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

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

theone86

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.

Exactly.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="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.

hartsickdiscipl

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.

What circumstances are you talking about? I have not stated any circumstance.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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.

theone86

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.

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

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

bloodling

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.

What circumstances are you talking about? I have not stated any circumstance.

Let me backtrack for a minute.. What exactly are the physical signs of rape, that prove that a rape was occurring beyond a reasonable doubt.. when the 2 people involved are people who are married and regularly have sex with each other?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

theone86

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.

You didn't answer my question. How do you take that person's word for it when they've had sex with that individual hundreds if not thousands of times during the marriage?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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.

hartsickdiscipl

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.

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

Sexual obligation, if considered part of marriage, would have to be enforced by the law, not by one's self. Hence, rape. If the partner didn't put out, the partner can sue for divorce. (and/or monetary compensation)

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="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.

hartsickdiscipl

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.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

coolbeans90

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

Sexual obligation, if considered part of marriage, would have to be enforced by the law, not by one's self. Hence, rape. If the partner didn't put out, the partner can sue for divorce. (and/or monetary compensation)

I think divorce and monetary compensation is fair.. but I also think the person should be forced to put out since they're not holding up their end of the bargain.

Let me backtrack for a minute.. What exactly are the physical signs of rape, that prove that a rape was occurring beyond a reasonable doubt.. when the 2 people involved are people who are married and regularly have sex with each other?

hartsickdiscipl

Well, a judge takes pretty much everything into account: the credibility of both people, the physical signs of violence, contradictory statements...

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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?

hartsickdiscipl

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.

You didn't answer my question. How do you take that person's word for it when they've had sex with that individual hundreds if not thousands of times during the marriage?

Guilty pleas, witnesses, signs of physical abuse in relative time relations to sexual intercourse, in theory, lie detectors, cross examinations that cause the defendant to lose grip of their fabricated story, the list goes on. Please, it's not as impossible as you make it out to be.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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.

hartsickdiscipl

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.

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

[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.

godwhydoibother

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

That's the loudest kind of misogyny.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

hartsickdiscipl

Sexual obligation, if considered part of marriage, would have to be enforced by the law, not by one's self. Hence, rape. If the partner didn't put out, the partner can sue for divorce. (and/or monetary compensation)

I think divorce and monetary compensation is fair.. but I also think the person should be forced to put out since they're not holding up their end of the bargain.

If the person doesn't put out, then the other party would have legal grounds to terminate the contract, perhaps monetary compensation, nothing more. And I disagree that the state institution of marriage should really exist, let alone require sex.

I want to give some credit to GabuEx about something that he said earlier in this thread. He proposed a situation where a wife (or husband) sets up a camera in the house because they "suspect" for one reason or another, that their spouse may rape them. They capture the incident on film, complete with protests, etc.. This is a very cleverly-conceived scenario.

To most people, this looks like a cut and dry rape. To me, it looks like someone planning to deny their spouse sex, knowing that something will happen, and then videotaping them trying to get what they should be entitled to. Somebody knowing what their spouse is going to do, and then setting them up, instead of finding a better solution between them.

I want to give some credit to GabuEx about something that he said earlier in this thread. He proposed a situation where a wife (or husband) sets up a camera in the house because they "suspect" for one reason or another, that their spouse may rape them. They capture the incident on film, complete with protests, etc.. This is a very cleverly-conceived scenario.

To most people, this looks like a cut and dry rape. To me, it looks like someone planning to deny their spouse sex, knowing that something will happen, and then videotaping them trying to get what they should be entitled to. Somebody knowing what their spouse is going to do, and then setting them up, instead of finding a better solution between them.

hartsickdiscipl

That's a bad example. Nobody does that, nor does anybody need that to prove rape.

Yes, and the bible also says that a rapist must marry the victim, if she is not engaged, after paying a small sum of silver. I tend to frown on that book as a moral authority and am glad the OP has no influence over law. It is never reasonable to expect another to constantly desire sex whenever you do, married or not, there are times when you don't want sex and the spouse cannot rightly force themself on the other. And to suggest the victim console with her rapist for reconciliation? That's a freaking laugh-riot and virtually begging for countless abusive households to never be corrected.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

PerfectCircles

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

hartsickdiscipl

Thank god laws aren't based on the bible.

I want to give some credit to GabuEx about something that he said earlier in this thread. He proposed a situation where a wife (or husband) sets up a camera in the house because they "suspect" for one reason or another, that their spouse may rape them. They capture the incident on film, complete with protests, etc.. This is a very cleverly-conceived scenario.

To most people, this looks like a cut and dry rape. To me, it looks like someone planning to deny their spouse sex, knowing that something will happen, and then videotaping them trying to get what they should be entitled to. Somebody knowing what their spouse is going to do, and then setting them up, instead of finding a better solution between them.

hartsickdiscipl

They are NOT legally entitled to it. Furthermore, if in some magical fairlyland they were, consent would still be required.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I want to give some credit to GabuEx about something that he said earlier in this thread. He proposed a situation where a wife (or husband) sets up a camera in the house because they "suspect" for one reason or another, that their spouse may rape them. They capture the incident on film, complete with protests, etc.. This is a very cleverly-conceived scenario.

To most people, this looks like a cut and dry rape. To me, it looks like someone planning to deny their spouse sex, knowing that something will happen, and then videotaping them trying to get what they should be entitled to. Somebody knowing what their spouse is going to do, and then setting them up, instead of finding a better solution between them.

bloodling

That's a bad example. Nobody does that, nor does anybody need that to prove rape.

I agree that it's an uncommon scenario. Not nearly impossible, but unlikely. I disagree with your next statement. I think you should need such proof to try to accuse your spouse and regular sex partner of rape (or the substitute charge of assault and battery in my system). If don't see how you think you could just take someone's word that they were raped by their spouse. That's absurd IMO.

Like I said earlier, that's like taking a convicted felon's word that they didn't commit a crime that they've committed 1,000 times before.

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

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

hartsickdiscipl

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

One may according to the Bible have the responsibility to do so, but be forbidden forcibly require one's partner to do so.

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

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

hartsickdiscipl

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"] Intended by who? Are we talking about your "ideal" way marriage should work or how marriage currently works?coolbeans90

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

One may according to the Bible have the responsibility to do so, but be forbidden forcibly require one's partner to do so.

Where does it say that they can't force it?

I disagree with your next statement. I think you should need such proof to try to accuse your spouse and regular sex partner of rape (or the substitute charge of assault and battery in my system). If don't see how you think you could just take someone's word that they were raped by their spouse. That's absurd IMO.

Like I said earlier, that's like taking a convicted felon's word that they didn't commit a crime that they've committed 1,000 times before.

hartsickdiscipl

As I said, there are many factors to take into consideration. If it can't be proven, it can't. If it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it was. Judges don't just "take someone's word for it".

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I disagree with your next statement. I think you should need such proof to try to accuse your spouse and regular sex partner of rape (or the substitute charge of assault and battery in my system). If don't see how you think you could just take someone's word that they were raped by their spouse. That's absurd IMO.

Like I said earlier, that's like taking a convicted felon's word that they didn't commit a crime that they've committed 1,000 times before.

bloodling

As I said, there are many factors to take into consideration. If it can't be proven, it can't. If it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it was. Judges don't just "take someone's word for it".

Give me an example of proof that isn't someone's word in a case like this. We've already covered signs of struggle.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm referring to the Bible again. Sex was considered part of the "marital due," which is isn't now. At least not in explicit legal terms.

hartsickdiscipl

One may according to the Bible have the responsibility to do so, but be forbidden forcibly require one's partner to do so.

Where does it say that they can't force it?

Any passage against violence works. Considering how the contractual nature of marriage, termination, not forcible transgression is the solution.

Give me an example of proof that isn't someone's word in a case like this. We've already covered signs of struggle.

hartsickdiscipl

Physical signs of violence, a criminal case, contradictory statements...

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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.

hartsickdiscipl

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.

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

So....Marriage isn't so much about love, trust, and honoring each other but about establishing ones own personal concubine?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

Pixel-Pirate

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

So....Marriage isn't so much about love, trust, and honoring each other but about establishing ones own personal concubine?

No, it's about love. But I think our society has gone way too soft on holding people accountable in marriages. There is no criminal punishment for adultery when proven. That says quite a bit about how far we've gone downhill, IMO.

Besides, these people don't just rape once, they will try again. So if someone feels like they don't have sufficient proof, they can very well buy a voice recorder or a camera to further support their claim.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Give me an example of proof that isn't someone's word in a case like this. We've already covered signs of struggle.

bloodling

Physical signs of violence, a criminal case, contradictory statements...

Physical signs of violence could indicate a problem, assuming that it wasn't just rough sex. I'm not sure what you mean by a criminal case. Contradictory statements can sometimes incriminate people, yes.

Besides, these people don't just rape once, they will try again. So if someone feels like they don't have sufficient proof, they can very well buy a voice recorder or a camera to further support their claim.

bloodling

Shouldn't they leave the person instead of allowing it to happen again so they can record it?

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Besides, these people don't just rape once, they will try again. So if someone feels like they don't have sufficient proof, they can very well buy a voice recorder or a camera to further support their claim.

hartsickdiscipl

Shouldn't they leave the person instead of allowing it to happen again so they can record it?

No, because the previous offences were wrong, and criminals should face justice.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Besides, these people don't just rape once, they will try again. So if someone feels like they don't have sufficient proof, they can very well buy a voice recorder or a camera to further support their claim.

hartsickdiscipl

Shouldn't they leave the person instead of allowing it to happen again so they can record it?

Depends if they want to incriminate them without any doubt. They may not need to. I don't think they have to wait much more than until the next day.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

Besides, these people don't just rape once, they will try again. So if someone feels like they don't have sufficient proof, they can very well buy a voice recorder or a camera to further support their claim.

hartsickdiscipl

Shouldn't they leave the person instead of allowing it to happen again so they can record it?

Besides, the voice recording only has to support the claim with a proof of rape intent, not rape itself.

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

hartsickdiscipl

You laugh at people who believe in widely accepted values, but not the Bible?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I don't view personal autonomy as being as important as reestablishing the institution of marriage as something very serious.. including a sexual obligation as it was intended.

hartsickdiscipl

So....Marriage isn't so much about love, trust, and honoring each other but about establishing ones own personal concubine?

No, it's about love. But I think our society has gone way too soft on holding people accountable in marriages. There is no criminal punishment for adultery when proven. That says quite a bit about how far we've gone downhill, IMO.

So...adultery should be a crime....but raping your spouse should not?

And I'd say if you're willing to rape your spouse, you do not love them and never have.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

bloodling

You laugh at people who believe in widely accepted values, but not the Bible?

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

hartsickdiscipl

Hey, feel free to counter mine. I am not sure what your views have been influenced by, but there is no Biblical basis for marital rape, but plenty against it.

In all honesty, I very highly doubt that God will judge kindly those whom rape their wives.

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah man, it's totally zany and hilarious when others defend the personal rights of others because they don't subscribe to a barbarous, openly misogynistic text written by savages two-thousand years ago.

You see, it's not that their commonly accepted, it's that they uphold basic and sensible rights for other human beings. The commonly accepted laws in predominantly Muslim societies are still ones I oppose, even though they are commonly practiced, modern laws.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You already know how I feel. There can be no rape in a marriage. At least none that should be privy to the legal system.

It's clear that you have all been totally influenced by the "wisdom" of today's society. Like I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I laugh when people get all bent out of shape and try to belittle my thoughts because they're not commonly-accepted... because they're not how things are run today. People have way too many rights, and not enough obligation within marriage, IMO.

Feel free to keep posting arguments against me, I'll probably be back to check on this thread again later. It's been great fun if nothing else! :D

dhyce

Yeah man, it's totally zany and hilarious when others defend the personal rights of others because they don't subscribe to a barbarous, openly misogynistic text written by savages two-thousand years ago.

You see, it's not that their commonly accepted, it's that they uphold basic and sensible rights for other human beings. The commonly accepted laws in predominantly Muslim societies are still ones I oppose, even though they are commonly practiced, modern laws.

I'm not sure what religions allow rape....but Christianity...at least Catholicism does not. You can't blame the bible for someone subverting words to justify themselves....LJS9502_basic

It's not considered a noble act in the bible, except in those instances where Yahweh demands it. (As in Judges 21, and Numbers 31.)

But there are some horrifically confusing rules about rape, as in Deutoronomy 22, when it is said engaged women who are raped should be stoned, along with the rapist. If an unengaged woman is raped, she is to be sold for a small sum of silver to the rapist.

These are just two big examples that come to mind.