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

That's a straw man. That's never what I said.

 

You literally just argued that consent doesn't matter. ****ing literally.

 

Care to read the ****ing thread?

 

That's exactly what you said. You literally argued that a wife surrenders her consent upon marriage.

 

Maybe I should rephrase. In some situations it doesn't matter as much.

You are not really referring to "consent" in this statement, but present consent.

 

She surrenders some level of consent during marriage.

So does the man.

 

Consent IS present consent. That's what consent ****ing means. Stop defending rape.

 

Don't stick your dick in a ***** unless you have consent. No matter your previous relationship. Please stop defending rape.

 

That is not entirely true. If she made love to him last night, why does she feel "raped" the second night?

The only reason she might not want to have sex with him is because she's angry at him over something rather trivial. Maybe he stayed out too long with his guy friends, or got drunk the previous day and embarrassed her, or spent too much money at the casino.

Sorry, not "rape"

 

You are using a different definition for rape.
That's not how society previously understood rape before New Age Feminism and the Sexual Revolution of the 60s.

This type of situation, while it may have some similarities, is very different from rape.

 

Well, if she didn't consent the second night, and he ****ed here anyway, then she was raped. If you can't accept this fact, please seek immediate psychiatric help. You are defending rape.

 

No, I'm using the definition that people who think that rape is wrong use.

****ing someone who doesn't consent to being ****ed is rape. If you can't understand that, then seek immediate psychiatric help.

 

Answer this question: Do you believe the man secretly seeking sex outside of marriage is wrong, if the wife won't give him any?

 

It isn't as wrong as him ****ing a woman against her will, which you have defended. Please admit that it is wrong to rape a woman. This shouldn't be a big ask. Once you admit that rape is wrong, I'm happy to answer any of your other questions. Otherwise, I feel the admins need to be alerting local authorities.

 

I know that's your opinion.

But, women don't become sex toys when they get married.

There is a real problem with domestic violence in the USA.

 

The law calls it rape. Those of us with ethics call it rape. If you defend it, then you are defending rape.

 

Only in some places, and not even in the past.

Muslims probably use that same argument too, in their countries, only the other way around.

That is not completely true. Many people have a different ethical perspective from yours. Even if it is wrong, that does not make it rape, and neither does that automatically mean the law should get involved.

No, I am defending something that YOU characterize as rape.
And not even that, I am not completely defending it, just partially defending it.

 

What does what we are talking about have to do with domestic violence?

I hope your answer isn't going to be "Well if he has sex with her and she didn't give consent, that's violence."

 

No. Sex is a very different proposition for females, than it is for males. While all the same urges are there, the mechanics of the business mean that for her there is a huge 'comfort and safety' component. If that's missing, it doesn't matter how well she knows the guy .. she will feel violated to some degree.

 

Yep. In 1940 women were still 'half a man'.

 

I think the problem for you, Katz, is that you've not yet embraced the mammalian reality that women hold all the power in the sexual dynamic. For whatever reason, you may still feel that the man's needs are paramount. Nowhere in nature is that true .. and least of all in the human animal.

 

Well, there is the Muslim World. That is 30% of the world.

 

The ''comfort and safety" component is that the man is her husband; the man she chose.

She should take "comfort" in the fact that it's a closed marriage and he's not having intercourse with any other woman.
If that's not true, then it changes things.

 

We are talking about the man's WIFE.

 

That would be the MALE perspective. It has no bearing on the reality of the female mind and body.

If you're male yourself, it's probably wise to make peace with just who 'wears the pants' when it comes to the mating game.

 

Great. What a fine example.