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

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="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.

hartsickdiscipl

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

You can't rape someone your married too. You can hurt them which is illegal but rape? no.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well what are the standards by which non-spousal rape is determined? I don't see why spousal rape would be determined any differently.

strope

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

There are many modern views and modern laws that I think are a step backwards from the way things used to be done. Maybe you should re-read the post of mine that you quoted. I didn't say that the Bible encourages spousal rape, simply that it doesn't address the issue, while making a point of saying that sex must be rendered to your spouse.

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

I believe that rape is rape. But there are so many grey areas with this concept...

I know rape victims. And they are scarred for the rest of their life.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

Rape is Rape, and No means No. I realize that there are the rare cases where a woman could screw over a man (but those exist in all male-female sexual situations...it is the risk we take as men). Usually the physical signs of forced intercourse are present (to obtain some sort of proof).rawsavon

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Rape is Rape, and No means No. I realize that there are the rare cases where a woman could screw over a man (but those exist in all male-female sexual situations...it is the risk we take as men). Usually the physical signs of forced intercourse are present (to obtain some sort of proof).hartsickdiscipl

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

[QUOTE="strope"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

For those who know the Bible well in a technical sense (not saying anything for the implied spirit of this), it doesn't say anything about raping a spouse. It does make it clear that giving sex is part of the marital due. The idea behind this interpretation being that once you're married, you'd better be giving it up. There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for.

hartsickdiscipl

There are many modern views and modern laws that I think are a step backwards from the way things used to be done. Maybe you should re-read the post of mine that you quoted. I didn't say that the Bible encourages spousal rape, simply that it doesn't address the issue, while making a point of saying that sex must be rendered to your spouse.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

I believe that rape is rape. But there are so many grey areas with this concept...

I know rape victims. And they are scarred for the rest of their life.

strope

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Rape is Rape, and No means No. I realize that there are the rare cases where a woman could screw over a man (but those exist in all male-female sexual situations...it is the risk we take as men). Usually the physical signs of forced intercourse are present (to obtain some sort of proof).ghoklebutter

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

How do you prove that it's not true, when someone is in a relationship where they're regularly having sex anyways?

How do you prove that it's not true, when someone is in a relationship where they're regularly having sex anyways?

hartsickdiscipl

That's up to the judge to decide.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Rape is Rape, and No means No. I realize that there are the rare cases where a woman could screw over a man (but those exist in all male-female sexual situations...it is the risk we take as men). Usually the physical signs of forced intercourse are present (to obtain some sort of proof).hartsickdiscipl

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How do you prove that it's not true, when someone is in a relationship where they're regularly having sex anyways?

bloodling

That's up to the judge to decide.

Sounds like a tough call. I'd hate to be in his shoes.

[QUOTE="strope"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

hartsickdiscipl

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Rape is Rape, and No means No. I realize that there are the rare cases where a woman could screw over a man (but those exist in all male-female sexual situations...it is the risk we take as men). Usually the physical signs of forced intercourse are present (to obtain some sort of proof).rawsavon

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

No, the logic doesn't apply the same way when it's a casual hook-up, or any case where the defendant and plaintiff aren't regular sex partners. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation. You're going to just take her word over his that she didn't "like it rough" before, and risk putting him in jail for years?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="strope"] WTF? You've known rape victims, yet you're willing to rape your wife? WTF is wrong with you? How could you ever think it's right to rape someone? It's pretty simple, if a woman says no, it means no. I don't care if she's your wife or not. What happens to the wife whose husband becomes abusive after being married for years who can't get out the situation? PerfectCircles

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

I think that there should be an overriding desire to please your spouse and take care of their needs and wants, especially sexually... yeah.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How do you prove that it's not true, when someone is in a relationship where they're regularly having sex anyways?

hartsickdiscipl

That's up to the judge to decide.

Sounds like a tough call. I'd hate to be in his shoes.

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

That's up to the judge to decide.

bloodling

Sounds like a tough call. I'd hate to be in his shoes.

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

hartsickdiscipl

I think that there should be an overriding desire to please your spouse and take care of their needs and wants, especially sexually... yeah.

[QUOTE="strope"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, I agree that rape is horrible. I too know a couple of rape victims. They were not raped by their husbands, though. I think that once you marry someone, it should be accepted that you need to be intimate with them on a regular basis (as regular as they want). If you don't want that, don't marry them. If you feel that you can't trust the person enough that you think they might try to force sex out of you, don't marry them. If you find that they are trying to force sex out of you, or have after you've married them.. divorce them.

hartsickdiscipl

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

"There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for."

Marriage does not give you the right to have sex with your wife, that is an infringement on the individual's autonomy. Marriage does not give one person control over the other's actions, it is a contract which ensures mutual benefits and responsibilities, mostly in financial matters.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

hartsickdiscipl

Sounds like she assaulted him.

If a man is getting assaulted, he better get out of the house and call the police right away. The physical signs of rape are far more important than signs of an assault where the man left to tell the police right away.

No need to rape wifey just give yourself a good jerk while your lying right next to her. When you finish, raise one eyebrow, give her a look and say, "that could have been you".

;)

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Sounds like a tough call. I'd hate to be in his shoes.

hartsickdiscipl

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="strope"] WTF? You've known rape victims, yet you're willing to rape your wife? WTF is wrong with you? How could you ever think it's right to rape someone? It's pretty simple, if a woman says no, it means no. I don't care if she's your wife or not. What happens to the wife whose husband becomes abusive after being married for years who can't get out the situation? theone86

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

"There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for."

Marriage does not give you the right to have sex with your wife, that is an infringement on the individual's autonomy. Marriage does not give one person control over the other's actions, it is a contract which ensures mutual benefits and responsibilities, mostly in financial matters.

Yes, you're correct.. as far as how it's handled in today's world, with today's laws. What I'm saying is that it's wrong.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

hartsickdiscipl

No, the logic doesn't apply the same way when it's a casual hook-up, or any case where the defendant and plaintiff aren't regular sex partners. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation. You're going to just take her word over his that she didn't "like it rough" before, and risk putting him in jail for years?

A. That's what safe words are for

B. How does marriage change anything? Even if the two just met last night and hooked up the rapist could still make that same argument.

No need to rape wifey just give yourself a good jerk while your lying right next to her. When you finish, raise one eyebrow, give her a look and say, "that could have been you".

;)

camarowu

:shock: :lol:

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I didn't say that I'd be willing to rape my wife. In fact, I've stated several times throughout this thread that I don't believe that forcing sex on anybody is "right."

hartsickdiscipl

"There's no room given for accusing your own spouse of trying to get what they shouldn't have to fight for."

Marriage does not give you the right to have sex with your wife, that is an infringement on the individual's autonomy. Marriage does not give one person control over the other's actions, it is a contract which ensures mutual benefits and responsibilities, mostly in financial matters.

Yes, you're correct.. as far as how it's handled in today's world, with today's laws. What I'm saying is that it's wrong.

And I'm saying I'm glad you're not in charge of legislation, your line of thinking is an archaic remnant of male-centric society.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Sounds like a tough call. I'd hate to be in his shoes.

hartsickdiscipl

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] That logic could be applied to any male-female sexual encounter -first date -bf/gf -bar hook-up ..."she asked for it rough officer, I promise" It would end up in court. The wife would have to testify that she liked it 'rough' before this particular encountertheone86

No, the logic doesn't apply the same way when it's a casual hook-up, or any case where the defendant and plaintiff aren't regular sex partners. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation. You're going to just take her word over his that she didn't "like it rough" before, and risk putting him in jail for years?

A. That's what safe words are for

B. How does marriage change anything? Even if the two just met last night and hooked up the rapist could still make that same argument.

Safe words won't fix this situation. They're a good idea, but not going to fix this.

Marriage changes the situation, because you've got 2 people who are presumably in a long-term sexual relationship, having consensual sex on a regular basis. If you're the judge or jury, and you're listening to both people tell their side of the story, knowing that they have probably had sex hundreds of times.. how do you know who to believe? Maybe she (or he) is just pissed off at their spouse or has some other motive to accuse them of rape? The bottom line is that the 2 people in question should have equal credibility in the eyes of the law, and any "evidence" of rape should be looked at extremely carefully.. even more so than a case where the plaintiff and defendant aren't regular sex partners.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

PerfectCircles

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

hartsickdiscipl

The way you view things doesn't change the law.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The husband could just say that she likes it rough, and that's why the signs are present.

hartsickdiscipl

No, the logic doesn't apply the same way when it's a casual hook-up, or any case where the defendant and plaintiff aren't regular sex partners. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation. You're going to just take her word over his that she didn't "like it rough" before, and risk putting him in jail for years?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No, the logic doesn't apply the same way when it's a casual hook-up, or any case where the defendant and plaintiff aren't regular sex partners. That changes the whole dynamic of the situation. You're going to just take her word over his that she didn't "like it rough" before, and risk putting him in jail for years?

hartsickdiscipl

A. That's what safe words are for

B. How does marriage change anything? Even if the two just met last night and hooked up the rapist could still make that same argument.

Safe words won't fix this situation. They're a good idea, but not going to fix this.

Marriage changes the situation, because you've got 2 people who are presumably in a long-term sexual relationship, having consensual sex on a regular basis. If you're the judge or jury, and you're listening to both people tell their side of the story, knowing that they have probably had sex hundreds of times.. how do you know who to believe? Maybe she (or he) is just pissed off at their spouse or has some other motive to accuse them of rape? The bottom line is that the 2 people in question should have equal credibility in the eyes of the law, and any "evidence" of rape should be looked at extremely carefully.. even more so than a case where the plaintiff and defendant aren't regular sex partners.

No, they shouldn't. Most women, believe it or not, take rape seriously and don't make the accusation simply because they're holding a grudge. If they do make such an accusation they're likely in an unstable state of mind and evidence proving that state of mind cna be brought to light. Otherwise the woman has total credibility, after all you're trying to prove whether or not she wanted to have sex, who's the ultimate authority on that matter?

And being married still doesn't change ****, whether they've been having consensual sex for ten years or one night the argument that she likes it rough is still not a valid one because if she told him to stop then he should have stopped.

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

A. That's what safe words are for

B. How does marriage change anything? Even if the two just met last night and hooked up the rapist could still make that same argument.

theone86

Safe words won't fix this situation. They're a good idea, but not going to fix this.

Marriage changes the situation, because you've got 2 people who are presumably in a long-term sexual relationship, having consensual sex on a regular basis. If you're the judge or jury, and you're listening to both people tell their side of the story, knowing that they have probably had sex hundreds of times.. how do you know who to believe? Maybe she (or he) is just pissed off at their spouse or has some other motive to accuse them of rape? The bottom line is that the 2 people in question should have equal credibility in the eyes of the law, and any "evidence" of rape should be looked at extremely carefully.. even more so than a case where the plaintiff and defendant aren't regular sex partners.

No, they shouldn't. Most women, believe it or not, take rape seriously and don't make the accusation simply because they're holding a grudge. If they do make such an accusation they're likely in an unstable state of mind and evidence proving that state of mind cna be brought to light. Otherwise the woman has total credibility, after all you're trying to prove whether or not she wanted to have sex, who's the ultimate authority on that matter?

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"] If someone doesn't want to have sex with me, I wouldn't want them to feel like they have to just because we are married. Thats degrading and creepy. Also why are her husbands needs more important than her not being in the mood for sex, it should be enjoyable for both parties. PerfectCircles

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

That's your opinion, and the way the law is currently set up. I don't think we're handling marriage the right way, which is evident by the high divorce rates.

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

hartsickdiscipl

I have already answered this question.

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Sounds like she assaulted him instead of taking care of her husband's needs.

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

Such contracts need to be explicitly defined as such that it is a mutually recognized agreement for sex_on_demand regardless of whether or not the partner wants it, not just your personal whims of what the contract appears to be according to your personal viewpoints. Since marriage isn't such an agreement, marital rape is just as illegal as rape.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

bloodling

I have already answered this question.

Insufficiently in my opinion.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Safe words won't fix this situation. They're a good idea, but not going to fix this.

Marriage changes the situation, because you've got 2 people who are presumably in a long-term sexual relationship, having consensual sex on a regular basis. If you're the judge or jury, and you're listening to both people tell their side of the story, knowing that they have probably had sex hundreds of times.. how do you know who to believe? Maybe she (or he) is just pissed off at their spouse or has some other motive to accuse them of rape? The bottom line is that the 2 people in question should have equal credibility in the eyes of the law, and any "evidence" of rape should be looked at extremely carefully.. even more so than a case where the plaintiff and defendant aren't regular sex partners.

hartsickdiscipl

No, they shouldn't. Most women, believe it or not, take rape seriously and don't make the accusation simply because they're holding a grudge. If they do make such an accusation they're likely in an unstable state of mind and evidence proving that state of mind cna be brought to light. Otherwise the woman has total credibility, after all you're trying to prove whether or not she wanted to have sex, who's the ultimate authority on that matter?

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

It doesn't matter, she said she didn't want to have sex so you have to assume she didn't want to have sex. unless there is some eyewitness or video evidence or overwhelming evidence of her possessing an unstable state of mind then you have to go on her word.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"] If someone doesn't want to have sex with me, I wouldn't want them to feel like they have to just because we are married. Thats degrading and creepy. Also why are her husbands needs more important than her not being in the mood for sex, it should be enjoyable for both parties. coolbeans90

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

Such contracts need to be explicitly defined as such that it is a mutually recognized agreement for sex_on_demand regardless of whether or not the partner wants it, not just your personal whims of what the contract appears to be according to your personal viewpoints. Since marriage isn't such an agreement, marital rape is just as illegal as rape.

That's fine.. then let's make it explicitly defined. Now please don't go down Gabu's road and try to say that because it is explicitly defined, that there has to be a direct legal ramification for the partner who isn't putting out. The only thing that need happen is that the partner who isn't getting what they need can cite the lack of sex as a reason for divorce.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Safe words won't fix this situation. They're a good idea, but not going to fix this.

Marriage changes the situation, because you've got 2 people who are presumably in a long-term sexual relationship, having consensual sex on a regular basis. If you're the judge or jury, and you're listening to both people tell their side of the story, knowing that they have probably had sex hundreds of times.. how do you know who to believe? Maybe she (or he) is just pissed off at their spouse or has some other motive to accuse them of rape? The bottom line is that the 2 people in question should have equal credibility in the eyes of the law, and any "evidence" of rape should be looked at extremely carefully.. even more so than a case where the plaintiff and defendant aren't regular sex partners.

hartsickdiscipl

No, they shouldn't. Most women, believe it or not, take rape seriously and don't make the accusation simply because they're holding a grudge. If they do make such an accusation they're likely in an unstable state of mind and evidence proving that state of mind cna be brought to light. Otherwise the woman has total credibility, after all you're trying to prove whether or not she wanted to have sex, who's the ultimate authority on that matter?

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

Same way as with all long term sexual relations I'd imagine.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

It is a tough call, but you can't just accept all forms of marital rape just in case it wasn't deserved. Normally, if a woman gets raped, she will most likely beat the man badly and make him bleed. Then, it's pretty obvious it's rape.

bloodling

Sounds like she assaulted him.

If a man is getting assaulted, he better get out of the house and call the police right away. The physical signs of rape are far more important than signs of an assault where the man left to tell the police right away.

I don't see what's lacking in my explanation.

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

hartsickdiscipl

That's your opinion, and the way the law is currently set up. I don't think we're handling marriage the right way, which is evident by the high divorce rates.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

No, they shouldn't. Most women, believe it or not, take rape seriously and don't make the accusation simply because they're holding a grudge. If they do make such an accusation they're likely in an unstable state of mind and evidence proving that state of mind cna be brought to light. Otherwise the woman has total credibility, after all you're trying to prove whether or not she wanted to have sex, who's the ultimate authority on that matter?

theone86

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

It doesn't matter, she said she didn't want to have sex so you have to assume she didn't want to have sex. unless there is some eyewitness or video evidence or overwhelming evidence of her possessing an unstable state of mind then you have to go on her word.

I disagree. We're not going to agree on this point. I can't just take her word after she's willingly had sex with this person hundreds of times. That's like asking a convicted felon if they robbed a bank. They say no, I didn't.. but you know that he's robbed 50 banks before. Do you believe him?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

hartsickdiscipl

Such contracts need to be explicitly defined as such that it is a mutually recognized agreement for sex_on_demand regardless of whether or not the partner wants it, not just your personal whims of what the contract appears to be according to your personal viewpoints. Since marriage isn't such an agreement, marital rape is just as illegal as rape.

That's fine.. then let's make it explicitly defined. Now please don't go down Gabu's road and try to say that because it is explicitly defined, that there has to be a direct legal ramification for the partner who isn't putting out. The only thing that need happen is that the partner who isn't getting what they need can cite the lack of sex as a reason for divorce.

It IS explicitly defined by the lack of sexual contracts in marriage clauses, we don't include them in marriage clauses because they are an affront to peronal autonomy.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Sounds like she assaulted him.

bloodling

If a man is getting assaulted, he better get out of the house and call the police right away. The physical signs of rape are far more important than signs of an assault where the man left to tell the police right away.

I don't see what's lacking in my explanation.

Things don't always work out that way.. that's the issue I see with it. I see your explanation working in idealic circumstances, but not even close to all the time.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yeah, it should be. That doesn't mean that is has to be 100% of the time. I view marriage as a sexual agreement as much as it is a financial agreement.

hartsickdiscipl

Such contracts need to be explicitly defined as such that it is a mutually recognized agreement for sex_on_demand regardless of whether or not the partner wants it, not just your personal whims of what the contract appears to be according to your personal viewpoints. Since marriage isn't such an agreement, marital rape is just as illegal as rape.

That's fine.. then let's make it explicitly defined. Now please don't go down Gabu's road and try to say that because it is explicitly defined, that there has to be a direct legal ramification for the partner who isn't putting out. The only thing that need happen is that the partner who isn't getting what they need can cite the lack of sex as a reason for divorce.

Good luck on that...

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How do you prove that someone didn't want to have sex with their spouse, a regular sex partner, after it has already happened hundreds if not thousands of times, beyond a reaonable doubt?

hartsickdiscipl

It doesn't matter, she said she didn't want to have sex so you have to assume she didn't want to have sex. unless there is some eyewitness or video evidence or overwhelming evidence of her possessing an unstable state of mind then you have to go on her word.

I disagree. We're not going to agree on this point. I can't just take her word after she's willingly had sex with this person hundreds of times. That's like asking a convicted felon if they robbed a bank. They say no, I didn't.. but you know that he's robbed 50 banks before. Do you believe him?

I don't give two ****s if you agree or not, that's the way it works. There is no obligation for sex in marriage, if she said no that means no and the same parameters that apply for normal rape apply for spusal rape, period.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"] Well good luck finding a woman who will agree to your definition of marriage, any self respecting human knows they don't have to put out if they don't want to, married or not. PerfectCircles

That's your opinion, and the way the law is currently set up. I don't think we're handling marriage the right way, which is evident by the high divorce rates.

Not as a direct result of allowing it, but as a trend because marriage in general would be viewed differently. You would have people thinking long and hard about getting married to someone.