rape is evidence not relevant?

hartsickdiscipl

Either option means yes.. but the first one is meant to represent a situation where no obvious signs of a struggle are present, but one spouse says there was a rape, while the other disagrees.

if they both mean yes i pick both.

then again in canada we dont have "rape"

Thessassin

On a technicality that is correct, but the technicality is simply that the Canadian Criminal Code uses the term "sexual assault"; it's not as though there is no offense contained within the Canadian Criminal Code that matches what is intuitively understood as "rape".

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

then again in canada we dont have "rape"

GabuEx

On a technicality that is correct, but the technicality is simply that the Canadian Criminal Code uses the term "sexual assault"; it's not as though there is no offense contained within the Canadian Criminal Code that matches what is intuitively understood as "rape".

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

then again in canada we dont have "rape"

GabuEx

On a technicality that is correct, but the technicality is simply that the Canadian Criminal Code uses the term "sexual assault"; it's not as though there is no offense contained within the Canadian Criminal Code that matches what is intuitively understood as "rape".

I thought he meant it in the same sense that Iran does not have homosexuals:o

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

then again in canada we dont have "rape"

GabuEx

On a technicality that is correct, but the technicality is simply that the Canadian Criminal Code uses the term "sexual assault"; it's not as though there is no offense contained within the Canadian Criminal Code that matches what is intuitively understood as "rape".

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

then again in canada we dont have "rape"

LJS9502_basic

On a technicality that is correct, but the technicality is simply that the Canadian Criminal Code uses the term "sexual assault"; it's not as though there is no offense contained within the Canadian Criminal Code that matches what is intuitively understood as "rape".

Implicitly so, yes, as it covers all such unconsentual acts and contains no exception for marriage.

I'm ashamed that this question has to be posed in the 21st century.Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]I'm ashamed that this question has to be posed in the 21st century.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]I'm ashamed that this question has to be posed in the 21st century.Thessassin

The more I read into the 4th option, the less I understand it. Why should the difficulty to secure a conviction determine if one can accuse their spouse of rape?

The more I read into the 4th option, the less I understand it. Why should the difficulty to secure a conviction determine if one can accuse their spouse of rape?

T_P_O

And why should some people's interpretation of marriage be taken into account if these people are going to break up after this anyway?

Sure, it's hard to prove, just like a lot of things. Sure, there are cases where people abuse the justice system, again, just like a lot of things.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Thessassin"]what if the wife is naturally REALLY submissive and all she does is say no dont but dosent resist? no force is actuallyused unless you count the constant pounding.

Thessassin

While I would personally stop if the woman said "no," I agree with this line of reasoning from a legal perspective. You can't prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt without physical signs of struggle.. you just can't. In my view, any attempts to do should be considered bogus in the eyes of the law. Unless you have a video (or an eye-witness other than the victim) of the rapist putting a gun to the victim's head, or a knife to their throat, you've got nothing. You can prove that they had sex, but you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a rape.

As has been restated several times in this thread, the "rapist" and the "victim" having sex should be assumed when you have a case with a husband and wife, where no divorce papers have been filed. So at that point, you need some extremely damning evidence to even prove that sex was forced. Obviously, you all know my perspective on forced sex in a marriage. It shouldn't be necessary.