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

But if the husband uses additional lubrication, then this isn't necessarily the case, is it?

If there are internal injuries, then he could be prosecuted for assault.
If the woman has some special medical condition, that could also change things.

Look, my argument isn't that what the husband does is right. It's that the law should be reluctant to get involved in these cases (unless what the husband did is even worse than that).

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
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..

Uh, yes, they do ...the law protects rights...

What "rights" are you talking about? The ones you make up???

Please show ANYTHING that says if one gets married one loses their rights ???

 

WHY? Because the only victims are women??

 

You realize you are only helping my argument with a comment like that.

I wasn't aware the topic of the thread was what the currently existing law is. What is your argument here?
"The law does not say it is a right, so it is not a right, so it should not be the law." Sounds silly and absurd now, doesn't it?

My argument is that the current law does not adequately protect the husband's rights, and could prove disastrous to many marriages.

Just because someone has a right does not always mean the law should protect it. Or the law can protect those rights in other ways, which it does. The woman has the right to divorce or get a legal separation. Just because the husband is not punished does not make her a sex slave.

 

If it becomes unbearable, it's his doing.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHY? Because the only victims are women??

Only in your mind...and you have no argument.

Yes, it does sound silly and absurd...so why did you write it ???

The husband does NOT gain extra rights when he marries.... his rights ARE protected...and so are his wife's

YES, the law should protect our rights especially from those who wish to take them away ....like those who think husbands have a right to rape their wives..

Women, all women, have a right not to be forced into sex or beaten.

Just because he married her does NOT give him special rights....

 

We don't know. She might be partially to blame too. Just because it is his doing isn't an automatic justification for punishment.

 

Being beaten is a completely separate topic. Why do you have to conflate non-consensual sex with being beaten and physical assault?

 

He only has the right to "rape" her ONCE.

Did the man really "rape" her if she didn't immediately leave him?

If she doesn't like it, there is the option of divorce.

It's not exactly the same as rape, because she chose to marry this man, and she has already had sex with him lots of times before. He's not really doing anything to her she has not consented to before.

 

You're working from an antiquated premise.

What happened in that room (the one the crowd watched them enter)? Did she consent in that moment, or not? Many women say no to sex on their wedding night, in reality. For some, there's so much stress associated with weddings, that it becomes impossible. They may not feel like it til a few days into the honeymoon. And then there are the virgins, and those who have other response issues which require patience. If the man can't cope with that, he has no business in a marriage.

Again, marriage is NOT a sex licence. It's a practical arrangement built upon things like child rearing and property, with a side of romance. It does not entitle the parties to sex on tap.

 

There appears to be little appreciation of the significant differences for the female. That seems to be the primary obstacle to our pal's grasp of the concept.

 

That is not quite what I have been claiming. I just claimed that the law should be reluctant to get involved, and respect the privacy of the marriage bed.

If he has sex with her anyway, that is not good, but neither is it the most terrible thing in the world either. It is not like a normal rape.

Except in some rare situations, women don't get married if they don't want to have sex with the man.

 

What differences would those be?
The woman can read a book while the husband does his business, if she's not into it.

 

WHAT!???
WHERE TF do you get that insane idea!!???
No one at any time has a right to rape anyone...

If he can't get sex from his wife ( he's such a loser) then he should get a divorce.

No matter how you LOVE to downplay rape, rape is rape...not sorta, not kinda, it's rape.


And the fact is NO one loses their rights when they marry even if you want women to become nothing but slaves...what YOU want doesn't matter...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Women, all women, have a right not to be forced into sex or beaten.

Non consensual sex IS ASSAULT.

 

It's a little complicated to explain how you are committing several logical fallacies, but let me try.
First, you seem to be trying to conflate together non consensual sex with non consensual sex in marriage. There could be some obvious differences there if the issue we are talking about is assault.
Next, statement seems to be an equivocation fallacy. If you are using assault in one sense of the word, that statement could theoretically be true, but your statement seems to imply the word in the more general sense, which would have a different meaning.

You line of logic is:
Marital non consensual sex is non consensual sex
non consensual sex is assault
assault is obviously a very big violation of the woman's rights

While each statement is not untrue, you seem to be using the words in their more general sense. What this is is a combined series of overgeneralization fallacies.
Because while all three of these statements would be regarded as generally true, actually none of the three is completely true in the strictest sense. You seem to be trying to build up and escalate what the situation actually is in each step. You cannot really look at any single one of those statements in isolation if you are trying to connect them.

Non consensual sex in marriage could very likely involve no physical assault whatsoever.
Would you claim it is an "assault" if the man is pretty much doing exactly the same thing he has done to his wife before (which no one claims is assault), except this time the only difference was that she said no?

 

LOL...all that hogwash to justify husbands raping their wives...

Non-consensual sex is non consensual sex whether married or not.

You seem to think that getting married changes people's rights and allows them to do as they please.

It does not.

Once again, being married does NOT change any rights and you have NEVER shown where it does.

Being married does NOT change the words "rape" and "consensual sex" to mean anything else ...what an ILLOGICAL and ridiculous idea !!!

 

It is a category within non consensual sex but is not the same as non consensual sex in general.

That is the subtle distinction you need to make.

That's not exactly what I said. You seem to be equating "rights" for one person with automatic criminal charges for someone else.

This is not a big part of my argument, but it does change her rights just a little bit, because she gave approval to marry and have sex with that specific man in the past. Marriage is a closed union, meaning they are supposed to stay with each other and not have sex with other people. So this does change the situation somewhat.

When there is marriage, there is a tacit promise to keep having sex with that man, even if it's not a promise to specific sex incidents or sex on demand.

 

That is ultimately circular logic. It just seems ridiculous to you because you have already chosen to define rape that way... even though it was not that way from the beginning.

We usually, as a general matter of practice define rape as when consent does not exist, but that may be an overgeneralization and not actually be strictly completely logically true or apply to every type of situation.
There are, for example, all sorts of statements that could be made that virtually everyone would agree with, but then you could think of a very specific unusual scenario where everyone would agree that statement would not hold true.

It seems we are arguing over precise definitions of words and semantics.

You keep trying to characterize this as "rape", and that seems to be your only argument.

Can I suggest trying to approach this debate as if the words "rape", "consent", and "assault" did not exist?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Non-consensual sex is non consensual sex whether married or not.


There is NO distinction.... a wife is not property, a wife doesn't lose her rights when she marries....NO "subtle" distinction",

No, I don't.... getting married does not take away either parties rights.

That is a fact...if you have PROOF that marriage takes away anyone's rights why TF don't you post it ?
.....and your opinion is NOT proof

WHO TF are you TO DETERMINE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE'S MARRIAGES ENTAIL ?

hint YOU CAN'T, THEY ARE none OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

LOL, yes, it seems to be about you getting rid of words like "rape", "consent", and "assault" so that anyone can do anything to women ...


NOW, show PROOF that getting married takes away the couples rights...

YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET...

WHY NOT????????

 

I'm not asking to take away her rights. I am just saying the law should not punish her husband in this situation.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
There is NO distinction.... a wife is not property, a wife doesn't lose her rights when she marries....NO "subtle" distinction",

.

YES, you are...as proven by the following statement of yours:

 

It seems you can't articulate any argument without trying to just simply characterize the husband's actions as one of those words.

All you have is attempts to equate this situation to another.

I've given plenty of arguments. It seems you just ignore them all, keep putting up a straw man. This isn't about "women being property" or "losing their rights". (or 99% of it isn't)

 

You are trying to characterize not punishing the husband in this situation as taking away the wife's rights.

I don't believe it's that simple.

SHE'S married, she has some responsibility to stand up for herself if she doesn't want the abuse to continue.

Government should not become a nanny in the bedroom.

Government will step in only if there is SEVERE abuse. If the husband does something to his wife that is very unlike what husbands normally do to their wives. (painful non-conventional forms of intercourse could also fit into this category)