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

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're really overthinking this Gabu. No.. you don't have to have a legal requirement written in stone for how much sex a spouse is entitled to in order to throw the legal term of "rape" out the window in a marriage.

The idea is simple- Once 2 people are married, they're no longer eligible to accuse the other of rape. They can still accuse each other of assault and battery, which would often go along with a rape. There should be evidence of this, just like in any other rape case. Now, if a spouse is repeatedly sexually abusing their partner in such a way that it leaves no signs of physical abuse, something is awry. Either it isn't rape, or the offending spouse is really good at slipping their spouse the mickey. If that's the case, a divorce is the answer.

It's not that complicated. The idea is that once you're married, you need to work our your sexual problems between each other.

GabuEx

But your basis for rape being an inadmissable charge between spouses is that being married confers on both married parties the entitlement of sex whenever one party desires it. As marriage is a contract, that means that one of the points of the contract becomes the furnishing of sex whenever another person wants it. And that in turn means that a failure to furnish said brings one in breach of contract. And one who is in breach of contract can have a judgment brought upon them by a court of law to force them to provide the plaintiff that which the plaintiff is owed under the terms of the contract.

I'm simply pointing out for you the implications of your proposal and how it runs into problems when one recognizes that marriage is a contract and that you are creating an additional term in that contract, whether you know it or not. Nothing more.

My basis for rape being an inadmissable charge between married people is the idea that they need to work the sexual issues out between themselves.. not that I think there needs to be a tribunal to determine if the requirement is being fulfilled. The implications that you keep reiterating wouldn't be part of the picture if things were handled the way that I'm trying to describe.

If someone thinks that their needs aren't being met, they have options. 1) Stick with the partner and try to work it out 2) Get a divorce

The law wouldn't allow for any sort of hearing to determine if they were getting it on enough :P

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My poll is about the issue of spousal rape. My personal opinion is this- If you're married to someone, you shouldn't be able to accuse them of raping you. Of assault and battery, yes.. but not of forcing sex on you. I don't think that it's "ok" or "right" to force anyone to have sex with you.. but I don't think it should be a legal issue when 2 people are married. I think any sexual issues need to be handled between the husband and wife. Divorce is always an option. I also think there's a major "he said, she said" issue in cases like this, since anyone could accuse their spouse of rape, and physical evidence would do little to no good.. since the 2 people would be intimate with each other on a regular basis anyways (one would think). I'm sure that I will scare some people with this idea, but I really don't care. What I want is your opinion.

MrGeezer

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

That depends on how you view the obligations of marriage, and what parts of people's lives you think the law should be dipping it's hands into.

My basis for rape being an inadmissable charge between married people is the idea that they need to work the sexual issues out between themselves.. not that I think there needs to be a tribunal to determine if the requirement is being fulfilled. The implications that you keep reiterating wouldn't be part of the picture if things were handled the way that I'm trying to describe.

If someone thinks that their needs aren't being met, they have options. 1) Stick with the partner and try to work it out 2) Get a divorce

The law wouldn't allow for any sort of hearing to determine if they were getting it on enough :P

hartsickdiscipl

Did you, or did you not, express the sentiment that each married party is entitled to sex from their spouse whenever they want it?

And if so, in what way is this entitlement created?

A ring on a finger doesn't make it okay by any standard.SeraphimGoddess

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My poll is about the issue of spousal rape. My personal opinion is this- If you're married to someone, you shouldn't be able to accuse them of raping you. Of assault and battery, yes.. but not of forcing sex on you. I don't think that it's "ok" or "right" to force anyone to have sex with you.. but I don't think it should be a legal issue when 2 people are married. I think any sexual issues need to be handled between the husband and wife. Divorce is always an option. I also think there's a major "he said, she said" issue in cases like this, since anyone could accuse their spouse of rape, and physical evidence would do little to no good.. since the 2 people would be intimate with each other on a regular basis anyways (one would think). I'm sure that I will scare some people with this idea, but I really don't care. What I want is your opinion.

hartsickdiscipl

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

That depends on how you view the obligations of marriage, and what parts of people's lives you think the law should be dipping it's hands into.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My basis for rape being an inadmissable charge between married people is the idea that they need to work the sexual issues out between themselves.. not that I think there needs to be a tribunal to determine if the requirement is being fulfilled. The implications that you keep reiterating wouldn't be part of the picture if things were handled the way that I'm trying to describe.

If someone thinks that their needs aren't being met, they have options. 1) Stick with the partner and try to work it out 2) Get a divorce

The law wouldn't allow for any sort of hearing to determine if they were getting it on enough :P

GabuEx

Did you, or did you not, express the sentiment that each married party is entitled to sex from their spouse whenever they want it?

And if so, in what way is this entitlement created?

It's created when the 2 people agree to marry each other. There wouldn't have to be anything in legal books detailing the amount of sex that a person must render their spouse, etc.. That's between the 2 people.

The only change necessary on the legal end of things would be that neither one could accuse the other of rape. That's it. The entitlement is implied by the law, but nothing else is needed in the law to back it up. Each spouse decides if their needs are being met, not the law. If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

Baconbits2004

That is exactly what I'm saying.

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"]A ring on a finger doesn't make it okay by any standard.ghoklebutter

It's created when the 2 people agree to marry each other. There wouldn't have to be anything in legal books detailing the amount of sex that a person must render their spouse, etc.. That's between the 2 people.

The only change necessary on the legal end of things would be that neither one could accuse the other of rape. That's it. The entitlement is implied by the law, but nothing else is needed in the law to back it up. Each spouse decides if their needs are being met, not the law. If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

hartsickdiscipl

Then why not simply make "not getting enough" grounds for divorce, rather than making it so that a wife who is genuinely raped can't seek reprieve for what happened?

If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

hartsickdiscipl

By that logic, a wife cannot accuse her husband of spousal abuse because his emotional issues should have been worked out earlier, and if there was a failure to do so then the wife should have divorced.

However, nowhere in the legal system is it stated that marriage entitles each participant to receive sex (whether consensual or non-consensual) from the other. Until such a term is added to the contract in a verifiable letter of the law modification, spousal rape should remain a criminal act. Regardless of whatever additional conditions you or other people choose to place in the institution of marriage for personal use.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's created when the 2 people agree to marry each other. There wouldn't have to be anything in legal books detailing the amount of sex that a person must render their spouse, etc.. That's between the 2 people.

The only change necessary on the legal end of things would be that neither one could accuse the other of rape. That's it. The entitlement is implied by the law, but nothing else is needed in the law to back it up. Each spouse decides if their needs are being met, not the law. If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

GabuEx

Then why not simply make "not getting enough" grounds for divorce, rather than making it so that a wife who is genuinely raped can't seek reprieve for what happened?

Because it's almost impossible to prove that a true "rape" occurred between married people who live together. Certain types of physical evidence would be almost useless. It's not that hard to prove that a legit assault and battery occurred.

I also don't like the law trying to interfere in the sexual lives of married people. I think that once you're married, you need to work it out. If there is a legitimate rape, there should be signs of assault and battery. Then you charge the person with assault and battery.. but not sexual violation, since it was their spouse, who is generally a regular sex partner. I know alot of people today view marriage as just a ring and a set of papers, but it's still more to me, and to many others.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

Barbariser

By that logic, a wife cannot accuse her husband of spousal abuse because his emotional issues should have been worked out earlier, and if there was a failure to do so then the wife should have divorced.

However, nowhere in the legal system is it stated that marriage entitles each participant to receive sex (whether consensual or non-consensual) from the other. Until such a term is added to the contract in a verifiable letter of the law modification, spousal rape should remain a criminal act.

No, you're applying my logic in a sexual situation to a non-sexual one (assault). I'm not talking about the way the law is written now, I'm talking about my opinion.

Our legal system is a joke. It's run like a business, which is not what real justice is about.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I would say that if someone knocks their spouses' teeth out because they won't sleep with them, they can be accused of assault and battery.. but not rape.

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="binpink"]

Even if they still force sex on them afterwards?
Or if they just threaten physical harm before forcing sex?

RotaryRX7

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

You're entitled to your opinion. I find it sickening that people don't treat marriage with more respect. The Bible said that a husband and wife should be "one flesh."

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It's created when the 2 people agree to marry each other. There wouldn't have to be anything in legal books detailing the amount of sex that a person must render their spouse, etc.. That's between the 2 people.

The only change necessary on the legal end of things would be that neither one could accuse the other of rape. That's it. The entitlement is implied by the law, but nothing else is needed in the law to back it up. Each spouse decides if their needs are being met, not the law. If they feel their needs aren't being met, they can get out of the marriage.

hartsickdiscipl

Then why not simply make "not getting enough" grounds for divorce, rather than making it so that a wife who is genuinely raped can't seek reprieve for what happened?

Because it's almost impossible to prove that a true "rape" occurred between married people who live together. Certain types of physical evidence would be almost useless. It's not that hard to prove that a legit assault and battery occurred.

I also don't like the law trying to interfere in the sexual lives of married people. I think that once you're married, you need to work it out. If there is a legitimate rape, there should be signs of assault and battery. Then you charge the person with assault and battery.. but not sexual violation, since it was their spouse, who is generally a regular sex partner. I know alot of people today view marriage as just a ring and a set of papers, but it's still more to me, and to many others.

It can be pretty hard to just "work things out" when one side is extremely dominant (which is often the case) without the help of the law. I don't understand how someone could think that just because two people get married, they are legally entitled to rape each other.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

Baconbits2004

Then WTF does that have to do with marriage?

If I go out to the bar on ladies' night, and manage to **** a woman once, does the fdact that we were "already having sex" somehow make my subsequent rapes into mere "assault and battery"?

If this all relies upon the assumption that you can't be a victim of rape if you have ever voluntarily had sex with that person, then what the hell does MARRIAGE have to do with anything?

Secondly, how the **** can you people even suggest that? How can you suggest that the mere act of EVER voluntarily having sex with a person automatically means that they get let off the hook if they ****ing RAPE you?

It can be pretty hard to just "work things out" when one side is extremely dominant (which is often the case) without the help of the law. I don't understand how someone could think that just because two people get married, they are legally entitled to rape each other.

SgtKevali

When you put it that way, it sounds kinda fun! :P

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

MrGeezer

Then WTF does that have to do with marriage?

If I go out to the bar on ladies' night, and manage to **** a woman once, does the fdact that we were "already having sex" somehow make my subsequent rapes into mere "assault and battery"?

If this all relies upon the assumption that you can't be a victim of rape if you have ever voluntarily had sex with that person, then what the hell does MARRIAGE have to do with anything?

Secondly, how the **** can you people even suggest that? How can you suggest that the mere act of EVER voluntarily having sex with a person automatically means that they get let off the hook if they ****ing RAPE you?

Yes.

Makes you look at sex a little differently, huh?

In reality, I don't think anyone should force sex on another person. I just think the law should keep it's noses out of people's sex lives in general.. especially within marriage. I'm a believer in the Bible, and it did say that sex is part of the marital due. You shouldn't have to force it.

No, you're applying my logic in a sexual situation to a non-sexual one (assault).

What are the differences in between the two situations which would render your logic valid in the former but not in the latter? In both cases, an unresolved problem exists and the victim had the opportunity to escape but had yet to do so for unstated reasons.

I'm not talking about the way the law is written now, I'm talking about my opinion.

And I am disagreeing with it. Whatever the current problems with the current institution of marriage are, I don't think "can't be forced to have sex by spouse" is one of them.

Our legal system is a joke. It's run like a business, which is not what real justice is about.

What is your interpretation of "justice" and how is it what "real justice" is "about"?

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="RotaryRX7"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think that if you're married to someone, whether or not a husband or wife claims the sex was forced is irrelevant. I think that once you're married, you should be "ineligible" to accuse your spouse of rape, as long as you haven't filed for divorce. Assault and battery, yes.. those would still be in effect.. hence the need for signs of physical abuse.

You're entitled to your opinion. I find it sickening that people don't treat marriage with more respect. The Bible said that a husband and wife should be "one flesh."

Because it's almost impossible to prove that a true "rape" occurred between married people who live together. Certain types of physical evidence would be almost useless. It's not that hard to prove that a legit assault and battery occurred.

hartsickdiscipl

There are many cases in non-married situations where proving rape is difficult and requires ample evidence. Marriage changes nothing.

I also don't like the law trying to interfere in the sexual lives of married people. I think that once you're married, you need to work it out. If there is a legitimate rape, there should be signs of assault and battery. Then you charge the person with assault and battery.. but not sexual violation, since it was their spouse, who is generally a regular sex partner. I know alot of people today view marriage as just a ring and a set of papers, but it's still more to me, and to many others.

hartsickdiscipl

In what way is rape something to "work out" any more than assault and battery?

I mean, no offense, but it really kinda seems as though you really really want rape to be OK in as many situations as possible, given that above it seems as though you seem to want to make the charge of rape inadmissable if someone has ever voluntarily had sex with someone else. And that seems a little... strange.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

It can be pretty hard to just "work things out" when one side is extremely dominant (which is often the case) without the help of the law. I don't understand how someone could think that just because two people get married, they are legally entitled to rape each other.

hartsickdiscipl

When you put it that way, it sounds kinda fun! :P

What sounds fun? O_o

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="RotaryRX7"] I find it sickening that someone would have a mindset like this...RotaryRX7

You're entitled to your opinion. I find it sickening that people don't treat marriage with more respect. The Bible said that a husband and wife should be "one flesh."

You (and most people here) don't seem to be getting what I'm really saying. I'm just saying that the technical, legal term "rape" wouldn't be used when 2 people are married. A true rape would still be a crime.. given that there is sufficient physical evidence of assault to support it. They just wouldn't call it rape.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Because it's almost impossible to prove that a true "rape" occurred between married people who live together. Certain types of physical evidence would be almost useless. It's not that hard to prove that a legit assault and battery occurred.

GabuEx

There are many cases in non-married situations where proving rape is difficult and requires ample evidence. Marriage changes nothing.

I also don't like the law trying to interfere in the sexual lives of married people. I think that once you're married, you need to work it out. If there is a legitimate rape, there should be signs of assault and battery. Then you charge the person with assault and battery.. but not sexual violation, since it was their spouse, who is generally a regular sex partner. I know alot of people today view marriage as just a ring and a set of papers, but it's still more to me, and to many others.

hartsickdiscipl

In what way is rape something to "work out" any more than assault and battery?

I mean, no offense, but it really kinda seems as though you really really want rape to be OK in as many situations as possible, given that above it seems as though you seem to want to make the charge of rape inadmissable if someone has ever voluntarily had sex with someone else. And that seems a little... strange.

Marriage does change the equation when it comes to your tools for proving rape. In many rape cases, all it takes is getting a semen sample. If 2 people are married, that's almost worthless since they might have sex 10 times a week. They live together, they're married.

Once again.. I'm not saying that forcing sex would be "ok." I'm saying that it wouldn't be called rape, because the people are married and (presumably) have sex with each other. The sexual aspect of it should be taken out, IMO. It's still assault and battery, but not rape, since you regularly have sex (or should) with that person anyways. Those are my beliefs.

While it's true that unmarried people have sex all the time, I think that marriage should be the qualification for no longer being able to accuse your partner of rape. (Technically).

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

I believe he's saying not that you are allowed to rape, but that the charge should be a lesser 'assault and battery' since the two are (presumably) already having sex, which shows willingness. I've seen similar logic being applied to males who have been claimed to be 'raped'. Since they were (apparently) somewhat willing, the charges are for 'asault' not 'rape'.

hartsickdiscipl

Then WTF does that have to do with marriage?

If I go out to the bar on ladies' night, and manage to **** a woman once, does the fdact that we were "already having sex" somehow make my subsequent rapes into mere "assault and battery"?

If this all relies upon the assumption that you can't be a victim of rape if you have ever voluntarily had sex with that person, then what the hell does MARRIAGE have to do with anything?

Secondly, how the **** can you people even suggest that? How can you suggest that the mere act of EVER voluntarily having sex with a person automatically means that they get let off the hook if they ****ing RAPE you?

Yes.

Makes you look at sex a little differently, huh?

Not at all.

On the contrary, the fact that you are receptive to this idea just confirms in my mind what kind of person YOU are.

Just a little tip...saying that you're okay with rape doesn't tend to make people re-evaluate their ideas about sex, it just makes them see you as a scumbag.

The whole..."she consented to all sex when she married me" defense is about as sick and ****ed up as the "she was dressing like a slut so she obviously wanted it" defense.

IT. IS. ****ING. RAPE.

No, being married is not a a ****ing defense. While I have a big problem with people getting charged and convicted of rape when there ISN'T sufficient evidence, that is NOT a statement that "it's okay to rape people, as long as she's just your wife." No, marrying a person does NOT mean that you're agreeing to be ****ing raped. You defending that idea doesn't say ANYTHING about sex, while saying a whole ****ing lot about what kind of person you are.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="RotaryRX7"] How does this translate to your view that a married couple does not have the right to accuse each other of rape? How is allowing rape to happen giving marriage more respect? Just because you marry someone doesn't entitle you to satisfy yourself at their expense whenever you want.Lilyanne46

You (and most people here) don't seem to be getting what I'm really saying. I'm just saying that the technical, legal term "rape" wouldn't be used when 2 people are married. A true rape would still be a crime.. given that there is sufficient physical evidence of assault to support it. They just wouldn't call it rape.

Well, "being raped" is determined by the victim, not the law. The law just enforces punishment, bangs the gavel and moves on to the next case. Plus, the person might not beat the victim, just have sex with them, and they do not want it. That's what rape is, forced, unwanted sex. That is determined by the victim as well. If, that is, I get what you're saying...

So a person unwillingly has sex with someone and doesn't put up any sort of fight that leaves a physical indication? Doesn't sound like they were that unwilling.

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Huh...WTF?

Suddenly you can get away with raping a woman just because you married her? Really?!

Yes, it should be a legal issue, if there is evidence of a rape. What the hell difference does it make if the rapist is married to the victim? It's still ****ING RAPE.

MrGeezer

Then WTF does that have to do with marriage?

If I go out to the bar on ladies' night, and manage to **** a woman once, does the fdact that we were "already having sex" somehow make my subsequent rapes into mere "assault and battery"?

If this all relies upon the assumption that you can't be a victim of rape if you have ever voluntarily had sex with that person, then what the hell does MARRIAGE have to do with anything?

Secondly, how the **** can you people even suggest that? How can you suggest that the mere act of EVER voluntarily having sex with a person automatically means that they get let off the hook if they ****ing RAPE you?

Now, if you're filing abuse, along with rape, then the charge that matters in his scenario is the abuse. Since you signed up for a sexual relationship, not an abusive one.

Marriage does change the equation when it comes to your tools for proving rape. In many rape cases, all it takes is getting a semen sample. If 2 people are married, that's almost worthless since they might have sex 10 times a week. They live together, they're married.

Once again.. I'm not saying that forcing sex would be "ok." I'm saying that it wouldn't be called rape, because the people are married and (presumably) have sex with each other. The sexual aspect of it should be taken out, IMO. It's still assault and battery, but not rape, since you regularly have sex (or should) with that person anyways. Those are my beliefs.

While it's true that unmarried people have sex all the time, I think that marriage should be the qualification for no longer being able to accuse your partner of rape. (Technically).

hartsickdiscipl

So you're not saying that forcing sex would be OK, you're just saying that there should be no allowable punishment whatsoever for doing so...

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Then WTF does that have to do with marriage?

If I go out to the bar on ladies' night, and manage to **** a woman once, does the fdact that we were "already having sex" somehow make my subsequent rapes into mere "assault and battery"?

If this all relies upon the assumption that you can't be a victim of rape if you have ever voluntarily had sex with that person, then what the hell does MARRIAGE have to do with anything?

Secondly, how the **** can you people even suggest that? How can you suggest that the mere act of EVER voluntarily having sex with a person automatically means that they get let off the hook if they ****ing RAPE you?

MrGeezer

Yes.

Makes you look at sex a little differently, huh?

Not at all.

On the contrary, the fact that you are receptive to this idea just confirms in my mind what kind of person YOU are.

Just a little tip...saying that you're okay with rape doesn't tend to make people re-evaluate their ideas about sex, it just makes them see you as a scumbag.

The whole..."she consented to all sex when she married me" defense is about as sick and ****ed up as the "she was dressing like a slut so she obviously wanted it" defense.

IT. IS. ****ING. RAPE.

No, being married is not a a ****ing defense. While I have a big problem with people getting charged and convicted of rape when there ISN'T sufficient evidence, that is NOT a statement that "it's okay to rape people, as long as she's just your wife." No, marrying a person does NOT mean that you're agreeing to be ****ing raped. You defending that idea doesn't say ANYTHING about sex, while saying a whole ****ing lot about what kind of person you are.

You seem pretty bent out of shape talking about this issue. Maybe it's not for you.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Marriage does change the equation when it comes to your tools for proving rape. In many rape cases, all it takes is getting a semen sample. If 2 people are married, that's almost worthless since they might have sex 10 times a week. They live together, they're married.

Once again.. I'm not saying that forcing sex would be "ok." I'm saying that it wouldn't be called rape, because the people are married and (presumably) have sex with each other. The sexual aspect of it should be taken out, IMO. It's still assault and battery, but not rape, since you regularly have sex (or should) with that person anyways. Those are my beliefs.

While it's true that unmarried people have sex all the time, I think that marriage should be the qualification for no longer being able to accuse your partner of rape. (Technically).

GabuEx

So you're not saying that forcing sex would be OK, you're just saying that there should be no allowable punishment whatsoever for doing so...

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

You seem pretty bent out of shape talking about this issue. Maybe it's not for you.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes.

You're absolutely ****ing right.

I DO tend to get bent out of shape when I see people trying to condone RAPE.

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

hartsickdiscipl

The punishment in most states for assault and battery is around 1-5 years.

The punishment for rape can be as much as the death penalty.

There kind of seems like, um, a bit of difference there. This is in recognition of the immense psychological damage that rape has above and beyond simple assault and battery.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Marriage does change the equation when it comes to your tools for proving rape. In many rape cases, all it takes is getting a semen sample. If 2 people are married, that's almost worthless since they might have sex 10 times a week. They live together, they're married.

Once again.. I'm not saying that forcing sex would be "ok." I'm saying that it wouldn't be called rape, because the people are married and (presumably) have sex with each other. The sexual aspect of it should be taken out, IMO. It's still assault and battery, but not rape, since you regularly have sex (or should) with that person anyways. Those are my beliefs.

While it's true that unmarried people have sex all the time, I think that marriage should be the qualification for no longer being able to accuse your partner of rape. (Technically).

hartsickdiscipl

So you're not saying that forcing sex would be OK, you're just saying that there should be no allowable punishment whatsoever for doing so...

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

hartsickdiscipl

If you don't consent to having sex, you don't consent to it. It doesn't matter if you consented before or how many times you did, if you're not consenting now then nobody has the legal authority to force you to do it at this particular moment.

That's like saying that if I allowed someone to borrow my work so he could copy, he should be able to do it again and again without having to ask my permission each time. Or an even worse example - a dad lets his kid borrow his car for a day, and hence the kid has the right to take it for even more rides as much as he wants without needing his dad's permission to do so.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You seem pretty bent out of shape talking about this issue. Maybe it's not for you.

MrGeezer

Yes.

You're absolutely ****ing right.

I DO tend to get bent out of shape when I see people trying to condone RAPE.

considering my steam name is edins certified rapist i think i shouldnt give my opinion

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.hartsickdiscipl

I don't think you understand how the law works regarding sexual assault.

Also, assuming you're from the US, you'll find this interesting...
http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Issues/vaw_spousal_rape.pdf

Many states treat spousal rape the same as any other sexual assault. (i.e. a person CAN be charged with 1st degree sexual assault of their spouse)

Or an even worse example - a dad lets his kid borrow his car for a day, and hence the kid has the right to take it for even more rides as much as he wants without needing his dad's permission to do so.

Barbariser

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

GabuEx

The punishment in most states for assault and battery is around 1-5 years.

The punishment for rape can be as much as the death penalty.

There kind of seems like, um, a bit of difference there. This is in recognition of the immense psychological damage that rape has above and beyond simple assault and battery.

There is a difference, true. However psychological damage is incalculable.

There is a difference, true. However psychological damage is incalculable.

hartsickdiscipl

As it is in any rape.

There would be punishment for the assault in general, but not for the sexual portion of it. I'm sorry, but once you're had sex with someone multiple times and entered into a marriage agreement with someone, your sexual sanctity isn't intact anymore. No need to act like you were violated.

Flame away.

hartsickdiscipl

This is about the offender forcing the offended to do something she doesn't want to do. In this case it's forcing sex upon someone when they aren't consenting to it. It's the woman's body, isn't it? Shouldn't she be able to do with it what she wants? And if you say no, then shouldn't this apply to assault as well? After all, if the body is shared and the couple are one, why shouldn't one party be able to attack the other party? At the very least, it shouldn't be treated as normal assault, right?

I mean, when you're talking about the deepest way you can violate someone, rape is pretty much the end all be all, isn't it? (no pun intended, of course)