coogar:


if she feels she has been räped and she calls the cops then the husband deserves to be charged and prosecuted. everything is about the perception of the victim.

i get where you are coming from though - but my definition of marital räpe would be a situation where a husband violently räpes his wife - not the other technicalities involved i.e. consent!

That's the whole point - the pivotal determinant of rape is consent. This is pretty much what happened in the Ched Evans case. The "victim" claims she doesn't remember anything and did not actually allege rape, there wasn't even any evidence that intercourse had taken place. They only knew because Ched and his friend both confirmed they'd slept with her - with her consent.

But as she was considered unable to give "informed consent", they were both charged with rape. And even more weirdly, only one convicted?

Sex is now something men do to women and men have to take responsibility for womens choices. The E, F and H words in a nutshell !


TV

TV01:

That's the whole point - the pivotal determinant of rape is consent. This is pretty much what happened in the Ched Evans case. The "victim" claims she doesn't remember anything and did not actually allege rape, there wasn't even any evidence that intercourse had taken place. They only knew because Ched and his friend both confirmed they'd slept with her - with her consent.

But as she was considered unable to give "informed consent", they were both charged with rape. And even more weirdly, only one convicted?

Sex is now something men do to women and men have to take responsibility for womens choices. The E, F and H words in a nutshell !


TV

Hold on, was she drunk or intoxicated? There is a difference, is there not?

TV01:

That's the whole point - the pivotal determinant of rape is consent. This is pretty much what happened in the Ched Evans case. The "victim" claims she doesn't remember anything and did not actually allege rape, there wasn't even any evidence that intercourse had taken place. They only knew because Ched and his friend both confirmed they'd slept with her - with her consent.

and it's for this reason we cannot apply this to marital cases. if ched was married to the victim, it's highly unlikely for her to ring the cops that she had been räped. cases like this are usually around strangers meeting up or booty calls.

But as she was considered unable to give "informed consent", they were both charged with rape. And even more weirdly, only one convicted?

even if she was conscious, she has to express consent for the whole act not to be illegal. if she was silent when the question was posed to her - it is still not consent.

Sex is now something men do to women and men have to take responsibility for womens choices. The E, F and H words in a nutshell !

TV

well, let's just admit the law doesn't deem women as responsible enough when it comes to the issue of sëx. they have to be constantly asked every minute if the act can proceed. consent can also be withdrawn at any point during intercöurse. if she says "stop" around the time her partner is about to ejäculate & the partner thrusts once after then, he can be charged with räpe!

carefreewannabe:


Hold on, was she drunk or intoxicated? There is a difference, is there not?

Please tell us what the difference is and how it affects the case as outlined. Especially as the victim has to be deemed able to give informed consent at the time of intercourse and the transgressor has to be able to prove she did. So if the victim cannot remember and the accused cannt evidence - wise use of smart phone - he has raped her. Plus there is no law where a woman can directly rape a man

I'm sure we'll hear you pushing for both these "oversights" to be remedied under your equality & responsibility drive.


TV

TV01:

Please tell us what the difference is and how it affects the case as outlined. Especially as the victim has to be deemed able to give informed consent at the time of intercourse and the transgressor has to be able to prove she did. So if the victim cannot remember and the accused cannt evidence - wise use of smart phone - he has raped her. Plus there is no law where a woman can directly rape a man

I'm sure we'll hear you pushing for both these "oversights" to be remedied under your equality & responsibility drive.


TV

I don't know much about this case, this is why I am asking. I just did a quick google search and this was one of the first things that caught my attention and I decided to ask you because you seem to be familiar with the case.

If a girl drinks alcohol out of her free will and does not know her limits and on the next day does not remember anything, then it is her fault. That does not give anyone the right to sleep with her but it cannot be proven whether she consented or not and that's her own fault.

If a girl gets "intoxicated" because someone puts a drug into her drink to make her lose consciousness, then that's a different thing altogether, is it not?

Sex that is forced against someones will is rape. Being a husband or wife does not give a person a free pass, so yes.

coogar:

and it's for this reason we cannot apply this to marital cases. if ched was married to the victim, it's highly unlikely for her to ring the cops that she had been räped. cases like this are usually around strangers meeting up or booty calls.

The victim did not allege rape, she woke up in a hotel room, couldn't remember what had happened or find her phone and the hotel staff suggested she call the police. CCTV showed she rocked up to the hotel with the two guys, so they were asked to report in. They relayed what transpired and the rest is history.

I agree that it is more unlikely to happen in marital cases, but my point was what technically constitutes rape. Plus there's a funny one you always remind us of where a husband got done for not withdrawing after the act has started - as his wife withdrew consent part way through or did he go beyond what was agreed?

coogar:

even if she was conscious, she has to express consent for the whole act not to be illegal. if she was silent when the question was posed to her - it is still not consent.

They both claim she consented, one was let off and one convicted.

coogar:

well, let's just admit the law doesn't deem women as responsible enough when it comes to the issue of sëx. they have to be constantly asked every minute if the act can proceed. consent can also be withdrawn at any point during intercöurse. if she says "stop" around the time her partner is about to ejäculate & the partner thrusts once after then, he can be charged with räpe!

Per the bolded, please tell that to those pushing for equality, responsibility and freedom. As for the rest, is it not clear that the male sexual response is different to a females? He could technically be at the point of "surrender" as she withdraws consent, and thus not able to halt his climax. Na rape be that na !

TV

Off topic.

Drunken sex is the best to that can happen to a husband and wife
Why would anyone file a r@pe charge under such circumstances?


On a serious note,matrimony gives consent by default so except the wife explicitly says NO or fights him off when he wants to get intimate with her,her consent is taken for granted because of the union they are in together, so it is not the same thing as when you're talking about a boyfriend/girlfriend or acquaintance relationships.

A rape will only be considered if she said no and the man went ahead or forced her to agree.
So where both parties are drunk and high and each considering the other their spouse,non can be accused of going over the border by making love to this spouse who said nothing in disagreement.

TV01:


If a man and his wife both drink, subsequently have intercourse and then fall asleep, if she awakens after the fact and cannot remember consenting to the act, he has technically raped her and can be charged.

This is even if they both drunk to stupor and neither can remember anything, and even if she does not claim to have been raped.

Are you satisfies that he has indeed raped her and should be charged and prosecuted?


TV

carefreewannabe:


I don't know much about this case, this is why I am asking. I just did a quick google search and this was one of the first things that caught my attention and I decided to ask you because you seem to be familiar with the case.

If a girl drinks alcohol out of her free will and does not know her limits and on the next day does not remember anything, then it is her fault. That does not give anyone the right to sleep with her but it cannot be proven whether she consented or not and that's her own fault.

If a girl gets "intoxicated" because someone puts a drug into her drink to make her lose consciousness, then that's a different thing altogether, is it not?

...if by intoxicated you mean spiked drink, of course that's rape. And the bolded bit is the whole point, if she drinks to forgetfullness, legally it's not her fault, the onus is on the accused to prove consent, not the accuser to regulate her drinking or moderate her behaviour.

So, if she went out got drunk and copped off with a boy she fancied, instead of her being a cheating ho', she becomes a rape victim. Not to make too much of a point about it, it would help if you based you understanding of marital rape on rape as defined, not as you believe, as your beliefs as stated are not aligned with how it's legally defined.

It's somewhat blasé to trumpet marital rape without giving the nuances due consideration.

TV

cococandy:

A rape will only be considered if she said no and the man went ahead or forced her to agree.
So where both parties are drunk and high and each considering the other their spouse,non can be accused of going over the border by making love to this spouse who said nothing in disagreement.

That is not how rape is defined. She has to say an emphatic yes and she must be in a state - not high, drunk - to give informed consent. Indeed, the push is for consent to be continuously and proactivley re-evaluated.

Neither wifey or I really drink - maybe we are missing a trick. Is it different than with good blunt ?


TV

TV01:

...if by intoxicated you mean spiked drink, of course that's rape. And the bolded bit is the whole point, if she drinks to forgetfullness, legally it's not her fault, the onus is on the accused to prove consent, not the accuser to regulate her drinking or moderate her behaviour.

I think it is wrong to sleep with a woman who is extremely drunk and not in her right senses but it is not necessarily rape.

And I agree that people / women should be urged to regulate their drinking and moderate their behavior when doing so instead of convicting everyone who sleeps with a drunk person as rapists.

So, if she went out got drunk and copped off with a boy she fancied, instead of her being a cheating ho', she becomes a rape victim.

We were actually talking about rape in marriages and not rape between strangers but anyway. Would you say that it is MORALLY right to sleep with a woman who due to her irresponsible alcohol intake is very drunk and not in her right senses Mr Moralizer?

Not to make too much of a point about it, it would help if you based you understanding of marital rape on rape as defined, not as you believe, as your beliefs as stated are not aligned with how it's legally defined.

First of all, saying that rape takes place when a person sleeps with another without their consent is not entirely wrong.
If someone spikes someone else's drink, then it is s*ex without consent and rape.
If someone loses consciousness, which can happen for several reasons without alcohol, and someone sleeps with that person without their consent, then it is rape.

It's somewhat blasé to trumpet marital rape without giving the nuances due consideration.

TV

The question of the OP is if there is such a thing as marital rape and I STILL BELIEVE that there is such a thing. You have not been able to convince me that there is no such thing. The story you have brought to this topic is an interesting one but rather irrelevant to the topic.

If you believe that there is no such a thing as marital rape because the Bible tells you that your wife's body is yours, then that is your conviction, not mine.

TV01:

That is not how rape is defined. She has to say an emphatic yes and she must be in a state - not high, drunk - to give informed consent. Indeed, the push is for consent to be continuously and proactivley re-evaluated.

Neither wifey or I really drink - maybe we are missing a trick. Is it different than with good blunt ?


TV

Yes that's not how rape is defined. But there are technicalities.
Would a man be considered a rapist if he makes love to his while both then are in a state of delirious wantoness?

Certainly no. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that in court.

Sensationalism at best and if not carefully taken for what it is, can prove to be distracting to the fact that there are real cases of r@pe in marriage.




Oh yes TV
You're missing. Try it. she will call you daddy if she never did before

TV01:

The victim did not allege rape, she woke up in a hotel room, couldn't remember what had happened or find her phone and the hotel staff suggested she call the police. CCTV showed she rocked up to the hotel with the two guys, so they were asked to report in. They relayed what transpired and the rest is history.

the complainant initially reported to the police that she believed ‘her drink had been spiked’. it was only after informing the police that the complainant had stayed in a room in the premier inn that had been booked for two footballers, that the police escalated the enquiry to a rape enquiry. this was only 14 minutes after taking the call and without interviewing either the complainant or the suspects.

I agree that it is more unlikely to happen in marital cases, but my point was what technically constitutes rape. Plus there's a funny one you always remind us of where a husband got done for not withdrawing after the act has started - as his wife withdrew consent part way through or did he go beyond what was agreed?

yes he did.....
and the judges of the high court agreed she had been räped by her hubby. they pinned it on the flimsy excuse that he had said "you're my wife and i can do whatever i want with you."

They both claim she consented, one was let off and one convicted.

i think their honesty incriminated them. if they had denied sleeping with her, they wouldn't have been charged. there was no witness, no forensic trace on the victim nor the accused persons.

Per the bolded, please tell that to those pushing for equality, responsibility and freedom. As for the rest, is it not clear that the male sexual response is different to a females? He could technically be at the point of "surrender" as she withdraws consent, and thus not able to halt his climax. Na rape be that na !

TV

the male sêxual response isn't different from that of the female but i doubt the law sees it that way. the law believes a woman can steal, commit murder, manslaughter, terrorist attack, etc but till this date, the law does not recognise a woman can räpe a man........so where is her sëxual responsibility?

no matter her age, she has to repeatedly say yes to the act before a man can proceed. her silence doesn't even constitute to consent. her lack of fight or not resisting doesn't mean she consented. i ask again - where did the law place her responsibility?

It's aa complicated question that honestly varies depending on the situation at hand.

In the majority of cases, marriage implies a union of committed adults who agree to stay true to another and to become one. That oneness IMO doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse. It implies that by the joining together, they resolve to be in one accord.

So, with that in mind, if one spouse at any moment of time disagrees to have sex, the other must be in accord with that decision. Forcing your spouse to have sex with out their consent not only is rape, but it's also breaking the marriage vows.

I believe that when discussing the issue of rape in marriage one must put in mind that marriage does not erase individual identity nor does it subjugate individual will. The call of marriage is to freely offer one to the other everything that one has including the body.

Rape in marriage now addresses situations where individual wills are at opposition. Rape is a violent resolution of the battle of wills whereby one imposes his/her will over another. If this happens in marriage it is still rape. Marriage gives no one the right to impose as marriage is about agreement and mutuality.

jhidey08:
This arguement ensued between me and some of my friends yesterday about a husband raping his wife. NLs, is there anything lyk a husband raping his wife? Is it constitutionally right or wrong? Please kindly share your knowledge by shedding more light to this. Őňĕ łõvĕ

In my opinion, I think theres every possibility of a husband ràping his wife i.e if he does it forcefully against her wish. Besides I dnt think a man in his right senses would do such a thing.

...I was responding to posts yesterday when some sort of glitch happened. Anyway...

carefreewannabe:
I think it is wrong to sleep with a woman who is extremely drunk and not in her right senses but it is not necessarily rape.

That is not the prevailing thinking or concensus on what constitutes rape. In fact, that kind of utterance will have you labelled a rape apologist ! A man has to ensure there is informed (essentially competent) consent prior to the act and at every stage during it - even if he is also drunk or high. He also has to be able to prove or evidence it if any charge is made.

carefreewannabe:

And I agree that people / women should be urged to regulate their drinking and moderate their behavior when doing so instead of convicting everyone who sleeps with a drunk person as rapists.

Again, not according to curent thinking. This would be characterised as victim-shaming, or blaming the victim instead of the aggressor. You sound a little ideologically out of date

carefreewannabe:

We were actually talking about rape in marriages and not rape between strangers but anyway. Would you say that it is MORALLY right to sleep with a woman who due to her irresponsible alcohol intake is very drunk and not in her right senses Mr Moralizer?

Accepted, I have derailed somewhat, but any discussion of rape has to define what constitutes rape.

I personally would never - even as a gentile, I would not date smokers, drinkers or substance abusers of any kind - Not just moral, also judgemental !

But even if they are both "very drunk" and intercourse takes place, he can be charged with rape - she can't. Hence coogars valid point - which I also alluded to - that men are being held responsible for womens actions. How does that square with you equality, freedom and responsibility mantra?

carefreewannabe:

First of all, saying that rape takes place when a person sleeps with another without their consent is not entirely wrong.
If someone spikes someone else's drink, then it is s*ex without consent and rape.
If someone loses consciousness, which can happen for several reasons without alcohol, and someone sleeps with that person without their consent, then it is rape.

I am not arguing any of this - needless to say, the legal definition is much less rigid than what you allow for

carefreewannabe:
The question of the OP is if there is such a thing as marital rape and I STILL BELIEVE that there is such a thing. You have not been able to convince me that there is no such thing. The story you have brought to this topic is an interesting one but rather irrelevant to the topic.

The marriage relationship/covenant is a conjugal one, that is the whole point. If a man brutalises or hurts his wife I have no problem with him being charged with assault, GBH, I just question it being handles as rape.

If a man gets his wife drunk in order to sleep with her or otherwise coerces her to have intercourse without force, has he raped her?

Of the flipside question;
If a women uses sex to obtain something or withholds it out of displeasure for not getting her way, what should she be charged with?

carefreewannabe:
If you believe that there is no such a thing as marital rape because the Bible tells you that your wife's body is yours, then that is your conviction, not mine.

It is both - my wife and I - our convictions - and hence not a state affair or anybody elses business. You see why it is tendentious butting into marital affairs. Where do people who are not married, or party to a marriage, get off butting in or legislating for the relationship of those who are !


TV

cococandy:

Yes that's not how rape is defined. But there are technicalities.
Would a man be considered a rapist if he makes love to his while both then are in a state of delirious wantoness?

Certainly no. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that in court.

I would agree - or at leat hope - that it would'nt get to court, but technically he has committed rape. She was in no position to give informed consent - and the same is not required from her.

cococandy:

Sensationalism at best and if not carefully taken for what it is, can prove to be distracting to the fact that there are real cases of r@pe in marriage.

As per my response to CFW, what constitutes rape in marriage has not been clearly outlined. Your example above is technically rape, yet you are saying no charges should b brought

Perhaps I have a bit of a blind spot here? As I see this as much on an attack on marriage. Marriage is still the safest - statistically proven - relationship form for women and any children they may have. Rape to be treated as a heinous crime - absolutely - but why the focus on marriage? And particularly with wooly definitions of what actually constitutes rape.

cococandy:

Oh yes TV
You're missing. Try it. she will call you daddy if she never did before

Wish wan? Stout? Hennessey, or Courvoisier? And how mush? I'm prudish and stingy. Plus I don' wanna wake the kids !


TV

coogar:

the complainant initially reported to the police that she believed ‘her drink had been spiked’. it was only after informing the police that the complainant had stayed in a room in the premier inn that had been booked for two footballers, that the police escalated the enquiry to a rape enquiry. this was only 14 minutes after taking the call and without interviewing either the complainant or the suspects.

That again is an issue; the decision to charge as rape was taken by the law authorities.
1. She cannot be held to have given informed consent, but her "belief" that her drink was spiked is given due consideration? Not too mention that there was no forensics backing up this claim? The law is too woolly, the claims too spurious, charges too arbitrary and convictions too inconsistent - why was the other guy let off?

coogar:

i think their honesty incriminated them. if they had denied sleeping with her, they wouldn't have been charged. there was no witness, no forensic trace on the victim nor the accused persons.

It was not their honesty, it was faulty - poorly formed - laws and shoddy due process. How can truth convict the innocent?

coogar:

the male sêxual response isn't different from that of the female but i doubt the law sees it that way. the law believes a woman can steal, commit murder, manslaughter, terrorist attack, etc but till this date, the law does not recognise a woman can räpe a man........so where is her sëxual responsibility?

no matter her age, she has to repeatedly say yes to the act before a man can proceed. her silence doesn't even constitute to consent. her lack of fight or not resisting doesn't mean she consented. i ask again - where did the law place her responsibility?

I see the humour, especially as I don't swim in those murky waters, but the thinking behind those laws will percolate and harm men in other areas.


TV

vivalableue:
It's aa complicated question that honestly varies depending on the situation at hand.

Surely we just have to define what rape is and then decide if it applies exactly the same in and out of wedlock?

vivalableue:

In the majority of cases, marriage implies a union of committed adults who agree to stay true to another and to become one. That oneness IMO doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse. It implies that by the joining together, they resolve to be in one accord.

If the oneness doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse - why can marriages be nullified in the event of non-consumation? In addition to a clear definition of what constitutes rape, you need a working proposition of what a marriage is.

I for one would be interested to hear what this "oneness" actually entails? Or how being in "one accord" in a conjugal relationship does not implicitly and explicitly demand coital relationships

vivalableue:

So, with that in mind, if one spouse at any moment of time disagrees to have sex, the other must be in accord with that decision. Forcing your spouse to have sex with out their consent not only is rape, but it's also breaking the marriage vows.

You have not defined rape, and your definition of marriage is not one that I am aware is pracrtised anywhere? So you have a plausible sounding conclusion without a premise. And no one is arguing against individual instances of "giving leave to one another", or endorsing violence.


TV

LordReed:
I believe that when discussing the issue of rape in marriage one must put in mind that marriage does not erase individual identity nor does it subjugate individual will. The call of marriage is to freely offer one to the other everything that one has including the body.

Rape in marriage now addresses situations where individual wills are at opposition. Rape is a violent resolution of the battle of wills whereby one imposes his/her will over another. If this happens in marriage it is still rape. Marriage gives no one the right to impose as marriage is about agreement and mutuality.

And if marriage is about agreement and mutuality as you've outlined, having entered the agreement - which is conjugal and implies co1tus - can one party now unilaterally decide to renege on the agreement? Individual identities have agreed to merge and seperate wills too mesh.

If a man freely refuses to make provision for his wife - when he is able to do so and she has need - he can be charged with spousal neglect. Much talk of free wills is at best odd, when they freely enter into the union.

Again, I'm not buying into this "marital rape" is endemic ish. And I'm not swayed by inchoate definitions of what constitutes rape or marriage.

TV

TV01:

That again is an issue; the decision to charge as rape was taken by the law authorities.

a brief decision was made when they heard the guys involved were football players. they knew the case would draw attention.

1. She cannot be held to have given informed consent, but her "belief" that her drink was spiked is given due consideration? Not too mention that there was no forensics backing up this claim? The law is too woolly, the claims too spurious, charges too arbitrary and convictions too inconsistent - why was the other guy let off?

no date drug was found in her system but prosecutors used the technicality of her high metabolism rate. traces of cannabis & cocaine were found in her system though.

It was not their honesty, it was faulty - poorly formed - laws and shoddy due process. How can truth convict the innocent?

there's a thin line between consensual sex & nonconsensual sëx. there was no evidence they even slept with her - but the lads confessed to sleeping with her. so the moment the complainant claimed her drink might have been spiked then the police would naturally be interested in the case.

I see the humour, especially as I don't swim in those murky waters, but the thinking behind those laws will percolate and harm men in other areas.

TV

hahaha!
the laws won't change anytime soon. haven't you seen the new definition of rapë put out by FBI?

coogar:

a brief decision was made when they heard the guys involved were football players. they knew the case would draw attention.

And leave one mans career in tatters and unfairly denied the chance to pursue his livelihood?

coogar:

no date drug was found in her system but prosecutors used the technicality of her high metabolism rate. traces of cannabis & cocaine were found in her system though.

She could equally have taken the drugs alone (before she even met the guys) or consensually with them. Someone who had partied and gotten high through the night, vomited inthe street and urinated in a shop doorway? And non of that means she was raped, just that it's damn murky out there!

coogar:

there's a thin line between consensual sex & nonconsensual sëx. there was no evidence they even slept with her - but the lads confessed to sleeping with her. so the moment the complainant claimed her drink might have been spiked then the police would naturally be interested in the case.

It's not thin mate, it's arbitrary - totally arbitrary. I shake my head at such guys,; you's be mad to even engage such.

coogar:

hahaha!
the laws won't change anytime soon. haven't you seen the new definition of rapë put out by FBI?

Please post, I need to see it, in for a laugh, in for a dozen ! I bet habitual breast-gazers are in trouble !

TV

TV01:

And if marriage is about agreement and mutuality as you've outlined, having entered the agreement - which is conjugal and implies co1tus - can one party now unilaterally decide to renege on the agreement? Individual identities have agreed to merge and seperate wills too mesh.

If a man freely refuses to make provision for his wife - when he is able to do so and she has need - he can be charged with spousal neglect. Much talk of free wills is at best odd, when they freely enter into the union.

Again, I'm not buying into this "marital rape" is endemic ish. And I'm not swayed by inchoate definitions of what constitutes rape or marriage.

TV

your point exactly

TV01:

And if marriage is about agreement and mutuality as you've outlined, having entered the agreement - which is conjugal and implies co1tus - can one party now unilaterally decide to renege on the agreement? Individual identities have agreed to merge and seperate wills too mesh.

Individual wills have agreed to work together they don't automatically disappear nor will they ever. No party is supposed to make such a unilateral decision, it is to be arrived by consensus which why it is not acceptable for the husband or wife to simply withhold sex.

If a man freely refuses to make provision for his wife - when he is able to do so and she has need - he can be charged with spousal neglect. Much talk of free wills is at best odd, when they freely enter into the union.

Same principle, it is neglect whether neglect of provision or the bed.

Again, I'm not buying into this "marital rape" is endemic ish. And I'm not swayed by inchoate definitions of what constitutes rape or marriage.

TV

It might be inchoate to you but it is the reality. When two individuals marry they don't become a one brained one willed two bodied monster, they remain individuals who are choosing to work towards the same goals. Their wills remain theirs even if they give up their self interests for the family.

TV01:

Surely we just have to define what rape is and then decide if it applies exactly the same in and out of wedlock?


If the oneness doesn't mean implicit consent to intercourse - why can marriages be nullified in the event of non-consumation? In addition to a clear definition of what constitutes rape, you need a working proposition of what a marriage is.

I for one would be interested to hear what this "oneness" actually entails? Or how being in "one accord" in a conjugal relationship does not implicitly and explicitly demand coital relationships


You have not defined rape, and your definition of marriage is not one that I am aware is pracrtised anywhere? So you have a plausible sounding conclusion without a premise. And no one is arguing against individual instances of "giving leave to one another", or endorsing violence.


TV

When I said implicit consent, I literally mean an open invitation at all times without giving way the need to ask. However, when I look at it, when I agree to be a wife, for example, I'm agreeing that my husband will be the only one who I agree to have sex with me. Not that he can have access to my body regardless if I consent or not, just that he'll be the only one I will give consent to.

Oneness means that decisions and actions of each spouse be considered as though the both are doing it. So if one spouse decides to purchase a house, his wife implicitly agrees to do so. However, in the course of a marriage it is reasonable to assume and perhaps even expected to assume that both parties agree to each other activities before the activity is committed. Which is why in my neck of the woods, a couple can legally separate if they allege that one partner is acting on a consistent basis without consulting the other.

About the divorce for non consummation, I have to consult the law books of my province and get back to you.

Rape is sex without the implicit consent of both parties, even the withdrawal of consent of one party during the act. In my part of the world, the word party is used, because gay sex is legal, therefore it's possible for one man to rape another, a women to rape another, a man to rape transgender etc

Preferably Hennessy

Don't be a prude

Oh I forgot the kids. Damn!

TV01:

I would agree - or at leat hope - that it would'nt get to court, but technically he has committed rape. She was in no position to give informed consent - and the same is not required from her.


As per my response to CFW, what constitutes rape in marriage has not been clearly outlined. Your example above is technically rape, yet you are saying no charges should b brought

Perhaps I have a bit of a blind spot here? As I see this as much on an attack on marriage. Marriage is still the safest - statistically proven - relationship form for women and any children they may have. Rape to be treated as a heinous crime - absolutely - but why the focus on marriage? And particularly with wooly definitions of what actually constitutes rape.



Wish wan? Stout? Hennessey, or Courvoisier? And how mush? I'm prudish and stingy. Plus I don' wanna wake the kids !


TV

TV01:

And leave one mans career in tatters and unfairly denied the chance to pursue his livelihood?

oldham has decided not to sign him about 2 hrs ago. feminists won't stop attacking the football club & making death threats to their board for trying to sign a player that has already served his punishment.

She could equally have taken the drugs alone (before she even met the guys) or consensually with them. Someone who had partied and gotten high through the night, vomited inthe street and urinated in a shop doorway? And non of that means she was raped, just that it's damn murky out there!

i dont believe she was drunk.
whether she consented or not is another matter entirely.

It's not thin mate, it's arbitrary - totally arbitrary. I shake my head at such guys,; you's be mad to even engage such.

some of these football players are fools
it's like they dunno they are the preys. women deliberately seek them out. if she feels used after the sex, then she will claim she was rapëd.

Please post, I need to see it, in for a laugh, in for a dozen ! I bet habitual breast-gazers are in trouble !

TV

in 2013, they added the penetratiön technicality to the definition. any penetratiön no matter how slight can constitute räpe.

vivalableue:

When I said implicit consent, I literally mean an open invitation at all times without giving way the need to ask. However, when I look at it, when I agree to be a wife, for example, I'm agreeing that my husband will be the only one who I agree to have sex with me. Not that he can have access to my body regardless if I consent or not, just that he'll be the only one I will give consent to.

In marriage, consent is one side of the coin; the other is that a spouse has a right to conjugal relations and you have understood and accepted that right by marrying them. Of course one expects ones spouse to be receptive/consent to intimacy, but there is also a right to it.

vivalableue:

Oneness means that decisions and actions of each spouse be considered as though the both are doing it. So if one spouse decides to purchase a house, his wife implicitly agrees to do so. However, in the course of a marriage it is reasonable to assume and perhaps even expected to assume that both parties agree to each other activities before the activity is committed. Which is why in my neck of the woods, a couple can legally separate if they allege that one partner is acting on a consistent basis without consulting the other.

I found it hard to pin down what is being outlined here. "Openess" sounds somewhat abstract. Practically I understand that spouses need to discuss and agree and often compromise. I also see why "legally", one spouse acting unilaterally would be grunds for a separation.

vivalableue:

About the divorce for non consummation, I have to consult the law books of my province and get back to you.

Most religious and cultural forms of marriage were sealed and validated by consumation.

vivalableue:

Rape is sex without the implicit consent of both parties, even the withdrawal of consent of one party during the act. In my part of the world, the word party is used, because gay sex is legal, therefore it's possible for one man to rape another, a women to rape another, a man to rape transgender etc

And part of the issue is the fluidity of consent and the different way sex happens for men and women

As far as I know women cannot be charged with raping men unless they do so as an accomplice of another man. It's penetrative as defined

And this without alluding to holy matrimony as I know and practice it. Here a spouses body literally belongs to the other. Conjugal relations are implied and a right.

As you yourself noted, consent can be retracted during the act, the law saws if consent is not informed and explicit, it's not consent. This leaves the door open to criminale men in their homes - even against the wishes of their wives. And I am in no way championing violence or the use of force

I also see it as a slur on marriage, which is actually safest for women. People are free to pursue the rape epidemic, I continue to defend marriage.


TV

TeeFee01:
I also see it as a slur on marriage, which is actually safest for women. People are free to pursue the rape epidemic, I continue to defend marriage.

it must be asked though....
why do you defend marriage when it's clear as daylight that men are being short-changed in the institution? in the western world, is there any merit for men to get married?

LordReed:


Individual wills have agreed to work together they don't automatically disappear nor will they ever. No party is supposed to make such a unilateral decision, it is to be arrived by consensus which why it is not acceptable for the husband or wife to simply withhold sex.



Same principle, it is neglect whether neglect of provision or the bed.



It might be inchoate to you but it is the reality. When two individuals marry they don't become a one brained one willed two bodied monster, they remain individuals who are choosing to work towards the same goals. Their wills remain theirs even if they give up their self interests for the family.

More of the same. No one said thay became one body. Otherwise where is the sex !

If a man demands sex with his wife and she doesn't want it, but he insists as it's an express part of marriage, so she agrees against her feelings has he raped her? Should he be charged? Noting that legally, there was not informed consent (or it was coerced), the basis for rape.

TV

coogar:


it must be asked though....
why do you defend marriage when it's clear as daylight that men are being short-changed in the institution? in the western world, is there any merit for men to get married?

Societal flourishing demands it.
Civilisation as we know it cannot persist without it.

I am fully aware of it's low value proposition for men in the West - especially from a legal standpoint - but all told, society works best with men and women harnessing the complimentary natures to raise healthy families.

You can literally opt out of the current value-proposition and create your own. You just need to find a woman that shares your worldview or at least gets it and buys into it. Long-term it's nest for her too.

More widely, a society requires a bithrate of around 2.2 to regenerate itself. Almost all Western societies are unable to meet this as they retreated from first religion and then marriage. Hence the need for massive immigration. With no way of importing like for like - as they are all suffering the same problem - they have to allow in cultures and religions that clash. Long-term unworkable. Or do you think yesterdays attacks were not clearly forseeable?

Even Nigeria with all it's problems would make much headway if we had good solid nuclear families. How many of the current generation can hold decent unions together?


Faith & family

TV