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

Monday, September 12, 2016

"Marital rape" does not, and cannot, exist

Judgy Bitch considers my debate with Louise Mensch on the matter, thinks everything through and concludes that my position is the correct one:
I think we have to clearly distinguish between having a right and exercising that right. Under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, every American has the right to keep and bear arms. Lots of Americans choose not to exercise that right. They still have the right, whether they use it or not. The question under consideration in this particular debate is whether marriage confers consent to sex that cannot be withdrawn except by the dissolution of the marriage.

If you had asked me a few weeks ago, I would have sided with Mensch. If I say no to my husband, I expect him to respect that, although if I’m being honest, I would be very insulted and sulky if he rejected my advances. In the 18 years we’ve been together, I do not recall him ever rejecting me, and I can count the number of times I’ve absolutely refused to have sex with him on one hand.  Pondering the idea more carefully, I have now come to the conclusion that Day is correct – rape cannot exist within a marriage. If marital rape is a thing, then 100% of the sex I have ever had with my husband has been rape.

I have never obtained his consent and he has never obtained mine.

Consent is assumed as a basic function of marriage. Consent to sex is part of what marriage is. Mensch acknowledges the general obligation spouses have to one another to have sex, but refuses blanket consent. I think the most interesting part of the discussion surrounds the use of force and violence. Marriage confers the right to have sex with your spouse, but it does not confer any right to assault your spouse. By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?
It's not an accident that the same ideology that has expressly stated "all sex is rape" is the same one behind the push to create the oxymoronic legal concept of "marital rape".

If they could, feminists would outlaw both marriage and normal sex. Marital rape is an effective way for them to attack both.

Labels: ,

221 Comments:

1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Lobo Util September 12, 2016 2:12 PM  

My father passed the bar exam in the 1940's. I still remember when it became possible to press rape charges against a spouse. He said it was a farce. It was against the basic nature of marriage. Not that you would believe to forcibly have sex with your spouse is okay. It is that the ideas of consent being at the base of marriage make rape charges impossible.

Still, it is easy to say that if you are not in a violent oppressive marriage.

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 2:22 PM  

Marriage confers rights to the spouses in one anothers' bodies - VD is absolutely correct. Claiming a man has ''raped'' his wife is tantamount to claiming that a man whose wife is a spendthrift and who recklessly depletes marital property is guilty of larceny. As a matter of law it simply can't be so.

At the same time, in America, precedent has been dispensed with by a (now absolutely sovereign) judiciary as controlling authority - and that same judiciary claims that two adults (of any sex) who are friends are ''married'' if they cohabitate and presumably masturbate together...so it would not arrive as a surprise if that same organ of government claimed that men and women having sex together within marriage is a form of ''rape''.

We've already been availed to a penal law in many jurisdictions that has redefined what amounts to boorish or rude behavior by a man towards a promiscuous female as ''rape''.

Blogger Timmy3 September 12, 2016 2:23 PM  

Marital sex is "do you wanna?" Okay, maybe.

If you marry and your pastor presides over the ceremony, who is exactly the prude? Often the church is castigated over people having sex, when today, the SJW want to outlaw sex for everyone including the married.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 2:27 PM  

@1. Lobo Util
You need to reread the last two sentences in the quote.

"Marriage confers the right to have sex with your spouse, but it does not confer any right to assault your spouse. By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?"

Now... what's your argument against that?

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 2:29 PM  

SJWs I believe (the Goyische variant I mean - Jews aren't ''SJWs'' in any meaningful sense) are actually Puritan fanatics (or at least their philisophical descendants) who harbor all kinds of bizarre hangups about sex. As much as they're singularly obsessed with homosesexuality/sodomy and the like, they're actually very much anti-sex. Goy liberalism makes more contextual/historical sense when one acknowledges that these people are deviant, sectarian cultists/fanatics of a religious sort.

These people are abjectly terrified of normal, adult sexual behavior.

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 2:32 PM  

@1. In a ''violent, oppressive marriage'' the presumption is that a man is assaulting and or battering his wife maliciously. ''Rape'' has no more occurred there than the man whose wife has availed him to thousands of dollars in consumer debt that the marital budget cannot sustain has committed ''burglarly''.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 2:39 PM  

It's not an accident that the same ideology that has expressly stated "all sex is rape" is the same one behind the push to create the oxymoronic legal concept of "marital rape".

Also not an accident that the same ideology has expanded the term "abuse" to include a cutting up her credit card, or raising his voice.

Criminalizing masculinity is the name of their game.

Anonymous Patrik September 12, 2016 2:45 PM  

SJWs as Puritans is running a little thin. Puritans weren't anti-sex, they were traditionalist Christians. Marriage is a gift from God, sex is a part of marriage, ergo sex I am gift from God. Paul points out that lust comes for most, and thus people should marry so as to not fall into lust.
SJWs don't hate sex, they revel in their debauchery, is what they do hate is God. Destroying marriage is just one more tactic in their war against God.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 2:48 PM  

SJWs I believe (the Goyische variant I mean - Jews aren't ''SJWs'' in any meaningful sense) are actually Puritan fanatics

So Samuel Rape Delany and George Rape Rape Martin are both Puritan fanatics?

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 2:58 PM  

@8. SJWs aren't literal Puritans of the New Model Army, they're degenerate moderns who are the vestigial descendants of a peculiar breed of Dissenters who colonized New England.

I didn't think this was controversial. The people who sided with the Red savages during King Phillips War, who waged a ''moral'' crusade against Confederate slavery, who demanded female suffrage, who were outraged by the Darlan Affair as in their view the New Dealers didn't go far enough in their anti-Fascism, who now claim that Sodomy is 'marriage', etc. came from somewhere. They didn't just spawn out of nothing one day after 1968.

Who in your opinion are their forebears?

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 3:02 PM  

@9. In the sense that they ascribe to a radical Theology that considers all who oppose it to be irredeemable Enemies of morality, right and a Providentially ordained ''progress'' of historical development, yes they are.

Is the nuance of political thought, the process by which human ideologies/conceptual horizons develop sort of lost on you guys?

When Sam Francis suggested that William Kristol owed an intellectual debt to Trotsky, did it register with you that F. was taking notice of a peculiar tendency within Jewish thought that believed in a kind of historical augury and the inevitability of globalist humanism/socialism, or did you vociferously disagree because you believed Francis was claiming Kristol had a drab uniform with a Red Star on it in his closet that he planned to don in leading a military assault on Warsaw?

Anonymous A.B. Prosper September 12, 2016 3:04 PM  

I am told the actual Puritans were way into sex and pleasure if and only if the two persons were married. I am told early Puritan manuals for married couples were considered obscene in later days though that may rumor.

The modern version are just crazies like Neo Prohibitionists Orwell's Anti Sex League

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 3:06 PM  


Is the nuance of political thought, the process by which human ideologies/conceptual horizons develop sort of lost on you guys?


So you'd rather rant about the Puritans of centuries back than the feminists of CURRENT YEAR, amIrite?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 3:08 PM  

When Sam Francis suggested that William Kristol owed an intellectual debt to Trotsky, did it register with you that F. was taking notice of a peculiar tendency within Jewish thought that believed in a kind of historical augury and the inevitability of globalist humanism/socialism, or did you vociferously disagree because you believed Francis was claiming Kristol had a drab uniform with a Red Star on it in his closet that he planned to don in leading a military assault on Warsaw?

I didn't care. Most people even then had no clue who Trotsky was, so they didn't care either.

Now, what were you going on about, again? Something something Puritan something?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 3:13 PM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:So Samuel Rape Delany and George Rape Rape Martin are both Puritan fanatics?

H. L. Menken defined a Puritan as the sort of person is is desperately afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

So, yes.

Blogger The Gray Man September 12, 2016 3:16 PM  

Vox,

That person put it in way better language than you have. I feel like your explanation of it has been way over the head of 99% of people reading it -- even a lot of the regulars here.

It isn't that you're wrong -- you're not. But your explanation and rationale hasn't been very good at connecting the dots for a lot of people without them thinking very hard about it .

Anonymous Thomas777 September 12, 2016 3:18 PM  

@14. OK - so the issue is that you're ignorant. That seems like a personal problem/shortcoming. It doesn't really bear any relevance in discussions of political affairs.

Anonymous simple christian September 12, 2016 3:18 PM  

It makes perfect sense that it came from the Puritan forebears. This anti-sex thing goes way way back in Churchianity.

The early church fathers viewed sex as a necessary evil allowed only due to the necessity of procreation.

But this was a concept they got from the Greeks, not the Old or New Testaments.

Anonymous Jack Highlands September 12, 2016 3:29 PM  

Blanket consent. Heh.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 3:30 PM  

@18. Jack Highlands
Blanket consent. Heh.

What's the matter? You trying to... cover up something?

Anonymous Patrik September 12, 2016 3:31 PM  

Yes th Puritans had laws against sexual immorality, what kinds of laws you ask? Homosexuality, rape and bestiality. What a shocker that such laws would have existed in a civilized society.
Jonathan Edwards didn't have eleven children because he hated sex.

Blogger plishman September 12, 2016 3:32 PM  

PORTIA

Tarry a little; there is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly are 'a pound of flesh:'
Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are, by the laws of Venice, confiscate
Unto the state of Venice.

Anonymous Stephen J. September 12, 2016 3:32 PM  

In the interest of further elucidating the issue, then, let me ask this: If one spouse refuses a specific request for sex (on the grounds of a temporary occasion of ill-health or fatigue or bad temper or whatever), and the other uses physical force to obtain sexual gratification anyway from the reluctant spouse's body, exactly what crime has been committed? What moral sin has been committed? Stipulating that the term "rape" as it is legally understood cannot be used due to the presumption of foregoing consent, what term is recommended for use in its place?

JB's point about granting the existence of a right while stipulating that no moral way exists to enforce that right is worth considering, I think. It is worth pointing out that in Vox's otherwise apt analogy, that of a soldier pre-emptively consenting to obey all orders he will be given by virtue of signing up for the army, there are still such things as unlawful orders which a soldier in fact should not obey regardless of who gives them, and for which it is a further illegality to punish disobedience thereof.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 3:33 PM  

This is a semantics argument. Who cares what you call it. If a spouse violently forces them self on the other it's rape or assault or whatever. Either way, the attacker should be persecuted if the victim files charges.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 3:36 PM  

That person put it in way better language than you have. I feel like your explanation of it has been way over the head of 99% of people reading it -- even a lot of the regulars here.

I wonder what could possibly explain that mystery?

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 3:37 PM  

This is a semantics argument. Who cares what you call it.

SJWs do. They can't attack marriage and masculinity by criminalizing actual assault.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 3:41 PM  

"SJWs do. They can't attack marriage and masculinity by criminalizing actual assault."

So what if the do. Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for whatever it's called.

Blogger CM September 12, 2016 3:42 PM  

OK - so the issue is that you're ignorant. That seems like a personal problem/shortcoming. It doesn't really bear any relevance in discussions of political affairs.

Well... MPAI. However, VD has never made it a secret that he doesn't argue to the least common denominator. There has to be a certain level of intelligence and critical thinking to grok most of VD's arguments even when thery are common sense.

JB comes across as the sort who, while being intelligent, writes for an audience who my or may not be more or less intelligent.

VD has said he doesn't write for us, so I don't expect he cares what we get or don't, as long as we ask honest questions and leave if we don't like it.

Anonymous GreyS September 12, 2016 3:48 PM  

By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?

Blackmail, threats of physical harm, cutting off financial support, cutting access to children.

Don't get me wrong-- I do not believe marital rape can exist. And even trying to allow it to exist (legally) puts everyone in a huge legal morass.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 3:48 PM  

@26. Rollo53
So what if the do. Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for whatever it's called.

Except the SJWs are currently and actively playing said semantics game by redefining abuse to include 'whatever she doesn't like', including of all things CUTTING UP A CREDIT CARD.

It's like saying "Well don't be racist" when they're so busy redefining racist to be anything that could possibly not be positive towards non-whites. Even math.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 3:54 PM  

"Except the SJWs are currently and actively playing said semantics game by redefining abuse to include 'whatever she doesn't like', including of all things CUTTING UP A CREDIT CARD."

So what. Just don't assault your wife when she says she isn't in the mood to fuck. That takes care of your exposure to being tried for rape or assault as well as preserves your moral disposition, if not your soul.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 3:55 PM  

"Marital rape" is just one (a Big One) more in the legal armory of female superiority before the law (family law.)

Feminists sought and were granted "rights" that so transcend what Civics Class teaches people that few who haven't been through a bitter divorce realize how lopsided is the confrontation.

I am horrified at what's coming. For decades women abused their superior position to torment their ex-husbands with false claims of domestic abuse, false claims of child abuse & endangerment, and I've seen them drag their ex's into court for truly frivolous things.

[Ironically, in one case the idiot bitch kept running the "Billable Hours" meter, thinking she was hammering HIM by dragging them into court week after week, when all it did was reduce her pot-a-gold in the end.]

These stupid women take up the feminist "stick" and give their ex's a whack for fun, never noticing two things: A male human being is literally the most dangerous animal on Earth, the only one capable of killing at a distance, and the tiger she insists on tormenting lives in a cage that Has. No. Bars.

Only his self-restraint keeps her alive to torment him. When the Phase Change comes and people's rage overflows their self-restraint, leaving many with nothing left to lose, I expect to see piles of divorcee's corpses stacked like cordwood or left in their living rooms to serve as cat food.

Most women don't realize that feminist icons were largely dykes and/or mentally ill...as in diagnosed schizo's, who couldn't care less about the typical married/divorced woman.

Blogger Lobo Util September 12, 2016 3:57 PM  

Clarity has finally come. Thank you all.

If you assault your spouse, the charge is assault.

Being curious I must ask, Are there special punishments or definitions for spousal assault compared to regular assault wreaked upon your neighbor?

Anonymous BGKB September 12, 2016 3:58 PM  

Marital Rape might not exist but liberals have finally come to realize school rape should result in suspensions. http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/highline-struggles-with-fallout-of-limiting-student-suspensions/

Anonymous GreyS September 12, 2016 4:00 PM  

Exactly, Student. It's the slow redefinition of "rape" which will bring the big legal mess. Just imagine how many "rapes" will be found to have occurred during many divorce proceedings! Men will lose everything in those situations. Bad enough for men as it is. Imagine losing everything you own, your kids, your job, AND going to jail because you are legally a "rapist"-- Every man in the country should be against any sort of "marital rape" law.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 4:00 PM  

@30. Rollo53
So what. Just don't assault your wife when she says she isn't in the mood to fuck. That takes care of your exposure to being tried for rape or assault as well as preserves your moral disposition, if not your soul.

Can't wait for you to get charged for "emotional abuse" after asking your wife for sex. Because even though you asked her nicely and politely for it, she still felt pressured and unhappy.

You depraved, horrible wife-beater you.

But whatever, it's all semantics. Don't worry too much about possible jailtime, because it's really just semantics.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 4:00 PM  

Rollo thinks that if a man plays it straight that he's protected.

I suppose Rollo also thinks that he can drive around with $15K in cash and that the cash and his car won't be seized (civil asset forfeiture) because he's playing by the rules.

I suppose Rollo never heard of Rudy Giuliani's NY Attorney's office game, where his subordinates would pick a celebrity of some sort (e.g. Mother Theresa) and come up with some obscure statute under which to indict for a crime. The winner plausibly explained how to get a conviction.

Rollo thinks you have to commit a crime, an actual crime, to be accused, dragged through a trial or forced into a plea bargain.

Anonymous simple christian September 12, 2016 4:02 PM  

Stephen J. wrote:the other uses physical force to obtain sexual gratification anyway from the reluctant spouse's body

You went off the rails at "spouse's body". The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the wife owns the husbands body and vice versa (1 Cor 7). The actual crime was in the denial.

Anonymous DT September 12, 2016 4:03 PM  

Marriage confers the right to have sex with your spouse, but it does not confer any right to assault your spouse. By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?

This is key. If you say that marital rape does not exist most people will imagine a screaming wife begging her husband to stop while he beats her and then forces himself on her. Those people will then assume you are 'literally Hitler' to claim that this is OK.

But claiming there is no such thing as marital rape != claiming that a husband may use violence against his wife. That may be obvious to those with higher IQs, but it's not to normies.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 4:03 PM  

@17

@14. OK - so the issue is that you're ignorant.

Nah, you're just butthurt. Actually, the issue is I did not care about that argument for various reasons. Those reasons are not relevant, because what Sam Francis once wrote about a Kristol has zero to do with this subject, "Marital Rape Does Not Exist".

Nor do I care about spergy babblings that SJW's are actually all sekret Puritans. Although obviously it is very important to you. Perhaps you could create a blog and write extensively detailed arguments about it there?

That seems like a personal problem/shortcoming. It doesn't really bear any relevance in discussions of political affairs.

Your own personal "Puritans Bad!" hobbyhorse is what bears zero relevance to the discussion at hand, which happens to be "Marital Rape Does Note Exist" and "Feminism is anti-masculinity".

It's CURRENT YEAR. The Puritans are long gone, Trotsky's still dead, and your feeble attempts to change the subject are both feeble and boring.

Perhaps you could try to keep up with the rest of us?

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 12, 2016 4:04 PM  

I've argued in the past that there are responsibilities associated with rights, and therefore, if there is a 'right to sex' (and I have come to the conclusion that it is a blanket consent within marriage), what is the responsibility that goes with it: to respect your spouse? I have a problem with force, but I also abhor the woman that gratuitously uses sex (or rather withholding it) as a bludgeon - speaking as a bit*h myself.

It works both ways. My responsibility to my husband means that my 'feelings' at the moment are not in play. There has to be some mutual trust that the responsibility to each other and the rights of each will get considered. Does one trump the other? I would argue that is the a fundamental question that needs to be answered BEFORE marrying someone....

Anonymous JAG September 12, 2016 4:05 PM  

Rollo needs a date with Mattress Girl.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 4:07 PM  

"Can't wait for you to get charged for "emotional abuse" after asking your wife for sex. Because even though you asked her nicely and politely for it, she still felt pressured and unhappy."

Ridiculous!

"Rollo thinks you have to commit a crime, an actual crime, to be accused, dragged through a trial or forced into a plea bargain."

No. I think if you violently assault your wife in attempt to force her to "do her duty" then you shouldn't be surprised if society decides you are too dangerous to freely roam the streets.

Blogger dc.sunsets September 12, 2016 4:08 PM  

Where's Nate to explain what "being too short for this ride" means.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 4:08 PM  

@40. Rollo53
Ridiculous!

Yet, it happens.

OpenID peppermintfrosted September 12, 2016 4:09 PM  

The people who decided to start circumcizing children to prevent masturbation are now gaslighting children into asking to have their puberty interfered with with drugs and their genitals mutilated.

The people who once forbade dancing because it was sinful to show off one's body or have any physical contact with the opposite sex are now treating sex more casually than kissing was once treated.

The people who once invented corn flakes and Graham crackers because it's sinful to take pleasure in food now eat meal squares and soylent.

The people who once switched to grape juice in the Lord's Supper because drinking is sinful now experiment on themselves with prescription drugs.

These people are puritans, but really, communists, as the Mayflower puritans. Their guiding principle is hatred any kind of particularism and demand that everything, including your mom, be open to everyone. Heaven is communism, and these people want to to the greatest extent possible make Heaven a place on Earth.

Anonymous JAG September 12, 2016 4:10 PM  

Student in Blue wrote:@40. Rollo53

Ridiculous!

Yet, it happens.


His whole argument essentially leans on cognitive dissonance. If he refuse to admit that the laws that have been intentionally written to criminalize men do get abused from time to time, then he can superficially claim a victory in a gamma sort of way.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 4:12 PM  

Marital rape established the legal precedent that consent could be explicitly extended but later withdrawn.

We now see where that leads in the "affirmative consent" regs in colleges. Because that consent can be withdrawn, taken back, at any moment thus turning consensual sex into RAYPE. Especially the next morning when all the girls the the dorm say, "Eeeeeuw, you Did It with HIM? EEEEUUUUUWW!" then that must be raype.

"What God has put together, let no feminist witch tear asunder", updated wedding vow.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 4:16 PM  

@17
@14. OK - so the issue is that you're ignorant. That seems like a personal problem/shortcoming. It doesn't really bear any relevance in discussions of political affairs.

No. The problem is all that jabber about Puritans and Sam Francis and Kristol is irrelevant to the topic.

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 4:18 PM  

Rollo thinks that if a man plays it straight that he's protected.

Speak for yourself, not anyone else. You are incapable of knowing what Rollo thinks.

Blogger The Gray Man September 12, 2016 4:21 PM  

VD: I wonder what could possibly explain that mystery?

MPAI.

But I really felt like this was one of those situations where you're three thought processes beyond anyone else when you say "marital rape can't exist". Everyone else is brainwashed to think it is a real thing, it takes a really plain way of explaining it like Judgy Bitch did.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 4:27 PM  

Also any man or woman who claims to be a Christian should understand what Ephesians 5 21: 33 and 1 Corinthians 7 5:7 say in plain language. Either a woman respects a man enough to trust him, or she should not marry him. Either a woman loves a man enough to want to protect him from sexual temptation, or not.

It is impossible to commit rape against flesh of your flesh, bone of your bone. Therefore in any Christian marriage "marital rape" is impossible.

Even in CURRENT YEAR, because the grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endures forever.

Blogger CM September 12, 2016 4:35 PM  

Even in CURRENT YEAR, because the grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endures forever.

-------
Amen!

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 4:40 PM  

BGKB wrote:Marital Rape might not exist but liberals have finally come to realize school rape should result in suspensions. http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/highline-struggles-with-fallout-of-limiting-student-suspensions/

That's .... interesting. That was my high school. When I went there the student body was 94% White, 5% Asian, 2% American Indian and 0.02% Black, literally, there were 2 blacks in the whole school. Mexicans essentially didn't exist. The area was a bedroom community for professionals, Boeing Engineers and the like.

Now it's 28% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% Asian, 10% Black, and 1.5% American Indian.
15% of the students are in the ESL program, 15% in Special Education.

I wonder why murder and incest rape and gang rape are now a problem???

Must be the disciplinary procedures, mustn't it?

It's truly a mystery.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 4:42 PM  

sorry, 0.2% Black in the late 70s.

Blogger Ben Hausam September 12, 2016 4:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 12, 2016 4:44 PM  

@30 how about you shut the fuck up with your retarded advice. No one here gives two shits what you think.

Blogger Cecil Henry September 12, 2016 4:50 PM  

If you think your husband is sex with your husband is rape, then YOU are responsible for leaving and getting a divorce with the consequences all on you.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 4:50 PM  

"how about you shut the fuck up with your retarded advice. No one here gives two shits what you think."

You slay with your devastating retort. You slay!


"Speak for yourself, not anyone else. You are incapable of knowing what Rollo thinks."

That's not actually true. I pretty specifically told him what I think. So, he does know. The rest is a mystery.

Anonymous Sam the Man September 12, 2016 4:54 PM  

snidely

your percentages do not add up to 100%....

Blogger VD September 12, 2016 4:59 PM  

how about you shut the fuck up with your retarded advice. No one here gives two shits what you think.

Keep it civil, Hezekiah.

But I really felt like this was one of those situations where you're three thought processes beyond anyone else when you say "marital rape can't exist".

Oh, I'm sure you're right. I honestly can't figure out how I can be any more clear. It's like Where's Waldo. I'm just pointing at him, he's right there, and I have no idea why some can't see him.

I'm glad JB helped some understand, but to me there is no difference between what I said and what she repeated.

Anonymous Patrik September 12, 2016 4:59 PM  

@peppermintfrosted
The guy you're talking about lived centuries later than the Puritans, and he was kicked out of the Seventh Day Adventists for heresy.
As for whether or not some Puritan communities tried to organize in a socialist fashion, what's your point? 'How dare they not understand Mises Socialist Calculation Problem.' 'Don't they know the Reds committed genocide?' 'Do they even know that (((Marx))) was a dick?'
No, they didn't.

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 5:00 PM  

As most attorneys know, these kinds of allegations, most of them false (and the far worse allegations of child abuse and pedophilia) get made routinely in divorce proceedings today. Strictly for leverage, so the husband has to cough up most of his assets to the "love of his life" turned vicious harridan.....

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 5:02 PM  

@59 Well the Puritans did know that their attempts at socialized agriculture in the first 2 years of Plymouth were disastrous and killed off a majority of the colonists.....

Blogger pyrrhus September 12, 2016 5:04 PM  

@30 Rollo, go back to your mothers' basement and shut up--I'm telling you this for your own good.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 5:13 PM  

Sam the Man wrote:snidely

your percentages do not add up to 100%....

THe older numbers are approximate and from memory, and rounded. Use at your own risk. The modern numbers are from the Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction website, and I left out a few tiny minorities (Pacific Islanders, etc) and they break out multi-racial as a separate category, which, without any further breakdown doesn't really lend itself to use.

Good sperging though.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 5:14 PM  

"@30 Rollo, go back to your mothers' basement and shut up--I'm telling you this for your own good."

My mother is dead and I sold her house along with its basement. I bought three duplexes with the cash in a nice college town in the southwest U.S. Wait.....is that more info than you needed for your own good?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 5:18 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:Strictly for leverage, so the husband has to cough up most of his assets to the "love of his life" turned vicious harridan.....
And if the courts would enforce ruls about lawyer conduct and especially started enforcing perjury laws, that would stop right quick. Theoretically, a layer introducing a swarn deposition into a court case is certifying that it is itrue to the best of his knowledge. Having a standard word processing template for incest allegations in divorce proceedings kinda precludes that. Especially when it's submitted with EVERY DAMN CASE. These bastards should be disbarred, but it's so routine, no-one notices that they are purposely lying to the court in order to gain advantage.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 5:24 PM  

These bastards should be disbarred, but it's so routine, no-one notices that they are purposely lying to the court in order to gain advantage.

It'd honestly be for all the lawyers' benefit if these guys get disbarred, simply because there are way too many lawyers being churned out by the law schools.

Blogger Doom September 12, 2016 5:24 PM  

I thought Rollo was an old man whose tool doesn't work anymore. (Civil enough, Vox?) I am serious. I know old guys like that, who just adore women because they want to *sex* but can't get it up so it's all... some weird sort of drooling limp puppy love thing. He debates just like a bunch of old men I know. I had to give up on being friends, they just... they are creepy. Women don't like them either, creepy is creepy.

Either the West chooses to fix this whole notion, or it gets plowed under and someone else does the reseeding, voluntarily or not. Now, at one time, I would have swore I didn't and wouldn't. But then I'd turn around and do what I did, which would include not asking, telling, and taking. Argh, matey! Ships ahoy and shit! Even without the protection of marriage... if that hasn't been a protection or allowance in, probably, my lifetime... nothing but a stricture with no guarantees.

Whether married or not, if a woman has opened her barn door (to me), I'll get damn milk when I'm thirsty. Usually. If I'm too tired to pull and pinch the teet I'm just out of luck. Marital rape for thee, not even living in sin rape for me. That was then. Now I'm just honest about it. Though I never believed in marital rape, and railed about it when I heard they were doing that in Missouri, or Illinois, or some other f'ed up state a decade ago. Heresy.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 5:38 PM  

Meanwhile in the Windy City:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/black-body-count-rises-chicago-police-step-back

This just goes to show what happens when the dindus are left to manage themselves.
I guess black lives don't really matter after all.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 5:46 PM  

@12
My fathers side of the family settled a town in north/central Connecticut. Their reason: they fled from the Puritans who were concentrated on the coast. My forebearers considered them tyrannical, oppressive and wanted nothing to do with their twisted view of life.

Blogger Harold September 12, 2016 5:48 PM  

I have had this discussion with a younger female acquaintance of mine. And she agreed that if married, the answer to the question "Sex?" asked by either party should always be yes, barring physical illness or disability of some sort. For example, barfing in the middle of the action tends to bring a real halt to the proceedings.

I had never really thought about it, because that's the way it's always been in my own marriage. We were talking about it because she was leaving her live-in who never got around to proposing because he stopped saying yes. I assured her the problem with lack of desire was his problem, not hers. That all the single guys we worked with would happily say "Yes" if she asked, and half the married guys.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 12, 2016 5:48 PM  

26. Rollo53 September 12, 2016 3:41 PM
So what if the do. Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for whatever it's called.



you lying piece of shit.

numerous men spend time in jail without EVER lifting a finger against their wives.

hell, if a WIFE violently attacks her husband and the cops come to the house, they will almost ALWAYS take the husband away in cuffs.

because *she* is "afraid" of him, due to his larger size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#Criticism

"the program's insistence that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense."

never mind that women initiate violence against their own children at far higher rates than men and never mind that almost half of all domestic abuse situations are initiated by the woman.

Blogger JimR September 12, 2016 5:55 PM  

@30
" Just don't assault your wife when she says she isn't in the mood to fuck. That takes care of your exposure to being tried for rape"

False.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 6:03 PM  

"numerous men spend time in jail without EVER lifting a finger against their wives."

This ! Outside of God's merciful hand watching out for me, I would have been one of them.
My ex wife made this unfounded claim and it nearly destroyed my life.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 6:09 PM  

See, the thing is Rollo, that the crime of rape doesn't require force. At all.
When you hear rape, you think beating and forcible entry. When a feminist hears rape, she thinks PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex.
All that is needed for a rape conviction is a swab of DNA evidence and a claim of non-consensuality.
It has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with force or abuse or damage.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 6:14 PM  

And there are a GREAT many women who like a little force in their sex. Nothing violent you know, just the sensation of being taken. Maybe a good hard spanking. I've known women who couldn't achieve orgasm unless they were held down. That sort of thing.
How does the court distinguish between that sort of perfectly normal sexual practice and rape?

Anonymous GreyS September 12, 2016 6:17 PM  

All that is needed for a rape conviction is a swab of DNA evidence and a claim of non-consensuality.

And in a "marital rape" case probably just the latter.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 6:18 PM  

"So what if the do. Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for whatever it's called.

you lying piece of shit.

numerous men spend time in jail without EVER lifting a finger against their wives."

You are talking about a spouse that lies. Who knows where that can lead. I'm talking about something much simpler and something one shouldn't find too controversial: Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for violently assaulting your wife, whatever it's called.

Blogger John Williams September 12, 2016 6:25 PM  

With Mike Tyson, consent was withdrawn more than 3 days after the fact. Look how that worked out for him. These are the same people who preached that "You Can't Legislate Morality" now they legislate morality.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 6:26 PM  

@Rollo, you ignorant slut,
it's NOT about violently assaulting your wife. There were already laws against that on the books, however misguided those laws have turned out to be. The laws that have been passed against marital rape do not specify ANY violence AT ALL.
It's about going to jail because she says you go to jail, no further proof needed.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 6:32 PM  

@77. Rollo53
Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for violently assaulting your wife, whatever it's called.

Even when your spouse lies?

Blogger JimR September 12, 2016 6:38 PM  

@77 "Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for violently assaulting your wife, whatever it's called."

We were discussing rape, and why it is different than assault. Yes, it is a crime to violently assault someone, even a spouse. But that's not rape, even though it may occur at the same time.

You are being quite disingenuous.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 6:42 PM  

"it's NOT about violently assaulting your wife. There were already laws against that on the books, however misguided those laws have turned out to be. The laws that have been passed against marital rape do not specify ANY violence AT ALL"

It sounds like you agree that a husband should face no consequences if, after the wife tells the husband "I'm in mood, by feet ache and I'm tired and I don't want to fuck you" the husband takes her dress off, even though she says "stop you fuck face", then buries himself in her while she screams "get off me".

Anonymous BGKB September 12, 2016 6:43 PM  

Rollo you have less knowledge of women than BigGaySteve. The reason for the high rate of lesbian rapes is that its possible for 2 ugly dykes to get drunk at the same time, doubling the possibility. Women would probably cry rape if you videotaped sex with her consenting if she found out you left a fake ATM receipt with extra zeros on it to trick her.

OpenID boardroomal September 12, 2016 6:48 PM  

Hey Vox
"Super-Cuck Get-in-the-Christian-Bunker" man Rod Dreher...has an interesting column today, he usually does, in which, a "Georgetown University Professor" by the name of "Jason Brennen" proposes a, "Epistocracy,"...quote political power is to some degree apportioned according to knowledge. An epistocracy might retain the major institutions we see in republican democracy, such as parties, mass elections, constitutional review, and the like. But in an epistocracy, not everyone has equal basic political power. An epistocracy might grant some people additional voting power, or might restrict the right to vote only to those that could pass a very basic test of political knowledge." (Dreher Post here http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/)

He uses the "Ignorance of the Brexit Vote" as the need to begin looking seriously at this. But the real reason I posted off topic was this

1. He is a professor at "Georgetown" a loathesome college run by an evil & disgusting Catholic Order that needs a full blown inquisition done to it...as a Catholic, I think I would help lock them into the "Molten Shoes" myself to help brother heretic find confess and find Jesus again....what IS interesting is he openly runs a blog called, "Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Free Market & Social Justice"...http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

I have never met the formal academic form of such an "animal" in the wild....thought I would bring it to your attention. Sorry for going off topic.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 6:50 PM  

"Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for violently assaulting your wife, whatever it's called.

Even when your spouse lies?"

I don't think the law allow the "well, she lied!" defense.



"We were discussing rape, and why it is different than assault. Yes, it is a crime to violently assault someone, even a spouse. But that's not rape, even though it may occur at the same time.

Yes, I know. Wikipedia has this to say about "rape": "Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.[1][2][3] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[4]"

So, if the wife says to the husband..."stop it! Stop...fuck you....stop" when he throws her on the bed and attempts to force himself on her, how is this not rape. There's no consent. In fact, there is explicit non consent. I don't care what the fuck the bible or any other mystical book says about husbands and wives....That's rape. Now, I personally don't care what it's called. Call it assault. Call it rape. Call it Fuckerdoodles. It should be punished.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 12, 2016 6:51 PM  

It's not an accident that the same ideology that has expressly stated "all heterosexual sex is rape"

Fixed that for you. Feminists have no prob with lesbian sex.

"All men are rapists, and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French

Anonymous 5343 September 12, 2016 6:52 PM  

So what if they do? Don't violently assault your wife and there will be no jail time for whatever it's called.

The point is not to concede the redefinition of words. The mess we're in today is a product of dozens of these tiny "inconsequential" concessions that turn out to be very consequential indeed in the long term.

Blogger S1AL September 12, 2016 6:52 PM  

"Now, I personally don't care what it's called. Call it assault."

Well done. Over 100 posts in and you finally understand.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 6:52 PM  

"Rollo you have less knowledge of women than BigGaySteve"

How do you know that BigGaySteve isn't the ultimate authority on women and is just hiding that expertise for the sake his homosexual agenda?

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 6:55 PM  

""Now, I personally don't care what it's called. Call it assault."

Well done. Over 100 posts in and you finally understand."

You apparently missed my first post.

Anonymous 5343 September 12, 2016 6:58 PM  

So, if the wife says to the husband..."stop it! Stop...fuck you....stop" when he throws her on the bed and attempts to force himself on her, how is this not rape. There's no consent. In fact, there is explicit non consent. I don't care what the fuck the bible or any other mystical book says about husbands and wives....That's rape. Now, I personally don't care what it's called. Call it assault. Call it rape. Call it Fuckerdoodles. It should be punished.

Outside of marriage, it's rape. Inside marriage, it's assault, because permission for the sexual aspect of the act is already permanently conceded by the act of marriage. Permission for the violence required to obtain it is not conceded by marriage.

That doesn't make violence good. It just leaves words meaning what they actually mean instead of being twisted into pretzels in the interest of politics.

Whether it is punishable or not should be wholly dependent on meeting the standard of proof required by law.

Blogger JimR September 12, 2016 7:00 PM  

@90
Your first post was

"This is a semantics argument. Who cares what you call it. If a spouse violently forces them self on the other it's rape or assault or whatever. Either way, the attacker should be persecuted if the victim files charges."

which avoids the very point under discussion. No one here that I am aware of, has said that assault should not be a chargeable offense. Merely that marital rape doesn't exist since consent has already been given.

But sperg on about how assault is a crime if you wish, it seems to amuse you, and after all, as you note, the train is fine.

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 7:02 PM  

@85. Rollo53
I don't think the law allow the "well, she lied!" defense.

Exactly why you need evidence. It doesn't stop women from lying about it though.

So, yes, you CAN go to jail despite not violently assaulting your wife.

Blogger S1AL September 12, 2016 7:02 PM  

"You apparently missed my first post."

Now you're just being semantic.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:04 PM  

"Outside of marriage, it's rape. Inside marriage, it's assault, because permission for the sexual aspect of the act is already permanently conceded by the act of marriage. Permission for the violence required to obtain it is not conceded by marriage."

But you aren't taking account of the fact that there is no sexual aspect to the act I describe. It's a purely violent act. The fact that husbands can not be charged with marital rape is simply an acknowledgement that husbands can use penetration as a form of violence in exactly the same way that a stranger can. The exemption that husbands once enjoyed is now gone, and it should be gone.

The words still have meaning; in fact it's a very specific meaning: Force or coerce a person into having sex against their wishes and it's rape. Period. Why should a husband have any protection.

But again, I really don't care what it's called as long as the protection of the victim is found in the fact that the violator is punished in a consistent way, whether married to the victim or not.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:07 PM  

"which avoids the very point under discussion. No one here that I am aware of, has said that assault should not be a chargeable offense. Merely that marital rape doesn't exist since consent has already been given. "

What are you saying consent has been given for? Surely you don't mean to say that the wife has given consent to be thrown on the floor against her will and penetrated while she yells "Stop! Stop! Please Stop!"

Or maybe you do mean that.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 7:08 PM  

Rollo53 wrote:It sounds like you agree that a husband should face no consequences if, after the wife tells the husband "I'm in mood, by feet ache and I'm tired and I don't want to fuck you" the husband takes her dress off, even though she says "stop you fuck face", then buries himself in her while she screams "get off me".

"Sounds like" == "It seems to me what you're saying"

Look, Secret King Gamma White Knight, what I said is what I said. Your reformulation of it to suit your "argument" is NOT what I said.

It sounds to me that you would agree that a woman who finds a more attractive man, or gets tired of his tastes in socks, should be able to redefine every single act of sex within the marriage as rape and have him put in prison for the rest of his life.

In addition to which, for many women, that is actually what satisfying sex looks like, because many women have a rape fetish and that's what gets them off.

How do you tell the difference between that and rape?

Even a videotape doesn't tell you the difference.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 7:10 PM  

Rollo53 wrote:Surely you don't mean to say that the wife has given consent to be thrown on the floor against her will and penetrated while she yells "Stop! Stop! Please Stop!"

Or maybe you do mean that.


Surely you don't mean that a man should be cage for the rest of his life for having sex with his wife?

Or maybe you do mean that.

Anonymous Bobby Farr September 12, 2016 7:12 PM  

Where are you getting the idea that marriage includes unlimited consent to sex? This seems like saying a man's agreement to provide resources means that he has consented to allow unlimited spending by the wife unless/until he divorces. In both cases, there must be a reasonableness restriction. Otherwise, the marriage contract includes consent to hourly sex of any form imaginable and financial plunder. This argument seems like a way of justifying divorce rape of the man while merely changing the name of marital rape to assault.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 7:15 PM  

@1-I don't get your point. What does violence have to do with whether or not you can rape your wife or husband? Aside from "feelz," I mean.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 7:18 PM  

Bobby Farr wrote:Where are you getting the idea that marriage includes unlimited consent to sex? This seems like saying a man's agreement to provide resources means that he has consented to allow unlimited spending by the wife unless/until he divorces. In both cases, there must be a reasonableness restriction. Otherwise, the marriage contract includes consent to hourly sex of any form imaginable and financial plunder. This argument seems like a way of justifying divorce rape of the man while merely changing the name of marital rape to assault.
You are literally giving your body to your spouse.
In the Christian idea of marriage, you no longer have a right to refuse sex, only subject to circumstantial (time, place, health) restrictions. She ahs no right to say "no".

Of course, in the Christian idea of marriage, a husband has the obligation to give not just his wealth, but his comfort, his body and even his life over to the support and well-being of his family.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:21 PM  

"Surely you don't mean that a man should be cage for the rest of his life for having sex with his wife?"

You are correct. I equally believe a man should be punished for raping or assaulting his wife.

You, however, wrote specifically that laws against violently assaulting one's wife are "Misguided". And that's cool. Everyone gets their kicks in one way or another.

As long as we all know there are consequences.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:24 PM  

"In the Christian idea of marriage..." Aaannd that's where the laws stops caring one iota. As well it should. Thankfully, there is a difference between many Christian ideas and civic norms of proper behavior.

Blogger JimR September 12, 2016 7:31 PM  

@96
"What are you saying consent has been given for?"
Apparently, you haven't read the post, just skimmed it and jumped in to comment.

"Consent is assumed as a basic function of marriage. Consent to sex is part of what marriage is."

Perhaps you should go back and actually read the post, *then* comment.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 7:37 PM  

Rollo53 wrote:You, however, wrote specifically that laws against violently assaulting one's wife are "Misguided". And that's cool. Everyone gets their kicks in one way or another.


In my experience, women who are actually violently abused by their husbands get no advantage of the laws. To cite one example, a woman I know was beaten by her husband so violently that he turned himself in to the police afterward saying he had killed his wife. They ahd a complete case, photographs of injuries, 2-month hospital stay, doctor's testimony. They should have been able to put him away for attempted murder. He walked because she would not testify, and would not press charges.
Instead The laws are used to punish men who have done nothing wrong. I sat on a jury for a domestic assault case. The Perpetrator's crime? He grabbed his wife's wrist when she attempted to strike him. If not for myself and a Christian woman on the jury, if there had been instead 2 more Churchian feminists on the jury, he would have served 3 months for 4th degree assault.

The domestic assault laws are indeed misguided. They do not protect women who are actually assaulted, they do put in prison men who have literally done nothing wrong.

Your insistence on forcibly inserting your violent rape fantasy into the discussion betrays a serious misapprehension of both the real situation as it stands and the nature and purpose of the law under discussion.

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 7:40 PM  

@82-No, I wouldn't want the man to face consequences in the situation you describe. Except for the screaming part, she didn't appear to resist. You didn't provide enough information for me to determine whether she reasonably expected her scream to be heard and for someone to come to her aid. I'd say she reluctantly consented. Didn't put up much of a fight, anyway.

At most of would be simple battery. That's not the cops' business any more than my friend punching me yesterday was. Keep it between the spouses.

Same for when the husband yells at the wife when she walks out of the house headed for the mall with his cash without his consent. Is that theft? Is it a matter for the cops? Should she face consequences?

Blogger Student in Blue September 12, 2016 7:41 PM  

@105. Snidely Whiplash
Your insistence on forcibly inserting your violent rape fantasy into the discussion betrays a serious misapprehension of both the real situation as it stands and the nature and purpose of the law under discussion.

"Nah man... y'see... because if they're in jail, it means they all deserve it man..."

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 7:42 PM  

as self appointed spokesperson and spokesman for the 6 day Creationist Christian Zionist position a woman was created as a help mate, which includes any and all requisite assistance with ejaculation. paul was pretty explicit. He studied under Gamaliel and held that line.

orthodox Jews are taught to thank God everywhere. A good dump in the toilet included. ie. You don't shit you die. It makes perfect sense. Pray without ceasing doesn't have caveats.

Overton window smashing day?

Blogger tublecane September 12, 2016 7:45 PM  

@85-"I don't care what the fuck the Bible or any other mystical book says"

But you do care what Wikipedia says. Because it's not "mystical?"

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 7:49 PM  

thought bubble? Who has the better sex life

a. Amish farmer
b. Liberated new age liberal
c. 40's something glass ceiling smashing career woman?

follow up questions,

d whose children suffer less allergic coughs
e Who spends more time wishing they hadn't
f who desperately is trying to cover their guilt with pharmaceuticals.

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 7:52 PM  

@95-"Force or coerce a person into having sex against their wishes and it's rape. Period. Why should a husband have any protection."

Precisely because there is no coercion within marriage, because consent was given at the altar. How many times does this have to be repeated.

Why the "period?" Because Wikipedia? Like they'd know.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:52 PM  

"@85-"I don't care what the fuck the Bible or any other mystical book says"

But you do care what Wikipedia says. Because it's not "mystical?"

Yes

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 7:55 PM  

"Precisely because there is no coercion within marriage, because consent was given at the altar. How many times does this have to be repeated."

Consent for violence wasn't given.

Plus, who gives a shit what was said at the alter. I could get married at an alter and pledge to always feed my wife's cousin Sidney unicorn liver. The law has nothing to do with what is said at the alter.

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 7:57 PM  

As a rational man Rollo53 perhaps you could run a nation wide experiment where people pick their gender, do whatever feels good that night, exercise little or no prudence or self restraint, think that condoms protect them, fund and subsidize free abortions, let them think single parent homes are just the same as any other.....

run this experiment for 40 years and see what happens.

Oh. too late, someone did it for you.

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 7:58 PM  

@99-Interesting example you pick. As "abandonment" was grounds for divorce, so was "alienation of affection." They go together.


Wake me when men start pressing charges for their wives' profligacy. That's simply not seen as theft in this, the Current Year. But men taking sex from the woman is seen as rape. Curious. It's almost as if women have an advantage in family law, or something.

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 8:05 PM  

@112-"Consent for violence wasn't given"

We're not talking about violence, we're talking about rape. How many times on this thread have you already come to an understanding with other posters that you both agree husbands are liable for assault?

"who gives a shit what was said at the altar"

I don't know, the Western legal tradition? As opposed to what was made law the day before yesterday.

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 8:19 PM  

common law suggests the verbal contract at the altar is very very important.

community wide amnesia. pig ignorant generation heading for tomorrow's oven.

The Zyklon B laundromat is how far away?

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 8:22 PM  

"We're not talking about violence, we're talking about rape"
Really?


""who gives a shit what was said at the altar"

I don't know, the Western legal tradition? As opposed to what was made law the day before yesterday."

Surely the Western legal tradition will exonerate the guy who enslaves other people. I mean....After all.

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 8:32 PM  

see Snidely's comment above. He was on the Jury. If stupid people were 100% of the Jury.

And what's the difference between stupid and those who refuse to learn?

Blogger Tom Kratman September 12, 2016 8:46 PM  

I don't recall that you've said it, but if consent is a given, but force remains illegal, then refusal, or at least persistent refusal, to have sex corresponds only to adequate grounds for divorce.

Now, should force or violence be illegal...???

OpenID peppermintfrosted September 12, 2016 8:51 PM  

there is no sexual aspect to the act I describe. It's a purely violent act....
use penetration as a form of violence

The words still have meaning; in fact it's a very specific meaning: Force or coerce a person into having sex against their wishes and it's rape. Period.

so, is rape sexual or not?

Anonymous Scintan September 12, 2016 9:00 PM  

Props to Rollo, for managing to troll the entire thread while making absolutely no arguments of substance. That's an accomplishment worthy of notice.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 12, 2016 9:14 PM  

"You are talking about a spouse that lies. Who knows where that can lead."

And that's why it's unwise, Rollo, to have legally cognizable marital "rape," because it gives the lying wife (and they are fucking legion; go ahead and ask how I know) a tool with which to beat her husband via the courts.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 9:15 PM  

"Now, should force or violence be illegal...???""

Not only should it, it is.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 9:21 PM  

"But if consent is a given, but force remains illegal, then refusal, or at least persistent refusal, to have sex corresponds only to adequate grounds for divorce."

Not much of an iss is this since 40 states now have no fault divorce.

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 9:22 PM  

overlooked thus far.

once upon a time in a generation that could think it through, marriage absolutely involved "consummation".

no sex no marriage.

the simple contract implied conjugal rights. Like land rights.

the fact this needs to be pointed out is in itself appalling.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 9:27 PM  

Phillip George wrote:the simple contract implied conjugal rights. Like land rights.

the fact this needs to be pointed out is in itself appalling.

We have a society of idiots like Roll and other feminists, and of course the various Cuckservatives and Libertarians, who actually believe in complete autonomy. As if it were a good thing. They even mistake it for liberty.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 12, 2016 9:45 PM  

"Not only should it, it is."

This doesn't add anything to the discussion. We know it is. Now why should it be?

Blogger Tom Kratman September 12, 2016 9:46 PM  

"Not much of an iss is this since 40 states now have no fault divorce."

You can still end up paying in no fault divorce. But when there is fault, as in failure to meet the contractual obligations on the part of the wife, why should the husband pay anything? She, after all, was the one who defaulted.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 10:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 10:12 PM  

Its quite obvious that Rollo has never had false abuse charges leveled against him... or maybe he has and he's doubling down on the white knighting.
Either way he's proven himself to be a giant ass whose "arguments" - are giant gas bags filled with shit !

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 12, 2016 10:23 PM  

Mountain Man wrote:Its quite obvious that Rollo has never had false abuse charges leveled against him... or maybe he has and he's doubling down on the white knighting.
I think it likely that he has an elaborate rape fantasy scripted in his head, and he realizes that it's only the fact that it's against the law that keeps him from realizing it.

Blogger Mountain Man September 12, 2016 10:38 PM  

Like the rape fantasy novel that Bernie Sanders wrote nearly 40 years ago.

When you scratch the surface you generally find that the biggest white knighters are some of the most deviant and weird fuckers you'll ever meet..
Their pretenses of caring and feeeeeeling for the needs of womynz is such a false charade. However in their minds they are so convinced they are pulling the wool over the eyes of those around them . Such is not the case as most high value women however do see right through it and thats why they end up, rightfully so , with the creepy label.
They really are fuckin creeps.

Anonymous Counselor Friendly September 12, 2016 10:42 PM  

Rollo53, it's ok, you can tell me. Where did the copy of 50 Shades of Grey touch you?

I care and I don't judge.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 12, 2016 11:01 PM  

The question is what obligations and what rights are part of marriage? I agree that sexual relations are part of (a foundation to) marriage and that neither can deny outright.

There can be no 'contract' where the terms and obligations are open ended or one sided. Hence the failure of 'contractual marriage' in a legal sense. I'd argue that marriage, institutionally, has failed because one side has tried to establish ONE SIDE of the 'contract' and the otherside, failing balance has decided it is no longer beneficial.

You can pick which side is which in that scenario, but I'd wager both sides would claim the offended side....

Again, I agree that there is no rape - in the sense that consent is implicit in the marriage - that violence is wrong, but it is difficult to enforce what you can't force. Marriage is based on feelings....

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 11:37 PM  

@117-Ah, yes, the argument ad servitudo. I suppose Anything Goes, then. Legal tradition has no authority because you disagree with one thing, at least, that used to be legal.

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 11:41 PM  

Or argumentum. Damn autocorrect.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 11:45 PM  

""Not only should it, it is."

This doesn't add anything to the discussion. We know it is. Now why should it be?"

Then don't ask a question for which the answer means nothing to you. You asked, "should force or violence be illegal...???" Again, I say, Yes.

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 11:48 PM  

@126-"They even mistake it for liberty"

There's liberty and there's liberty. Some people only care about political liberty, and wouldn't raise a fuss if the entire country were enslaved to wine, women, and song. I used to watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and wonder what was the big deal about Pottersville. Seemed like a fun place. So long as libertarians are okay with a nation of obese, sex crazed, drug addicted morons, at least they have integrity.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 11:49 PM  

"Again, I agree that there is no rape - in the sense that consent is implicit in the marriage - that violence is wrong, but it is difficult to enforce what you can't force. Marriage is based on feelings...."

The question is what recourse does a spouse have when the other withholds sex (alienation of affection). 1) you can live with it. 2) file for divorce. Alienation of affection is grounds for divorce. However forcing oneself on the spouse is not a form of recourse, unless the option of going to jail for assault or rape works for you. Force in this case isn't a matter of self defense. It's a matter of assault. And if it involves forced penetration against the will of the other, it's rape.

Anonymous Rollo53 September 12, 2016 11:51 PM  

"Rollo53, it's ok, you can tell me. Where did the copy of 50 Shades of Grey touch you?

I care and I don't judge."

Is it something you pine to know? Something you really, really Neeeeed to know?

Anonymous tublecane September 12, 2016 11:53 PM  

@137-"Don't ask a question for which the answer means nothing to you"

Who says it means nothing? Ever heard of a leading question?

Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 11:54 PM  

Marriage is based on feelings....

no, marriage is an intellectual decision. Like love, you do it regardless of whether you feel it.
obviously age and physical ability dictate possibility but a right to children, a right to sex was implicit from the beginning.

sex is duty. roll call.
marriage classes existed once. In orthodox circles even now consummation is celebrated by the community. the community contract is implicit as well.

ps. cultures with strictly arranged marriages have about the same stats as elsewhere for feelings of happiness. feelings come and go, decisions to do the right thing don't.


Blogger Phillip George September 12, 2016 11:59 PM  

Congress should really deal with the right to orgasm.
but cucks and liberals can't get their collective hive minded 'individuality' around.

If this isn't cognitive dissonance nothing is.

Everybody repeat after me "I am an individual". No, I insist you do it in harmony this time.

OpenID gnossoss September 13, 2016 12:16 AM  

Shouldn't need saying, but to reiterate what I see as the main case against the concept of "marital rape:"

There's no way for the state to determine rape between spouses, even if we recognize it as something that can happen. Being impossible to determine, it can only be enforced unfairly or not at all.

The original concept of rape was that as long as women acted in a societally acceptable way, if they claimed rape, it was very unlikely they'd be lying, and there would most likely be plenty of evidence. Since she wouldn't go to a secluded place with a strange man voluntarily, she would probably have bruises and so forth. This sort of case is relatively easy to make; you'll usually have defensive wounds, you can confirm that sex took place, she reported the crime immediately and didn't know the attacker, etc.

Nowadays we're trying to enforce laws against rape in cases where women voluntarily got into a guy's bed and took off some of their clothes, but decided later they didn't want to have sex. This is very murky territory; if she doesn't have defensive wounds and generally acted as though she expected to have sex with the guy, how would you know if it was rape or not? How would you know if she actually indicated that she didn't want it at the time? You don't. In these cases you can either do the sensible thing and say "there's no way to prosecute these cases; if you don't want to sleep with a guy don't get into his bed." Or we can do the crazy thing feminists want, which is to assume all accounts are true, much evidence to the contrary, and jail any man who's accused of rape regardless of lack of evidence or even presence of exculpatory evidence.

Now with marriage you're completely in the dark. How in the heck is the state going to know whether a man forced a woman who chose to bind her life to him until death, lives in his house and spends his money, and bore his children, to have sex with him against her will? What possible mechanism could be used to determine this? What conceivable evidence would there ever be that couldn't be equally well explained by a thousand mundane possibilities? In this case there's no way you can ever know what happened, and even if you could, it would require such extreme intrusiveness into all married couples' lives that it could never be worth it. Even then I'm doubtful it's possible; as someone above said, even video with accompanying audio wouldn't tell you whether it was rape, as the couple may enjoy rough sex.

The only way for the state to enforce the concept of "marital rape" is to uncritically accept any accuser's version of events, or to reject all accusations out of hand. There simply is no possible way of determining the validity of any given accusation.

Battery is, of course, in a different category. You can't be 100% certain that the injuries came from the spouse, but you can at least verify that an injury happened, and it's fairly reasonable to assume that an injury was probably inflicted by the other party. Thus, while you can enforce rules against marital violence, there is no way to enforce any rule against rape between spouses.

Since these laws are utterly unenforceable without turning spouses into Stasi agents waiting for each other to slip up to report them to the government, therefore destroying the trust which is required for the family to function, "marital rape" is merely an attempt to undermine the family and not a meaningful or necessary protection for spouses.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 12:28 AM  

@135 Even legal tradition is not absolute-ly inviolable.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents September 13, 2016 12:30 AM  

@140

Is it something you pine to know? Something you really, really Neeeeed to know?


It's obviously a problem you have, this issue with your rape fantasies. Your obviously compulsive rape fantasies.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 13, 2016 12:45 AM  

Why, "yes," though, Rollo?

Blogger Tom Kratman September 13, 2016 12:47 AM  

Rollo, don't practice law until _after_ you pass the bar. That's not what "alienation of affection" means.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 13, 2016 12:49 AM  

Tracy Coyle wrote:Marriage is based on feelings....

And that is why you fail to understand how marriage works.
Marriage, like love, is an act of will, not an act of the heart. It is best if the will is in accord with the heart, but perfectly manageable if not.

It is the demand that the partner act in accord with your own feelings that destroys most marriages.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 13, 2016 12:50 AM  

That was well said, gnossoss.

Anonymous Counselor Friendly September 13, 2016 12:59 AM  

Rollo53, I don't need to know anything. I'm just trying to help you. It's clear that you have some issues with rape. Just tell me how it all began, was it 50 shades or something else?

Anonymous maj September 13, 2016 1:03 AM  

Arguing that there is no such thing as marital rape is just about the worst position the alt-right can publicly advocate. You're alienating 99% of all possible allies with little in return.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 1:05 AM  

I can't imagine an inherent right without individuality. I can't imagine free will without some degree of choice. If marriage is not my choice (arranged marriage) and sex within that marriage is not a choice, then where is the consent?

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 1:05 AM  

@145-Duh.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 1:11 AM  

@148-I used alienation of affection incorrectly above. Was this point meant for me? I didn't mean it literally, but I suppose using it like that, with quotation marks and all, was a mistake in a thread with legal arguments. I couldn't think of what term to use when your spouse refuses to couple with you.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 1:13 AM  

@152-I think this is the point where we say we don't care.

Veritas!

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 1:45 AM  

@149 I was imprecise with my comment - the intent to marry is based on feelings - although @143 Phillip informs me that is is 'purely'? an intellectual decision.

OpenID gnossoss September 13, 2016 1:48 AM  

@152

It's not as though this is #1 on the alt-right agenda. I don't even know if this is an alt-right thing at all. I just know Vox is right about this issue, and he's discussing it, as he tends to do about things that interest him.

@153

Christianity had rules for slaves as well as for masters; in most cases I imagine the slaves didn't choose to be slaves. You might have a duty to care for a sick parent -- it wasn't your choice for your mom to get cancer or what have you. Duties don't stop being duties because you didn't have complete control of whether to take them on. We all end up with duties we may or may not have freely accepted, had we been asked.

The other point is that attempting to enforce rules against "marital rape" undermines what marriage is. Marriage is a binding relationship where sexual consent is given. It's a requirement for marriage to function, and a part of what it is definitionally. Once you start introducing the idea that you have to get consent even within marriage, you're eliminating a core element which is intended to create stable and functional family units; see the chaos that affirmative consent doctrine is causing everywhere people are stupid enough to try to apply it.

That's in addition to the problem I noted above, which is that when two people are always in intimate contact there's no possible way to determine whether consent was or was not given for an individual sexual act.

OpenID gnossoss September 13, 2016 1:58 AM  

@157

Marriage based on feelings is a very recent phenomenon. Throughout most of history it's been arranged in one way or another. Sometimes the bride and groom had more choice, sometimes less, but at the very least the list of options for women was generally selected for them. This concept (plus actual societal enforcement of expectations for spouses) objectively worked enormously better than the current system.

This system had tremendously lower divorce rates, despite there often not even being the veneer of individual choice in who to marry. Enforcement of one's duties to one's spouse is indisputably more effective than what we do now.

What you're saying is like saying that you shouldn't have to have a duty to pay taxes or serve in the armed forces of a country because you didn't personally approve that country's constitution. There are many duties that every citizen is expected to carry out without any possibility that they can opt out. That's how the world works. This "nothing is allowed to happen without my express approval" idea is fantasy.

OpenID gnossoss September 13, 2016 2:09 AM  

@157

Let's try a role reversal. Does a man have an obligation to protect his wife? What if he doesn't feel like it today? What if she's being kind of annoying? Is it fair for him to unilaterally withdraw his physical protection when he wants to without notice? What if he promised to always provide protection before they were married, but now no longer wants to?

Or, what about money? What if he decides that she can't have any and he won't spend any money on her beyond the bare minimum to keep her alive? What if he promised her to keep her in a lavish lifestyle before marriage but after marriage spends nothing on her? Is it theft if she sneaks money out of his wallet?

These are pretty much equivalent to the male scenario. If she refuses sex, he's still morally (and I suppose legally in some small ways still) prohibited from getting sex elsewhere. Thus she gets to keep the benefits from him while not providing the reciprocal benefits to him that he's owed. This is essentially fraud. The equivalent of going after a man for "marital rape" would be that if she forced him to protect her when he didn't want to, or took money from his wallet to buy herself a meal when he refused to give her any money, she could be prosecuted and put in jail for it. If you can accept that scenario, fine, at least you're sort of consistent. But if you're honest with yourself you would never accept that scenario.

Anonymous Eric the Red September 13, 2016 2:14 AM  

Rollo is a trolling ass, or more likely a woman. She disingenuously refuses to see what has plainly been repeatedly stated in various ways by other posters:

Marital rape can be claimed by a woman even when no violence has taken place. The redefinition of assault (such as including supposed emotional trauma well after the fact) has been successful because it leads to the sexual act, and is only important because of that aspect. Otherwise, it could be relegated to a trivial matter not worthy of any court's consideration. It is for this reason that allowing the concept of marital rape is absurd to the definition of marriage, and devastating to men individually and the institution as a whole.

My advice to Rollette is to go away and stuff her semantic games where the sun don't shine. Put a lock on it and that way she'll never need worry about anyone acting out her unresolved rape fantasies.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 3:07 AM  

@158 The discussion on 'marital rape': I agree. I am not arguing against or suggesting disagreement with marital rape being conceptually impossible* I would want the discussion on force - how do you enforce something without force - to continue. It was my attempt at understanding that led to my bringing up obligation/responsibility vs right/duty.

*I think this discussion is within 'Christian' marriage. Or within a legal tradition of marriage. If a man expects his wife to work after the wedding, is there some failure of his obligation to provide? Those are for other discussions.

I've worked for attorneys in family law - I've seen accusations of abuse, abused. I tend to immediately suspect any such accusation absent significant evidence not just of such an act, but a history (with outside evidence) of such acts.

@159 Historical evidence of a cultural tradition is not proof of it's success - alternatives could have been violently disallowed. Maybe for good reason, or maybe not. However, the current system is a corruption on many different levels.

"Enforcement of one's duties to one's spouse is indisputably more effective than what we do now."

What socio-economic events affected traditional marriage: The Depression, WWII, women in the workforce, women in non-traditional roles, divorce (pre no-fault)? Now, 40-70 years later, can we separate the root issues?

"This "nothing is allowed to happen without my express approval" idea is fantasy."

I will assume you mean other commenters positions - I made/make no such claim/fantasy. If the argument is that marriage is consent to sex, but there is no consent to marriage to begin with? It brings up the 'slavery is a choice - you can always choose death' argument of Locke. I can choose to not marry the man my parents have arranged for me to marry - and risk being tossed out of my parents home, (in the past) and into a society that has little room for a non-aligned woman.

I don't care about the past. We are here now. How do you enforce something without force?


Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 3:14 AM  

@160 I don't know if the 'scenario' is a role reversal. What if the man choose to not provide (instead of protect which is situational but provide is daily)?

All of your situations require the same question: if a duty exists and one doesn't act accordingly, how do you enforce it? If he doesn't want to provide, or protect, how do you enforce it - how does the wife 'make him'?

I already said I agree with the position on marital rape - not consistent with marriage. If a woman agrees to work to achieve a marital lifestyle and then chooses to stop working - how does a man 'force' her to work once they attain it? Lots of agreement can be had prior to marriage, that can be reneged upon later - how do you enforce something without force?

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 3:59 AM  

I made the following statement in @162 "Historical evidence of a cultural tradition is not proof of it's success"

I should clarify. A cultural tradition has societal support. That society has reason to prevent any competing actions from interfering. If society forcibly removes any competition then the longer it exists the more in can rely on the argument that longevity is proof of it's superiority.

Anonymous Jurisprude September 13, 2016 11:45 AM  

Let's imagine A and B are married. A seeks sex, B declines. How should the law treat this situation? I can envision a few possibilities:

1. A can use self-help (physical force) to vindicate his legal right, much the way a landlord can use reasonable physical force to evict a holdover tenant or eject a trespasser. Accordingly, A may force sex on B. Unless A uses unreasonable or disproportionate force (e.g., inflicts severe head injury, where mere physical restraints would have sufficed), A has done nothing wrong.

2. A cannot force sex on B, but may sue B for alienation of affection and divorce. If a jury determines B has withheld sex unreasonably, B must pay damages.

3. In a variation on scenario #2, A can call the cops and report that B has committed a crime: conversion of, or unlawful interference with, marital claim. Cops can show up, order B to submit to sex, arrest B if B refuses. A may then bring a separate civil suit.

4. Other?

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 12:05 PM  

@ 74

All that is needed for a rape conviction is a swab of DNA evidence and a claim of non-consensuality.

No, you need to prove each element of the rape, including nonconsent, beyond reasonable doubt. An unsubstantiated he-said, she-said will almost never suffice. I have never seen, and defy anyone to cite, a case where someone was convicted of rape on this evidence alone.

When you exclude marital rape from the definition of rape, what you are saying is: Even if it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that sex was enacted without consent, the perpetrator did nothing wrong, so long as perpetrator is spouse.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 12:35 PM  

@166-People have been convicted with even less evidence than that, for instance in child sex abuse cases. But those are different animals.

Blogger Matamoros September 13, 2016 12:54 PM  

If I say no to my husband, I expect him to respect that...
and
"Marriage confers the right to have sex with your spouse, but it does not confer any right to assault your spouse. By what means could a spouse force sex that was not wanted without the use of force?"

This is another SJW argument to prevent a man from exercising his right. A right means that it can be exercised. To say yes, you have the right, but she can say she doesn’t want it, means there is no right, except in name. The same has happened with the right of the husband to discipline his wife.

St. Paul says for a woman to refuse is defrauding her husband of his right. She is required in marriage to submit, or he is allowed to take sex. As women like being taken, this refusal could in many cases by simply a shit test to see if you are man enough to make her. Women want to submit to strength, not weakness.

There are marriage and unmarriage (marriage 2.0). In marriage it is called the marriage debt. It is owed to each other and either has the right to collect it (have sex) upon demand without demurrer from the other.

Of course, modern unmarriage is a horse of a different color. Make sure which one you are agreeing to. If you find out that you somehow ended up with unmarriage, through deceit or otherwise, next her - get a divorce and annulment. It is only going to get worse. Remember, it is always easier to end it early than after kids come along.

If you think she’ll start the domestic violence scam, don’t force her to have sex, simply change the locks when she’s gone, put her stuff on the curb, and file immediately for divorce and annulment. Don’t give up the house.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 2:02 PM  

@168 No right is absolute and no right gives you the liberty to force another to submit to your will.

Where is the 'right to discipline his wife' found? Eph 5:24? that is a duty of each to submit to the other. I had never heard the term defraud before but it appears to be a translation variation which means to withhold, deny. I am not aware of any definition of right that gives control of one person over another (though the Left does love that interpretation).

"the right to collect" is again the argument that what is not freely given can be forcefully taken. I don't see that anywhere in Scripture.

The wife/husband is required to submit, but I don't see the 's/he is allowed to take' ie, force other than by assumption.

I will say again: I agree that marital rape is not logical. But how do you enforce something without force? Put him/her out, get a divorce....

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 2:59 PM  

@169-So my right to self-defense doesn't give me the liberty to, say, kill anyone who tries to alienate it from me? Even the courts recognize that one.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 3:09 PM  

@168, 170 --

If we're being legalistic about this, the vast majority of your legal rights cannot be enforced extrajudicially by force. If your employee refuses to perform his contractually required duty, you can't force him to perform at gunpoint. If your bank refuses to relinquish funds to which you are entitled, you cannot rob the bank.

Rather, in a society that observes the rule of law, you're supposed to resort to the courts. Analogously, if your spouse withheld affection, you'd file for divorce.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 3:20 PM  

@170 You don't have the (self defense) right to kill someone that pushed you or tried to restrain you unless - the qualifiers - ie, not absolute.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 3:22 PM  

@171-Okay, but the above poster said NO right gives you the liberty to force another to submit to your will. Which is ridiculous.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 3:35 PM  

@173 are you suggesting that self defense is forcing another to submit to your will? Isn't it force PREVENTING such an effort?

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 4:01 PM  

Under U.S. common law, a good rule of thumb is that if you reasonably and imminently fear you're about to suffer an intimate, grievous violation of your own rights -- an invasion of your home or your body, for example -- you can act to protect yourself. In a way, all affirmative forms of "self help" (the correct term for most legal exercise of force, which appears in a comment above) are forms of self defense. You can use self help to remove someone from your property, for example, because privacy rights in real property are sacrosanct, and being forced to accommodate an intruder would be deeply invasive.

Technically, self defense sometimes amounts to "forcing another to submit to your will;" after all, it's your will that you not be murdered or have your home invaded. But what's legally significant isn't your will; rather, it's the imminent violation of your negative liberty which you're entitled to prevent.

Permitting forcible marital rape would not be consistent with common-law self-defense and self-help principles. A sexually frustrated spouse is not imminently threatened, and the harm he's suffering isn't irreparable. The desire that's being frustrated -- a desire to have intercourse, irrespective of his partner's pleasure or even her assent -- could be satisfied easily elsewhere, perhaps with a prostitute. There's much to be said for the unique unitive and religious import of marital vs. extramarital sex, but if sex is occurring by force, it's hard to argue that any of these warm, fuzzy, inchoate benefits accrue.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 5:14 PM  

@174-A distinction without a difference. I'm preventing them by forcing them. My (justified) violence is bending them to my will, instead of me to theirs.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 5:17 PM  

@174-You bringing in the defensive aspect, by the way, is just shifting ground. If the argument now becomes one of marital "rape" being unlike affirmative rights because there's no self-defense involved, that's another matter.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 5:39 PM  

This whole line of argument is silly, anyway, because it's been stipulated that husbands are liable for violent actions tied to forced sex from their wives, just not rape. I despise blanket statements like no right gives you the liberty to force your will on others, is all.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 5:57 PM  

@175-Prostitution is a bad example, except in such jurisdictions as it's legal. Where it isn't, you may as well say I can't use force against a neighbor stealing $600 from me because I could just go steal $600 from another neighbor. Saying Only could get legal sex from another source doesn't really cut it, either, because that's like saying when someone steals my car I could go get another car. But I don't want A car; I want MY car.

Divorce, at least, allows me the freedom to seek out legitimate, marital sex again.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 6:03 PM  

@178 Granted blanket statements are usually not absolute. I didn't bring self defense in, you did. I have focused on 'how do you enforce something without force'. You point out that some have said and agreed that a spouse can be liable for violence against the other. How do you enforce something without force - ie violence?

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 6:06 PM  

@178 --

This whole line of argument is silly, anyway, because it's been stipulated that husbands are liable for violent actions tied to forced sex from their wives, just not rape.

If the husband hits his wife in the head with a hammer, dazing her, then pins her to the ground and forces his dick inside her, which portions of this act constitute crimes? Just the hammer and the restraint? Or should the forced dicking be chargeable as an additional count -- as it would be if the same heinous attack were perpetrated by a stranger?

I would argue the latter (forcing your penis into your unwilling spouse is a crime), but am curious about your position.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 6:16 PM  

@179 -- Yeah, I'm assuming prostitution is legal. Alternatively, substitute sex with some anonymous non-prostitute barslut. The point is, at the point where you are willing to use force, there is nothing special or irreplaceable about sex with your wife (vs. any random hole) that the law ought to recognize. If you're raping her, there's no unitive marital magic happening.

Regarding theft of personal property, e.g. $600: You can use force to prevent "robbery" (theft by physical force), but in most states cannot use force to prevent nonviolent forms of theft like securities fraud. The law recognizes that some property is irreplaceable in some instances, but your car wouldn't cut it -- maybe a one-of-a-kind artwork. Whether you could use physical force to prevent the nonviolent theft of a one-of-a-kind artwork is an interesting question. My instinct is no, because you still have not been physically encroached upon.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 6:26 PM  

Addendum to 182: The rule I just described applies to deadly physical force, so you can use minor physical force to prevent, e.g., nonviolent larceny. But I still don't think an extension of this principle justifies forcible intercourse.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 6:41 PM  

@181-Not the same as if perpetrated by stranger, no. Because strangers have no conjugal rights. Battery by dick instead of by hand is the most I'm willing to go.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 6:47 PM  

@182-"at the point you are willing to use force, there is nothing special or irreplaceable about sex with your wife...that the law ought to recognize"

I don't follow. Why not? It's still my wife I'm forcing. I'm not forcing it from a random woman, or a goat, or a notch in a tree.

"If you're raping her, there's no unital marital magic happening"

Huh? Look, man and wife are not literally one flesh. Duh. But that doesn't mean a man is not still compelled to financially support his wife, even if his wife is a bitch, won't get along with him, and in fact abandons him. The state may still force (force, mind you) the husband to support her through alimony. That's because of the contract and what happened at the altar, even though no "magic" kept her from ruining the marriage.

Tell me how marital "rape" is different, magically speaking.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 6:54 PM  

@182-Once again, we've already covered the justification of physical force part. Husbands can be arrested for assaulting their wives. We're still talking about whether it's rape or not, so your musings on resisting non-violent theft with force are beside the point.

My point in bringing up the $600 and the car was beside the point you're making.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 6:55 PM  

@184 -- There is no explicit, unconditional conjugal right to sex anytime anywhere. To the extent that there is any conjugal right to sex (I would argue there is), it is qualified by obligations to love and honor, and is premised on spouse's consent, with consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

This "not to be unreasonably withheld" language appears often in contracts. It's used when parties consent enter the sort of relationship where stipulated benefits will periodically be granted (financing supplied on a revolving as-needed basis, e.g.). Nonetheless, if funding is unreasonably withheld, your remedy is to sue for breach of contract (analogously, divorce) and seek damages. Stealing the withheld funds is punishable, to precisely the same extent as if a stranger stole them.

Anyways, I don't care if it's called rape or battery-by-dick, so long as it's punished equally. But at that point, we truly are talking about a pure semantic distinction.

Blogger Tracy Coyle September 13, 2016 6:57 PM  

Is it just semantics?
SJW: penetration = rape is delusional; unwanted sexual advances within marriage is not harassment or rape.
Rape within marriage? I still lean 'no' but if rape=forced intercourse, and a spouse forces (physical violence) intercourse, that is rape.

Law: Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is
an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.

Scripture:
Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourself to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

I see nothing that says you can force the issue - whatever you take 'force' to mean.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 6:59 PM  

@180-"I didn't bring self defense in, you did"

Yes, to disprove your statement, not to say it has anything to do with marital "rape."

"I was focusing on 'how do you enforce something without force'"

You don't, at least not without the implicit threat of force. "Force" is right there I'm the word "enforce."

Here's the thing, though: if you do enforce it with violence it's assault, not rape.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 7:02 PM  

"Is it just semantics?

No! "Rape" means something, but not what the law says it means.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 7:05 PM  

@187-You might as well say there's no explicit, unconditional right for a wife to be materially supported by her husband anytime, anywhere, either. Does that mean a husband should press charges against his wife for lifting $5 from his wallet without his permission for a sandwich?

How is rape different? Besides the feelz.

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 7:08 PM  

@187-I definitely don't think it should be punished equally. Even were it rape, we don't punish all rapes equally, do we? Why on earth would raping your wife be equivalent to raping an underaged, virgin stranger, for instance?

Blogger tublecane September 13, 2016 7:16 PM  

@181-By the way, your hammer example avoids the more obvious issue, which is the practical impossibility of proving rape within marriage. Because 99 times out of 100 it's going to be he said/she said. It's not a choice between the old days of turning a blind eye to woman suffering and the Orwellian world of family law. But you will, inevitably, turn normal human relations sinister by redefining marriage as capable of containing rape. That I consider inevitable.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 7:21 PM  

Regarding "magic" --

Here I'm touching on a distinction to which you allude above (I don't want ANY car, I want MY car). Generally speaking, when a party is deprived of something to which he's legally entitled, the preferred remedy is monetary damages. Only under rare, special circumstances will a court order a person to perform or refrain from an act. These rare, special circumstances arise most often when an injury is noncompensable by monetary damages. As I note, the theft or destruction of YOUR car wouldn't meet this standard, but the destruction of a rare painting would.

If a spouse has been wrongly denied sex, then one thing we should ask ourselves in determining whether he can use self-help to obtain sex is: can his injury be compensated after-the-fact by damages? If so, the approach more conducive to peace and order is to prevent him from acting, but later let him sue.

I anticipated a couple of potential counterarguments to "just let him sue." One is that suing takes awhile, and he has an urgent need. So, I suggest he can fulfill this urgent need with some other willing party. Another potential objection, though, is that marital sex is more like a rare painting than a car -- it is "magical," nonfungible, better than sex with some rando. I reject this argument, on the ground that there is nothing special or magical in a sexual encounter with an unwilling partner which the state ought to recognize. You aren't deepening a marital bond or helping to create a prosocial environment for children if you are forcing your wife to have sex with you.

The alimony analogy is also addressed by the above-described, long-recognized distinction between ordering payment of money and ordering performance of an act. As far as I am aware, no common law court in history has ordered performance of a sex act. This would be grotesque, invasive, and against public policy. I think the same principle should guide us here: deprivation of sex is an injury, but not one that can be addressed under any circumstances by coercion of a sex act. Coercion of sex is rape, plain and simple -- or "battery by dick," if you prefer.

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 7:34 PM  

@193 --

I addressed this at 166. He-said, she-said is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. I challenged you (or anyone ITT) to cite any case where a rape conviction had been achieved based solely on a swab of semen and a claim of nonconsent. Nobody has done so. I sketch out facts that are deliberately provocative, but also more typical of the sort of marital-rape scenario where proof beyond reasonable doubt could be established.

@192 -- Of course we should not punish all rapes equally. We should, and do, impose harsher penalties for child rape, for example. Other details influencing sentencing might include the use of particular weapons, lack of remorse, or severe injuries to the victim.

But I see no reason why marital status should factor among these.

Let's take my hammer scenario above. Can you explain why society should consider this attack less repugnant when perpetrated by a husband than by a stranger? Your "best" argument, I suppose, is that if sex has been withheld in violation of the conjugal covenant, this might constitute mitigating provocation. Any other arguments you can think of?

Anonymous aut_right September 13, 2016 7:40 PM  

@191 -- There is no explicit, unconditional right to a spouse's money, either. This is why family law recognizes a distinction between separate property and community property.

That said, the "feelz" distinguishing rape (or forced dicking) from petty larceny are not mine alone, but rather appear to be shared by most healthy humans and societies.

1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts