Shollypopz:
Yes! except it's completely lucid.
Proof: Fake smile usually involves only the mouth, not the eyes. The appearance of a genuine smile, involves specific changes in the eyes in addition to the mouth (notably a crinkling of "crow's feet" and a downturn of the outer points of the eyes). It is called a Duchenne smile, after the neurologist Guillaume Duchenne. Back in 1862 he identified the facial muscles involved in smiling. (Don't hv time to go into details; you can read about it)
2.) Do recent occurrence display cogent reason to be happy?

Shollypopz:
Yes! except it's completely lucid.
Proof: Fake smile usually involves only the mouth, not the eyes. The appearance of a genuine smile, involves specific changes in the eyes in addition to the mouth (notably a crinkling of "crow's feet" and a downturn of the outer points of the eyes). It is called a Duchenne smile, after the neurologist Guillaume Duchenne. Back in 1862 he identified the facial muscles involved in smiling. (Don't hv time to go into details; you can read about it)
2.) Do recent occurrence display cogent reason to be happy?

Shollypopz: ^^agh! how many do i have to answer to prove my point? If we all argue on feelings, then everybody would be right!
I don't remember ever being betrayed(not by my power); i believe in not expecting much from people so you don't get disappointed!

sexkillz: If you have not been betrayed, and i look at you and tell you i have been betrayed, can you prove if I'm lying or not, since you have never felt betrayal?

Do you know that the recent occurrence making you sad, is making someone else happy?

Can you dispute that the facts and statistics you are using to back your argument were recorded from someone's feelings?

If i drill ten holes on a stool, sit on it and then release a fart, can you prove which of the ten holes it escaped from?

Shollypopz:
I hope i don't have to tell you it's not 100% effective.

Btw, the polygraph is an effective method of detecting a liar though not available to everyone.

Yes, i can but i'm too lazy.

It probably escaped from the ten holes.

so i can be wrong! But i'm sure it can be proven!

These phrases made by you dear, further proves that not everything can be proven.
If you are sure of your stuff, you don't use phrases like that. It's a known fact that water can exist in solid, liquid and gaseous states and in proving those states of existence of water, phrases like those you made above were none existent. . .

It's either you prove it or not. . . There are no "buts" or "maybes" or "probably"

oh, and in proving which hole my fart escaped from, it did not escape from any of the 10 holes. . . It escaped from my arse.hole!

Now if 10 different people release farts of different smells, can you prove which arsehole is culpable for individual smells, as in can you pinpoint? Can you prove it?

Less i forget to ask, can the polygraph be beaten, or not?

oh, and in proving which hole my fart escaped from, it did not escape from any of the 10 holes. . . It escaped from my arse.hole!

Shollypopz:
What a cheap way to win a discourse, take my words out of context! It's ok!
Well, whether everything can be proven or not, emotion/feeling is not an acceptable contention in proving your point.

lmao....u are so lame! cheat!
Yep, you can be trained to beat the polygraph test.

Ileke-IdI:


Only in a jungle like Nigeria would anyone assume that just because the "court" (which court?) sees no wrong in a case, means that there's nothing wrong. It's all about how the case is presented. There's a reason why they call lawyers liars.

In a jungle like Nigeria, it's okay for a man to forcefully perform sex on a woman without given consent, just because she's his wife. How does a wedding ring turn "No" to "Yes"? Why should it?

We're in the 21st century, all you simply need to do is Google "man raping wife" and you'll see a ton load of those cases you'll see that there "has been".

In the United Kingdom, such a category of rape was only recognized by a 1991 House of Lords decision known simply as R v R (1991 All ER 481). While most parties agreed with the House of Lords' motive in making the decision, there were many (for instance the writer Patricia Hirst in her Textbook on A-Level law)[citation needed] who were of the opinion that the decision involved post facto criminalization, since the House of Lords were imprisoning spouses for doing what was once, according to the law, their right.

The second problem arises on what can be called a procedural level. While the law in theory may hold no distinction between a spouse or any other person, in practice when the case comes to court there will be difficulties in proving that rape in fact took place. This is because in marriage, sexual relations are to be expected, and if the defense claims consent, then the evidential burden is a very difficult burden for the prosecution to discharge.

bittyend: And since sex is legally, religiously, and spiritually(lol) allowed in marriage; and ra.pe means the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence. This topic is inconclusive!

If you don't like sex, go for a sexless marriage, or get a divorce.

Shollypopz:
What a cheap way to attempt to win a discourse, take my words out of context! It's ok!
Well, whether everything can be proven or not, emotion/feeling is not an acceptable contention in proving your point.

lmao....u are so lame! cheat!
Yep, you can be trained to beat the polygraph test.

bittyend: And since sex is legally, religiously, and spiritually(lol) allowed in marriage; and ra.pe means the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence. This topic is inconclusive!

If you don't like sex, go for a sexless marriage, or get a divorce.

Nayah:
Religious can't always be an excuse when people want to, it caould happen you don't want to have intimate relations because you're not in the mood it can last maybe 3or 4 days so you can't wait for that long? come on...

ijebabe:
Just because a woman is not in the mood it now means she doesn't like s[i]e[/i]x??
Eg: She says no and the husband tries coaxing her and she still refuses, then he becomes upset and agressive which in turn makes her angry. A heated exchange of words ensues with the huusband threatening her that he will get his way tonight whether she likes it or not and then does it. Pinning her down and muffling her protests and screams. Is that not rape??
I am aware sex is a given in a marriage but that does not mean a woman does not have the right to say NO.

icon2:

I like the way you present your case...

bittyend:

Hey, PS the topic isn't about me, it's a discourse and I'm posting what I think about the topic.

Sex in a marriage is the moral right of both partners involved, and they both vowed to be together for better and for worse. I'm not a religious guy, but if you agreed both legally and religiously to uphold your rights (sex is one of them) in the marriage, how can you prove that the guy had sex with you without your consent?

bittyend:

How can you prove she wasn't in the mood in a court of law?

Argue against that, and stop posting innuendos.

Nayah:
Dear I didn't say this topic was about you, I'm trying to make you understand why I disagree with you, having sex without a consent it's simple to proove even though the wife rarely complain about that to the police station, when she says NO it means NO and it's available for guys people shouldn't be forced to do what they don't want to do.

ijebabe:
It may not be recognised in the court but a man who cannot make the difference between consentual sex and rape is deluded.

The law is made up of humans and is a work in progress but that is no excuse to throw morals and common sense out the window.

If we left everything up to the law with no personal values and principles then you're lost.

bittyend:

Can it be proven in a court of law?



Moral is subjective, but you can't deny a man his right.

bittyend: You're contradicting yourself again. If we can't leave everything to the court of law, then why should marital ra.pe be a crime?

Personal values and principles are both relative albeit subjective as well, but you should have put that into consideration before giving the same guy the right to have sex with out whenever he feels like it.

That's more reason why marriage needs to be re-defined. I'm not a big fan of marriage, and the rights it gives to both parties involved. That's why I don't think I'll ever get married.

Nayah: Bittyend all I'm trying to say is that this could and should be punishable when someone became "violent" because of intimate relations...even thoug this is your husband or wife. Being marriyng means share, a natural share and not a compulsory or forced one, hope I clarify you

bittyend:

Yeah, I already made reference to the 'violent' with PROOFS part.

Marriage doesn't mean natural share, it's a compulsory or forced share, hence why people get prenuptial agreement before marriage.

Marriage itself has to be re-defined.

Nayah:
Not all dear, "forced or compulsory" otherwise you don't marry, sorry with all due respect I think you're wrong about it.