Two different stories about consent and "rape", a paradox

And I suppose you add "being racist" to that list.


I think you've ran out of logical arguments and are just being obviously disingenuous now.

 

You don't accept rape as an act of violence???

 

Didn't I already explain the concept of a definitional equivocation fallacy and circular logic?


No, I don't support the concept of sex in marriage being defined as "violence" when no other violence was used.

 

We're in agreement, entirely.

Those who would like to see this kind of rape continue, have a mission to force your acceptance of self-identification.

 

Even our Republican president refused to oppose white supremacy. And, the same is clear throughout the conservative party.

Obviously, as in all politics there are exceptions.

It's YOU who is doing than when you label those you hate as "woke".

You talk about America when you use "woke" and make other political statements.

It's a total evasion when you choose to say that some comment doesn't apply to the entire world. There really aren't ANY statements about these issues that apply to the world.

 

I'm very serious.

 

In the same days women weren't allowed to vote, you mean?

 

Moreover, is denying a woman the option to kill another person denying her the right to "make her own healthcare decisions" or is it a balancing of that right against another person's right not to be murdered?

I lean heavily towards pro-choice because I realize most abortions are done early in the pregnancy well before I would consider the unborn a person (or a being that can suffer and that draws my compassion if you don't want to use "person" since that's actually a legal term).

A lot of pro-life folks form their views from religion and in ways I find nonsensical, and some may even fit the charicature of them being pro-life because they want to repress and control women, but that isn't all of them.

We need to learn to stop thinking in binary charicature. We aren't all pro-death or anti-choice.

 

Referring back to the 'old days' you speak of, that was also a time when people stayed married even if there was no sex. They didn't cut and run if the spouse fell ill, or had some other reason to be sexually unavailable for a long period of time .. which is what they do these days.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

https://www.verywellhealth.com/obamacare-penalty-for-being-uninsured-4132434

 

The issue is nonconsensual sex.

You're just avoiding the issue.

 

No. I use it as a descriptive term to mean exactly what I described. If you have a term you prefer for that racist and authoritarian mindset growing on the left I will happily use it.

But I won't pretend it doesn't exist. It very much does, has infected the left, and has become a real problem for society at large. And it definitely is a problem for actual liberal people who don't want to be mistaken for it, just as most conservatives don't want to be mistaken for white supremacists.

 

I don't believe you have identified any group of significance, especially as your attributes don't fit anyone.

Woops - at least in America. Maybe somewhere.

 

You're just using circular logic and playing with definition of terms. The issue is how exactly we define "consensual".

In both stories, the women did give at least some level of consent, even though you do not feel it was adequate.

 

I was referring to your comments on sex within marriage. It sounded like you deny that there could be rape within marriage.

As to the other, I've pointed out repeatedly that the woman was deceived even in terms of who she was having sex with. There wasn't any consent for that.

 

I don't totally deny there could be rape within marriage. Just that there are situations where what might be rape outside of a marriage might not be rape if that same situation took place inside a marriage.

The concept of "rape" is not always a totally black & white one.

And even if it is a "rape", it is still not the same sort of rape, and nothing like the same sort of rape that happens between two people who did not consent to marry each other and have not already had sex.

 

To be fair, that definition of rape doesn't actually include sex by deception if that specific deception is not illegal.

It also would not include sex between a married couple if that sex happened not to be illegal.

In the state of South Carolina, it would clearly not be, because the husband did not also commit "aggravated violence".

 

Marriage isn't a license to have nonconsensual sex.

 

I go with what the law says.

 

Consent. Consent is required. Or it can be ruled sexual assault or rape.

 

By now, you should realize that is just a baseless repetition of a claim, not an actual argument.

 

She consented to enter into a sexual union with the man when they got married, it was implied.
She might not be consenting to each and every individual act of sexual intercourse, but the bigger issue is that she consented to allow that man to have sex with her at all, even in the past. If he has sex with her again, I really do not see the big deal. So long as he has remained committed and faithful to her (that is he did not cheat), how is it so different if he has sex with her again this week if he just had sex with her last week?
That just doesn't meet all the criteria for why regular rape is bad.

 

There are various commitments implied in marriage that are not stated. For example, pretty much everyone agrees that marriage is a commitment not to cheat on your spouse with other people, but that is almost never explicitly said in the vows.

 

It's how the law operates.
So, hardly baseless.

 

What exactly is your argument? That it should be illegal because it is illegal? Sounds very circular logic to me.

How about if I argue we should take things back to the way they were in the 1940s?