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

Yes - you don't believe rape in marriage is even possible.

 

That's the only kind of sexual consent that there is.

If you think it is okay to force yourself on someone despite the fact that she hasn't consented to this individual act, regardless of your previous relationship, then seek immediate psychiatric care.

Consenting in the past does not mean consenting to every act in the future. If you find this concept difficult to comprehend, seek immediate psychiatric care.

If she consented, it isn't a big deal. If she didn't consent, it's rape. And, yes, rape is big deal. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone who isn't a psychopath. If you don't see the "big deal" in forcing yourself on a woman against her will, regardless of your previous encounters and arrangements, then seek immediate psychiatric care.

If she consented last week and not this week, then consent is the difference. Again, anyone perplexed by this concept should seek immediate psychiatric care.

Forcing someone to have sex with you against their will is bad. Period. If you think this is controversial thought, please seek immediate psychiatric care.

 

She may not WANT to.

 

Marriage is not a sex licence, in the 21stC. It might be in some cultures, but in ours that hasn't been true for 60 years.

 

Ah, I finally spotted the disconnect. You see: human women are humans. Get it, now? You sure as **** didn't understand that before.

 

You don't understand the difference between sex inside marriage and sex outside marriage.

To you, the concept of marriage is almost meaningless.

A man having sex with a woman whom she's never given permission to have sex with her is very different from a man having sex with her who she has given consent to in the past. All the more so because she didn't just consent to sex with him once, she consented to enter into a marriage with him! This isn't some TOTALLY inappropriate situation.

My argument here isn't that it's "not wrong at all". It's that it's not anywhere near being as wrong as rape (the type of situation that word normally refers to).

 

That's just a straw man. If you listened to me, that's not my argument.

You also just made another obvious straw man.
You know very well I never made the argument that she has no right to say no because she's not human.

 

That's still very different from someone who rapes her, isn't it? Someone who's not married to her, and someone she has never agreed to have sex with before.

Not wanting to sleep with your husband is very different from not wanting to sleep with a man you just met on a blind date.

"I'm tired, I've been taking care of the children all day, I don't want to make love to you tonight, sweetie."

 

Did I ever, so far in this long thread, claim it was good?

Making straw man arguments will not help you.

 

Sorry, it's not so simple as that. She gave consent in the past.

She consented to enter into an intimate sexual and emotional and financial union.

She consented to sex with that same man multiple times before.

To claim one more time is so horrible without her consent is absurd.

Maybe if she fights and screams and tries to kick her husband off her, that would be a little bit more like rape.

 

I would call it something else.

 

Then we have a slight disagreement in perspectives.

Consent can be given in other forms. Even if it is only prior consent.

Even if the woman explicitly says "no", it is STILL possible for partial consent to exist in some situations, which makes it not as bad, and could even make it less bad than rape in certain situations.

Maybe you can use your imagination to think about situations where this might be the case, but if you can't I'm willing to help you.

It can be partial consent, and mitigate his not respecting her future consent.

Anyway, some women can be very emotionally volatile, can scream at you one moment and then a day later forget that there was ever even any fight.

I guess one big question is will the wife feel like she "was raped" when she wakes up the next morning?

 

She consented to marriage. She consented to have sex numerous times with that same man in the recent past.

Do you think that doesn't mean anything in this situation?

 

Not for those us who care about consent and who are against rape. You are literally excusing rape. That isn't ****ing okay. No means no. Period. Stop praising violent crime.

 

Maybe because I think laws matter and that rape isn't okay?

 

You're just using circular logic and semantics.
"It's rape because it's rape"

 

Again, appeal to currently existing law.

How about we go back to the law in the 1940s?
Guess it wasn't rape then but it's rape now?

 

I have. Unlike you, I still think rape is both ethically and legally wrong.

 

No period. It's not as simple as you are trying to frame it.

Nothing in my argument supports "violence".
(unless that is just part of your semantics too)

 

I don't subscribe to your rape apologist belief that consent doesn't matter.

 

But that's just semantics, because you are using a different and separate definition of "rape", and conflating two situations together that have some very big differences.

 

Your argument ABSOLUTELY supports violence.

 

You're not being logical.

Look up what an equivocation fallacy is, and what a semantic argument is.

 

I disagree with the insane proposition that consent doesn't matter

 

Care to explain?