TV01:

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

TV01:

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:


•marital rape
•no fault divorce
•child custody battles
•ridiculous divorce payouts
•prenup, etc

all these things have crashed the value of marriage institution & men are mostly the victims. i can't even see it getting any better as there seems to be a force out there determined to swallow marriage values completely.

**after clearing all the hurdles to getting married and then taking on the huge burden that comes with it, why do men need a busy-body state, or interfering - typically unmarried - types, adjudicating on the intimacy between them and their wives; and with nebulous crap about consent !**

LordReed:


Next time slow down and read before you comment, no where did I mention one body.

Marriage does not make one a soulless dummy that can be used against one's will. Your obligations still require your active and willful participation.

TV01:


...will an answer to the question be forthcoming? Or are you waiting for consent !


TV

TV01:
...I was responding to posts yesterday when some sort of glitch happened. Anyway...


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.

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

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

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?

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

carefreewannabe:

There is a consensus? Among which group of people?

Again whose current thinking exactly?

carefreewannabe:

You tell me what constitutes rape. Share your views. I will share mine.

carefreewannabe:

First of all, do you think a man can be raped? And if yes, why? If not, why not?

carefreewannabe:

Secondly, I have already said it on this forum, and I need to repeat it in this context, no logical supporter and promoter of equality will deny that there are biological differences between the se*xes.

carefreewannabe:

If he forces and brutalizes her to have s*ex with her against her will then it is not only GBH but rape too.

carefreewannabe:

If she decides to drink out of her free will and then sleeps with him without being forced to, then it is not ra*pe.

carefreewannabe:

If he coerces her to sleep with her, then it is rape, do you disagree?

carefreewannabe:

If a woman uses s*ex to obtain something and the man decides to give her something in exchange for se*x, then it is a deal between two consenting adults.

carefreewannabe:

If a woman withholds s*ex for some reason, then nothing can be done apart to her. The man can leave or cheat.

carefreewannabe:

So you can kill your wife or your wife can kill you and it is your business because you are married? Interesting.

carefreewannabe:

Nobody is butting into marital affairs unless one of the spouses, most likely the wife, accuses her husband of rape.

carefreewannabe:

Any human being should have the right to be protected if needs be even if it is against their spouse.
I thought, this goes without saying.

TV01:

Long-term men, women and children will suffer the fallout. Yes, individual men may play smart, forsake marriage and just live life. Afterall sex, which was a major dividend for men in marriage, has effectively been divorced from it. A man who appreciates the male-female dynamic and moreso is at least solvent, will have a field day. The only snag would be if he wants children and the best long-term outcome for them.

But that's from a selfish individual perspective. Long term society will come close to collapse. Men built it, men have to take responsibility for turning the tide and retrieving the situation. Setting high standards for ourselves as men, husbands and fathers and demanding high value from women is the way to go.

TV

^{**after clearing all the hurdles to getting married and then taking on the huge burden that comes with it, why do men need a busy-body state, or interfering - typically unmarried - types, adjudicating on the intimacy between them and their wives; and with nebulous crap about consent !**}

coogar:

there's hardly any man that doesn't appreciate the male-female dynamism. that is why he proposed to the woman in the first place but men continue to bear the biggest chunk of the brunt in the west. if he's not losing 50% of his wealth, he would lose the house, cars & even the pet dogs. if she's the mean type, she can even put a restraining order against him to see his kids or the house.

coogar:

when you try to take responsibility & demand high value, you would be promptly labelled a brute, bully, domestic abuser. it's a lose-lose situation.

coogar:

it's a mad mad world.

TV01:

Yes, I disagree.
If a wife coerces or intimidates her husband to sleep with her, has she raped him?

TV01:

I actually meant in terms of being a playa and triggering attration responses in women. It's so ridiculously easy if you know how. Such men can enjoy a wonderful variety of sexual partners, without getting married, and at relatively low risk compared to marriage.

Here I meant in regulating the kind of women you allow into your orbit. If high quality/status men refused to engage the wrong sort of women, they'd have to shape up. All women typically desire the top 20 -30 % of men.

Ultimately we stand or fall together. This cannot continue or society will not remain as we have known it.

TV

crackhaus:

In theory, Yes!

But do women see it that way? Hell no!

TV01:

...'sup Cracky?

Nor mind dem.

If a man coerces his wife - he's a rapist
If a wife coerces her husband - shes' sharp girl

Equality, freedon and responsibility as defined !

TV

coogar:


•marital rape
•no fault divorce
•child custody battles
•ridiculous divorce payouts
•prenup, etc

all these things have crashed the value of marriage institution & men are mostly the victims. i can't even see it getting any better as there seems to be a force out there determined to swallow marriage values completely.

TV01:

These responses suggest you are not conversant with the laws or prevailing thought in the West. You really should read up.

Ladies first ! You are trumpeting marital rape, tell us what it is as distinct - unless it's exactly the same - from other forms. And if it's the same, my position remains unchanged based on what has been posted here. And further, I'd refer you to my response immediatley above.

Legally he cannot be raped by his wife, as it's deemed a penetrative act.

There is no statute that covers it in the UK. He will only be deemed to have been raped if his wife assusts another man to forcefully penetrate him

And this is not recognised by the laws covering rape

And the word rape is loaded and heavily politicised

You haven't shown good reason for that within marriage

Legally it is

Yes, I disagree.
If a wife coerces or intimadates her husband to sleep with her, has she raped him?

A wife has already consented to sex with her husband.

Marriage is conjugal and sex is obligatory. What you talk of is something I am not familiar with !

And that is why I say that the term rape is loaded and politicised. It needs to be expanded to capture sexual crimes of the wife against the husband. By deeming it solely penetrative and only a matter of consent or deemed to be coercive when its the woman, the laws here are simply bad.

So you don't understand what marriage is and you are not for equality !
Straw-woman (I am for equality ) - sex is implicit in marriage, murder isn't

Only the wife can accuse her husband of rape.
And what is considered rape is contrary to some historically practiced, widely prevailing and accepted forms of marriage

That doesn't mean a husband should be arbitrarily criminalised for the act of having intercourse with his lawfully wedded spouse does it?


TV

carefreewannabe:


I love it when people say THE WEST. Which countries are THE WEST? How many? Are you familiar with all the laws and the prevailing thinking of the people in these countries? Interesting, enlighten me please.




rape

rape somebody
to force somebody to have sex with you when they do not want to by threatening them or using violence

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/rape_1

Rape is also when you give somebody a drug without them consenting to taking the substance to make them lose control over their mind and / or body and you then have s*ex with them.

Rape is also when somebody loses consciousness, for any reason, and you have s*ex with the person.




Says who?



She can also penetrate him with an object. This is a pervert scenario but thinkable.




Are you 100% sure?



How is the word rape politicized?




Whatever the reason for that is, it does not change the fact that rape takes place whenever a person is forced to sleep with someone against their will, wife or not.




Not in Germany, is it also THE WEST?
Not in Spain, is it also THE WEST?
Not in Poland, is it also THE WEST?

And which law in the UK states EXPLICITLY that having s*Ex with a drunk person is ra*pe?




If she can make him sleep with her against his will, then it is. The question is, can she?




So she has no right to say no? And if she says no, it only counts if he agrees but if he doesn't, then she MUST sleep with him?
Very interesting.



I see.





This is why I asked YOU if a woman can rape a man. Can she?




Se*x is implicit? Does it make sense to you? Explain what it means.



Again, can a woman rape a man?




So if a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, then he has the right to force her to sleep with him?

BlackBaron:
Don't know where this fits...but

A lady came to stay the night with a friend,he'd only known her about a week. At about bed time, she had a shower, changed into a towel, oiled up all her body and crashed between 2 guys on a sort of large camp bed sprawled out in the sitting room whenever we watch movies. She had no underwear on (bra or panties were left in the bathroom) At first my friend tried to coax her if she wanted to bang which she declined several times even though almost completely naked except she tightly wrapped herself up in a towel. I also think she had a bit of drink that night whilst we were watching films. As she said no, we all left her and slept off anyway.

In the morning, she was up and when we'd left for work, she quietly grabbed stuff she could lay her hands on; laptops,tablets,etc and absconded whilst someone was using the bathroom.
Now every time I think about it I wondered what her motive was. If she had secs that night, would she have alleged rape in the morning or chosen to blackmail us? If say it got to court, where we stand against something like this especially seeing she chose to lie with guys she wasn't that familiar with. What would the court say about this?

TV01:
Carefreewannabe, you have not answered any of the questions I posed and neither have you demonstrated that you understand the prevailing thinking on this issue;

1. The legal definition of rape incorporates a penetrative aspect.

A woman cannot be solely charged with raping a man in the UK. As to use of an object, that will be charged as "sexual assault" at best, or possibly using common assault/GBH laws.

2. Marital rape itself is a misnomer, as only a husband can rape his wife, not vice-versa.

Ergo, it's a fake, seemingly neutral categorisation that can only be used against men. No woman who coerces her husband into sex or uses sex to coerce her husband to do something will ever be charged with rape - anywhere - you yourself said that much. That is not equal or responsible. Marital rape curtails a husbands freedom relative to his wife'.

3. We don't even have to touch on force, or drugging, as I'm not arguing those to start. Although, I am yet to hear a good reason why a husband that does use force should not be charged with GBH or using assault laws.

4. In any event, the contention around rape the West - US, UK and the others are moving that way if not already there - typically pivots on informed consent/coercion and it is not brought against women. Hence my using the illustration of the Ched Evans case.

5. And if a wife refuses her husband sex for no good reason - no he shouldn't force her - but it should be a chargeable offence. He has a right to sex with her and she does not have the right to deny him for purely capricious reasons. It's implicit and underpins the the conjugal union.

TV

TV01:

Murky waters. I don't advise any man swim in them. I will say this much;

1. She's a thief and should be charged accordingly .

2. I can't speak conclusively on your conjecture about her motives, but if she had claimed rape - in the West - you would have undergone a very bad experience - even if you got off. And nothing would have happened to her - even if you could prove her allegations were baseless.

3. You made yourselves vulnerable for no reason - I hope you learned a valuable lesson.


TV

carefreewannabe:

What do YOU think about it? Does ra*pe only take place when there is the penetrative aspect involved?

carefreewannabe:
Have you got a problem with it? Why / Why not?

carefreewannabe:
Is it so, what does TV think?

carefreewannabe:
How can a woman coerce a man into s*ex including penetration? Please, I really want to know.

carefreewannabe:
You are talking about equality when biological differences MUST be taken into account. NOBODY is denying these biological differences.

carefreewannabe:
Because some people chose, as you say, to talk of ra*pe if a penetrative act has taken place. Anything that does not include such an act is considered a se*xual assault, I guess. Now the question is, what YOU think of it?

carefreewannabe:
If we agree that ra*pe includes the penetrative act, then it makes sense, do you?
A man can still sue a woman on grounds of se*xual assault of some kind.

carefreewannabe:
It makes sense BUT do you really want the law to put pressure on spouses to sleep with their husbands / wives? Does any sane man want to sleep with a wife who does so because she has to?
You don't mind the law butting butting in in marital affairs in this case?

carefreewannabe:
And then, what if the husband denies the wife s*Ex? Should he be charged? What if he simply cannot get it up because she has become fat and ugly (which happens quite often )?

carefreewannabe:
Should people pay money and go to jail because of it? How would it help your cause to minimize the number of divorced marriages?

TV01:

That is the legal definition. Rape is essentially a crime only men can really commit (I've noted the exception previously)

My thoughts with particular regard to the marital situation is they should just butt out. If there is non-violent coercion stay-out. That's purely a domestic issue.

If there is real violence or physical assault involved, it could be treated as assault/GBH. I stand to be corrected here, but I haven't heard anything plausible to the contrary.

If there is insistence on getting involved in marital sexual affairs, it should be expanded to ensure unwarranted sexual neglect or refusal is incorporated and not weighted or worded so that only husbands are culpable or criminalised. And I'd also like to see the term "rape" removed. Probably re-named as "marital sexual....".

As above


As above

Women can coerce, intimidate or even force men onto sex.

But as it is always the man who penetrates, she can never be charged with rape.

Men can also have sex without informed consent - and that is the base point for determining rape - that or coercion - not force. In fact, mens biology makes them even more prone to having sex against what their will, or what they know to be in their best interest !

Do the biological differences preclude women coercing, intimidating or forcing men into sex? I think not, hence any law should be equalised.

As above, and in my initial response


My preference is that the law keep out altogether - and certainly not weigh in just to criminalise men.
And in a marital union, spouses have to sleep with each other - ATBE. It's conjugal, co1tus is embedded in the union. Without the conjugal aspect, it's not actually a marriage.

He shouldn't deny her as I've stated above.
If her visage causes an equipment malfunction, she should go to the gym, not the courthouse !

Not sure what people "pay money and go to jail for"

In all I see this more about characterising husbands as violent and brutal, when I know and can personally testify of the burden carried and sacrifice made by husbands for their wives and children everyday.

It's also a slur on marriage, belittling what is still the safest form of relationship for women.

TV

TV01:

Women can coerce, intimidate or even force men onto sex. But as it is always the man who penetrates, she can never be charged with rape. Men can also have sex without informed consent - and that is the base point for determining rape - that or coercion - not force. In fact, mens biology makes them even more prone to having sex against what their will, or what they know to be in their best interest !

crackhaus:

When you keep using the words coerce and intimidate, the ladies won't understand but would rather believe it impossible for a woman to do that to a man.

Sir TV, simplify it using that theory of informed consent, thus:

First Instance:
A man wants to have sex with his wife, she disagrees and insists on not being in the mood/being tired - the man still goes ahead and makes love to her.
According to the that law and also supported by women on NL, that woman did not give her consent and as such, has been raped by her husband.

Second Instance:
A woman gets hot for it, she tries to get her husband to give it but he says no (disagrees) citing fatigue or not being in the mood - the woman continues nonetheless and gets on top of him...and given that the male organ has a mind of it's own, it still gets pumped up and erect despite the fact that the owner doesn't really want it.

The issue now being, is there is a female on NL who will agree/admit that this wife has raped her husband, going by the theory of consent (informed or otherwise)...

Simplified enough I guess!

...interefing misandrist busybodies...usually 'cos they can't get quality men of their own - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11244275/New-domestic-violence-law-will-outlaw-coercive-control.html !