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

[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.

Barbariser

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.

Terrible analogies, IMO. I see what you're saying, but you don't seem to make the same separation between unmarried and married people that I do. Also, there is a precedent in our legal system for people who can be proven to be promiscuous not getting the same treatment in a rape case as those who aren't. I think that should apply even more so when you're living with someone, and regularly having sex with them. It's going to be tough to prove that it's rape in the first place.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

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.

Baconbits2004

Last I checked, the husband doesn't actually own any part of a woman's body, let alone "half" of it.

Whether or not she intends to "share" her body is a decision only SHE has the authority to make (just like said dad and his car), and actually making the decision does not cede any of that authority to the other party regardless of how often it's done (again, just like said dad and his car).

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

Baconbits2004

Yes.

You're absolutely ****ing right.

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

You're ****ing right I do.

Do social double-standards make it harder for men to get justice after being the victims of rape? Absolutely. But how does that wrong make it necessary to make it easier for men to get away with raping women? When it comes to seeking justice for having been raped, men absolutely get the shaft. Yes, that is wrong. But how the **** does it mean that that's a reason to suddenly get more lenient on rape?

Terrible analogies, IMO. I see what you're saying, but you don't seem to make the same separation between unmarried and married people that I do. Also, there is a precedent in our legal system for people who can be proven to be promiscuous not getting the same treatment in a rape case as those who aren't. I think that should apply even more so when you're living with someone, and regularly having sex with them. It's going to be tough to prove that it's rape in the first place.

hartsickdiscipl

Suppose you had an absolutely rock-solid case. The wife was getting nervous, so she set up a hidden camera system. It captures the husband requesting sex. It captures the wife's refusal. It captures the husband's more aggressive demand for sex. It captures him slapping her, pinning her to the ground, tearing her clothes off, and raping her while she screams for help. All of that is captured in this tape that is presented in a court.

Should that court be able to prosecute him for rape?

If so, then you are not arguing against spousal rape, but rather against the standards of judgment by which spousal rape may be determined.

If not, then the ability to prove that rape occurred is entirely irrelevant, so why are you bringing it up?

[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.

SgtKevali

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?

You make a very valid and convincing argument here. However, my original idea for punishing "spousal rapists" as criminals charged with assault and battery simply makes more sense to me. If you're a cop interviewing a woman who says that her husband assaulted her.. and you see bruises and such on her, you'd be likely to believe her, right? If she then says that he also raped her, how do you prove that? Even though you can prove that he assaulted her, you can't prove that she wasn't willing to have sex with him beyond a reasonable doubt, since she's probably been willing hundreds of times. He could just say that he assaulted her, but didn't rape her, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. It's his word against hers, and she's already had sex with him willingly many times.

Terrible analogies, IMO. I see what you're saying, but you don't seem to make the same separation between unmarried and married people that I do.

That's because the separation you perceive is intangible and wholly subjective. And from the logical expressions you have given me, the analogies demonstrate the flaws in reasoning perfectly. The only difference is some arbitrary condition about how marriage somehow validates said logic, despite the fact that its conclusions are completely absurd when applied to different situations (and for that matter, just as absurd when applied to the original situation).

Also, there is a precedent in our legal system for people who can be proven to be promiscuous not getting the same treatment in a rape case as those who aren't. I think that should apply even more so when you're living with someone, and regularly having sex with them. It's going to be tough to prove that it's rape in the first place.

That's a problem for the judges to work through and doesn't have any relevance to whether or not it should be legal or illegal. Spousal rape, however, is no less verifiable than non-spousal rape and that doesn't seem to be a problem for you do advocate the criminalization of.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Terrible analogies, IMO. I see what you're saying, but you don't seem to make the same separation between unmarried and married people that I do. Also, there is a precedent in our legal system for people who can be proven to be promiscuous not getting the same treatment in a rape case as those who aren't. I think that should apply even more so when you're living with someone, and regularly having sex with them. It's going to be tough to prove that it's rape in the first place.

GabuEx

Suppose you had an absolutely rock-solid case. The wife was getting nervous, so she set up a hidden camera system. It captures the husband requesting sex. It captures the wife's refusal. It captures the husband's more aggressive demand for sex. It captures him slapping her, pinning her to the ground, tearing her clothes off, and raping her while she screams for help. All of that is captured in this tape that is presented in a court.

Should that court be able to prosecute him for rape?

If so, then you are not arguing against spousal rape, but rather against the standards of judgment by which spousal rape may be determined.

If not, then the ability to prove that rape occurred is entirely irrelevant, so why are you bringing it up?

Simply because it's possible (and highly unlikely) for a woman to set up the cameras and have things go down just the way you described, doesn't change my view. The difficulty in proving that rape occurred wasn't my only argument. I would look at that video and say that if she was nervous enough to set up the camera, she should have taken some action to get out of that situation.

This would be a very unfortunate circumstance, and I reiterate.. very uncommon. The law can't be written to cover every single possibility. He would, of course still be accused of assault and battery. My overall view on the issue isn't changed by a rare exception.

Simply because it's possible (and highly unlikely) for a woman to set up the cameras and have things go down just the way you described, doesn't change my view. The difficulty in proving that rape occurred wasn't my only argument. I would look at that video and say that if she was nervous enough to set up the camera, she should have taken some action to get out of that situation.

This would be a very unfortunate circumstance, and I reiterate.. very uncommon. The law can't be written to cover every single possibility. He would, of course still be accused of assault and battery. My overall view on the issue isn't changed by a rare exception.

hartsickdiscipl

So your answer then is no, the court should not be able to prosecute that person for rape?

The prosecution presents a video showing the wife clearly refusing sex and screaming in vain for help as her husband has his way with her, and the court should not be able to prosecute that person for rape?

What is truly troubling in this thread is that people actually voted not sure or no.

Sometimes OT makes me a little sick.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Terrible analogies, IMO. I see what you're saying, but you don't seem to make the same separation between unmarried and married people that I do.

That's because the separation you perceive is intangible and wholly subjective. And from the logical expressions you have given me, the analogies demonstrate the flaws in reasoning perfectly. The only difference is some arbitrary condition about how marriage somehow validates said logic, despite the fact that its conclusions are completely absurd when applied to different situations.

Also, there is a precedent in our legal system for people who can be proven to be promiscuous not getting the same treatment in a rape case as those who aren't. I think that should apply even more so when you're living with someone, and regularly having sex with them. It's going to be tough to prove that it's rape in the first place.

That's a problem for the judges to work through and doesn't have any relevance to whether or not it should be legal or illegal. Spousal rape, however, is no less verifiable than non-spousal rape and that doesn't seem to be a problem for you do advocate the criminalization of.

Barbariser

Spousal rape is less verifiable than non-spousal rape. Absolutely is. You lose a key piece of evidence that's used in many rape cases- semen samples. The semen might still be there, but because the 2 people are married and living together, you can't prove that it's there because of rape.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Simply because it's possible (and highly unlikely) for a woman to set up the cameras and have things go down just the way you described, doesn't change my view. The difficulty in proving that rape occurred wasn't my only argument. I would look at that video and say that if she was nervous enough to set up the camera, she should have taken some action to get out of that situation.

This would be a very unfortunate circumstance, and I reiterate.. very uncommon. The law can't be written to cover every single possibility. He would, of course still be accused of assault and battery. My overall view on the issue isn't changed by a rare exception.

GabuEx

So your answer then is no, the court should not be able to prosecute that person for rape?

That is correct. The court proceding would go forward as an assault and battery case, because "rape" wouldn't be an option since they were married.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Simply because it's possible (and highly unlikely) for a woman to set up the cameras and have things go down just the way you described, doesn't change my view. The difficulty in proving that rape occurred wasn't my only argument. I would look at that video and say that if she was nervous enough to set up the camera, she should have taken some action to get out of that situation.

This would be a very unfortunate circumstance, and I reiterate.. very uncommon. The law can't be written to cover every single possibility. He would, of course still be accused of assault and battery. My overall view on the issue isn't changed by a rare exception.

hartsickdiscipl

So your answer then is no, the court should not be able to prosecute that person for rape?

That is correct. The court proceding would go forward as an assault and battery case, because "rape" wouldn't be an option since they were married.

Then your position has absolutely nothing to do with the extent to which you can prove rape occurred.

So why bring that up? You have just declared that, even if a video is presented that shows a wife refusing sex and screaming for help as her husband has his way with her, they should not be able to prosecute him for rape. Why even mention the difficulty in proving rape?

[QUOTE="Baconbits2004"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Yes.

You're absolutely ****ing right.

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

MrGeezer

You're ****ing right I do.

Do social double-standards make it harder for men to get justice after being the victims of rape? Absolutely. But how does that wrong make it necessary to make it easier for men to get away with raping women? When it comes to seeking justice for having been raped, men absolutely get the shaft. Yes, that is wrong. But how the **** does it mean that that's a reason to suddenly get more lenient on rape?

It is not my personal belief that any case is so black and white that we need to generalize them as 'assault' or 'rape'.
Do I believe men can be raped? yes.
Do I believe every case of 'rape' should be reffered to as 'assault' if the couple is married? no.


Earlier on in the thread, I was just trying to explain the Topic Creators point in different wording, because it seemed like a lot of people were misunderstanding the point he was trying to make.

When I asked you about males being raped, it was out of legitimate curiosity. It seems like our views are actually more or less the same.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[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.

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?

You make a very valid and convincing argument here. However, my original idea for punishing "spousal rapists" as criminals charged with assault and battery simply makes more sense to me. If you're a cop interviewing a woman who says that her husband assaulted her.. and you see bruises and such on her, you'd be likely to believe her, right? If she then says that he also raped her, how do you prove that? Even though you can prove that he assaulted her, you can't prove that she wasn't willing to have sex with him beyond a reasonable doubt, since she's probably been willing hundreds of times. He could just say that he assaulted her, but didn't rape her, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. It's his word against hers, and she's already had sex with him willingly many times.

But what if they do have a enough evidence? What if the wife (being nervous) put a video camera up which recorded the incident? I understand that it's going to be harder to prove it in court if they're married, but what if she CAN prove it? Why shouldn't there be a rape charge if they can prove that rape occurred?

Spousal rape is less verifiable than non-spousal rape. Absolutely is. You lose a key piece of evidence that's used in many rape cases- semen samples. The semen might still be there, but because the 2 people are married and living together, you can't prove that it's there because of rape.

Semen samples prove that sex occured, not that the sex was non-consensual. The former is the key step to determining that rape could have possibly occured, latter is the key step to differentiating between rape and consensual sex, and for that you need to look for the same old word-for-word or assault marks.... which you can do in equal measure with both spousal and non-spousal rape.

Also, your reasoning works only if you assume that a married couple will necessarily have sex (and that a non-married one won't). And I'm pretty sure semen samples can be dated.

Regardless, it doesn't matter - the difficulty of verification doesn't have any relevance to whether or not something should be illegal. If the judge can't tell if a woman was raped or not, then he doesn't sentence the accused. Simple. No need to add exceptions to the law.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So your answer then is no, the court should not be able to prosecute that person for rape?

GabuEx

That is correct. The court proceding would go forward as an assault and battery case, because "rape" wouldn't be an option since they were married.

Then your position has absolutely nothing to do with the extent to which you can prove rape occurred.

So why bring that up? You have just declared that, even if a video is presented that shows a wife refusing sex and screaming for help as her husband has his way with her, they should not be able to prosecute him for rape. Why even mention the difficulty in proving rape?

No, my position has much to do with the extent to which you can prove rape in most cases. Laws aren't written to cover every little possible circumstance. Your example was pretty obscure, and falls outside the norm. Simply because my argument doesn't cover all possible circumstances doesn't mean that it's not still a major factor. It's ridiculous to think in such absolute terms when nobody can possibly think about all possible circumstances. There isn't one law that hasn't failed someone, and kept them from getting justice because of how it was written. It's just not reality.

No, my position has much to do with the extent to which you can prove rape in most cases. Laws aren't written to cover every little possible circumstance. Your example was pretty obscure, and falls outside the norm. Simply because my argument doesn't cover all possible circumstances doesn't mean that it's not still a major factor. It's ridiculous to think in such absolute terms when nobody can possibly think about all possible circumstances. There isn't one law that hasn't failed someone, and kept them from getting justice because of how it was written. It's just not reality.

hartsickdiscipl

Um, yes, actually, laws are written to cover every little possible circumstance, and a law which fails to do so has what is called a "loophole" that requires resolution. You are claiming that the existence of rock-solid video evidence of a rape cannot be used to prosecute someone for rape. That means that your position has nothing to do with the ability to prove rape. If it did, then you would allow this person to be prosecuted for rape in a case where the existence of rape is undeniable. You can't argue in favor of a position on the basis of the presence of doubt when the nonexistence of doubt does not change your position.

But what if they do have a enough evidence? What if the wife (being nervous) put a video camera up which recorded the incident? I understand that it's going to be harder to prove it in court if they're married, but what if she CAN prove it? Why shouldn't there be a rape charge if they can prove that rape occurred?

SgtKevali

Lol.. you and Gabu both came up with the same scenario. Like I said to him, the law doesn't find justice for everyone. It can't be tailored to fit all situations. She would still get him on assault and battery, and their could be a clause that allows for harsher sentences at the judge's discretion.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No, my position has much to do with the extent to which you can prove rape in most cases. Laws aren't written to cover every little possible circumstance. Your example was pretty obscure, and falls outside the norm. Simply because my argument doesn't cover all possible circumstances doesn't mean that it's not still a major factor. It's ridiculous to think in such absolute terms when nobody can possibly think about all possible circumstances. There isn't one law that hasn't failed someone, and kept them from getting justice because of how it was written. It's just not reality.

GabuEx

Um, yes, actually, laws are written to cover every little possible circumstance, and a law which fails to do so has what is called a "loophole" that requires resolution.

You're not living in reality man. They do their best, but there are always loopholes. The laws are written to supposedly do the greater good for the most people possible. We're human, and fallible.. and so are our laws.. ALL of them.

You're not living in reality man. They do their best, but there are always loopholes. The laws are written to supposedly do the greater good for the most people possible. We're human, and fallible.. and so are our laws.. ALL of them.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes, there are always loopholes, and when there are loopholes identified, those loopholes get fixed; you don't just say to the victim "welp, them's the breaks!" if you actually care about justice. :? If you know there's a loophole in something you're proposing, and if you're consciously avoiding fixing that loophole, then the only conclusion one can reach is that you're OK with it being there and that it's not even a loophole at all.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

But what if they do have a enough evidence? What if the wife (being nervous) put a video camera up which recorded the incident? I understand that it's going to be harder to prove it in court if they're married, but what if she CAN prove it? Why shouldn't there be a rape charge if they can prove that rape occurred?

Lol.. you and Gabu both came up with the same scenario. Like I said to him, the law doesn't find justice for everyone. It can't be tailored to fit all situations. She would still get him on assault and battery, and their could be a clause that allows for harsher sentences at the judge's discretion.

Ok, so taking the title seriously, I must add that I am against what seems to be the general opinion in this thread. My belief is that it is still a crime, however, should be treated completely differently. see. rape nowadays. Is often completely different from what we all perceive it to be. Since it is taken so seriously, it is so easy to just say "they raped me" and alas the full force of the rape train comes crashing down. In a marriage. we know, well, I'm pretty sure we do, that the pair have already had consensual sex amirite? So really, this "rape" is not that much of a difference, just at a time when the receiver is not so wanting of it. If it was particularly violent, then there would be clear evidence, and thus it should be treated just as the crime would be for anyone else.

But with no evidence, chances are, the accuser is just making it up so they can split up the marriage without the "scandal" of a divorce, and with maybe some comppensation thrown in there for good cause.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're not living in reality man. They do their best, but there are always loopholes. The laws are written to supposedly do the greater good for the most people possible. We're human, and fallible.. and so are our laws.. ALL of them.

GabuEx

Yes, there are always loopholes, and when there are loopholes identified, those loopholes get fixed; you don't just say to the victim "welp, them's the breaks!" if you actually care about justice. :?

Wouldn't it theoretically take more lawmaking effort to decriminalize spousal rape? You'd have to literally write his proposed exceptions into the current rape laws.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

But what if they do have a enough evidence? What if the wife (being nervous) put a video camera up which recorded the incident? I understand that it's going to be harder to prove it in court if they're married, but what if she CAN prove it? Why shouldn't there be a rape charge if they can prove that rape occurred?

hartsickdiscipl

Lol.. you and Gabu both came up with the same scenario. Like I said to him, the law doesn't find justice for everyone. It can't be tailored to fit all situations. She would still get him on assault and battery, and their could be a clause that allows for harsher sentences at the judge's discretion.

The law is supposed to cover as many situations as possible, ideally. That's kinda the whole point. Especially when we're talking about rape. I don't see what the problem would be with spousal rape being considered rape under the law, especially since it's already considered rape. It's not like there's the hassle of changing the law.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're not living in reality man. They do their best, but there are always loopholes. The laws are written to supposedly do the greater good for the most people possible. We're human, and fallible.. and so are our laws.. ALL of them.

Barbariser

Yes, there are always loopholes, and when there are loopholes identified, those loopholes get fixed; you don't just say to the victim "welp, them's the breaks!" if you actually care about justice. :?

Wouldn't it theoretically take more lawmaking effort to decriminalize spousal rape? You'd have to literally write his proposed exceptions into the current rape laws.

All you would need to do is put a clause in saying that spousal rape doesn't exist, and that assault and battery is the charge to use from now on. That should cover it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

But what if they do have a enough evidence? What if the wife (being nervous) put a video camera up which recorded the incident? I understand that it's going to be harder to prove it in court if they're married, but what if she CAN prove it? Why shouldn't there be a rape charge if they can prove that rape occurred?

SgtKevali

Lol.. you and Gabu both came up with the same scenario. Like I said to him, the law doesn't find justice for everyone. It can't be tailored to fit all situations. She would still get him on assault and battery, and their could be a clause that allows for harsher sentences at the judge's discretion.

The law is supposed to cover as many situations as possible, ideally. That's kinda the whole point. Especially when we're talking about rape. I don't see what the problem would be with spousal rape being considered rape under the law, especially since it's already considered rape. It's not like there's the hassle of changing the law.

I'm not worried about the hassle of changing the law.. I just don't think that spousal rape is the same as other rape. I see a much more distinct sexual obligation withiin marriage, due to my study of the Bible. I'm not saying that my interpretation is 100% correct, I'm just stating my opinion.

wife would have to be total ***** to charge her husband with it.

seems to be so many specifically anti-male laws.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, there are always loopholes, and when there are loopholes identified, those loopholes get fixed; you don't just say to the victim "welp, them's the breaks!" if you actually care about justice. :?

hartsickdiscipl

Wouldn't it theoretically take more lawmaking effort to decriminalize spousal rape? You'd have to literally write his proposed exceptions into the current rape laws.

All you would need to do is put a clause in saying that spousal rape doesn't exist, and that assault and battery is the charge to use from now on. That should cover it.

As opposed to the approximately zero effort required to keep the status quo. I don't think there's any "stretching of the law to accomodate all possible situations" involved in trying to accomodate the situation of "forced to have non-consensual sex by husband/wife" using the legal definition "forced to have non-consensual sex".

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're not living in reality man. They do their best, but there are always loopholes. The laws are written to supposedly do the greater good for the most people possible. We're human, and fallible.. and so are our laws.. ALL of them.

GabuEx

Yes, there are always loopholes, and when there are loopholes identified, those loopholes get fixed; you don't just say to the victim "welp, them's the breaks!" if you actually care about justice. :? If you know there's a loophole in something you're proposing, and if you're consciously avoiding fixing that loophole, then the only conclusion one can reach is that you're OK with it being there and that it's not even a loophole at all.

The woman in your scenario could still get justice by charging him with assault and battery, and giving him a max sentence. Like I mentioned to the other poster a minute ago, there could even be a clause that allows for a longer sentence for this particular type of assault.

I don't think you mentioned this, but some other people seem concerned about the "hassle" of changing the law. If you're really interested in justice, that hassle shouldn't matter.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Lol.. you and Gabu both came up with the same scenario. Like I said to him, the law doesn't find justice for everyone. It can't be tailored to fit all situations. She would still get him on assault and battery, and their could be a clause that allows for harsher sentences at the judge's discretion.

hartsickdiscipl

The law is supposed to cover as many situations as possible, ideally. That's kinda the whole point. Especially when we're talking about rape. I don't see what the problem would be with spousal rape being considered rape under the law, especially since it's already considered rape. It's not like there's the hassle of changing the law.

I'm not worried about the hassle of changing the law.. I just don't think that spousal rape is the same as other rape. I see a much more distinct sexual obligation withiin marriage, due to my study of the Bible. I'm not saying that my interpretation is 100% correct, I'm just stating my opinion.

Then we're basically back to my first post in this quote chain. Nothing more I can really say that I haven't already.

I don't think you mentioned this, but some other people seem concerned about the "hassle" of changing the law. If you're really interested in justice, that hassle shouldn't matter.

hartsickdiscipl

Considering that you were the one who brought the whole thing up about "Laws not being written to cover every little possible circumstance" I doubt you're in a good position to be pointing fingers here.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Wouldn't it theoretically take more lawmaking effort to decriminalize spousal rape? You'd have to literally write his proposed exceptions into the current rape laws.

Barbariser

All you would need to do is put a clause in saying that spousal rape doesn't exist, and that assault and battery is the charge to use from now on. That should cover it.

As opposed to the approximately zero effort required to keep the status quo. I don't think there's any "stretching of the law to accomodate all possible situations" involved in trying to accomodate the situation of "forced to have non-consensual sex by husband/wife" using the legal definition "forced to have non-consensual sex".

I'm actually toning down my arguments and views a bit to keep this from turning into a total flamefest. I won't now. I think that in marriage, each spouse has the obligation to put out when the other wants it, out of love. I actually think this might be a case where it is the victim's fault. I never thought I'd say that, but I'm leaning that way.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I don't think you mentioned this, but some other people seem concerned about the "hassle" of changing the law. If you're really interested in justice, that hassle shouldn't matter.

Barbariser

Considering that you were the one who brought the whole thing up about "Laws not being written to cover every little possible circumstance" I doubt you're in a good position to be pointing fingers here.

I didn't say that I didn't want justice, I just think that my idea of justice would be better served if the law was changed to fit my views in this area. Obviously alot of people don't agree.

I'm actually toning down my arguments and views a bit to keep this from turning into a total flamefest. I won't now. I think that in marriage, each spouse has the obligation to put out when the other wants it, out of love. I actually think this might be a case where it is the victim's fault. I never thought I'd say that, but I'm leaning that way.

hartsickdiscipl

Good luck trying to convince people to adopt that particular interpretation for the legal definition of marriage.

Also, let's say that your spouse wanted you to.. say... slit your arms. Would you obey your obligation to him/her "out of love"?

why are these things always about demonizing the male

when I'm married I can't ever see myself refusing sex.

if I don't feel like it, worst I could do is just lie back and let her do everything.

Can't ever see myself feeling "violated" and reporting her for rape, it's just stupid.

women need to stop acting so prudish.

I really need to get some sleep, I'm a few hours overdue. I'll check back when I get up to see if any more interesting discussion has gone on here. :) Thank you for your input.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Considering that you were the one who brought the whole thing up about "Laws not being written to cover every little possible circumstance" I doubt you're in a good position to be pointing fingers here.

hartsickdiscipl

I didn't say that I didn't want justice, I just think that my idea of justice would be better served if the law was changed to fit my views in this area. Obviously alot of people don't agree.

Then what's the exact point of the bolded line in quotation marks?

The woman in your scenario could still get justice by charging him with assault and battery, and giving him a max sentence. Like I mentioned to the other poster a minute ago, there could even be a clause that allows for a longer sentence for this particular type of assault.

I don't think you mentioned this, but some other people seem concerned about the "hassle" of changing the law. If you're really interested in justice, that hassle shouldn't matter.

hartsickdiscipl

A max sentence for assault and battery is probably no more than five years. In some states, it's even less than a year. In California, it's six months. If you lived in California, and your husband brutally raped you, he could get no more than six months in jail. And you're calling this justice.

Let's recap.

You have stated that a wife in a marriage is obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he wants, no matter what, even if she doesn't want sex at the time.

You have stated that if a wife is raped by her husband because she didn't want sex, then the rape is her fault.

You have stated that if a wife has a video of her refusing sex and screaming for help while her husband rapes her, he should not be able to be charged with rape, simply because she is married to him.

You have stated that assault and battery is an acceptable substitute, despite the fact that you have openly admitted the massive difference in maximum sentence for assault and battery compared to rape.

I tend to look very unfavorably upon those who cry "sexism", but in this situation I am finding such a charge very, very difficult not to make. Your position is utterly indefensible, and frankly, I pray that you are not serious, because if you are, I feel genuine pity for you, as if so, then you are truly lost.

As I think we have officially left the bounds of even slight reasonability, I will say only one more thing before leaving this thread permanently: if, in order to maintain your interpretation of a holy book, you find yourself needing to oppose the legal ability to charge a rapist with rape, even in the face of utterly undeniable evidence... then you might want to revisit that interpretation.

I used to feel strongly about it due to law class when we learnt of R v R (enabled liability for marital rape). I never understood how when you married someone, the law could then assume you gave unlimited consent at that point. It was absurd, outdated, bizarre and a relic from Victorian ages to be frank.

I think marital status shouldn't change your liability for criminal offences at all, including rape. If your action befits the legal definition of a rape, that's your fault and you should be given the according punishment.

wife would have to be total ***** to charge her husband with it.

seems to be so many specifically anti-male laws.

Deano

No, if the wife has been raped, then she should have every incentive to take him to court. Otherwise, there's a trial if he obviously hasn't done anything, it's not like being charged with it is the end.T_P_O

if?

how the hell are you going to prove that, all you have is her word.

getting taken to court costs you money as well.

you act like being charged with rape ( even falsely) is no big deal.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] No, if the wife has been raped, then she should have every incentive to take him to court. Otherwise, there's a trial if he obviously hasn't done anything, it's not like being charged with it is the end.Deano

if?

how the hell are you going to prove that, all you have is her word.

getting taken to court costs you money as well.

you act like being charged with rape ( even falsely) is no big deal.

Oh, it's a big deal, it's just that many seem to dress this up as an anti-male piece of legislation. Which is something I'm still absolutely not understanding.T_P_O

I already stated previously there is no way my wife could ever rape me.

I think it's crazy you'd support a law that could put you away for 25 years simply on someones word.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] Oh, it's a big deal, it's just that many seem to dress this up as an anti-male piece of legislation. Which is something I'm still absolutely not understanding.Deano

I already stated previously there is no way my wife could ever rape me.

That makes it anti-male how? I couldn't be raped by a female regardless of marital status in this country, does that make rape legislation as a whole anti-male by extension of your statement?T_P_O

of course, it's heavily anti-male.

I don't know how simpler I have to dumb it down for you.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] That makes it anti-male how? I couldn't be raped by a female regardless of marital status in this country, does that make rape legislation as a whole anti-male by extension of your statement?Deano

of course, it's heavily anti-male.

I don't know how simpler I have to dumb it down for you.