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

I would be careful with what we define as "domestic violence".

It was my understanding that we were NOT talking about domestic violence in this thread.

 

They DO have a say in sex. They totally get to choose and consent to which man has sex with them.

 

Those states do NOT all support your views.

For instance, your cite notes that Iowa doesn't consider rape within marriage to be illegal if the wife is under 12yo. But, their legal marriage age is 16!!

That doesn't support your views.

Also, most of the states in your cite require there to be use of force. But, your stated views have said it isn't rape if they have had sex in the past. You haven't stated force as an issue.

Other of those laws are just plain WEIRD. Take Minnesota's statement that “a person does not commit criminal sexual conduct” in situations where the victim is “physically helpless” or was riding in a vehicle with the alleged perpetrator, among other situations.

So you can rape an invalid?? And, if the woman gets in a car with you you can rape her?


I don't see your cite as supporting your views.

 

Well, it does clearly show that societal perspectives used to be very different on this in old times.
By the way, you misinterpreted what that article said. I'm pretty sure what they meant was that it was not illegal so long as the wife was 12 or above.
(Meaning any 11 year old wives would get additional protections)

 

You made statements about rape in marriage not being domestic violence.

I cited law on that.

 

It is an issue. Let me be clear about that. It doesn't make it a "rape", but it is one strong factor, in determining whether it is a "rape".

I still claim that even if a rape does happen in a marriage, it still isn't inherently quite as bad as if someone who the woman has never slept with before rapes her. It's not really "the same thing".

If a husband holds a knife to his wife's throat and then has sex with her, I as a juror would have no problem finding him guilty of "rape".
(well, assuming there is some sort of proof that actually happened, which is another separate issue)

 

You still suggest that once married, the man can have sex with her whenever and however he wants.

 

That's not exactly what I said.
I said the law should not get involved, or should be extremely reluctant to get involved except in extreme cases.

(additionally: If there's a legal separation in that marriage, or if the husband has been having an affair, that changes things)

 

"Consensual sex" is not entirely completely the same exact issue as what "rape" is. They mostly overlap, yes, but not completely.
They are not quite exactly the same thing.

For example, many conservatives do not consider it actual rape unless the man puts his sexual organ inside the woman. Yet other forms of sexual violation are possible.

 

Rape within marriage has the very real possibility of breaking up the marriage. In fact, it could well be strongly recommended.

The ramifications of that are serious, even if you don't give a crap about marriage.

As pointed out, the law in the vast majority of states holds that it is rape.

They may make it hard to convict by such measures as requirements for evidence of force, etc. But, making it hard to convict is not the same as making it legal.

 

I will agree with you.

Most wives who have been so-called "raped" by their husbands do not seek an immediate divorce. Hmm, wonder what that tells us....

And yet, the law in most places in the world holds that it is not rape.

 

I actually appreciate the laws in countries that have special additional requirements for evidence in cases where the alleged act took place inside a marriage.

Seems fair, require additional evidence of proof if it is a wife accusing her husband.

(Of course how the wife could ever be able to prove it actually happened is anyone's guess. She'd probably have to have severe injuries for anyone to take her accusations seriously)

 

It can be extremely difficult for a woman to escape a marriage.

There can be serious and immediate financial issues, as the woman may not have any money, etc.

There can be children.

There are states where enforcement of financial support from the husband is essentially absent.

There can be significant delays in any state/local support for which the woman might be qualified.

There can be pursuit by the husband, both physically and through law, where the woman may not have the resources to defend herself - an evaluation that the woman must make.


>>>What this SHOULD tell you is that rape in marriage is an incredibly horrible crime, going WAY beyond the physical assault.

 

Okay, then what is the point of making marital rape illegal? If she feels unable to divorce him, what does she have to gain from accusing him of rape?

How is that an argument?

And she will still have that money if she accuses her husband of rape, but not if she divorces him???

Please do explain that to us.

 

I don't believe that at all. Most conservative states have very harsh enforcement on the husband, in fact.

I posted one story about a man in a conservative state who was forced to be homeless because of child support obligations.

 

If there even is a physical assault, which there is often not.

(Based on how you define "rape")

 

It shows the seriousness of the crime.

And, what makes you think she has access to ANY money?

 

No, YOU were claiming that it shows something if the woman doesn't immediately leave.

You used that as an argument to claim that if the woman doesn't move out immediately, it supports the notion that the crime isn't serious!?!?

And, I pointed out SEVERAL reasons that moving out immediately could be difficult to impossible.

Regardless of state laws, support from husbands is NOT immediately available.

NOTHING through legal channels is immediate.

 

My point was, if she is afraid to divorce him, why would she be any less afraid to accuse him of "rape", if we make that a very serious crime in this situation?

 

Isn't that reasonable to assume?

If it was real rape, she would want to and need to get out of there as soon as possible, immediately.

Remember, those two women who leveled "rape" charges against Julian Assange were continued to be seen with him by witnesses even after the so-called alleged "rape" took place.

 

related thread, if you want to discuss that in more detail: Did the man really "rape" her if she didn't immediately leave him?

 

Actually females have complete say in every instance of sex. It's the freaking law of the jungle. Only humans corrupted it, but we're getting over that now.

 

It's not about whether she does anything about it legally, it's about HIS error.

 

I think you're missing the point.

If it's a situation where she's not going to immediately divorce him, that suggests it wasn't anywhere near the same level of violation that a real rape was.

The law does not absolutely need to intervene here.

In fact, the law intervening could end up ruining a marriage that might otherwise have been able to survive.

 

If the law isn't involved, then it comes down to his assumptions about sex. IOW, his assumption of dictatorial rights in the arrangement. He has NONE .. in the mammalian world. Any male 'dominance' is this regard was always a corruption of the norm, and is now under correction.