Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by kazenatsu, May 25, 2022.
If your female partner is "just lying there," you've got a lot to learn.
In the states I know, marital rape is a crime. There are different degrees. It comes under domestic violence in some cases.
I would not be surprised if there are states where they don't see marital rape as any kind of infraction.
My point was, in the old days (maybe 70 years ago) the issue of sexual consent did not apply to marriage the same way it did to other situations.
That's not to say that rape within a marriage was absolutely impossible, but rather there were many situations that would be rape in another context but would not be rape between two persons who were married to each other.
To try to boil it down, the main thing about rape is a man having sexual intercourse with a woman who has previously not given him sexual consent before.
If the woman is (or has recently been) in a sexual relationship with that man, it could still be seen as a violation, but it falls short of what rape is.
This concept that rape is defined as the woman not giving the man consent to that specific sexual encounter is a relatively modern development.
There has been a little bit of a subtle change in what that word has come to mean.
Rather my point. Rape is rape, regardless of whether it is recognized as such by the state. But in that same manner, we cannot just call every sexual assault rape.
No that is not the main thing about rape. Rape does not depend on whether or not consent was given before. It depends on whether or not consent is present for each incident of sexual interaction where penetration occurs. If the woman withdraws consent, then consent is no longer present. There is nothing that changes that.
Sadly it does not. The only thing that falls short of rape is that no penetration with anything occurs.
A relatively modern recognition, not development. You might as well call domestic violence a relatively modern development since it was only relatively recently, we made law that a husband couldn't beat and abuse his wife, as was previously is supposed right.
And sadly that change still results in men getting raped and no one listening to them and dismissing the possibility of it even happening, especially by a woman.
AGAIN, that was true in the early 1900's. I cited the USSC on that, remember.
Marital rape became a crime in the 1970's.
That is certainly not a "subtle change", plus one can hardly call that "relatively modern".
That was half a century ago.
I think (hope) people understand that.
States can certainly get their laws screwed up.
How the husband has sex with his wife determines whether it should be seen as a rape (in my personal view).
It should be something more than just the woman saying "I don't feel like having sex today, honey."
Unfortunately, once people begin to believe men, this will likely then become a problem:
How should accusations be handled in domestic relationships?
"I don't feel like having sex today, honey," is enough for anyone except a violent psychopath.
Just claiming that (alone, by itself) doesn't constitute RAPE, when it's the man's wife.
But you seem to have a different understanding about what the word rape is, and what it means to you.
But anyway, I do think we are getting off topic. The original topic of the first post was to compare and contrast how the scenarios in those two stories were similar to each other, or why some individuals might believe one was rape but the other wasn't.
So far, 29.4% of people responding to the poll believe it was rape in one story but not the other, with the votes about evenly divided between 2 and 3.
Rape isn't up for a vote.
Neither story was completely obviously indisputably a "rape". That's the point.
I agree. The how if it is whether he has her consent or not. It's not that hard. I am perfectly happy with the idea that entering into marriage is an automatic ongoing consent, but that still means that she can withdraw it at any time, meaning that any continuation is rape.
Unless you are looking at the woman as less than an individual who has bodily autonomy, then no it doesn't need to be more than that. And that goes both ways. A woman can't force a man into sex when he doesn't want it and to do so will mean she raped him.
This is why the state needs evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt whether a crime took place and who committed it. We took the steps to make sure that the women who were victims got the protection that they needed. But sadly, there are so that are so gung ho on protecting women, that they are willing to let men who are victims suffer what the women suffered before. But the fact that that problem remains, has nothing to do with the fact that a lack of consent for a penetrative sex act constitutes rape, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time, even in a marriage.
Which is why we have a justice system.
Big cultural shifts take time to work out the kinks.
Everyone 'should' have bodily autonomy, however......
The state of texas, oklahoma, and I think florida is following suit has recently proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a woman has no bodily autonomy, so why should husbands respect bodily autonomy when the states clearly do not?
Of course its voted on by lawmakers. Social crimes didnt magically pop into a book with no human intervention.
I do want to avoid bringing abortion into this issue, because that discussion does involve another life, with the attached debate as to whether that life is a person, has rights, etc. That aspect does not apply here, so it seems prudent to set that aside for the moment.
But when it comes to the question of bodily autonomy, where is that line for giving the consent. Most are in agreement over the concept of an external factors.taking away the ability to consent, such as drugs or alcohol. But where is the line for deception or fraud, if any?
Rape itself is not up for vote. How and if the law recognizes it, is a different matter. That latter bit is why the law has not, and in many place still does not, recognize that a man can be raped, and worse, fails to recognize that he can be raped by a woman, even with PIV penetration.
I would agree, so where are you getting the idea that married couples are a special case?
Not sure how you propose these "general" and "specific" definitions behave. Do you have an example of some other specific and general definitions?
It seems to me this is a potentially important distinction. I don't think any of those who gave the definitions above omitted marital rape just out of vagueness or by accident.
Sure, but dictionaries, legal definitions and I try to avoid doing that. In this particular case, I think the distinction is made very deliberately.
Mind you, consent is not necessarily expressed verbally, and may instead be overtly implied from actions/similar. I would expect people in a long term relationship to have well-tuned signals/habits/whatever that can convey consent.
And as with any crime or similar situation, if someone finds it to be vague, it's on them to make it not vague. If ownership of a car is vague, it is not licence to assume that you can take the car, you'd have the duty whether to check that you can take it.
So? A definition isn't a description of the "typical" instance of a word, it is a declaration of the necessary and sufficient conditions needed for a word to apply (source, under "intensional definitions").
I could get behind that. For now (or at least in this thread), the distinction between rape and sexual assault matters less to me than people who fail to identify wrong altogether.
Well, my point is that language is fleeting. The fact that definitions have changed over time doesn't mean that the current definition is wrong.
kazenatsu said: ↑
The woman is also the passive partner. The man does things, the woman just lies there.
True and I think you nailed why he has so many threads on "rape isn't all that bad"...
I thought you said you agreed with the non-aggression principle? Glad you clarified that you don't actually care about it.
If I gave you $20 yesterday willingly, and I will probably give you $20 willingly tomorrow, does that mean that you taking $20 from me today, against my will, isn't theft? Get ****ing serious.
How about this scenario:
A husband and wife decide they want to experiment. They try pegging. The wife ****s the husband in the ass with a strap-on. He's consented to it, and he may consent to it in the future. But one day, while he's asleep, she chains him to the bed and, while he is screaming for her to stop, she does it to him again. Is that rape? According to the "logic" you've provided so far, no. It's "vague."
Separate names with a comma.