Topic: Is Marital Rape a Crime? - page 2. (Read 5025 times)
I don't think consent is very widely understood by most people. Even in the US, there has been major backlash to the idea that "enthusiastic consent" needs to be there for sex to not be considered rape.
Exactly my thoughts. If a woman is saying 'no' it means just that, just break the Marriage if you're not satisfied with your married sexual life, instead of forcing yourself on her.
Exactly.
But how about the woman is the one who's forcing the man?
Is that a called rape? or hes just lucky to have that kind of wife?
I think these kind of cases are very rare.
It would vary from country to country, but I think rape can be only committed by a man.
The victim could be male / female.
"Is a wife merely body parts?"
What compels a wife to continue living with her husband who is a sex maniac? What kind of man commits such atrocious acts on his wife, almost daily? Why does he treat the mother of his own children in such an inhuman way? Is it because marital rape is not an criminal offence,compared to one committed on an outsider?? This is also a crime.
What compels a wife to continue living with her husband who is a sex maniac? What kind of man commits such atrocious acts on his wife, almost daily? Why does he treat the mother of his own children in such an inhuman way? Is it because marital rape is not an criminal offence,compared to one committed on an outsider?? This is also a crime.
Exactly my thoughts. If a woman is saying 'no' it means just that, just break the Marriage if you're not satisfied with your married sexual life, instead of forcing yourself on her.
Exactly.
But how about the woman is the one who's forcing the man?
Is that a called rape? or hes just lucky to have that kind of wife?
He is not lucky, especially if she is a nympho, and the men's balls are dryed out.
But men dont really care, its only the "poor" women that play the victim always. Males are stronger and dont play victims, they strugle through it.
Exactly my thoughts. If a woman is saying 'no' it means just that, just break the Marriage if you're not satisfied with your married sexual life, instead of forcing yourself on her.
Exactly.
But how about the woman is the one who's forcing the man?
Is that a called rape? or hes just lucky to have that kind of wife?
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
Remember kids its not sexual harassment if you are not aroused.
Well, the victim certainly isn't aroused in the same way as the rapist. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape.
Oh I know that it just reminded me of a funny argument I saw.
I figured, but was simply playing along.
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
I doubt if any court will agree with that.
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
Remember kids its not sexual harassment if you are not aroused.
Well, the victim certainly isn't aroused in the same way as the rapist. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape.
Oh I know that it just reminded me of a funny argument I saw.
(Ex: If you need to ask permission for abortion from the government that means that your body is the property of the government)
The United States and the other common law countries have been very obliging in this. The U.S. created the 14th Amendment so that people who want to be owned by government can let it happen. At the same time, people can be people, not owned by anyone except God. But in such cases, the government still maintains within itself the ownership of the position of each person, just for the event that the person might want to come back into slavery. Indeed, there might be some times when a human might find it advantageous to partially partaken of the position of his government owned person.
My cousin had this Jehovah's Witless that used to work for him, the last time I ever had the displeasure of talking with this pos he was going on about how he used to rape his wife at night while she slept - of course she'd wake up and from how he told it wasn't happy about it at all - when I told him that was rape he said "There is no such thing, she is my wife and god says I can do whatever I want to her..." Jesus fucking Christ...
Maybe she should have asked permission for it before. I mean basic rule of liberty: Ask permission before using something that is not yours.
(Ex: If you need to ask permission for abortion from the government that means that your body is the property of the government)
But in peer-peer case, he should have asked her at the day that she would like that surprise sex at the night, and if she said yes than it would be ok. Otherwise it might be immoral to just do her without she knowing it .
My cousin had this Jehovah's Witless that used to work for him, the last time I ever had the displeasure of talking with this pos he was going on about how he used to rape his wife at night while she slept - of course she'd wake up and from how he told it wasn't happy about it at all - when I told him that was rape he said "There is no such thing, she is my wife and god says I can do whatever I want to her..." Jesus fucking Christ...
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
Remember kids its not sexual harassment if you are not aroused.
Well, the victim certainly isn't aroused in the same way as the rapist. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape.
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
Remember kids its not sexual harassment if you are not aroused.
That´s idealistic approach BADecker, while I find it cool and all, it completely ignores the human nature and its historical development.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
It IS rather idealistic. It is, because nobody takes the laws back down to their bottom line to show that they are there for helping people and nothing else.
If a clan or family agrees to killing anyone who has harmed no-one else, that clan or family is the one doing the harm.
Actually, one of the reasons that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Australia have had as much success as nations as they have had is that they adhere much to the principle of "Love your neighbor... ." While they don't do it officially as love, it is built into the basic laws of these countries, that people can do almost anything that they want as long as they harm no-one, nor damage his property. Living people can even stand up against corporate governments in these nations, and win.
Anglo-saxon model is also traditionally outlined along the lines I described above (that´s why, you make such a big deal about "anti-discrimination" in modern day caste society), I see success rather in advantageous geographics, can-do attitude rightfully attributed to anglo nations and perhaps even genetics.
Postmodern "free thinker" is historically unproven model, only socially accepted in the past 50 years or so. Time will tell, if he has any future. I am sceptical. Old Rome (after leaving behind its traditions) also had no effective answers for religious fundamentalism and tribal mentality.
No matter which model anyone looks at, when you get down to the basics, all people are the same and different.
People are all the same in that they need air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and clothing and shelter. In addition, they all have consciousness, the ability to think, emotions, arms hands heads legs feet, etc.
People are all different in the fact that there are no two people exactly the same in any of the things mentioned.
All models at their basic form go back to "love your neighbor as yourself" because all are the same. This means sharing as needed. Love is necessary for overlooking the differences.
Yes it is, but its very very very hard to prove.
On the other hand, I`ve saw many "crazy" wifes who faked their rape and self inflicted wounds, then blamed on the housband. And then the housband got to jail innocently, it was only years after that it was proven that the woman lied.
So as much sympathy i got for women who get beaten and raped by their husband.
Women have also alot of power, and can get the guy in jail innocently aswell.
So getting married is alot of risk.
On the other hand, I`ve saw many "crazy" wifes who faked their rape and self inflicted wounds, then blamed on the housband. And then the housband got to jail innocently, it was only years after that it was proven that the woman lied.
So as much sympathy i got for women who get beaten and raped by their husband.
Women have also alot of power, and can get the guy in jail innocently aswell.
So getting married is alot of risk.
That´s idealistic approach BADecker, while I find it cool and all, it completely ignores the human nature and its historical development.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
It IS rather idealistic. It is, because nobody takes the laws back down to their bottom line to show that they are there for helping people and nothing else.
If a clan or family agrees to killing anyone who has harmed no-one else, that clan or family is the one doing the harm.
Actually, one of the reasons that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Australia have had as much success as nations as they have had is that they adhere much to the principle of "Love your neighbor... ." While they don't do it officially as love, it is built into the basic laws of these countries, that people can do almost anything that they want as long as they harm no-one, nor damage his property. Living people can even stand up against corporate governments in these nations, and win.
Anglo-saxon model is also traditionally outlined along the lines I described above (that´s why, you make such a big deal about "anti-discrimination" in modern day caste society), I see success rather in advantageous geographics, can-do attitude rightfully attributed to anglo nations and perhaps even genetics.
Postmodern "free thinker" is historically unproven model, only socially accepted in the past 50 years or so. Time will tell, if he has any future. I am sceptical. Old Rome (after leaving behind its traditions) also had no effective answers for religious fundamentalism and tribal mentality.
It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.
That´s idealistic approach BADecker, while I find it cool and all, it completely ignores the human nature and its historical development.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
It IS rather idealistic. It is, because nobody takes the laws back down to their bottom line to show that they are there for helping people and nothing else.
If a clan or family agrees to killing anyone who has harmed no-one else, that clan or family is the one doing the harm.
Actually, one of the reasons that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Australia have had as much success as nations as they have had is that they adhere much to the principle of "Love your neighbor... ." While they don't do it officially as love, it is built into the basic laws of these countries, that people can do almost anything that they want as long as they harm no-one, nor damage his property. Living people can even stand up against corporate governments in these nations, and win.
That´s idealistic approach BADecker, while I find it cool and all, it completely ignores the human nature and its historical development.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.
This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.
I think the western definition of "marital rape" is way to goddamn wide. In some countries it means partner being abused to the point of being hospitalized. In others, its sufficient, that woman makes up her mind post-coitus and man is considered guilty, until proven otherwise.
Right!
Part of the question should be, "Is it a crime for a marriage partner to deny sex to the other partner when the other partner requests (demands) it?" And if it is a crime, is it always a crime? Or are there certain circumstances under which it is a crime, while it is not a crime under other circumstances?
After all, indulging in the sex act is a great portion of the reason why people get married in the first place.
In majority of arab countries, marriage is indeed good reason to get sex for "free". Also as part of this arrangement, woman is expected to provide both sex and children, unless her health prohibits it. Forcing partner to sex is therefore no offense there, women would be will advised to keep silent about it, as inablity to provide her their husband is considered shameful. That´s why I earlier mentioned very vague international "standarts".
I have one important thing to say about this. No matter the country and the laws, there is no government that has any other reason to exist than to uphold private property rights for the people. If you follow the laws back to their origination in every government, you will see this. And because of who and what people are and are to each other, there is no greater foundational law between people other than to "love your neighbor as yourself," especially if your neighbor is your husband or wife.
Jump to: