ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 11, 2015

MRAs against marital rape

David King writes an embarrassingly bad article in an attempt to bring the men's rights position on marital rape in line with the feminist one.
The core thesis of Talukdar’s article is that the notion of marital rape is a contradiction in terms on the ground that marriage is irrevocable, explicit and on-going consent to sex. I disagree and, further, I think that this position is incompatible with the values and moral basis of the Men’s Human Rights Movement....

Since frequently arguments of this nature revolve around the meanings of words I will spell out what I understand these core concepts to be and the meaning with which I use these core words, just like a contract would.
And there is the first sign that he's going to get it completely wrong. He's presenting a legal argument on the basis of what HE understands the core concepts to be and HIS definition of the core words. At this point, we already know he's going to get it wrong, the only question is how.
Western definitions of marriage include provisions for alimony and division of marital assets after divorce, but I’m not aware that there is (now) any explicit obligation to provide for maintenance during marriage (the assumption being that, in cohabitation and in providing for himself, he provides for his wife also).
He already blew it. He's ignoring the fact that a husband is legally obligated for his wife's debts, legally obligated to pay support for her children, and more importantly, the fact that the obligation precedes the very existence of the written law.

"The husband's duty to support his wife (and, under later common law decisions, his children also), and the wife's duty to render services to her husband (and a less clearly defined duty to render services to her children), are two of the most ancient concepts of the common law."
- Virginia Law Review, 1943

There is actually  LESS question concerning a man's duty to provide for maintence during marriage than there is concerning a wife's duty to provide for her children.
So, we have an explicit law that criminalises rape and, to my knowledge (though I am no legal scholar), there is no explicit legal obligation, by either spouse, to submit to sexual intercourse — at least, not in any western jurisdiction I know of. Whether there is such an explicit provision in Indian law, I cannot say. On the face of it, therefore, the law requires that, even within marriage, sex requires consent from both spouses or it is a crime.
 This is ridiculous, because without consummation, the marriage isn't even completed. The focus on "explicit legal obligation" indicates the problem, David King thinks that the law is limited to "black letter law", which is simply not the case. Both the common law and case law are not only relevant, in most cases they trump black letter law, which is the reason the various courts are able to throw out black letter law and declare it to be invalid.
It should be noted that Historia Placitorum Coronæ (the original title of Hale’s treatise) is a chronicle, a contemporary description of facts and events as they were understood at the time; such works were and are not law and have no judicial authority (then or now), and can be nothing more than of historical interest.

It should also be noted that Historia was written in 1736, and that both the law and social mores change over time. Once, slavery was lawful and only landed people (which included women, by the way) had the right to vote. If defences of such law offered before slavery was abolished have no moral relevance in the 21st Century, then Hale’s nearly 280-year-old interpretation of marital consent is of questionable relevance today.
First, King fails to grasp that the intrepretation is not Hale's. He is merely repeating the "the position of the common law, which is that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife because the wife “hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she cannot retract”" What King is ignoring is that this is not only settled law, it has been settled law for considerably more than three centuries.

The depths of absurdity to which the denial of marital consent takes King is finally revealed towards the end of his article, where he inadvertently reveals that denying marital consent is tantamount to denying marriage altogether.
There’s something to that, insofaras Talukdar quite reasonably questions what rights the man has in return for the obligation to support and maintain his wife. But, the point could equally be used to argue for abolition of the man’s obligation to maintain his wife as much as to argue that his wife owes him sex in exchange for that obligation.
 In other words, marriage neither grants a right of support to the wife nor a right of services to the husband. Which, one can only wonder, raises the obvious question of why any man or any woman would get married in the first place, if they literally get nothing out of it?

The fact of the matter is perfectly plain. Marriage grants sexual consent, which is precisely why nearly 100 percent of all couples regularly have sex without either party ever granting verbal or written consent to the other. In his desire to play the legal white knight, David King has managed to transform what he claims are the "values and moral basis" of men's rights into something all but indistinguishable from the Neo-Dworkinian position that all sex is rape.

This is one of the many reasons I am not a Men's Rights Activist. With friends like these, enemies are superfluous.

Labels: ,

197 Comments:

Anonymous #0348 May 11, 2015 12:13 PM  

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, or maybe it's just that I don't pay the MRAs much mind, but I thought it was "Men's Rights Movement", when did it become the "Men's Human Rights Movement"? That to me is a signfifcant reframe right there, and not in the right direction.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 12:19 PM  

MRAs showing the world that not only feminists want the end of traditional sex roles.

Anonymous clk May 11, 2015 12:20 PM  

"Marriage grants sexual consent, which is precisely why nearly 100 percent of all couples regularly have sex without either party ever granting verbal or written consent to the other"

True ... but is the implicit consent of marriage is revocable in light of an explicit declaration to the contrary ?

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 12:21 PM  

when did it become the "Men's Human Rights Movement"

I remember the argument about changing the name a few years ago...it was basically a bunch of gammas hoping it would make them look better to the moderates. It's almost as if one can't refer to the rights of men as a sex without including everyone else ("human rights").

Anonymous Stingray May 11, 2015 12:24 PM  

MRA are men trying to beat feminist using feminists own moves. Only, they're men (for the most part) so it won't work.

The women MRAs are going to be far more affective, but most of them are still very femcentric. So are the men.

Blogger VD May 11, 2015 12:29 PM  

True ... but is the implicit consent of marriage is revocable in light of an explicit declaration to the contrary ?

Yes. It's called "divorce". That is how you revoke marital consent.

Blogger M. Bibliophile May 11, 2015 12:30 PM  

@kbswift Nailed it. The comments make it clear that they see the end of marriage as an institution to be a desirable outcome. This was a hit piece on marriage in which the outcome was determined before a single piece of research was conducted.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 11, 2015 12:30 PM  

What rights are these "Men's Rights Activists" defending, then? Moderates are worse than useless.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 12:43 PM  

My lawyer smacked me once real hard and explained that I should not play lawyer; that's why I pay him. I should make money and pay someone competent, otherwise, I wind up paying somebody competent even more to fix the hole I've dug.

"David King is a senior executive at A Voice for Men, is heavily involved with management and organisation of the ICMI conference series and is, more routinely, the manager of server operations and is responsible for the care and feeding of the machines that bring you A Voice for Men."

That sysadmin should stick to cpio.

Anonymous dh May 11, 2015 12:45 PM  

That sysadmin shouldn't brag about running what could probably be best described as "a few" servers.

Anonymous #0348 May 11, 2015 12:46 PM  

"it was basically a bunch of gammas hoping it would make them look better"

Ah, thank you. Filed under "rabbits gonna rabbit"

Blogger Verne May 11, 2015 12:48 PM  

Sometimes understanding the meaning of words and understanding common law will leave you depressed. I have been right on these things over and over again. I have won the argument over and over again. But the war is lost when the miss educated majority starts to believe words mean what they never ment before. When the meaning of a word changes (marriage) the legal history behind that word becomes very difficult to understand. Now they just call you a bigot for not using the meaning they approve of and the average person stops listening to you. You are right but you lose anyway.

When people who should be your friends buy into a new meaning, its over. I hope I am wrong

Blogger borderwalker May 11, 2015 12:48 PM  

I humbly submit: if marriage does not grant sexual consent, why is the consistent refusal of sexual access for a specified period (in most U.S. states, one year) grounds for divorce?

Anonymous Porky May 11, 2015 12:48 PM  

Meanwhile, in California...

Bwahahaha...

Blogger Nate May 11, 2015 12:52 PM  

There is a giant boring coin... on one side... is MTGOW... on the other is MRA.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 12:53 PM  

clk: "True ... but is the implicit consent of marriage is revocable in light of an explicit declaration to the contrary ?"

In communal property states, does a man have the right to explicitly declare that his wife has no claim to any portion of this week's paycheck...that he can stick it all in a separate account to which she is not entitled in event of divorce?

If not, wherein lies the difference?

Anonymous DeepThought May 11, 2015 12:59 PM  

David King is a feminist posing as a MRA activist.

Blogger Joel #0164 May 11, 2015 12:59 PM  

MRA are men trying to beat feminist using feminists own moves. Only, they're men (for the most part) so it won't work.

MRAs are first wave feminists who think the second and third wave feminists have gone too far.

OpenID spastic0plastic May 11, 2015 1:03 PM  

Laws are also judged by their intent, the intent of marital rape laws was not to punish husbands who assaulted their wives, but to allow wives to bring a serious charge that doesn't require evidence against their husbands out of spite, which of course is not a valid use of law.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 11, 2015 1:04 PM  

Marital "rape" looks like just another means for women to use the criminal courts to obtain what other judicial divisions don't offer, similar to the kangaroo courts found at colleges are used by women as a means to exercise power over males in that sphere.

The entire "debate" is just another iteration of, "if they get you asking the wrong questions,..."

Blogger Joel #0164 May 11, 2015 1:04 PM  

David King is a feminist posing as a MRA activist.

As if there's a difference. The whole concept of "Men's Human Rights" (terminology very commonly batted around on A Voice for Men) is fundamentally leftist.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 11, 2015 1:11 PM  

"Rape" is currently one of the Trump Card terms intended to end any rational challenges.

"So, Mr. Day, when did you stop raping your wife?"

When women portray their avant-garde credentials with blue-or-chartreuse hair dye, men cut off their genitals, fashion a tube-like invagination and take estrogen injections to declare themselves women or either sex puts on the latest fad in clothing, flowing tattoos, secure that the fad will never change, surely we must marvel at the words such people use and the service to which they are placed.

What must it take to believe nothing that came before is relevant, and nothing that follows will matter?

Blogger KDeRosa May 11, 2015 1:12 PM  

Both the common law and case law are not only relevant, in most cases they trump black letter law, which is the reason the various courts are able to throw out black letter law and declare it to be invalid.

This is not the case. Statutes have primacy over the common law if there is a conflict. Judicial decisions are not supposed to make new law, they are merely supposed to interpret the existing law, whether that is the common law or statutes (and regulations). That is why most states in the U.S. now criminalize forced/non-consensual "rape" between married people due to statutes doing away with the marital exception to rape. As noted previously, the difficult part is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that implied consent was not given in the typical marital setting.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 1:17 PM  

@KDeRosa

I think if the interview with the ferrett man proved anything, (1) Vox is not talking about the specific laws of the states of the most feminist nation on earth, and (2) it would be worthwhile to consider that the original conversation over on AVFM was about Indian laws, and this errant sysop similarly projected American law onto the rest of the world. I believe Vox's follow ups to the ferrett man interview cemented the idea that most of the rest of the world has always considered marital rape to be some lunatic invention of the west and of America as it seeks to feed its whoredom to the rest of the world.

Anonymous Spearhead Reader May 11, 2015 1:17 PM  

"A Voice For Men" is just the latest version of the "Good Men Project", aka "Good Mangina Project". AVfM's idea of "Men's human rights" is just equalitarian feminism with some different drssing around the edges. That's why Elam has allowed women into his organization, and in time he'll find out what the 4:1 in-group preference of women will lead to - when he gets tossed out as the founder of the "Good Mangina Project" did.

MHRA and MRA are not the same thing.

Anonymous BGS May 11, 2015 1:22 PM  

Meanwhile, in California...Bwahahaha...

Most gays think they will be the one sitting at home smoking pot while their ex husband pays them alimony. Always believe they will be the commissar not the body in the ditch.

Anonymous Anonymous May 11, 2015 1:26 PM  

I've always though that the most sensible position on marital rape is this:

Marriage erases sexual boundaries between a couple through durable consent, but does not alter the ability of husband/wife to beat or batter his/her spouse.

Therefore, if a husband uses physical force to compel sex from his wife, he may, depending on the level of force used, be charged with assault and battery, but not rape.

Is this the consensus around here as well?

Blogger John Wright May 11, 2015 1:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jonathan May 11, 2015 1:32 PM  

If one listens to young women today the purpose of marriage is so that they can be a princess for a day.

Blogger Robert What? May 11, 2015 1:37 PM  

Take it from me, begrudging marital sex is worse than no marital sex. I've experienced both. In fact I'll say that "marital sex" is an oxymoron.

Blogger KDeRosa May 11, 2015 1:42 PM  

@MrGreenMan

Thanks for that clarification. If the issue is limited to India, then, yes, importing new statutes from foreign jurisdictions would be a dopey basis to form an argument. (However, the sentences I highlighted are still inaccurate because statutes in a country do trump the common law where there is a conflict and judicial decisions of that country merely interpret existing law, not make new law.)

Anonymous Chtorr May 11, 2015 1:43 PM  

I think the point anon makes about marital "rape" being a form of assault and battery is an important rhetorical point to make.

Discussions of this issue seem to gloss over that point, and dwell on the hairsplitting of rapeyness.

The open minded bystander tends to bristle at the thought of the entitlement to have spousal sex extend to attempts to claim that right by force.

"If you force your spouse to have sex, it might be assault or battery, but it still not *rape*" is a helpful rhetorical flourish

Anonymous TragicTome May 11, 2015 1:45 PM  

"What King is ignoring is that this is not only settled law, it has been settled law for considerably more than three centuries."

Just because it's settled in Vox Day's mind, we should not take this as a reason to move on to the obvious and sensible: Not only is there such a thing as marital (or "spousal) Rape, it is part of the law in all 50 states.

Vox Day further may not think it is sensible to establish spousal rape laws. I can imagine how that would be the case with people like Vox Day, chronic abusers, and violent types. But nevertheless, the non abusers, the non-violent types and the non-Vox Day types have in fact established such laws.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 1:48 PM  

"If one listens to young women today the purpose of marriage is so that they can be a princess for a day."

A day? More like eternity . . .

Anonymous clk May 11, 2015 1:51 PM  

The act in itself is one where consent is a distinquishing and required element and it does not exist without this consent -- the natural extension of this logic is that this consent can be explicitily revoked at any time by either party.

I think it is true that the act is an inherient component of marriage.. and that there is an implied consent and expectation ... but the recourse of refusal as VD points within a marriage is divorce. ... not forced participation which would render the act something different.

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis May 11, 2015 2:03 PM  

So if a man forces himself on his wife, is he guilty of any crime? or is he just a fool?

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 2:06 PM  

clk: " the natural extension of this logic is that this consent can be explicitily revoked at any time by either party."

Again, I ask you: can fiscal support within a marriage similarly be explicitly revoked at any time?

If not -- and I reiterate what Vox previously stated that a husband is legally obligated for his wife's debts -- then by that same logical extension there can be no difference between unwilling fiscal support and theft (or fraud, depending on how it's spent).

If explicit revocation is permitted for one condition of the marital contract, then it should also apply to all.

Blogger maniacprovost May 11, 2015 2:12 PM  

So if a man forces himself on his wife, is he guilty of any crime?

Domestic violence... which has many practical enforcement problems.

Blogger Doseux May 11, 2015 2:15 PM  

With friends like these, enemies are superfluous.

People in the Men's Rights Movement are going to get things wrong. I disagree with them on many issues, such as transsexualism, gay marriage, abortion, economics, and a host of other issues where MRAs (at least those that I listen to) tend to be left-leaning. But that doesn't mean that they're wrong on everything, or that I wouldn't support an MRA in an argument where we agreed.

This is also an odd post considering you actively encouraged your readers to donate to the Honey Badger Brigade, as the HBB is composed of Men's Rights Activists. They're a great group, and I was glad to see your support, but it seems incongruous with this post.

Blogger Verne May 11, 2015 2:17 PM  

"So if a man forces himself on his wife, is he guilty of any crime? or is he just a fool?"

Its domestic violence, assault, whatever legal term the local law calls it. It's not legal to beat your wife. And yes he is also a fool, a rather evil fool. If she will not give you sex leave her.

Blogger Aeoli Pera May 11, 2015 2:19 PM  

>Most gays think they will be the one sitting at home smoking pot while their ex husband pays them alimony. Always believe they will be the commissar not the body in the ditch.

Damn Steve, that cuts deep.

Anonymous TragicTome May 11, 2015 2:31 PM  

"Again, I ask you: can fiscal support within a marriage similarly be explicitly revoked at any time?"

Of course it can: She says to him: "I want to buy a new car. It will cost $55,000." He says to her, "No, we aren't spending that now." Here, he has explicitly revoked fiscal support. It is no different than her saying, "No, I don't want to have sex with you tonight."

However, if he throws her to the ground and forcefully rapes her while she struggles....He's going to jail....because it's rape.

Blogger Sean May 11, 2015 2:36 PM  

Don't most traditional wedding ceremonies include some form of the phrase "and give yourself to him". What do these people think that means?

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 2:40 PM  

Take it to the extreme example with kissing; it is so much an integral part of the marital relationship that it is -- unlike sex -- often incorporated into the marriage ceremony itself ("You may kiss the bride.")

Yet kissing somebody against their will is a crime -- felony battery on a law enforcement officer, in the case of this woman.

Is it going to be required to get explicit permission to kiss your wife each time, too? After all, the same legal principles should logically extend to this act also.

Blogger Nobody May 11, 2015 2:43 PM  

My husband committed marital rape on me! He forced himself on me!

Okay, now prove you didn't.

So now it boils down to taping the permission, or signing a contract, every time you have sex. And don't forget the disclaimers like, "Despite you having an orgasm, do I still get to finish off?" "Is there anything off limits, and what are they?" Etc., etc.

All this crap is nothing more than, "I GOT THE POWER! (to ef you)" Raises fist.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown May 11, 2015 2:52 PM  

when did it become the "Men's Human Rights Movement"?

Awww, man. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and figured they were finally learning game. Remember the kerfluffle few years back when OneSTDV referred to them as "half-a-fag MRAs"? Agree & Amplify = MHRM.

"But, the point could equally be used to argue for abolition of the man’s obligation to maintain his wife as much as to argue that his wife owes him sex in exchange for that obligation."

Nope. They're just gammas.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 2:53 PM  

TragicTome: "She says to him: "I want to buy a new car. It will cost $55,000." He says to her, "No, we aren't spending that now." Here, he has explicitly revoked fiscal support."

Incorrect, because she can still go out and purchase the car on credit (depending on circumstances, of course), for which he is legally liable against his will. He can claim that he doesn't support it, but the law holds otherwise. This is where a charge of theft/fraud would apply, if the same principle of unwillingness were applied to fiscal matters in the same manner.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 2:54 PM  

Of course it can: She says to him: "I want to buy a new car. It will cost $55,000." He says to her, "No, we aren't spending that now." Here, he has explicitly revoked fiscal support. It is no different than her saying, "No, I don't want to have sex with you tonight."

You're mistaken as to what fiscal support means.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 2:58 PM  

@TragicTome

And what if she goes out and buys it anyway? Or opens up a few new credit cards and maxes them out?

Is she going to jail for theft/fraud, since he is still legally financially responsible for the new debt against his will?

Blogger The Observer May 11, 2015 2:59 PM  

Just because it's settled in TragicTome's mind, we should not take this as a reason to move on to the obvious and sensible: Not only is there such a thing as sodomy, it is part of the law in many Muslim countries and carries the death penalty.

TragicTome may not think it is sensible to establish laws against sodomy. I can imagine how that would be the case with people like Tragictome, hedonists, and degenerates. But nevertheless, pious Muslims have in fact established such laws.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 3:05 PM  

I would love to watch TragicTome try to argue his way out of alimony with his explicitly revoked fiscal support argument.

Blogger Man. Cla. May 11, 2015 3:07 PM  

I think the only way one can reasonably declare marital rape has occurred is if the sex that is forced upon the other can be seen as sexually immoral, and therefore not something the marital contract could apply to.

Blogger Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 May 11, 2015 3:08 PM  

TragicTome: "She says to him: "I want to buy a new car. It will cost $55,000." He says to her, "No, we aren't spending that now." Here, he has explicitly revoked fiscal support."

He has not. She could against his will and instruction sell all their possessions, borrow money against their estate, or use credit to get what she wants and he would be legally liable for all of the above. No where in this has she violated the law and if he refused to pay that debt and tried to divorce her on those grounds a judge would automatically make him liable for at least half of it.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 11, 2015 3:09 PM  

@TragicTome
" I can imagine how that would be the case with people like Vox Day, chronic abusers, and violent types...."

And what do you base this accusation on, other than your libtard opinions? VD is correct in it being settled law. That does not say it is settled in his mind, it was settled before his great-great-grandmammy was a twinkle in her mammy's eye. Marital rape laws contradict marriage laws, and that's not surprise given the moronic leanings of modern politicians.

Your statement is a very good example of your political bias getting in the way of the facts.

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 3:09 PM  

But nevertheless, pious Muslims have in fact established such laws.

It used to be the law in Christian countries, but I doubt it was accompanied by the death penalty except in particularly egregious cases.

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 3:10 PM  

I would love to watch TragicTome try to argue his way out of alimony with his explicitly revoked fiscal support argument.

Men don't have Tragic in their screen names.

Blogger IM2L844 May 11, 2015 3:10 PM  

All this crap is nothing more than, "I GOT THE POWER! (to ef you)" Raises fist.

No, it's not. It's assault. It's not rape.

Blogger Owen May 11, 2015 3:17 PM  

My ex racked up $50K in credit card debt throughout our marriage. I never had a credit card, never on her card as an authorized purchaser (I couldn't even find our account balances unless an envelope slipped through her screening process), and I was still on the hook for half the debt at the end.

There is no equal leverage (from a legal standing) men have to counter what women can do to them in marriage. It just doesn't exist.

Withhold funds? She separates from you and the court garnishes your wages to support her with the added bonus that you're now painted as loving money (regardless of prudence) at the expense of your marriage.

We've hoed this row for years. Legal marriage offers men nothing but liability.

There are merits to marriage, of course. That's another matter.

Anonymous Giraffe May 11, 2015 3:18 PM  

No, it's not. It's assault. It's not rape.

What's the difference? You ain't getting any.

Anonymous TragicTome May 11, 2015 3:24 PM  

"And what if she goes out and buys it anyway? Or opens up a few new credit cards and maxes them out?

Is she going to jail for theft/fraud, since he is still legally financially responsible for the new debt against his will?"

Now you are starting to catch on. You can't make a reasonable comparison between the spouses financial responsibility to each other and their sexual responsibility to each other under the marriage contract. They are entirely different types of "things".

It can be put this way: When you marry, your spouses debt becomes your debt, but their body does not become your property.

For some odd reason you may find this unfair. But it' the law.

Any sane person understands that forcing yourself on a stranger that says "no" is rape....just as forcing yourself on your wife when she says "no" is also rape.

Anonymous TragicTome May 11, 2015 3:28 PM  

"Marital rape laws contradict marriage laws"

Which marriage laws???

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 3:35 PM  

For some odd reason you may find this unfair. But it' the law.

In a lot of states, it isn't.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 3:39 PM  

TragicTome, patiently explaining to us that marriage is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion May 11, 2015 3:39 PM  

In my US state, the statute explicitly states that marriage between actor and victim makes absolutely no difference in determining if rape occurred and sentencing.

Blogger Owen May 11, 2015 3:43 PM  

Which marriage laws???

Biblical law.

Blogger KDeRosa May 11, 2015 3:43 PM  

However, if he throws her to the ground and forcefully rapes her while she struggles....He's going to jail....because it's rape.

Prior to 1970, this would not have been the case in pretty much every state. Most states defined rape along these lines: "A male is guilty of rape in the first degree when he engages in sexual intercourse with a female * * * by forcible compulsion". "Female", for purposes of the rape statute, was defined as "any female person who is not married to the actor" So such conduct would not have been rape under the prevailing law.

Anonymous BGS May 11, 2015 3:44 PM  

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/05/09/chik-fil-a-t-shirts-the-new-hate-crime/
free speech "about 15 students were suspended and others were given detention." ACLU sided with brown/pink shirts

Anonymous Randomatos May 11, 2015 3:47 PM  

Tragic Tome - proof positive that some people are too stupid to even troll properly. Any takers on TT attempting to meaningfully respond to kbswift, Observer, or Owen... I'll give 4:1 that it won't manage to avoid contradicting itself.
Tragic Tard, let's try this in really basic terms. If a salesman signs a contract to provide a customer with 20 units of x a month, takes payment, and delivers the first 5, but then refuses to deliver the rest of the goods, is the customer justified in using force (legal, physical, social or otherwise) to either take delivery of the purchased product, or receive his money back for the unfulfilled portion of his order? -TL/DR- Does a party to a contract have a reasonable expectation to see it fulfilled?

Anonymous clk May 11, 2015 3:54 PM  

Just to be clear "Water boy" ... I am not with this Tragic Tome -- I think he/she is just trolling ... I havent replied to earlier comments because I am busy here.. but will later tonight...

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 3:55 PM  

Any sane person understands that forcing yourself on a stranger that says "no" is rape....just as forcing yourself on your wife when she says "no" is also rape.

Any sane person understands that forcing a man to financially support his wife when he says no is financial rape.

I can play the rhetorical game, too.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 3:57 PM  

KdeRose:

What's your point? That being able violently abuse your wife and rape her with no potential legal consequences is what made the 60s and 70s the good old days?

Blogger Stephen Ward May 11, 2015 3:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 11, 2015 3:58 PM  

In a Christian marriage Saint Paul states that:

1 Corinthians 7
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Blogger Sean Carnegie May 11, 2015 3:58 PM  

And yet I knew it had to be from AVfM before clicking.

Blogger Stephen Ward May 11, 2015 3:59 PM  

@TragicTome

If both sexual and fiscal consent can be unilaterally revoked at will in a marriage, what distinguishes a marriage from a FWB relationship?

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 4:00 PM  

That being able violently abuse your wife and rape her with no potential legal consequences is what made the 60s and 70s the good old days?

The hysteria poureth forth.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:02 PM  

That being able violently abuse your wife and rape her with no potential legal consequences is what made the 60s and 70s the good old days?

You need to go into the corner and have a good cry, Tragic Tome. It's obvious you're upset and not thinking rationally.

Blogger S1AL May 11, 2015 4:02 PM  

Shhhh. Nobody tell this guy that the 1950's were the happiest decade of American history. Scientifically speaking, of course.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 4:03 PM  

TragicTome thinks we are advocating for all the married men to go home and rape their wives tonight. Time for her to lay off the 50 Shades of Grey.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:03 PM  

Rando:

Yes.

Now, tell me how a spouse has legally committed to relinquish all of their sexual autonomy on account of saying I DO.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 4:03 PM  

TragicTome: "It can be put this way: When you marry, your spouses debt becomes your debt, but their body does not become your property."

What does the phrase, "to have and to hold" -- as often found in conventional wedding vows -- mean?

"
Any sane person understands that forcing yourself on a stranger that says "no" is rape....just as forcing yourself on your wife when she says "no" is also rape.
"


Any sane person understands that taking money from a stranger that says "no" is theft....just as taking money from your husband when he says "no" is also theft.

Oops, no it isn't. Guess we have to apply selective logic, instead.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 11, 2015 4:04 PM  

"Now you are starting to catch on. You can't make a reasonable comparison between the spouses financial responsibility to each other and their sexual responsibility to each other under the marriage contract. They are entirely different types of "things".

It can be put this way: When you marry, your spouses debt becomes your debt, but their body does not become your property.

For some odd reason you may find this unfair. But it' the law."

Are you Jewish? Your shamelessness is amazing.

Also, nice appeal ad populum.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:05 PM  

Now, tell me how a spouse has legally committed to relinquish all of their sexual autonomy on account of saying I DO.

First you tell us how a man relinquishes fiscal autonomy by saying 'I do'.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 4:05 PM  

"sexual autonomy "

We have identified your disconnect. There is no such thing in the context of marriage.

Blogger Owen May 11, 2015 4:05 PM  

Marissa,
The hysteria poureth forth.

As you astutely noted, men don't put "tragic" in their screen names.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:07 PM  

"TragicTome thinks we are advocating for all the married men to go home and rape their wives tonight. Time for her to lay off the 50 Shades of Grey."

No. You are advocating for the right to rape your wife without legal consequence...whether you choose to do so tonight or next week.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 11, 2015 4:09 PM  

In marriage, financial decisions are both yes, or it is a no go. With sex is both yes to withold.

The principle is that both must agree in all matters to change the status. Obviously (I hope), the couple is wise to not riffle with the minutiae.

In marriage, taking on new dept is a change in status, financial status.

In marriage, to withold sex is a change of status, especially, if it is retaliatory.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:10 PM  

No. You are advocating for the right to rape your wife without legal consequence...whether you choose to do so tonight or next week.

You can keep repeating your mischaracterizations all you like but it only makes you look foolish.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 11, 2015 4:11 PM  

I. ya, yay... debt not dept.

Blogger kh123 May 11, 2015 4:12 PM  

"For some odd reason you may find this dyscivic..."

Fixed.

"But it' the law."

Tad's Greatest Hits, Vol I.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:13 PM  

Rabbi

You are incorrect...demonstrated by the laws of all 50 states.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 11, 2015 4:14 PM  

clk: "Just to be clear "Water boy" ... I am not with this Tragic Tome -- I think he/she is just trolling ... I havent replied to earlier comments because I am busy here.. but will later tonight... "

No worries. I recognize your handle as one who has been around here for quite a while and not in the habit of trolling.

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 4:14 PM  

TragicTome thinks we are advocating for all the married men to go home and rape their wives tonight. Time for her to lay off the 50 Shades of Grey.

Thinks? Hopes. Feminism is one big rape fantasy writ large.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 4:16 PM  

All the laws are 100% right and should never be questioned or changes, starting now. TragicTome has spoken!

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 4:16 PM  

Tragic Tad Bytes:
You are advocating for the right to rape your wife without legal consequence...whether you choose to do so tonight or next week.


Yeah, just like I'm advocating for robbery when my wife takes money out of my wallet to pay for a delivery, or I take money out of her purse on the way to the dry cleaner.

Because you want all marriages to be three-way: man, woman, and government.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:17 PM  

You are incorrect...demonstrated by the laws of all 50 states.

Do you so vigorously defend laws banning homosexuality or is your appeal to the legal system selective?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 4:18 PM  

Hey, Tragic, whatever happened to all that prog-talk about "Keep The Government Out Of My Bedroom"?

Anonymous Randomatos May 11, 2015 4:23 PM  

@TT
If you recognize that both parties have a reasonable expectation that the contract be fulfilled, then you are ready to examine the contract itself. As several regulars already pointed out, the wife does in fact give her body to her husband as part of the marriage contract, just as he gives her his body, especially access to the fruit of his labors. Do you grasp this part of the contract?
Crude summary - Marriage contract means he brings home the bacon, she brings him her body.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:25 PM  

Marissa,
It's not the feminists who want to remove all consequences for raping spouses.

What's curious is that no one can actually point to a justification for their claim that the wife has no recourse if her husband won't take "no" for an answer.

No one is backing up VDs tortured logic for good reason, but at this point all they have for backing up their own claims to legal spousal rape is "I say so"...

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:29 PM  

Random.... It is impossible for anyone to "give" their body to another person. And please show me where the marriage contract says anything about the giving of any body to any one.

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:31 PM  

As several regulars already pointed out, the wife does in fact give her body to her husband as part of the marriage contract, just as he gives her his body, especially access to the fruit of his labors.

Well put, Randomatos. Midwits like Tragic Tome constantly make the mistake of reducing the "give her body" part of the equation to sex. While that's part of it, it also more importantly means procreation. Further, it means she sees to the physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being of her husband so he can fulfill his part of the deal.

But libtards always reduce it to sex, being the perverted fetishists that they are.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 4:31 PM  

Multiple people have, with explicit references to the Bible and 900 years of common law.

Your response has been "Nu-uh the law says different right now!"

Blogger Harsh May 11, 2015 4:32 PM  

What's curious is that no one can actually point to a justification for their claim that the wife has no recourse if her husband won't take "no" for an answer.

Divorce. It's already been mentioned, you 'tard.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 4:32 PM  

@Tragic Tome

Women are property: Either their father owns them or their husband does. You didn't know this?

I paid 10 good camels for my wife.

OpenID malcolmthecynic May 11, 2015 4:34 PM  

...just as forcing yourself on your wife when she says "no" is also rape.

But she didn't say no. She agreed to the arrangement when she got married. If men don't have a right to sex when married, why on earth would they get married?

If the wife says and he pins her to the bed while she struggles and begs for him to stop, then you've got assault. Borderline unprovable assault. But not rape.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 11, 2015 4:35 PM  

"Random.... It is impossible for anyone to "give" their body to another person."

An interesting assertion, since a woman giving her body to her husband has been the norm throughout human history across most cultures.

Anonymous DeepThought May 11, 2015 4:35 PM  

Well well, I got myself banned for pointing out how David King's article was filled with erroneous analysis. And he has women as moderators criticizing his enemies?

A voice for men should be renamed as a Voice for feminist men. The site is only good for ridicule. On a positive note, I am happy to see there is a place for ugly women and men to meet up and talk to each other.

That site is a joke. MRA site? It's

Blogger Jim May 11, 2015 4:36 PM  

Now, tell me how a spouse has legally committed to relinquish all of their sexual autonomy on account of saying I DO.

I [ahy]
pronoun, nominative I, possessive my or mine, objective me; plural nominative we, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.

Do [doo; unstressed doo, duh]
verb (used with object), present singular 1st person do, 2nd do or (Archaic) doest or dost, 3rd does or (Archaic) doeth or doth, present plural do; past singular 1st person did, 2nd did or (Archaic) didst, 3rd did, past plural did; past participle done; present participle doing.
1. to perform (an act, duty, role, etc.):
Do nothing until you hear the bell.
2. to execute (a piece or amount of work):
to do a hauling job.
3. to accomplish; finish; complete:
He has already done his homework.
4. to put forth; exert:
Do your best.
5. to be the cause of (good, harm, credit, etc.); bring about; effect.
6. to render, give, or pay (homage, justice, etc.).
7. to deal with, fix, clean, arrange, move, etc., (anything) as the case may require:
to do the dishes.

I hope this answers your question.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:40 PM  

"Your response has been "Nu-uh the law says different right now!"

The quite obvious flaw on VDs and everyone else's thinking is in asserting that the ideas in the bible have any authority whatsoever where marriage and criminal law is concerned.its why people don't write legal briefs that begin and end with: the bible says so.

If the bible is all you got, then it appears you've brought a knife to a gun fight.

Anonymous Randomatos May 11, 2015 4:41 PM  

@TT, just in case if Google really does vex you as much as reading for comprehension does, please see the following examples of traditional marriage vows/contracts. Note the common theme of abandoning all others and cleaving to the spouse, to have and to hold, and such.
https://www.theknot.com/content/traditional-wedding-vows-from-various-religions

Do you need a 'caring adult' to explain the meaning to you, or have you already cut ties with your father, grandfather, uncles, etc?
Do you understand the contract now?

Blogger Noah B #120 May 11, 2015 4:41 PM  

It really boils down to this: government's interference in marriage is complete nonsense. The government could pass a law tomorrow stating that someone chewing gum is guilty of theft, but that wouldn't make it so.

Blogger bob k. mando May 11, 2015 4:42 PM  

Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:25 PM
Marissa,
It's not the feminists who want to remove all consequences for raping spouses.



huh. that's weird.

last i checked, physical abuse of spouse or children WAS illegal.

and if *your wife* was NOT physically resisting you ... i have a real hard time figuring out how that's supposed to be rape.

dumbass.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 11, 2015 4:43 PM  

If statutory law always governs, then the Nazis didn't do anything wrong.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 4:45 PM  

"If the bible is all you got, then it appears you've brought a knife to a gun fight."

A slingshot is all we need.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 4:46 PM  

"The quite obvious flaw on VDs and everyone else's thinking is in asserting that the ideas in the bible have any authority whatsoever where marriage and criminal law is concerned."

Whose idea was marriage? The State's? Please enlighten us.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:52 PM  

Straight forward question:

Man says to wife: I wanna fuck.

Wife says to husband: my back is killing me. Not now.

Husband says: I don't care grabs his wife and ducks her while she screams in pain.

Question: ought the husband be exposed to any legal consequences for his action?

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 4:53 PM  

TragicTome, I get it. You're only pointing out that the current legal definition of marriage does not involve sex at all!

It is a legal employment contract for paying a woman to get fat and make your life miserable until such a time until she doesn't want to "work" for you anymore whereby she is entitled to a severance package of half your paycheck and all your kids.

We should be thanking our lucky stars if our wife is willing to go above and beyond her contractual obligations and touch us, much less have actual sex!

Blogger Nobody May 11, 2015 4:54 PM  

All this crap is nothing more than, "I GOT THE POWER! (to ef you)" Raises fist.

No, it's not. It's assault. It's not rape.

And you think they are being benevolent with this crap. They want the power to, at anytime, for whatever reason, say, "He raped me," and my G-d, you better believe them.

He didn't buy me a new car!

He raped me!

He didn't do this or that!

He raped me!

It's about the power of revenge. I'll show his a**!

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 4:59 PM  

"TragicTome, I get it. You're only pointing out that the current legal definition of marriage does not involve sex at all! "

No... I'm pointing out that anyone who thinks marriage gives the husband the right to sex on demand is without any moral character

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 5:00 PM  

I don't care grabs his wife and ducks her while she screams in pain.

More hysteria right on cue. Your question was already answered - assault already exists if he physically hurts his wife.

Blogger Marissa May 11, 2015 5:01 PM  

No... I'm pointing out that anyone who thinks marriage gives the husband the right to sex on demand is without any moral character

Is it more likely that all of our ancestors had no moral character or that hysteria-prone "TragicTome" is the moral beacon we've all been waiting for?

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 5:03 PM  

We're pointing out that someone who doesn't think that's the case doesn't have the mental acuity to legally be considered an functioning adult.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 5:05 PM  

Tiny Tome, why would a woman make such a horrible choice in her husband? Why did she not judge his character and not choose a man who would do that?

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 5:05 PM  

The only thing tragic is the poor unaware sap who's life she's going to ruin with her "marriage".

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 5:07 PM  

"Tiny Tome, why would a woman make such a horrible choice in her husband? Why did she not judge his character and not choose a man who would do that?"

What does that matter?

Anonymous Randomatos May 11, 2015 5:08 PM  

@TT.
Do you understand the contract yet?
As for your dodge, do you really think that all women are so hopelessly stupid and inept as to only marry abusive thugs who have no respect for their bodies? Your "straight forward question" is probably the most hateful, belittling, disrespectful spit-in-the-face to women post on the entire thread, even surpassing the sarcastic posts mocking you.
But back to the actual topic - do you understand the contract yet?

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 5:11 PM  

@Tragic Tome

Because you want to take away her agency, her adulthood, and her very humanity by saying you will gainsay her choices with the power of law when convenient. What could be more detrimental to a woman who relies on her husband to provide for her to have the law jail him and take away his ability to make money and pay taxes? No one makes America's women marry; they marry whom they choose.

Anonymous Tragic Tome? May 11, 2015 5:12 PM  

Random.... What contract? Which specific contract? And what law govern the contract of which you speak?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 11, 2015 5:13 PM  

No... I'm pointing out that anyone who thinks marriage gives the husband the right to sex on demand is without any moral character

Anyone who thinks marriage gives the wife the right to sex on demand is without any moral character.

Heh.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 5:14 PM  

@Tragic Tome

I see your confusion on the contract piece. Her word in vow, in front of witnesses, is a contract that does not have to be enforced. You don't believe women should be able to make a pledge that she will, indeed, be her husband's help meet, that she will provide for his sexual needs and he hers. I understand now - you are in favor of the law infantilizing women.

Why do you think women are such children that a paternalistic government must decide what they say can and cannot be enforced?

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 5:15 PM  

Green:

What century do you live in.

Why wouldn't the woman just have the rapist husband thrown in jail and keep on supporting her self?

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 5:15 PM  

@TT

I posed a direct question a few comments ago.

Whose idea was marriage? The State's?

Are you willing to extend the courtesy of answering? Thank you.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 5:16 PM  

@Tragic Tome

I see your paternalism knows no end. You decide what lifestyles women are permitted to engage in. She cannot, for example, be a stay-at-home mom. You will charge in and fix things for her - exactly your way.

Anonymous Pastor (#0097) May 11, 2015 5:18 PM  

There seems to be broad agreement that assaulting one's wife is immoral, to include forcible sexual contact. But surely common law permits husbands to use at least some level of force against their wives, as against their children, no?

Those who want to argue that marital rape is impossible, despite current legislation, but at the same time hold that physical coercion would constitute assault, what's your basis for rejecting one modern innovation and not the other?

Blogger Stephen Ward May 11, 2015 5:19 PM  

Tragic Tome

How is marriage different from FWB?

Anonymous Jourdan, #200 May 11, 2015 5:20 PM  

Vox is certainly right that for centuries under the Common Law a man could not be found guilty of rape for having sex with his wife, though, of course, he certainly could be found guilty of assault or other crimes if the husband were to use force. However, in this as in many other aspects of our legal life since the Liberal Revolution, there have been many changes to the old Common Law.

To my knowledge, courts have skirted around this issue as to address it squarely would require either finding a permanent consent or not so finding, and no one really wants to touch that issue.

Under current law where I practiced, the only inquiry with regard to rape are the statutory elements, and marriage is not involved. Thus, a husband certainly can be found guilty of rape.

As usual, the two sides are talking past one another. One side is speaking of long-settled traditions which arose to give the marriage contract value in both directions as a means of advancing civilization (and not /NOT to give license to commit rape in a marriage; the idea that the billions of Western men to date were routine rapists is ludicrous, but modern rationalists are incapable of understanding the fine line between theory and practice), while the other side is speaking of the post-Liberal Revolution world of absolute individualism and pure autonomy, which has never formed the basis for any lasting state of affairs.

To try to bring the emotions down a bit, let's focus on a different crime. If a woman is abused by her husband and the woman's brothers pay him a visit, knock him around a bit and correct his behavior, many juries wouldn't convict. Now, one could read that as a general license to beat up brothers-in-law, but again that would be confusing practice for theory.

In short, the reality is that whatever the Common Law said about permanent consent, a husband who pressed the case would find other correctives back when we lived in more organic communities.

Last point: It is indeed very, very unacceptable that the modern autonomists declare themselves okay with impinging the husband's autonomy under the marriage contract, and this unprincipled exception, if left uncorrected, may lead to a drastic lowering of the marriage rate...oh, you say it already has? Why, how surprising.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 11, 2015 5:20 PM  

@Tragic Tome

I sure hope some day the scales fall from your eyes, that you will not be an extremist, that you will not be ruled by extremes, that you will not think everyone who disagrees with you must be evil since you receive word straight from your own god, yourself... but, it will probably take a lot of prayer for that to happen. You really must view anyone who disagrees with you as a monster to get through the day, huh?

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 5:21 PM  

"I see your confusion on the contract piece. Her word in vow, in front of witnesses, is a contract that does not have to be enforced."

Your problem in defending VDs hopeless claim is that the wedding vows are not enforceable contracts. Plus, I've never heard a vow that says a husband may have sex from his wife on demand. Contracts are very specific documents and are governed by real law...not "Biblical Law".

Anonymous Spearhead Reader May 11, 2015 5:22 PM  

DeepThought
Well well, I got myself banned for pointing out how David King's article was filled with erroneous analysis. And he has women as moderators criticizing his enemies?

Same stuff was going on at "Good Mangina Project" a few years back.

A voice for men should be renamed as a Voice for feminist men.

Pretty much.

The site is only good for ridicule. On a positive note, I am happy to see there is a place for ugly women and men to meet up and talk to each other.


And yet Futrelle, of "We Hunted The Manbooby", claims to hate it.

That site is a joke. MRA site? It's..

Yet another online manifestation of the Feminine Imperative.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 5:23 PM  

Rabbi,

You mean who invented the idea of 2 people committing themselves to one another? Or do you mean marriage as defined and regulated by the state?

Blogger HalibetLector May 11, 2015 5:24 PM  

@Tragic

Do you understand that english common law is actual law? Actual, modern law that is enforced in America right now?

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 5:26 PM  

I'll try to type a bit more slowly: The formal institution of marriage . . . whose idea?

Anonymous Chuckles May 11, 2015 5:27 PM  

'Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.'
G.B. Shaw

Blogger Blume May 11, 2015 5:27 PM  

You read saint Paul what else is there to argue. Marriage is giving up your sexual autonomy the man to the woman and the woman to the man. Or are you one of those cuckie boys who gets of on his wife sleeping with other men.

Blogger Blume May 11, 2015 5:33 PM  

Only ten? I had to pay 200 for a blonde.

Anonymous p-dawg May 11, 2015 5:39 PM  

@Tragic Tome: I'm surprised that you would defend slavery and Jim Crow laws. Why do you hate black people so much? Also, you should inform the US military that one cannot give one's body away. The enlistment contract explicitly requires it. If you think that is incorrect, then why do people go to jail for being AWOL? They're just revoking consent...

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 5:42 PM  

"If you think that is incorrect, then why do people go to jail for being AWOL?'

Not to mention an Article 15 for a sunburn. Because: damaging US property. IIRC G.I. stands for Government Issue.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 5:49 PM  


How is marriage different from FWB?



Harder to get chilimony out of FWB. For now.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 5:58 PM  

"I'll try to type a bit more slowly: The formal institution of marriage . . . whose idea? "

I asked you a clarifying question, Rabbi. Answer or don't. If you don't, I'll know you don't want a serious response.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:02 PM  

"Marriage is giving up your sexual autonomy the man to the woman and the woman to the man"

Blume:
That would be YOUR definition of marriage. Not THE definition of marriage. And certainly not the definition of marriage that is spelled out in civil code.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 6:03 PM  

Tragic Tad-Bytes, why do you want the government intruding into people's bedrooms?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 6:05 PM  

Blume:
That would be YOUR definition of marriage. Not THE definition of marriage.


Tragic, what is THE definition of marriage, then? Don't try to pass of YOUR definition as THE definition, either.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:09 PM  

"Tragic, what is THE definition of marriage, then? Don't try to pass of YOUR definition as THE definition, either."

Well, for the purposes of this discussion I can tell you it would not include "an arrangement wherein a man may rape his wife without any legal consequence."

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 6:10 PM  

"I asked you a clarifying question, Rabbi. Answer or don't. If you don't, I'll know you don't want a serious response."

My question didn't need "clarification" nor did I ask you to "clarify", I asked you to answer. The question is a fair one and straightforward enough. Please answer.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:11 PM  

"Tragic Tad-Bytes, why do you want the government intruding into people's bedrooms? "

Is this aimed at me? If so....I want the government in my bedroom when I call them to tell them I was raped, whether the rapist is a stranger or a husband. Sort of like I want the govt. in my bedroom when I tell them they may come in and take finger prints of the rapist who was there....be he a husband or a stranger.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 6:15 PM  

"Well, for the purposes of this discussion I can tell you it would not include "an arrangement wherein a man may rape his wife without any legal consequence.""

@Paradigm

I feel your pain. I truly do.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 6:15 PM  

"an arrangement wherein a man may rape his wife without any legal consequence."
Who here holds that position?

Blogger Jim May 11, 2015 6:16 PM  

Is this aimed at me? If so....I want the government in my bedroom when I call them to tell them I was raped, whether the rapist is a stranger or a husband. Sort of like I want the govt. in my bedroom when I tell them they may come in and take finger prints of the rapist who was there....be he a husband or a stranger
What is someone else's husband doing in your bedroom to begin with?

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:17 PM  

"My question didn't need "clarification" nor did I ask you to "clarify", I asked you to answer. The question is a fair one and straightforward enough. Please answer."

You asked, "Whose Idea was marriage? The state?"

Is that a two part question? Or are you simply asking if the state invented marriage? Do you mean what civilization or people first imagined the idea of "marriage" as a religious institution or as a civic institution or as a diplomatic institution?

Yes...a question posed as poorly as yours certainly needs clarification. But believe me, I understand why you are choosing not to clarify.

Anonymous Anonymous May 11, 2015 6:19 PM  

score one for Orthodox Catholic traditionalist doctrine which says that humans marry to have lots of sex and lots of kids.my wife asked me one time why I had married her. was it for love? nope. I told her it was because I wanted to have kids and I could finally afford them.I said if I just wanted to love women I could have my pick of beautiful women especially since my stock would rise over the years.I told her I chose her because she is one of the few women I've met who doesn't annoy me and make me nauseous. plus she was an attractive flight attendant. and she came from a similar genetic and socioeconomic German classy background. she looked very hurt. Then I think we made love. number 4 is cooking in the oven and due in October. gentlemen, do yourself a favor and mary a devout Catholic girl from Eastern Europe if you need to go there. it's not foolproof, but it is about as good of an insurance policy that you will get when it comes to marriage. don't say no one ever warned you. this is backed up by hard science. bottom line, marry young, marry a devout traditional catholic, have lots of sex, have lots of kids, get old with a true friend at your side. Cheers.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) May 11, 2015 6:23 PM  

Tragic(ally) you are just a disingenuous, goalpost-moving troll who won't answer a simple question in a straightforward manner. No one as smart as you seem to think you are could possibly be that obtuse in so many different ways.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:28 PM  

"Tragic(ally) you are just a disingenuous, goalpost-moving troll who won't answer a simple question in a straightforward manner."

The question asked is so incredibly vague it nearly can't be answered. Plus, it was not an honest question as the "Rabbi" already believes he has an answer. Why he doesn't just state what he thinks and instead roams in to the realm of NeverNever Rhetoric is unclear. But it's clear that's what he's doing.

So, take your goalposts and shove them. I didn't move anything. I merely destroyed each and every one of your arguments so that all you've got left to defend the notion that husbands my rape without consequence is "The Bible Says So".

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 6:31 PM  

"You asked, "Whose Idea was marriage? The state?""

Yes, I did.

"Is that a two part question? Or are you simply asking if the state invented marriage? Do you mean what civilization or people first imagined the idea of "marriage" as a religious institution or as a civic institution or as a diplomatic institution?"

Does it matter? The purpose of my question (most questions) was to afford you the opportunity to clarify your position and help me better understand your perspective.

"Yes...a question posed as poorly as yours certainly needs clarification."

OK. You're probably right. I'll try again:

Whose idea was marriage?

"But believe me, I understand why you are choosing not to clarify."

Not until you tell how you understand why I am choosing not to clarify.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 6:36 PM  

" . . . the "Rabbi" already believes he has an answer."

What's so scary about that?

Anonymous Nathanael May 11, 2015 6:38 PM  

It's been four Tragic Tad comments now and she still hasn't managed to answer Paradigm's very simple question on what the definition of marriage is.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:38 PM  

"Whose idea was marriage?"

It was a state contemplated by a variety of cultures and explained in a variety of ways. Again, the question is extraordinarily vague....Why you care to ask a question that can only be answered with an equally vague response is unclear.

OpenID kbswift May 11, 2015 6:39 PM  

"husbands my rape without consequence"
Who here has stated that?

Anonymous Stingray May 11, 2015 6:44 PM  

so that all you've got left to defend the notion that husbands my rape without consequence

Why do people come in here and always ignore the many comments that address these issues? It happens every single time.

They are always so binary. A man is either under his wife's thumb or he's a serial rapist without recourse. Because men who think there is no marital rape are all men who would expect sex from their wives no matter how sick, injured or incapacitated they are. As if the wives would say "not tonight dear, I'm sick." and these men would simply force themselves on her with impunity.

It happens every. single. time.

Blogger Rabbi B May 11, 2015 6:44 PM  

"It was a state contemplated by a variety of cultures and explained in a variety of ways."

There, that wasn't so bad, now was it? Thank you.

"extraordinarily vague"

Neither extraordinary nor vague.

". . . . that can only be answered with an equally vague response is unclear."

Well, I guess that's entirely up to you how vague or clear you want your response to be.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:48 PM  

""husbands my rape without consequence"
Who here has stated that?"

Everyone who supports the notion that a wife is obligated to have sex with her husband due to some sort of "contract".

Or am I to understand that this is all a semantic argument? Am I to understand that you simply don't like the idea of a husband forcing himself on his wife when she says "no" being called "rape", but rather believe this kind of thing should be called something else and can and should be punishable under the law as assault?

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 6:52 PM  

"Because men who think there is no marital rape are all men who would expect sex from their wives no matter how sick, injured or incapacitated they are."

No. The problem is those who believe that in those instances when the men ignore the pleas of their wives and instead rape them, ought not be prosecuted for exactly what they've done: rape.....whether they themselves would do it or not.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 11, 2015 6:54 PM  

"No... I'm pointing out that anyone who thinks marriage gives the husband the right to sex on demand is without any moral character"

Yeppers, a simple troll. That was a rather amateurish attempt at deflection Tragic. I did better than that when I was in third grade and caught in the bag of marshmallows by my father.

Your concept of marriage isn't marriage, but simply a temporary arrangement of living space, at best. What has come to be known as "Marriage 2.0" is not marriage by any reasonable concept as it has not balance and does not involve the complete melding of two people to face life together. Anyone taking up that idea is insane. Any woman that has kids with a man in such a relationship is an utter idiot placing her kids at risk for social pathologies that destroy as well as poverty. Neither women or kids will thrive in such an environment.

That you won't answer Rabbi's reasonable question, giving the excuse that it needs clarification exposes you as nothing but social justice warrior. What you posit as marriage is anything but.

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 7:01 PM  

"Your concept of marriage isn't marriage, but simply a temporary arrangement of living space, at best..."

All you know of my concept of marriage is that I'm one of the sane ones that understands that concept does not include the the husband being able to rape the spouse without consequence.

Do you really want to argue that real marriage is one in which there is "balance" and "the complete melding of two people to face life together", along with the right of the husband to rape the wife without consequence?

There are countless successful marriages in which the couple shares the challenges of life, shares responsibilities and doesn't insist that the husband must have the right to rape.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) May 11, 2015 7:06 PM  

@Trag

"I'm one of the sane ones" Maybe. Maybe not

Blogger Stephen Ward May 11, 2015 7:07 PM  

@Tragic Tome

What is the difference between marriage and FWB?

Anonymous Tragic Tome May 11, 2015 7:10 PM  

"What is the difference between marriage and FWB?"

Besides the legal differences?

Besides the level of commitment?

Besides the familial implications?

Blogger Stephen Ward May 11, 2015 7:11 PM  

what are the legal differences?
what difference is there in the level of commitment?
what are the familial implications?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 11, 2015 7:13 PM  

Well, for the purposes of this discussion I can tell you it would not include "an arrangement wherein a man may rape his wife without any legal consequence."

That doesn't answer the question.

Tragic, what is THE definition of marriage, then? Don't try to pass of YOUR definition as THE definition, either.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 11, 2015 7:14 PM  

@Tragic
"All you know of my concept of marriage is that I'm one of the sane ones that understands that concept does not include the the husband being able to rape the spouse without consequence."

This is warm bovine waste. You've said more than enough to a reasonable man to reach a conclusion to what you concept of marriage is, and it is not marriage by any concept other than that of the social justice warrior. You keep getting stuck on rape, but the only way for rape to exist in marriage is for it to not be marriage. Marriage is a total giving of yourself to another. It is not selective as you wish it to be.

And, no, there are NO successful marriages under your concept of marriage. All end in divorce because of selfishness. Your definition of marriage is little more than FWB, if it even rises to that level.

I notice you are still ignoring Rabbi's straightforward question.

Blogger Robert What? May 11, 2015 7:15 PM  

In any other arena of life a contract written like a modern marriage contract would be considered unenforceable. Effectively a fraudulent contract because:

A) there is no consideration for one of the parties (the husband). I'm using "consideration" in the legal sense.

B) One party (the husband) continues to have obligations to the second party (the wife) even if the contract has been unilaterally terminated, without cause, by the second party.

Anonymous Spearhead Reader May 11, 2015 7:17 PM  

Moving right along, it should be obvious that the amorphous blob commonly called the "MRA" is unlike feminism in a couple of ways. First, it's not funded by the Ford Foundation or other such orgs, and second there's no leader. It is leaderless, as is the manosphere in general.

So Spearhead has stood down for a while? Elusive Wapiti has left his blog to run on autopilot? Doesn't matter, AlphaGame, ReturnOfKings, Heartiste, MMSL, Dalrock, etc. are still ongoing.Propagation of red pill wisdom will continue, even as men disagree on many details.

When Elam gets kicked out of AVfM he'll be surprised, because he doesn't get it, he's still blue pill in critical ways.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 11, 2015 7:20 PM  

Welcome aboard Pastor.

In some societies, abusing a wife is moral. It is normative behavior.

Treating a wife abusively is unethical.

Blogger J Thomas May 11, 2015 7:31 PM  

Maybe a better question than:

"Is marital rape an oxymoron?",

is the question:

"Is there any amount of therapy that would help me as a man get back to the more ideal psychological place where I can render the first question redundant, by virtue of the fact that I have come to a more healthy place where I work really hard to make my wife feel loved and safe, and learn more self-confidence, that she (assuming she isn't completely mind-fucked or neurotic) naturally just wants to make love to me more regularly?

In other words, who gives a fuck about the question of whether or not marital rape is an oxymoron, but rather how can we help men learn to overcome the stalled emotional state that eventually results in bringing up ridiculous questions like that one?

Yes, if a wife is constantly just being "bent over" regardless of whether she wants it or not, that's a problem indeed. Surely though, the real problem is that the man is a mind-fucked robot, and not whether or not such acts are considered "rape" or not.

Anonymous Cheech And Chong Found God May 11, 2015 7:42 PM  

“This was a hit piece on marriage in which the outcome was determined before a single piece of research was conducted.”

Exactly why the Roissy's and Roosh's of the world, with their "pump and dump" pronouncements, are evil personified. Now, Christian men, would you agree?

Blogger njartist May 11, 2015 7:57 PM  

I couldn't read through the entire thing: the initial premise that there is such a thing as marital rape is completely wrong; and everything degrades from that point.

No Christian can take that position: that the spouses cannot refuse each other except for uncleanliness or an agreed upon reason is unquestionably in scripture: Paul writes about this.

David King appears to be clueless as to the use by women of "he abused me," "he abused my children," and "I fear for my safety" excuses for getting the husband out of the house and to start the process of getting cash and prizes. Now, by bringing in "marital rape," the husband faces charges which can put him away for years. King has not thought this argument through.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 11, 2015 9:35 PM  

" King has not thought this argument through."

That is a massive understatement.

Blogger Sherwood family May 12, 2015 12:30 AM  

Jeez, this Tragic Tome guy is a a piece of work. Rather than answer a simple question and showing, by logic, why a woman can revoke sexual consent in marriage but a man cannot refuse financial support, he goes on and on with tortured definitions, disqualification, ad hominem, and goal post moving. These rhetorical tactics show us all we need to know about Tragic Tome: he/she/it is not honest. An honest interlocutor would not seek to torture the definitions of "contract", an honest interlocutor would not attempt to confuse the meaning of "give herself" or try to change the definitions. Tragic Tome is more committed to his/her/its personal crusade to vilify married sex than he/she/it is to the truth. Facts, logic, explanations, are all useless because in the service of the narrative Tragic Tome recognizes no bounds. All is permissible, even required, to advance the view that married sexual relations are rape without specific consent in every instance. Such a view atomizes the sexual part of marriage and makes each sexual encounter some new "legal" requirement rather than allowing marriage to be a seamless and organic union between the bodies, minds, and spirits of those who have entered into this union. If explicit consent for all sexual encounters is the new standard, what about explicit consent for all other forms of interaction? Financial, social, etc? There are, after all, stalking laws, that most husbands probably routinely violate.

The Violence Against Women Act of 2005, amending a United States statute, 108 Stat. 1902 et seq, defined stalking as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to—

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others;
(B) suffer substantial emotional distress."

The important part is part B). Under that definition, any husband that has a disagreement with his wife, in which she cries or gets upset has violated that provision.

So let's make difficult conversations between married adults off limits except with specific written consent and an ability to terminate any interaction with the other spouse at any time.

Or how about cyberbullying? Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."

Defining intention, and hurt or embarrass are fraught with difficulty. So to be safe, let's make sure no wives are subject to messages of any kind from their husbands without explicit consent for each and every message.

Of course, this is an example of reductio ad absurbum. If we follow Tragic Tome's presmise to its logical conclusion we arrive in Cloud Cuckooland, where any and all interactions between husband and wife are subject to a requirement for explicit consent so as not to fall into categories of legal violation which would apply for similar actions under other circumstances.

This not a bug...this is a feature of Tragic Tome's favored narrative and those who push for it. They do not want marriages to exist for their own sake. They want to inject the State as a third party and continual arbiter in issues that in times past were private and the purview of the spouses in question. And there are those who wish to make marriage as an institution utterly untenable.

Why might that be the case? Who benefits from a society where childbirth exists but families don't, where the authority of the state can determine the form or shape of all interactions between family members? Cui bono?

I leave that to you, Dread Ilk, to answer for yourselves.

Blogger Eskyman May 12, 2015 12:34 AM  

I studied Family Law- in Australia, a decade ago- and I still feel dirty from what I learned then.

Men virtually have no rights in Australia, according to statute law; this is enforced in special secret family law courts, where the judgments handed down by the (almost entirely female) magistrates usually contain terms that will imprison the man, should he dare to object to his fleecing.

Many tales I could tell, if my blood pressure would allow me. It won't, but here's one:

Man separated from wife, in last week of 1-yr mandatory separation before final decree of divorce. Man and ex- have each found new partners. Man wins lottery with ticket his girlfriend bought him for his birthday: hooray. Ex-wife claims half the winnings. Gets half the winnings, man forced to sell his new house to pay off ex-wife, as he had spent much of the winnings before this judgment. Later man went to jail for disputing judgment when he was forbidden to reveal it.

Still pisses me off thinking about it. Passed the course without strangling any female lawyers, near thing tho.

Anonymous JAW May 12, 2015 9:13 AM  

The wife and I are one body. Can I rape myself?

Anonymous Randomatos May 12, 2015 10:16 AM  

Looks like I won the bet. I was hoping for at least one taker, but oh well.
TT, if you're still stalking thread, your real antipathy for marriage has nothing to do with rape, but rather everything to do with control. You can't stand the thought of a moral/legal/logical/social/personal limit on hypergamy, of any constraints to the female sexual strategy (AF-BB). You hate the thought of married women pleasing their husbands and being pleased by them, having kids, etc. You hate what you can not have - the kind of genuine enduring love and devotion that a husband gives a good wife (hint, good wives love to sex their husbands, at every opportunity, because it is a positive feedback loop that benefits both of them in physically tangible ways, as well as emotionally and spiritually, plus it gives them children and a legacy). The arachnid screeching about rape is really just a feeble protest against the existence of marriage as a man and a woman, loyal and open to each other, for life. If you want to get sexual happiness in this life, you should make a serious effort to learn that. Ignore all of us, but go seek out old married couples with lots of grandkids, and seek to humbly learn, instead of hatefully troll. Good luck.

Blogger Minion777 May 12, 2015 10:42 AM  

The definition of marriage and rape (as far as law is concerned) has changed too much and bystanders parse it as:

Modern Marriage + Traditional Rape = Bad

Which is questionable but still sensible (not defending either viewpoint), the troublesome part comes when you mix:

Modern Marriage + Modern Rape = Instant Incarceration based on Accusation

Some examples:
• Marry under age (with parents consent): Statutory rape
• Have sex with your wife while intoxicated: Rape, she could not give consent
• Etc.

The key danger is that Modern Rape is so unbalanced and exploitable by women (both in law and in practice) that bringing it into Modern Marriage destroys any trust relationship which involves physical contact between husband and wife. Big Trojan for on-a-whim husband incarceration.

Anonymous Jourdan, #200 May 12, 2015 2:08 PM  

eskyman - I'll one-up you on that sad tale. When I was a lawyer at a big firm, I had a law school colleague who had become a specialist at representing men in divorce matters. One fine day, we meet for lunch to catch up and she is steaming. She tells me what she is mad about: Her client is upper-middle class businessman. He needed to attend to business matters in a distant city. His wife objected, trip was over their anniversary week-end. He argues a bit but then goes into work the next day and asks a colleague to cover, but at the end of the day his partners decide he is the only one with the expertise to make this client pitch work. He explains it to wife, she's fuming, he ends up going on the trip.

Fourteen months later, same man is cleaning out his garage over a long week-end. He finds a box with old books. He's about to toss it into the "donate to Goodwill" pile when he decides to go through it because he lost an old favorite book years ago and thinks it may be in box. Gets to the bottom, finds a shoebox, sealed with much-removed masking tape. Opens the box, finds two VHS tapes. (Yes, this was a bit ago...)

Tapes are unmarked. Curious, he goes into the family room of the house and pops in the first tape. It's a sex tape. It's his wife with his best friend and another friend. Video has a date stamp: it's the week-end he was on that disputed business trip, i.e. on their anniversary.

He checks the other tape. It's also a sex tape. It's his wife with the neighbor and an unknown man.

Fast forward to conclusion of divorce: Wife gets house, gets kids (physical custody, with joint legal custody), 50% of his owned stock in his own company. He's living in a studio with Mariachi music blaring at 3am, writing checks to her every month; she's living in his house with his now former-best friend, who has been unemployed and living off of wife ever since.

As an attorney, I simply do not understand at all why men marry. DO NOT DO IT.

Anonymous Dooglehut May 12, 2015 2:22 PM  

@TragicTome

Or am I to understand that this is all a semantic argument? Am I to understand that you simply don't like the idea of a husband forcing himself on his wife when she says "no" being called "rape", but rather believe this kind of thing should be called something else and can and should be punishable under the law as assault?"

Yes, that's precisely what people here have been saying. Just a quick CTRL+F for the word "assault" shows no fewer than 10 separate instances in this comments section of someone saying something along the lines of "it may be assault, but it isn't rape," at least one of which was in direct response to the scenario you proposed, though most of them were people giving their overall views of the topic as a whole. If I were to reread everything, I could probably find even more instances of people expressing the same basic idea without using the word "assault."

And discounting it because it is a semantic argument is ridiculous. When you're talking about the legal definition of a crime, something that will impact someone accused of it for the rest of their life, you can be damn sure semantics is important. Laws are nothing BUT semantics.

Blogger pdwalker May 12, 2015 2:33 PM  

Just for a lark, I checked Canada's criminal code.

Basically, it's written as a no means no rule, and yes sometimes means no. This includes spouses as well.

Under domestic assault laws, there is the defense of implied consent if you are married, as long as the victim shows no injury, or any injuries are accidental and unintentional.

In short, being married might be an acceptable defense if one spouse cries rape in Canada, but you'd better hope you have a reasonable prosecutor and a good defense.

The western world is truly killing itself.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall May 12, 2015 5:12 PM  

I realize this thread is about spent, but here are a few points.

The Rabbi asked whose idea marriage was. This is a critical question with respect to the western world and it hinges on the concept of 'time immemorial.' This is also known as "Time whereof the Memory of Man runneth not to the contrary" or somewhere around 1066. This is of great interest because King Alfred instituted the English Common Law in the late 800's by taking the Law of Moses and certain principles from the New Testament and adapting them to England. Please note, Alfred is the only king of England to ever e given the appellation "The Great."

To directly answer the Rabbi's question, in Genesis 2:24 God instituted the covenant entity called marriage. Having existed long antecedent to the creation of the state, the state has no jurisdiction over marriage. This was a well-known concept under common law. Yet, I mentioned that marriage was a covenant entity. A covenant is a contract to which God is a party. Not to put to fine a point on it, in Deut. 24:1-4 Moses issued a judgment about divorce. Notice that it was the one who initiated marriage (the man) who had the authority to end the marriage.

Yet, the state did something interesting. They required a license to marry (starting in the 1870's). This was a new type of marriage (not by right- a license is required) in which the state assumes the position of God within the marriage. The SCOTUS recognized the absurdity in the case Meister v Moore (1878) saying that people have a *right* to marry and laws requiring a license are "merely directory."

What we have today is the bald presumption (not even rebuttable) that the marriage is a creation of the state (like a corporation) and thus the state is supreme. The issue of "spousal rape" is a straw man. The real issue is who has primacy in the marriage- God or the State?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 12, 2015 5:45 PM  

Hey Tragic (appropriate name): nobody is arguing that men should have the right to rape their wives. They are arguing that raping your wife is impossible. It's like murdering a rock.

Blogger Blume May 12, 2015 8:36 PM  

Tommy finally said something sane. Wow just wow.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts