MRbrownJAY:
again, you are looking at the wrong issue here: what they did prior to the act is not important since it was consensual, the act of forcing her to do an act that she had said earlier she was against, is the reason why this was considered ra.pe (imho).

where was this force? the man got carried away - he couldn't bring himself to withdraw. the more engaged someone gets into the act, the less control one has!

bro Coogar, if i have sex with a woman who says beforehand that she does NOT want to have an.al sex, and during the act i do it against her will (because i changed my mind or because thats what i wanted from the beginning) would you call that RA:PE or DECEIT?

this analogy is way off the mark!
you cannot compare the ability to withdraw/not withdraw to sex deviance. every sex congress should lead to ejaculatiön, not every sex congress leads remotely to anäl sëx. this husband did not deviate from the act that was agreed, he just lost control at the vital moment which is simply a breach of trust, not rapë!

coogar: where was this force? the man got carried away - he couldn't bring himself to withdraw. the more engaged someone gets into the act, the less control one has!

the lady said she doesnt want it, yet hubby said he will do exactly that (aka what he wants), and you dont call that BY FORCE?! what is it then: change of mind?

this analogy is way off the mark!
you cannot compare the ability to withdraw/not withdraw to sex deviance. every sex congress should lead to ejaculatiön, not every sex congress leads remotely to anäl sëx. this husband did not deviate from the act that was agreed, he just lost control at the vital moment which is simply a breach of trust, not rapë!

come on bro, we read the same initial post. it says clearly that:"He gave her ‘no chance to object’ and insisted ‘I’ll do what I want’"

how can you therefore say that it was out of his control?! and also remember that not pulling out in time is not the offence, its the fact that he forced her into doing it that is the issue....as the judge said:"men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for molestation, These things happen – they always have and they always will"

the husband did what he did because thats what he wanted, not because he lost control....... the husband deviated from the act because thats what he wanted to do, and didnt care about the wishes of wifey. regardless of WHY he did what he did, the act of doing a sexual act against a person's will is called RA:PE. you can use whatever excuses under the moon, the fact remain that he did something against her wishes willfully.

there are many men like the guy in this story who think that because they are married to a woman, the own her and can do whatever they please with her (sexually or otherwise)............ we all know that this is wrong, at least i do.

the evidence shows that A) the hubby was fully aware that she didnt want such act B) he didnt care about her wishes and changed his mind mid "show" without her consent C) he forced her to accept the act (against her will) because thats what he wanted.

we should agree to disagree...

however, if this ruling stands then it starts an awful precedent. a pröstitute would even claim she's rapëd because of one kiss too many or because she's unpaid after the show!

you are right but remember that if consent was given for ONE particular act, then that is all that can be done......anything else whether good, bad or beautiful is deemed unlawful and punishable.

KnegroDamus:

Dont try and convince me of what i know is wrong.

If the woman had told the man to stop during sex, and he continued, everyone can agree that that is a rape. If the man had penetrated her anus against her will, everyone would agree that that is rape. But That is not what happened here

She agreed to have sex and they had sex. Only after they were finished she decided that she had been raped... perhaps several months later when she found out she was pregnant. That is completely different that what a normal person would consider rape. And is a disturbing legal precedent that i don't think you even understand

Because your partner does something you don't like doesn't mean the whole intercourse was a rape. If that is your mentality suggest you refrain from having sex because you are putting an unfair burden on everyone you sleep with

. She essentially did tell him to stop. She told him he must stop prior to orgasm he refused. Ra.pe is doing something sexually without the willing consent to it. She was not willing to to have sex but not the internal orgasm. He was told upfront he had to stop at a particular point and refused there is no difference between being told to stop mid way through because she changed her mind and was no longer comfortable and this. None. Period.

And forget that it's her husband he has every right bullshit. The va.gina is on her body she and only she dictates what occurs with it. A man wants a va.gina he can have full control over then he needs to grow one

navygrl:
And forget that it's her husband he has every right bullshit. The va.gina is on her body she and only she dictates what occurs with it. A man wants a va.gina he can have full control over then he needs to grow one

navygrl: . She essentially did tell him to stop. She told him he must stop prior to orgasm he refused. Ra.pe is doing something sexually without the willing consent to it. She was not willing to to have sex but not the internal orgasm. He was told upfront he had to stop at a particular point and refused there is no difference between being told to stop mid way through because she changed her mind and was no longer comfortable and this. None. Period.

And forget that it's her husband he has every right bullshit. The va.gina is on her body she and only she dictates what occurs with it. A man wants a va.gina he can have full control over then he needs to grow one

Look lady, you have nothing to teach me. I have my common sense and i know what rape his, and i know what rape is not. A million intelligent posters have explained how this is not rape, and i wont bother doing it again.

If you don't want to listen to logic that is your problem, but make sure that when a man accuses a woman of raping him for lying that she was on the pill, you defend that insanity also. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this

Good day.

I say to you and everyone else with your mentality, to refrain from having sex with anyone. You are putting a heavy and unfair burden on them with your over-exaggerated definition of ra.pe.

Sex you agreed to can never be rape... no matter how much you people babble, such stupidity will not penetrate my fortified mind.

This case lacks merit and its baseless.

churific:
I didn't even read the article.

Just the title. But just because someone is your wife doesn't make them your sex slave. They still have the right to say no and pull out as they see fit. Marriage does not entitle you to an everlasting quantity of sexual encounters. You still need to woo her and earn it.

Quit with all these backwards and barbaric ways of thinking (To some.)

EARN sex with your wife? Gosh. Why get married? She should stay single then or get divorced so enough men will cue up to earn her sexual consent. What a pervert.

the lady said she doesnt want it, yet hubby said he will do exactly that (aka what he wants), and you dont call that BY FORCE?! what is it then: change of mind?



come on bro, we read the same initial post. it says clearly that:"He gave her ‘no chance to object’ and insisted ‘I’ll do what I want’"

how can you therefore say that it was out of his control?! and also remember that not pulling out in time is not the offence, its the fact that he forced her into doing it that is the issue....as the judge said:"men who tried in vain to withdraw in time should not be pursued for molestation, These things happen – they always have and they always will"

the husband did what he did because thats what he wanted, not because he lost control....... the husband deviated from the act because thats what he wanted to do, and didnt care about the wishes of wifey. regardless of WHY he did what he did, the act of doing a sexual act against a person's will is called RA:PE. you can use whatever excuses under the moon, the fact remain that he did something against her wishes willfully.

there are many men like the guy in this story who think that because they are married to a woman, the own her and can do whatever they please with her (sexually or otherwise)............ we all know that this is wrong, at least i do.

the evidence shows that A) the hubby was fully aware that she didnt want such act B) he didnt care about her wishes and changed his mind mid "show" without her consent C) he forced her to accept the act (against her will) because thats what he wanted.

Friend you are generalising this stuff too much. I guess the court was able to rule on that because the couple were not practicing Christians, otherwise, the Bible makes it clear that the husband's body belongs to his wife, and the wife's body belongs to her husband, therefore neither of the parties is permitted to refuse sex to the other. In fact Bible says depriving your spouse of sex is FRAUDLENT. I can't imagine now how or why a man should get punished for having sex with his own wife. Probably the woman expects him to have it with a harlot.

If pregnancy is the issue she should talk it over with the man and even nag him to hell for it, but going to court and charging your husband for rape is nothing short of social madness. Unfortunately folks believe it's right. Personaly I think it's all part of demonic assaults on the institutions called marriage and family.