There is no "marital rape"
The Bahamas consider a legal oxymoron:
First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. This isn't a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it's a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent. That should serve to clarify the matter for them; one hopes they will enjoy their extended holiday in Afghanistan. The attempt to create a legal concept of "marital rape" is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse's body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended.
If a woman wishes to preserve her right to sexually reject a man at will, she has a perfectly viable means of doing so. Don't get married. It's really not that hard. But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other's marital claims. This does not mean that it is wise for anyone to abuse one's marital rights, as doing so on a regular basis will tend to lead to the legally correct abrogation of those rights. One is always free to respect the other's wishes and refrain from exercising one's rights in the same way that most Americans fail to exercise their right to bear arms most of the time. But failing to exercise one's rights is not the same as failing to possess them.
Men contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective brides on this issue. If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her! It would make no sense whatsoever to marry a woman who believes that being married to her grants her husband no more sexual privilege than the next unemployed musician who happens to catch her eye. And if a woman who believes in the existence of marital rape pushes you for marriage, just assure her that while you respect the institution, you believe it is much more important to defend her unqualified right to say no.
That the "marital rape" concept is not only legally oxymoronic, but deeply undesirable for both sexes, is exemplified by its implications for sex that by definition precludes consent. Let's face it, any man or woman who believes in the criminalization of wake-me-up sex is not an individual with whom any decently hedonistic being would want to be saddled for a lifetime.
"I think the bill is a very good thing because I believe that a husband can rape his wife. No is no. I don’t care if you’re married or if you’re not married. No is no, and once you force yourself on someone, whoever it is, it is rape. I agree with the bill 100 percent," she said.
First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce. This isn't a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it's a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent. That should serve to clarify the matter for them; one hopes they will enjoy their extended holiday in Afghanistan. The attempt to create a legal concept of "marital rape" is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse's body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended.
If a woman wishes to preserve her right to sexually reject a man at will, she has a perfectly viable means of doing so. Don't get married. It's really not that hard. But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other's marital claims. This does not mean that it is wise for anyone to abuse one's marital rights, as doing so on a regular basis will tend to lead to the legally correct abrogation of those rights. One is always free to respect the other's wishes and refrain from exercising one's rights in the same way that most Americans fail to exercise their right to bear arms most of the time. But failing to exercise one's rights is not the same as failing to possess them.
Men contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective brides on this issue. If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her! It would make no sense whatsoever to marry a woman who believes that being married to her grants her husband no more sexual privilege than the next unemployed musician who happens to catch her eye. And if a woman who believes in the existence of marital rape pushes you for marriage, just assure her that while you respect the institution, you believe it is much more important to defend her unqualified right to say no.
That the "marital rape" concept is not only legally oxymoronic, but deeply undesirable for both sexes, is exemplified by its implications for sex that by definition precludes consent. Let's face it, any man or woman who believes in the criminalization of wake-me-up sex is not an individual with whom any decently hedonistic being would want to be saddled for a lifetime.












33 Comments:
You're a fucking idiot.
So let me get this straight. Woman meets man. Man is successful and marriageable. Man courts woman. Woman marries man. Got it so far?
Man ceases holding up his side of the marriage. Drinking. Cheating. Lying. Stealing. Violence. He becomes a lout, a souse, a beater. Any or all of those things. The woman has no right whatsoever, in your mind, to assert a right to say 'no' to sex from this vile excuse for a male of the species until he resolves his problems?
The law and basic morality disagree, but hey, be an idiotic jerk.
So, if two people get married, and one night Husband wants sex, but Wife says "Not tonight," then Husband has the full right to take what he wants, how he wants, with no concern at all for Wife's comfort or safety (vaginal tearing being a main concern), and she just has to take it like a two-bit whore he doesn't have to pay?
You are disgusting.
So, just to be clear that I understand...
Man marries woman. Man wants two kids. Woman wants five. It is then acceptable, to your view, for the woman to slip her man a viagra, get him drunk, roofie him, whatever it takes as his consent has already been granted, to assure her wishes to have more children are honored as he has already given his consent.
After all, "failing to exercise one's rights is not the same as failing to possess them". Correct?
I just want to be sure that we're on the same page.
I respectfully recommend that you remove this post and reconsider your point of view. If not for those who have been victimized by a crime you do not feel exists - then for the poor souls that lack the wit to see that your argument is inherently flawed.
What a moron.
In NO modern marriage vows does it say "Do you accept the fact that you will be forced to have sex?"
"I do."
Let me guess, you are a man? -.- Please, inform yourself on LIFE and excuse your ignorance, women can say no whenever they want to ANYone, as well as men. There is no clause that says a sexual act can be forced upon anyone, basic human rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ok, so this would be ok then?
WIFE: 'no, we've already has sex twice today, i'm really sore and it hurts, i dont want to have sex right now'
HUSBAND: 'Well you're my wife, so im going to pin you down and force myself on you anyway, i dont care if it hurts you'
OR scenario 2
WIFE: 'I'm really not it the mood right now'
HUSBAND: 'Well i'm going to use my superior strength and force you to have sex with me anyway'
Thats ok is it?
Fucking twat. Violation is Violation, wether your married or not.
How did an absolute caveman obtain internet access?
Kindly go fuck yourself with a rusty knife, thanks.
When I married my husband, I don't remember ever signing a document that said my body was his whenever he wanted, however he wanted, whether I wanted to or not.
Oh, wait, that's because I fucking didn't.
Excuse you, you fucking misogynistic idiot.
How about if a woman wants to put on a strap on and fuck her husband in the ass? That okay? Husband has no right to say no, correct? I mean, they are married.
Since when does pledging your love for another person in the form of marriage make violating someone okay?
Just to let you know, I'm absolutely disgusted by this. This isn't marriage at all. This is sexual slavery.
Newsflash, my friend. Your body is ALWAYS yours. 100%, no matter what, you choose what to do with it. NOBODY, partner, husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, friend, stranger on the street, nobody in the world has any right to touch you in any way when you don't want them to.
Consent can be revoked at ANY time, even in marriage. Marriage is about making a commitment, to be with someone you love, but it does NOT entitle your spouse to sex anytime they want it regardless of your feelings.
I'm sorry, were you dropped on your head as an infant, or were you just born stupid?
You're a moron.
Geez, is this author stupid. I hope he's learning from these commenters, though I doubt it. But I will agree with him on one point, in reverse: Ladies, if a man doesn't believe in marital rape, and tells you so when you bring up the point, don't marry him! You're no more than property to such a man, not a human being. You're worth more than that!
This article reeks of misogyny and self-entitlement. Marrying a woman does not count as eternal free sex because you managed to chase her down and wrangle her into it. If your wife says she doesn't want to have sex, don't keep waving your dick at her! If you really respected or loved her in any sense of the word, you would never dream of treating her as an object that you own and have a right to stick your dick in whenever you want. The fact that women even have to deal with a shitty attitude like yours is the reason feminism exists. Stop. Just stop.
Love is not sex. When a man seeks sex outside or within marriage it's not for love, it's just his testosterone that increasing his sex drive. It's biology, nothing to do with love.
This is why if a woman doesn't want to have sex then a man should seek sex outside the marriage or just seek divorce.
Marriage is stupid anyway. It is dead lots of places in the world. Men who marry are stupid, are you really going to risk having a divorce and loosing half of the money even without kids ?
A man never asks for sex. If you ask for sex, you'll never get it. Every man who's had a wife or girlfriend knows that the girl may hesitate, if she doesn't scream or hits you then continue.
Those in comments are virgins. Try to get a girlfriend and then ask her for sex. You won't be losing your virginity anytime soon.
this means that gentlemen, if you for some reason are too tired to have sex or can't physically maintain an erection, you have broken your marriage vows and might as well pack up and leave.
also, the guy above me is clearly hideous and terrible in bed because if my boyfriend asks for sex, i gladly oblige because a. he's sexy, b. we're madly in love, and c. he's fucking great in the sack. if all your girlfriends are hesitant every time you try to have sex, it's because you're ugly and bad in bed.
what a sick asshole.
Finally someone who is talking sense about this topic! I love these stupid manipulative women who get married and then decide that they don't want to have sex tonight because they're tired. Well its not my fault you sat on your ass all day watching soap operas while I was at work making money to support your ass! Its bad enough some women don't even clean or cook for their men who work all day so the wives have money to buy superficial shit to show off to the other neighborhood whore wives! Once a man and woman get married, the man then owns his wife. End of story. You do as he says, or you get the fuck out and go get a job to support your own lazy ass. I wish there were more people like this author to enlighten all of the dumb commie liberal pinkos in this world.
Male entitlement in a single article.
This is the fucking 21st century bastard ,no one has the right to force someone to have sex, sex is part of marriage ,RAPE ISNT!!!!!
I saw this link from another article and thought, surely this was in jest because I can't fathom anyone outside of the middle east with this belief. NOPE! I then did a check on his background. Theodore Beale claims to be a libertarian...which he is not. I'm a hardcore libertarian and would know. He is a social conservative with "some" libertarian views. Social conservatism goes against the very grain of libertarianism - they cannot coexist.
I forgot to mention that anyone with this viewpoint should be comfortably classified as an extremist wacko. Notice the lack of posts by his most faithful of followers: crickets........
The assumption that there is no such thing as marital rape is completely unfounded and the explanation lacks any factual backing. There are many versions of marital vow but not a single one includes any mention of sexual intercourse, especially when oath is taken in presenbce of a clergyman (usually for modesty sake). If oath does not mention anyspecific behavior, then it cannot be assumed that it constitutes a part of the agreement, implied or otherwise.
Furthermore, typical oath consists the line 'Do you agree to love and cherish...' or a similar counterpart. There are as many definitions of love as there are philosophers, but it is usually agreed that love means compassion and respect. So, as violence (forcible acquisition of goals) and selfishness (lack of recognition of the other party's needs) opposes compassion and respect, behaviour charactrized it also violates the marital oath. If the oath mentions respect explicitly, then the matter is even more straighforward. So, anyone who forces himself (or herself) on unwilling partner, breaks the marital oath taken before God, what makes him (or her) an oathbreaker (in eyes of man) and sinner (in eyes of God).
But if we leave the religious question aside (not every marriage is a religious ceremony) then the argument still stands. If marital oath were treated as usual civil agreements, then forcible sexual intercourse (referred to above as to 'marital rape') would have been a legitimate ground for prosecution under the charge of breach of contract. QED.
It is not the matter of religion, politics or anyone's views. These are the facts. One can claim that in common algebra 2+2 eguals 5 but this is not 'an opinion'. It's an error.
In other words, the statement in the article is either a lie (if the author is aware of its logical fallacies but uses it nevertheless for some ulterior motives, e.g. giving a conservatives a bad name via false-flag operation) or a simple error (if he is not aware of them out of ignorance).
Liberals tolerate every lifestyle EXCEPT the Christian lifestyle!
Damn atheists oppose the Christian lifestyle, like slipping your own wife a roofie and knocking her unconscious and having intercourse with her anus or any other orifice of the husband's choosing!
Thank God we still have Vox Day to teach us the old-fashioned values of the Christian lifestyle like slipping your wife a roofie and penetrating her anus while he is comatose.
Women from all over the world have rights and if men will not protect women rights. Those men will never have peace because they will become abused! Mother nature in this world will play her roll.
Listen, I agree 100% as a woman. You don't sound like a misogynist. You clearly state that this applies for men AND women.
I support you.
-D
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home