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

Yes, logic depends on meaning of words.
And saying NO is the logic to determine assault or rape. Consent is required. The law only uses definitions of words.

You posted a bible verse about the woman being a servant of her husband, may or may not have been in this thread, but that means she is property or a least subservient to the husband. So, yes, claiming woman are not property is a rebuttal to your point.

 

If the absolute only difference is the word 'yes' or 'no', and everything else he does is the exact same, then it's absurd to say one is assault and the other is not.

(Remember, this is husband and wife)

 

That is only a very small part of my argument, and I did not even raise that argument in this thread, so let's drop it.

 

That's a false conclusion. She can still have "rights" even if the law is not involved. There are many things a married woman has the right to, that do not involve the law.

She has a right to be treated with dignity and respect. That doesn't mean the husband will be arrested if he doesn't treat her that way.

 

But you said it's not a part of your argument so bringing up a woman as property wasn't a valid point.
Now you say it's a small part of your argument. So it's a valid point to make, a woman isn't property.

 

Let me rephrase. Even if we, hypothetically for the sake of argument, accept that the woman is not property in any way, that still does not negate 99% of my argument. It should still not be treated like rape.

 

It's absolutely absurd to claim forced sex is NOT rape or assault. The law requires consent. And marriage is not consent to sex.

 

Not if it's in a marriage. It depends exactly how you define "force".

Does he just do his business, or is she fighting him?

 

What 99% do you refer to. You keep bringing up marriage as a reason it should not be rape. What other point do you have?

 

Seriously? You have not read the thread then.


See, this is your assumption, that that must be the reason conservatives hold the views they do on this. That big bad patriarchy that wants to make women property.

 

If she says NO, she is fighting him.
And there's your marriage claim again, as if marriage means consent to sex. It does not. She is NOT property. She still retains her human rights.

 

I don't have to read the entire thread. You just posted this response to me. As if marriage is a form of consent. It's not.

 

Read my post again. I said when it's not a matter of law, it's down to his assumptions about any 'right' to sex in marriage.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood you before.

The two have to work it out together. If things are unbearable, she can seek a legal separation.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Any forced sex is violence. Your defense of rape is really sickening..

 

NO, NO one loses rights when they marry.....

You can't name any real rights married people lose....but I bet you make some up

 

FoxHastings, what you are imagining is not a marriage then.

If the man wants to enter an agreement with the woman where it is legally agreed that he will lose no rights and not be under any future obligations due to that agreement, then fine, I'm okay if you don't want to treat this like a marriage according to my idea of it.

Alimony, child support payments (potentially when the child is not even biologically related to them), if he slaps her it's considered "domestic violence" and he loses all sorts of special right because of that, that he would not if it were some random woman. Oh, and of course no fault divorce laws, where the woman takes half the property.

Like I keep saying before, maybe society needs to create two different types of marriages. Make a modern one, that conforms to the ideals of progressives and is less of a marriage than a conservative one.

 

Your defense relies on a several logical fallacies.

Just because you call it rape does not make it so.

Then you make the stupid argument that because it is rape, it is also violence, therefore because it is also violence, that makes it wrong.

Even though the word "violence" in your argument insinuates something it is not.

And even though this so-called "rape" between husband and wife is very often not the same sort of "violence" that rape is.

 

That is not necessarily true.

Marriage is consent to enter into a sexual union with a person. So I would argue it constitutes at least some level of partial consent.

Marriage tells the whole world "This guy I am giving consent to to have sex with me".

Imagine a man and woman get married in front of a crowd, then the crowd sees them enter a bedroom together, and then the woman runs out and screams "This man raped me!"

In the old days, one of the functions of marriage was to protect a man from accusations of rape. Since the bride had given her consent in front of a crowd of witnesses.

It was dangerous for a man to sleep with a woman outside of marriage. He might get accused.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You can't name any real rights married people lose...

Uh, DUH, and a hearty OMGAWD!...

there is no "right" to have children and not support them.



There is no "right" to slap someone because you married her.

There is no "right" to cheat a spouse in a divorce....

There is no "right" for man to take everything in a divorce

SEE KAZ, ONE HAS TO COMMIT A CRIME TO LOSE RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE ISN'T A CRIME...

Maybe people should butt out of other people business stay out of how and why OTHER people marry.....

Maybe if people just paid attention to their own marriage ( IF they can get married ) then maybe more marriages would work out...


You can't, and DIDN'T , name any real rights married people lose...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Any forced sex is violence. Your defense of rape is really sickening..

FoxHastings said: ↑
Any forced sex is violence. Your defense of rape is really sickening..

 

dairyair said: ↑
You posted a bible verse about the woman being a servant of her husband, may or may not have been in this thread, but that means she is property or a least subservient to the husband.

You just said, "that is only a small PART" but you admit it's a part.

And it's ridiculous...in no way is a wife subservient to her husband....he did NOT BUY her , he married her.

 

Please show the LAW that says married women lose all their rights??????

If you can't (and you can't) then your whole premise is hogwash..

 

You really don't know anything about women, do you?

Women's bodies are not ready for sex whenever a dick bearer feels like it. Sex between husband and wife, when the wife isn't willing, is physically very painful and can cause serious internal injuries, just like any other instance of rape. What the woman is experiencing in those moments definitely falls under the definition of violence, both physically and psychologically.

 

Rights do not necessarily always involve the law.