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

I think we are getting off topic. This type of discussion would be more appropriate to have in a different thread.

 

Any forced sex is violence.

Why TF you think marriage changes any laws is a mystery..

When a woman marries she is NOT property. She does NOT lose any rights.

 

You say that more than any poster and usually when you are losing the argument....why isn't that on topic?

 

And you are free to admire barbaric, evil idiots. I don't/

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Muslim extremists use EXACTLY the same kind of arguments you are using now. EXACTLY the same.

And they were wrong.

****ing someone against their will is rape. Deal with it.

I don't share your desire for the law to ignore rape.

You literally are. And it is literally rape.

You just said you weren't defending it. Now you admit that you are defending it. Make up your ****ing mind.

 

Yes.

We are.

The difference here being that I understand that his wife is not his property. She's a human who has rights. Why do you disagree?

So, I'll say it again: Don't stick your dick in a ***** unless you have consent. Period. End of sentence. If you find this controversial, then yes, you are defending rape.

 

I will preference my response with all rape is sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape.

A consent violation is not automatically rape, unless you want to use the term in an idiomatic sense. But since we are looking at issues of law here, that use of the word rape should be invalid for the discussion.

I hesitate to use the term rape in situations of deception. It is wrong, and should hold a punishment consistent with any other illegal form of deception, but that doesn't make it necessarily rape or even sexual assault. There is a difference between being forced to do something and being deceived into doing something.

One of the problems with how many people consent, is that they leave their consent too generalized and actually consent to more than they intend. It doesn't matter if I assume you are a woman, when I consent to have sex with you and to touch you, I've not specified that I have limits in that consent. As much as the claim can be made "I thought she was a cis woman", so too can the claim be made, "I thought he know I was a trans woman". And ultimately, the one who has the limits, has the responsibility to express what those limits are.

Now I can also make the point of there being actual implied consent. For example, if I stick out my hand for a handshake, it comes with the implied consent to touch my hand. So with marriage, I can agree that it comes with an implied consent to sex. But as with all consent, it can be withdrawn at anytime. Thus a wife can withdraw her consent to have sex with her husband and his continuation after that would be rape.

I think that the cases are different enough that they can't be truly compared except as contrast cases because of the differences between actual consent, assumed consent and implied consent.

 

I thought that was your argument. It's why I asked you earlier why you want to go back to the early 1900s or earlier.

It's illegal because sexual assault and rape are a violation of a person's rights to not be attacked.
It's not rocket science.

 

It's rape because she said, "no".

 

These are state laws, of course, so they are not all identical.

WA does define rape:

"(b) Rape (except statutory rape). The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of their age or because of their temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity."

This is part of WA sexual misconduct law:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=504-26-221

 

My point is that's just a false equivocation fallacy in this argument.
Trying to make an argument by selective characterization, or mischaracterization.

Claiming it is "violence" is obviously insinuating something that it is not.

So you are playing semantics.

 

It could be easily be argued that the husband has not obtained "carnal knowledge" of his wife, since he (obviously) already had it.

I am pretty sure this law, when it was passed, was not originally intended to apply to intercourse between husband and wife.

I suspect however that law and terminology would be "reinterpreted" these days. Lots of laws having to do with sex crimes in older times were worded pretty vague, because it was not considered appropriate to specifically get into the details of sexual matters.

"Carnal knowledge", by the old understanding, implies that the man has already obtained the "knowledge" of what the woman looks like naked, how it feels like, and has already had the sexual experience with her.

If the woman consents the first time but then says "no" the second time, strictly speaking, that "carnal knowledge" has already been obtained with her consent, and the man is not really obtaining it the second time, because he already has it.

Not rape.

If I have already read something in a book and I read it again, I am not gaining "knowledge" from that second reading.

 

"Carnal knowledge" means sexual intercourse. Period. There may be various definitions of what counts as intercourse, but it has nothing to do with "gaining knowledge".

What may or may not have happened in the past is irrelevant.

 

Doesn't the real issue in this debate come down to how you define "rape" and "sexual assault"?
It seems meaningless to try to use the words and then say "it is obvious" that it is wrong and that the law should punish it. That's lazily conflating two different situations together and ignoring the unique aspects of one situation.

You seem to be insinuating lots of things with your words. Logic hinges on MEANINGS of words, not words that can have all sorts of different meanings.

That has never really been my argument. Claiming that is not a rebuttal to my position.

That's not true at all. The MAN looses plenty of rights when he marries.

You are also casually conflating "her rights" with the police and law getting involved. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

 

No, it's not so simple as that, in this situation. Yes, it means sexual intercourse, but in a general sense, not a specific act; he's already obtained it from her with her consent.

 

The legal definition of domestic violence in WA includes rape. If rape occurs within a family, that IS domestic violence.

I'd be shocked if that isn't true in other states.

 

Now we are just going around in circles.

Just because a law in one place and at one time defines something as such, in a particular situation, does not mean it is so.

Your argument is "That is rape. Rape is violence. So that is totally wrong and should be illegal."
That sort of "logic" is an obvious logical fallacy. Anyone could tell you that in Logic 101. It does not constitute a logical argument.

You're just making subtle casual mistakes conflating different meanings together.

An equivocation fallacy means you are taking a word and using it to insinuate two different meanings in different statements and then trying to connect those two statements.

 

I've shown you the law.

Note that it says:

You can read the rest in the cite to you above.

 

This debate really isn't about the law.

 

This is one of those radical feminist laws.

If the man leads the woman into the bedroom, takes off her clothes, she says nothing and does not resist (and assuming she hasn't been drugged or is completely inebriated), then most everyone would regard that as complicit consent.

Such laws are a new phenomena, and can sometimes get men in big trouble when those men do not deserve to be, when certain women have regrets after the fact.

 

I'm saying it IS illegal.

I've cited the law for one state. There is no equivocation going on here.

These are state laws. If you believe it is local to one state only, then cite the law of a state that supports what you are saying.

 

I'm saying it should not be.

This is not the way it SHOULD be.

Sometimes the law can define a certain action as something when it is not.

(Sometimes laws can even say something and apply to a situation they were totally not intended to apply to)

 

The law shows the direction our representatives in our state legislatures have laid out.

It shows that there has to be active (not passive) consent at the time of the sex.

It shows that nonconsensual sex is rape, and that within a marriage it is domestic violence.

If you want to lobby for it to be just fine for women to be subjected to nonconsensual sex in marriage, you need to make that case.

I don't know where you could possibly go for support for that idea. If you read the opinion of religious denominations concerning the marriage relationship, they talk in strong terms about being mutually supportive, helping, and other attributes that can not possibly be achieved in a context of nonconsensual sex.

 

"Has to", for what? Let's try to be more specific here. "Has to" to make it not wrong, or "Has to" otherwise the law will get involved and punish the husband?

That is ridiculous and absurd.

It relies on controversial characterizations.

These are just totally made-up new concepts, how "rape" has been redefined, and how the concept of "domestic violence" has been developed, different from how it was before.

Radical feminism and the diminishing importance of the concept of marriage are responsible for these changes. Since most sex isn't inside marriage anymore, people are trying to apply rules that apply to casual sex and informal sexual relationships to the institution of marriage.

 

South Carolina. The husband has to use "aggravated violence" or a weapon for the law to consider it rape.

Several states have special exceptions in the case of marriage.
These 13 States Still Make Exceptions For Marital Rape - Vocativ

Several states have laws that do not consider it to be rape if the husband has sex with his wife when she is drunk or passed out.

 

Read the characterization of marriage in Catholic and other religious documentation.

There is no way for that to be seen as consistent with nonconsensual sex.

Domestic violence is a serious problem today. It has been in the past, too, but there wasn't the will or capacity to deal with it. Plus, women have clearly not been considered real people - being denied the vote, being subject to beatings by their husband, being excluded in employment, etc., etc. As our society grows up, it shouldn't be surprising see women being allowed to have a say in sex.