|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the author strikes me as someone I am glad I never married, I would concede his point that a marital rape law could be misused. Unfortunately that leaves no recourse for the women who would benefit from such a law, who have been legitimately raped by their husbands but can't bring them up on charges because a marriage license is considered in many places perpetual consent to intercourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @02:28PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I would point out that a marriage license in considered consent for SOME intercourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...a marriage license in considered consent for SOME intercourse."
I'm curious if we actually have laws which state this on the books in the U.S., or if it's just a convention derived from common law. Does anyone know this for certain?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it is in the marriage contract "...to have and to hold, to love and to cherish..." Depends how you define "have" "hold" "love" and "cherish" At one time it was clearly for sexual reasons. No law is necessary. It is a contract and american law is based on contractual litigations. Or would you rather say "to fuck and be fucked, to screw and be screwed, to have intercourse with and be intercoursed, until ..."?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This brings up the topic discussed on a story here recently about marital rape law in Virginia. I had asked, "Is there some way a law could be made that would balance the rights of women and men in this situation?" Click here to read some of the responses. Many were quite good.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we apply the no-nonsense definition of rape to the situation, i.e. obtaining sexual intercourse by the use of force or threat of force, yes those women DO have a recourse. Marriage may be considered by some 'perpetual consent to intercourse', but it certainly does not allow the husband to use force against his wife (or the other way 'round!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the author strikes me as someone I am glad I never married, I would concede his point that a marital rape law could be misused. Unfortunately that leaves no recourse for the women who would benefit from such a law, who have been legitimately raped by their husbands but can't bring them up on charges because a marriage license is considered in many places perpetual consent to intercourse.
I found the article to be thoughtful, well reasoned, and cited and footnoted authoritative references. It is full of both inductive and deductive reasoning of the highest order, succint, and to the point. Over all, it was very persuasive and makes a clear case, and in fact takes men to stern task while not in any respect even remotely implying that "all women" are a danger, merely a statistical one that the thinking man would be wise to consider.
What could possibly be your problem with him?
A law against rape is sufficient to provide more than adequate legal recourse for any woman. The trouble is, to convict someone of a crime you have to prove both that it was committed and that the person you accused indeed committed it. This is not unreasonable. Women have ample resources for leaving any relationship they wish. To be honest, any woman who stays in a relationship where sex against her will is commonplace begs the question of whether that is what she secretly likes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women have ample resources for leaving any relationship they wish."
That may be true in theory, but if their family, religious, or psychological conditioning has taught them that divorce is wrong in any situation? Some people are raised that way. And, if sex was against her will, and she does leave him, is her leaving him supposed to be punishment enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot of people who hold personal beliefs that divorce is wrong no matter what, from a variety of sources. To that I can only say: So what? People have a right to be wrong, and to be stupid, and to suffer the consequences for it, and I fear the nanny society far more than I fear any alternative to it. If people choose to be abused, and won't go for help, it's a case of do as you will or suffer what you must.
Sex against their will. It's wrong. Now prove it.
Hey, WS, you mugged me for ten thousand dollars last night in an alley. Give it back and go to jail. Sounds silly, huh? Well, that's what date rape, marital rape, and rape shield laws do.
These very laws are the equivalent of the same thing - I accuse, ergo, you're guilty. I don't have to present any evidence of me having ten grand, or you were there, because calling that into question is "blaming the victim."
So Wiccid winds up in jail on my say-so alone, because I'm a victim and I'd never lie? Is that right? Then why should it be any different for any other crime?
I'm all for throwing the book at proven and convicted rapists of either sex. It's easy to accuse. The other 99% is proving, and that burden rests solely on the accuser, and it is right, fair, and just that it does no matter how heinous the alleged crime. And until a crime is shown to have occurred, all it is is allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I agreed that the legislation can be misused. I am asking for an alternative for genuine victims. Don't deny that there are some. What do you suggest they do? Leaving a really abusive spouse is a start, but there is nothing to stop him/her from coming after you and killing you, if they are not in jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leaving a really abusive spouse is a start, but there is nothing to stop him/her from coming after you and killing you, if they are not in jail.
Welcome to the club. There's nothing from stopping anyone from murdering you anywhere if they take a mind to do it.
I suggest that someone protect themselves or seek protection. Get a gun, and start documenting stalking. Learn to shoot it, and hit what you are aiming at. And do like civilized people do, don't hunt someone down, wait for them to come after you, and blow them away so there is no doubt it is self defense.
I'm sorry, but because you are afraid, it does not follow that there is something to be afraid of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Outlaw restraining orders and marital rape statutes but make sure everyone has a gun and knows how to use it. That's going to lower the domestic violence statistics considerably. Before long everyone in a bad relationship will be dead and we can stop worrying about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could it not also be that the people who are doing the killings are doing so in such frustration that there is no other recourse. That false allegations have gotton so out of hand and one sided that there is no justice except the justice that the accused takes for themselves? A false accusation takes away your kids your house your job your freedom and puts a person in a place so extremely violent(namely jail) what did someone expect to happen?? Institutional violence is violence, and violence begets violence. And in so many cases here in Canada anyways, it ends up being either a suicide or a murder suicide. And there is no doubt that these politicians know its totally bias, but as with politics you need fear to keep your voters in line voteing for you. If men dominated the voting polls it would certainly be a different scenerio. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is never "no other recourse" than killing, unless someone is trying to kill you first. Sure, false accusation scenarios happen. And so do domestic violence and marital rape scenarios. Vigilante justice is not the answer. But then you probably think OJ Simpson is really really innocent too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Outlaw restraining orders" are your words, and you know better than to put them into someone else's mouth.
Marital rape statutes are a special case, and in no way has anyone here suggested that it is proper, right, or should be legal to even have sex with your wife against her will.
Rape is illegal. However, allowing anonymous unproven accusations alone to be the sole determiner of guilt until innocence can be proven is obscene, and the source of the term "witch hunt." and someone who has "Wicca" in their name should certainly know better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @07:06PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
There is never "no other recourse" than killing, unless someone is trying to kill you first. Sure, false accusation scenarios happen.
Notice how wiccid minimizes the impact of false accusations against men in this statement. This is the same tactic that male hating feminist everywhere use to further justify the criminalization of men. Wiccid is truely a male hater.
Wiccid is willing to put ten innocent men in jail just to convict one real rapist. Wiccid hates the current law because when a woman makes an accusation of marital rape that person must prove it. What Wiccid wants is a further erosion of these laws.
Why is that? Well because men are evil damn it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @07:08PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Australian, not American, so you can infer my views on gun control from that, but do you really think a restraining order or any other law will "stop him/her from coming after you and killing you"?
There is no security in this world, and there never will be. There is no way an individual can prevent someone from killing them if the killer is determined. A gun won't help either, but a restraining order certainly won't.
And by acting on fear of evil unknown predators to introduce unbelieveably stupid "guilty by default" laws to "protect victims" will do/has done far far more damage. And these laws don't even solve the problem - there is NO solution!
Life is a trade-off between safety and suffocation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @07:15PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Outlaw restraining orders and marital rape statutes but make sure everyone has a gun and knows how to use it. That's going to lower the domestic violence statistics considerably. Before long everyone in a bad relationship will be dead and we can stop worrying about them.
Well I have an idea. How about if we just arrest and prosecute those that actually commit female-on-male violence. After all, the statistics prove that women are extremely violent against men.
But of course, wiccid in all of her male hate, probably fails to realize that women are lterally getting away with murder. If women were to be arrested and prosecuted at the same rate as men, they would form the majority of the prison population.
Wait a minute...you say....what statistics are those? Here is the URL of a credible U.S. study:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172837.pdf
In this credible and scientifically valid study we find that women commit 61,584,672 million incidences of assault against men. While men commit 52,261,743 assaults on women.
Question: Why doesn't the prison population reflect this fact?
Answer: Because of male hate mongers like wiccid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men as a whole are not evil. Women as a whole are not evil. You don't know what I want, what I hate, or what I am willing to accept. I don't hate men, I am not a feminist, and I actually do know men who have been falsely accused and men who have been abused by a partner. I think it is time for some people to up their meds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @07:57PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is time for some people to up their meds.
First, wiccid claims that the majority of assaults are committed by men. This of course is a male hating feminist lie. Naturally, wiccid fails to provide any credible proof. So, proof is provided that demonstrates and exposes wiccid's hidden hate for men. It turns out that the physical evidence proves that women are more violent than men.
But what is wiccid's intellectual response? In effect wiccid recommends that a man, go take some drugs and stop being rational. What wiccid wants is a world of doped-up men that cannot make a rational response to her practice of male hatred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeepers, the hate is incalculable thats for sure and I mean that both ways I guess. But why are we destroying certain laws to promote the woman's rights or ability to "seek justice"? Is this the same scenerio years ago when all it took was the husbands "word" to place his wife in an insane asylum? And if she protested it was just more proof of her mental illness? The same as today when a man protests his innocence it really proves his guilt? This is the ideal for hate mogering propaghanda. And Politicians love this and monopolize on this. To incarcerate 10 innocent men to get one guilty one is a holocaust in the making. But then again most of these trials are not based on evidence but rather opinion and ultimately opinion. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since you're adept at mind-reading, perhaps you'd like to guess what my reply is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>First, wiccid claims that the majority of >assaults are committed by men.
When? Point me to this post. Her previous post stated that she knew men who had been abused.
>This of course is a male hating feminist lie.
Agreed, but
>Naturally, wiccid fails to provide any credible >proof.
Because she never made that statement.
>So, proof is provided that demonstrates and >exposes wiccid's hidden hate for men.
By saying she knows men who have been falsely accused proves she's man-hating? Huh?
>It turns out that the physical evidence proves
>that women are more violent than men.
Now, point me to this evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is because Wiccid is a pheminist troll.
Take a look, click on that name and look at past posts. Deflect the issue, to "Women Too" and then to "Women more!" No matter what, we ain't got it so bad, and it hits women equally as bad. Or it's hateful or something because we want basic human rights, like being innocent until proven guilty.
Yeah, Wiccid's pissed now. Scroll up - real slow - there, top left - what's it say?
MENSactivism.org (Emphasis mine)
And then she whines about how it's "About Males AND Females!" No, it's not. It's MEN'S activism here. Ergo, we discuss Men's issues. Duh! But, hey, we gotta put women in the center of the drama, or we're evil and selfish whiners, only interested in victimizing women.
What utter rot and hogswallop.
She's clever, I'll give her that, but here's something we've been eating from the pheminazis - if in women's issues women define the terms of the debate, in men's issues MEN define the debate.
Deal. Fish or cut bait.
Wiccid claims to want "civility," (Translation - for women to be the moderators of the talk) Fine. Attend to your own house first. Go to Ms. boards, log in as wiccid, and deal with your own gender first. Minute the tone of rhetoric decreases from there, I'll be first in line to remove my tagline.
Show of hands, guys? Anyone ever been to Ms.com, scanned the boards? How many sigs talk about castration? The uselessness of males? I saw serious posts recently saying that men should have the right to vote taken away for a while until their re-education was complete - anyone else have horror stories?
Oh yeah. I'm sure many can post and testify. Wanna call me, hey, I'll go cut and paste, cite you chapter and verse. Ain't no biggie, I'm jiggy wid' it.
But - hey, since we don't think it's right that the mere WORD of anyone should be enough to convict someone of a crime, we're whiners out to put all women beneath the iron heel of patriarchy.
Witch Hunt was the term used. My, my, my. How very appropo.
Compared to the average wimmynsactivism boards, this place is the soul of restraint and civility. Don't believe me, go to ms.com and see for yourself. We ain't even close. Hell, a fella even suggests he might think twice about convicting a poor sod pushed to torching a NOW hall, and there's two weeks it gets mileage here nd starts a multi-thread debate on if, let alone when - violence is even appropriate no matter what the provocation. You can hardly pass a page over there without the pheminists talking about mutilating a man for the crime of penis possession in the first degree.
Like I said, not even close. We're rank amateurs compared to those sows, and to hear Wiccid talk, we're ready to go Rambo and put slave collars on anything sporting a pair of boobs - and we're the ones who need more meds?
Ho, ho! It is to laugh.
Another guy is living a "Sad and lonely life" merely because he's had it over his head with pheminist crap. Why? Well, because - well, because a woman isn't in it, that's why. So it must be sad and lonely. Q.E.D.
"I'm not a feminist" indeed.
Or maybe true. Just a pheminist. A PHony fEMINIST, with more fake egalitarianism. Just so long as women are more equal than men.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @10:50AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Well Gonzo,
Whilst you sometimes go over the top, I've agreed with you 99 percent of the time. Thanks for your words here.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Show of hands, guys? Anyone ever been to Ms.com, scanned the boards? How many sigs talk about castration? The uselessness of males? I saw serious posts recently saying that men should have the right to vote taken away for a while until their re-education was complete - anyone else have horror stories?
Warble raises his hand in agreement. Right on Gonzo!
And then she whines about how it's "About Males AND Females!" No, it's not. It's MEN'S activism here. Ergo, we discuss Men's issues. Duh! But, hey, we gotta put women in the center of the drama, or we're evil and selfish whiners, only interested in victimizing women.
What utter rot and hogswallop.
Well said Gonzo! This is a movement of men. Women are welcome to come along for the ride and support us. But, it is a movement that is in the best interest of men, it is about the issues of men, it is up to men to support the movement independent of females, and it is about the injustices men face in a feminist world.
Right on Gonzo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vigilante justice is not the answer. But then you probably think OJ Simpson is really really innocent too.
Try telling the Jewish people who were being secretly evacuated from Germany during WWII that vigilante justice was not the answer. It most certainly was the answer and it was a damn good answer.
Really, an OJ Simpson cut? That is really a low blow. It is actually quite abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @01:51AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
--wiccid writes--
Hey, I agreed that the legislation can be misused. I am asking for an alternative for genuine victims. Don't deny that there are some.
--response--
This statement is quite telling. First, wiccid agrees that legislation MIGHT be misused. Then asks for an alternative to misusing legislation for genuine victums.
This is male hate speech because it encourages victims to lie and press false charges if any woman thinks she is a victim. So, all that is necessary for wiccid, is for a woman to think she is a victim, and then that woman is justified in using the law against a man with false allegations. Wiccid hates having a justice system require that a woman might have to provide proof of the allegation. Her pathetic reasoning for weakening the laws is that the woman might really be a genuine victim. According to wiccid, the woman really is the victim, and a woman can never believe she is a victim and be wrong. Yea....Right!!!
Agreement that the legislation can be misused is insufficient. There must be an acknowledgement that it is misused and abused by women against men at a rate that is clearly unacceptable. Wiccid has been supplied with this documentation and chooses to ignore it. That makes wiccid a male hater.
--wiccid writes--
… if men and women are going to be equal, men themselves have to stop playing the "dumb" card….
/comments.pl?sid=02/03/ 11/2259235&cid=9
--response--
Do I really have to comment on this form of hate speech by wiccid? The fact is that women are systematically victimizing men via the use of the law and false allegations. Wiccid knows it and justifies it in the name of the innocent victim that is denied justice.
--wiccid writes--
I am not a feminist. I am not a masculist either. I want the same things for my boys that I do my girl - a solid chance at happiness. "Women are manipulative backstabbers" is the same stupidity as "men are pondscum." Some women are manipulative, some men are pondscum. And visa-versa.
/comments.pl?sid=02/03/ 04/2250205&cid=37
--response--
The fact remains and has been proven via reliable statistics that men are incarcerated at many times the rate of women. Yet, women are proven to commit more child molestations and more violence against men. Yet wiccid, in this statement, demonstrates blind indifference. She isn’t a feminist or a masculist. She doesn’t take a stand for much of anything.
Wiccid is simply ambivalent when presented with the facts and shrugs them off as no big deal. Well, the fact is that having men systematically criminalized by women is a VERY BIG DEAL and it is one of the motivating factors of the men’s movement. What wiccid would have us do is stand idly by, shrug our shoulders, and shake our heads while American men are incarcerated via false allegations at record rates.
--wiccid writes--
I certainly hope that the men's movement isn't going to turn into the feminist movement. I am getting rather tired of the who is more violent than whom arguments. The fact is, human nature can be violent. But the vast majority of parents, both male and female, are not abusing and will not ultimately kill their children.
/comments.pl?sid=02/03/ 12/2340203&cid=47
--response--
Men must respond to the fact that America has the highest rate of incarceration of men in the world! We cannot sit idly by while women like wiccid preach ambivalence and complacency as a solution to men being systematically criminalized by false allegations from women. This is the men’s movement. We are here and we are proud to be men. Deal!
Remember, if they are not for us, they are against us. Wiccid has clearly demonstrated neutrality. Therefore, wiccid is against the men’s movement and seeks to trivialize men’s issues at every turn. I have demonstrated this with her own posts. I have read her last 50 post and find wiccid to be shallow and full of nothing but one-liners that lack any support for the men’s movement.
Finally, when wiccid is presented with facts and documentation, she is unable to respond with little more than a one-liner attacks against the physical evidence. Then later she pretends the documentation was never presented. Therefore, it is my conclusion that wiccid is little more than a male basher/hater who is neutral and has no foundation of belief. It is clearly wiccid's agenda to trivialize men's issues while presenting the image that she supports men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the most part, even the very conservative of religions consider abuse a perfectly good reason for leaving a relationship. If a woman stays in a abusive relationship because of her conditioning, much as I hate to say it, she will probably be abused until she or her husband dies. If nobody reports it [and possibly if she's in a place that requires her to prosecute him] what else IS there to do for them? In no way am I endorsing this, but I ask you, without the victim realizing they have a different option in life, how can anyone else help them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on board with that.
Frankly, the only problem with a marital rape statute that I can see is that such a scenario exacerbates the problematic nature of rape as a crime. When a couple is married, it is going to be tough to sell a jury on the idea that on June 14th you were forced to have sex but on June the 20th you were strapping on a full set of bakkake gear for your weekly whipping. It's infinitely more difficult to prove rape between married people without swift action on the part of the victim immediately after the transgression.
I think such legislation needs to be meticulously looked over in order to prevent the likelihood that it will become another weapon for the family court counsel racket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...even the very conservative of religions consider abuse a perfectly good reason for leaving a relationship. If a woman stays in a abusive relationship...
Unfortunately, this is a source of great bigotry against men. Most religions leaders don't believe that women can emotionally/physically abuse men. If a man is abused, they are expected to just tough it out, and yes that includes my church. They are still quite backwards in this type of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @06:24PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
That may be true in theory, but if their family, religious, or psychological conditioning has taught them that divorce is wrong in any situation? Some people are raised that way. And, if sex was against her will, and she does leave him, is her leaving him supposed to be punishment enough?
Oh yes. Of course. The evil patriarchy is holding a rapped woman in a marriage against her will.
Here is how Marilyn French put what you are saying, "All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
Wiccid what you are spouting is nothing more than male hate in disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And any man who stays in a relationship where sex is a "prize" or a "treat" to be doled out as the woman pleases is foolish to stay.
On the other hand, we go back to the old DV argument: she (he) has no place to go.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at this another way:
Since a wife can go on "sex strike" in order to control her husband, why should he not be able to go on a "financial strike" against his wife? that is, if the law allowed the latter, which it does not.
Marriage is (perhaps sadly) something I would advise every man to avoid, having seen what divorce did to my uncle.
Like Warren Farrell said, laws like this are government in the bedroom, don't go for laws like these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think, with more women in the work place, a "financial strike" wouldn't work anyway. In any case, there are other reasons than control to not want sex - physical pain, illness, or fatigue for example. If a woman is supposed to be sexually available for her husband whenever he is interested, does he have to do the same for her whenever she is interested? And what of sexual climax? A friend's husband believes "women don't have to [reach orgasm], every time." That always struck me as the most preposterous excuse for not satisfying one's partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The USA is a covert matriarchy not an overt
patriarchy as the author suggests. This is widely
acknowledged by sociologists. As far as marital
rape is concerned, violence should never be
tolerated in marriage for sex or otherwise.
However, as legal paternity is assumed in a valid
marriage and can only be disproved by clear and
convincing evidence for civil law purposes, consent to sex should be assumed in marriage and non-consent should have the same standard of proof as in all criminal cases, that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I condemn any violence
by men towards women and/or vice versa which is
at least as prevalent. Our North American culture,
through our laws and customs, makes every effort
to limit access to sex for men to the marital relationship. This induces and promulgates
hostility between the sexes as it inculcates in
both men and women that their relationship is not
based upon mutual respect and compatibility but
on the state enforced financial exploitation and domination of men by women with the resulting
high divorce rate, low marriage rate, high
illegitimacy rate which is characteristic of
North American society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @06:17PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately that leaves no recourse for the women who would benefit from such a law, who have been legitimately raped by their husbands but can't bring them up on charges because a marriage license is considered in many places perpetual consent to intercourse.
Wiccid you must mean the husband cannot be brought up on rape charges, because, he can most certainly be prosecuted under DV laws in virtually every State. There is no question but that the male can be prosecuted on felony charges and severely prosecuted for just mere allegations with no physical evidence. Right now I am questioning your level of complete ignorance wiccid.
As for potential for abuse, are u kidding? We all ready have a massive abuse of the current laws in place. This is a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Not so many places around here as consider it a perpetual consent to financial access."
Oh? Like me paying off my ex-husband's maxed credit cards five years after divorce, because he is unemployed and living in a cardboard box with his crank?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 16, @12:09AM EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh? Like me paying off my ex-husband's maxed credit cards five years after divorce, because he is unemployed and living in a cardboard box with his crank?
Well Wiccid:
*sarcasm on*
That just means you chose a loser, girlfriend.
*sarcasm off*
Your suffering is real, and not only do I sympathise with you, but I admire some of what you have done. Nonetheless, so long as men are considered primarily walking wallets by a huge subset of women, and by many agencies of the government, your particular circumstance will be rather rare.
Any time middle income people are involved in a divorce, money will tend to flow in two places : Lawyers, and the person with custody of children or "victim" status -- i.e., 80 percent of the time the woman. And the guy will be lucky to have a basement of his own, not a box.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Against what I thought I would, and considering I was half-way through writing a critical reply, against most sense. It did finally occur to me that except for a few weird places, most places consider forced sexual acts inside marriage to still be rape. And rape is bad - duh. But, do I feel that because one is married or dating or whatever they "deserve" to be able to present less evidence against their accused. That I cannot agree with. That is yet another way of examining 'specialty' rape laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @10:33PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
I just had a great thought:
Since we want --- with the connivance of these "marital rape" -- to treat marriage as nothing more than a long dating relationship, why don't we go all the way? We need to protect our women after all!
Let's join hands brothers and sisters and work diligently to stamp out sexual harrasment in marriage! It's not so far fetched after all. Haven't Luna and Wiccid basically accepted the "psychological coercion" version of rape already?
Hell, lets go all the way and outlaw sex! Then utopia would arrive.
A sadly laughing remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo, when did I say that thought 'psychological coercion' counted as rape? I hope you did not take my post that way, because that was certainly not what I intended. I intended to say that there are only a few places that don't believe someone would be raped inside marriage. Therefore rape laws that rightfully make a rape a criminal offense - which means presenting evidence, et all - are what are needed, not ones that give special treatment to people who claim to be raped by their husbands or by their dates. The special treatment being they do not have to present evidence or prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @11:16AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Lunar Crescent:
:) I'm sorry. I took that from your posts for two reasons:
1. I read every single one of Wiccid's posts-- and that is what she is definatly saying in more than one of them. However, the one you said you agreed with, was not one of the ones that lead to my analysis of her opinions.
2. I misunderstood your relationship comment to mean that you felt that women shouldn't be oppressed by having to prove their husbands raped them. A careful re-reading shows you meant just the opposite.
I'm sorry I wronged you evil maid. I hereby agree to polish your horns, and will award you a temporary halo if you want.
Remo, who feels better this morning..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Let's join hands brothers and sisters and work
> diligently to stamp out sexual harrasment in
> marriage!
Interesting idea. Actually, it was the
custom (not a law) and *believe it or not* in a
very patriarchal society. In 16-th, 17-th, and
18-th century England it was considered unseemly
for a man to see his wife without her nightgown.
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In literature before our time, more often, romance has nearly been exclusive of marriage, meaning romance and marriage are mutually exclusive. Romance occurs between Romeo & Juliet, AND NOT between a 20th century ignorant male peasant & a feminazi in curlers.
20th century Western Society has twisted the meaning of "romance" and "chivalry" into perverted meanings, political agendas, and fascism. One of the final stages of fascism is to incorporate it into the most intimate of our relationships, into both marriage AND romance.
Many societies in history have not had such a romantic view of marriage, NOR a romantic fantasy view of women. Women have been historically recognized for their faults, which are as vast or more-so than men.
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION POLARIZED GENDER ROLES. AND TRANSFORMED MARRIAGE ("THE BUSINESS OF HAVING CHILDREN") INTO AN IDEALIZED FEMININE ROLE IN WHICH HER TRAITS OF NURTURE WERE UNNATURALLY EMPHASIZED:
"When men were forced into the factories and mines, women came to symbolize the nurturant safety of the home and took on attributes of softness and sentimentality they hadn't possessed before. As labor divisions grew starker, so did the character attributes of gender."
--"When She Was Bad", Patricia Pearson, Viking, 1997, p. 75
THIS MODERN PERVERSION INTO MAN’S SAPPY ROMANTIC VIEW OF WOMEN IS SAID NO BETTER THAN BY A MODERN ILLUSION PASSING AS WISDOM (is this sexist or what?):
“What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice and everything nice - that's what little girls are made of.
What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails and puppy dog tails - that's what little boys are made of.”
MEN HAVE BEEN TRAINED LIKE PUPPY DOGS, LAPPING AT THE HEEL OF THEIR MISTRESS:
“Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves.”
--"The Manipulated Man", Esther Vilar, M.D., Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 1972, front cover
MAN IS MANIPULATED BY PROMISES OF ROMANCE UNDER THE GUISE OF LOVE:
“Man has been MANIPULATED by woman to the point where he cannot live without her and therefore will do anything she asks of him. He fights for her life and calls it LOVE. ..."
"Woman, nevertheless, is incapable of living without man. Like a queen bee, she cannot survive on her own. She, too, is fighting for her life, and she, too, calls it LOVE. ..."
"To a woman love means power, to a man enslavement. Love provides a woman with an excuse for financial exploitation, man with an emotionally charged excuse. ‘For the sake of love’ woman will do things that are of advantage only to herself, while man does only those things that will harm him. ... For both sexes, love is a fight for survival. But the one survives only by being victorious, the other only by being defeated. It is a paradox that women can also make their greatest gains during moments of utter passivity and that the word ‘love’ endows them with a halo of selflessness, even at the moment of their most pitiless deception of man.
"As a result of ‘love’, man is able to hide his cowardly self-deception behind a smoke screen of sentiment.... Since one can expect nothing from a woman but love, it will remain the currency for any need she might have... The more he tries to ingratiate himself with her, the more demanding she will become; the more he desires her, the less she will find him desirable; the more comforts he provides for her, the more indolent, stupid, and inhuman she will become --and man will grow lonelier as a result."
--ibid, Chapter "What Is Love", p. 182-184
ROMANCE AND MARRIAGE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:
[btw, I first discovered this book (by Drury) with the help of a lover I had just met at an author's talk at the bookstore. A few rare American women do still think & feel a little differently than the modern-brand of calculating shrews.]
There is still some thinking to this day in France --and by women at that-- that romance is not found in marriage, and further that the two are incompatible. Note the following by Drury:
"Marriage is often an attempt to bring life as nearly to a standstill as possible, guaranteeing what no one can: to go on feeling a certain way. Swearing to love forever is like promising to feel perpetually any other emotion, fear or sorrow, admiration or joy. Some thinkers argue that this inability is the cause and reason for marriage existing at all, a decent provision for stability after love has fled. Perhaps; but it seems to me a dreary and doubtful prospect, diminishing love to a kind of bank holiday. What one can swear is to go on being worth loving, a vow that is more flexible, more attainable, and more true."
-- --"Advice to a Young Wife from an Old Mistress" as told to Michael Drury, 1968, Avon Books, p. 53 [btw, Michael is a “Michelle” Drury]
WIVES AND LOVERS ARE TWO DIFFERENT WOMEN:
”Wives and mistresses have different clocks. A wife can become so engrossed with the future that she almost ceases to live today. Everything is for tomorrow: the children’s education, the bigger house, next year’s promotion, retirement, the long focus upon some event not yet arrived. A mistress lives perhaps too much in the present, but this very immediacy, physical and spiritual, is a lodestar. More than one man has said, or thought, that with his mistress he at least knows himself alive. The present is all that really can be known, and though it is perceived in blocks of time, not moments, dragging around the future wears upon it as much as dragging around the past. Anybody with common sense looks a little to where he is going, but not so much as to mortgage the present to a dubious someday. Spontaneity coexists with a love affair, but marriage does not have to be a rigidly planned economy. A young widow struggling to make ends meet said to me, “I’m glad every day for all the reckless things we did. If we had waited till we could afford them, now it would be too late.” ....
"A mistress perceives that love is not calibrated in length of days but in height and depth.... Marriage cannot extort foreverness from the everywhere present law that “all things are fleeting, nothing is our own.” A love affair does not ask security against the world’s fate: it shares that fate and knows it only too poignantly, which gives it great vitality for its season....
"Love cannot undo the laws by which all things live, and a whimpering insistence that it do so is infantile babbling. Love endures not in a perpetual day, but in the reality of having seen and touched and known, an alchemy that changes forever one’s relationship to time. Love will never hold back the dark, but it is so blazing a truth that it compensates for transience....
"There is no valid excuse to resign from living, or to get one’s perceptions secondhand... Marriage is one kind of ordering, and that by no means belittles marriage but esteems it, as the Japanese flower arranger treats the string and paper that enwrap his flowers with the same meticulous care he gives the blossoms. But a wife who falls in love with the ordering process, as if that in itself filled up life’s purposes, smothers her marriage in logistics....
"Today it is more often the wife who renounces everything for home and family, and fails to see that it is not giving so much as giving up.”
--ibid, p. 41-48
==============================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are men really so weak? Good God, man, get a spine. Take some responsibility. And for goodness sake, don't let yourself be "manipulated." A real woman wouldn't want to manipulate her husband. A real man wouldn't let her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are men really so weak? Good God, man, get a spine. Take some responsibility. And for goodness sake, don't let yourself be "manipulated." A real woman wouldn't want to manipulate her husband. A real man wouldn't let her.
This "men subjugate women" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are women really so weak? Good God, woman, get a spine. Take some responsibility. And for goodness sake, don't let yourself be "subjugated." A real man wouldn't want to subjugate his wife. A real woman wouldn't let him.
Cuts both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Cuts both ways."
Not around here it doesn't. In here, women "manipulate" men into any number of things. And men never, ever abuse the women in their lives. No, it's always a false allegation. Always.
Fortunately some of us know that it really DOES cut both ways. And want something better for our boys AND our girls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not around here it doesn't. In here, women "manipulate" men into any number of things. And men never, ever abuse the women in their lives. No, it's always a false allegation. Always.
Thus we find that even when presented with overwhelming evidence and personal testimony from men that they are falsely accused, wiccid cannot believe the claim.
But when a woman makes the false allegation it is somehow, for some mysterious reason, quite believable. Why....it must be right because women don't lie.
Never mind that there is ample physical evidence that over 70% of the claims are proven false, and yes you were given the references in another post that you ignored. If anything, we should automatically assume that a woman is telling a lie because so many have been proven to lie. We are talking on the order of millions of lies that women tell in court every year for the intent of criminalizing men.
Like I said, 1.3 million innocent convicted male victims and counting, and before you ask wiccid, go do some real research for a change. It might do you good. I won’t do your homework for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not question that women sometimes lie. I also do know that men sometimes rape and sometimes engage in domestic violence. What burns me up is that just as feminists believe that men are "always" in the wrong, around here men are "never" in the wrong. Or, if they do something wrong, it's because the women manipulated them into it. It's absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 15, @12:27PM EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
*What burns me up is that just as feminists believe that men are "always" in the wrong, around here men are "never" in the wrong. Or, if they do something wrong, it's because the women manipulated them into it. It's absurd. *
Well, you are free to leave, Wiccid. My overarching worries in a way aren't MensActivism at all. I'm more worried about what kind of State I, or my children will be living in 30 years hence. Did you know that N.O.W. has a project attacking FEDERALISM? It's the political changes brought on by socialists, rad-fems, and other of the "victim" groups that should worry you.
I'm here with these guys ( and any gals who care to join us) only because I noticed that insofar as there are any sex-discriminatory laws in this day and age, they usually affect ( or are aimed at) only men. It was in the larger context of researching gun-control and other governmental issues that I stumbled upon the men's movement. I'm happy to be here, even if I DON'T always believe every poster on this board. If your unhappy being here, I'm sorry, but that is your problem. Lots of men come here to vent. Please realise that, and make allowances.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not question that women sometimes lie. I also do know that men sometimes rape and sometimes engage in domestic violence. What burns me up is that just as feminists believe that men are "always" in the wrong, around here men are "never" in the wrong. Or, if they do something wrong, it's because the women manipulated them into it. It's absurd.
I disagree with you that "around here men are 'never' in the wrong." We have our own arguments between each other, as a matter of fact. One of the things I like about the men's movement is that there are always voices of dissent and differing opinions.
I am not woman's victim, nor will I put myself into a position to become one any time soon. And it is my hope that other men realize their own individuality and strength apart from women so that they may stand up for themselves and break free.
Just because *I* am not a victim, though, does not mean that there aren't men who have been victimized by women, and who have every right to be angry about it.
I disagree with those men in blaming all women--or even all feminists--for the problem, but it's an argument with stubborness on both sides, and one no one is likely to win any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not question that women sometimes lie.
Yes you do - every time something is brought up here, you jump in and play some twisted devil's advocate and phony "voice of reason," making excuses and rationalizations.
I also do know that men sometimes rape and sometimes engage in domestic violence. What burns me up is that just as feminists believe that men are "always" in the wrong, around here men are "never" in the wrong.
That's worse than a misrepresentation, it's a bald faced lie. I can review thread after thread here where violent men are roundly condemned, and end of story. Nobody questions it, because it is accepted as wrong, subject closed, move on. What burns you up is that we don't dwell on it, castigate ourselves, and issue apologies for someone else while promising to accept that a lessening of rights for all men on the basis of a few men's misdeeds is right.
Or, if they do something wrong, it's because the women manipulated them into it. It's absurd.
Again, what gets presented here are the highlights and most egregious obvious absurdities where it's a moral gimme. Men here accept that a shiftless drunk who beats up his wife should not get primary custody of children, and so on and so forth.
Things presented here are by necessity limited to the worst of the worst, and there is no question on it.
Men here speak from their own experience, and when you question them you call them LIARS. This is a personal attack on your part.
This is a MEN'S activism board here. Men are the makers, primary motivators and commentators here. You want to play, fine and dandy. Here are the rules: We communicate in a male fashion. We don't communicate in a female fashion. We won't change to avoid offending Wiccid Stepparent. If you don't like it, hit the door. If you want to play, adjust your method of communication, and accept that ours is good and right. This is our playground, where men can speak to men as men. Mr Garman is nice enough not to censor you like would be done on the overwhelming majority of feminist boards.
That is fair, and if you even suggest otherwise, you are the one that is absurd - not to mention self absorbed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard the theory "we become what we hate". If you hate feminists, don't become their opposite number. There are plenty of women who do not hold feminist views. Most, maybe. I have met a few what you might call "manhaters" but I have met a good quantity of misogynists too. I do what I can to fight the segregating "isms" of sex, race, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @07:14PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
This "women are victims of men" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are women really so weak? Good God Woman, get a spine. Take some responsibility. And for goodness sake, don't let yourself be "victimized". A real man wouldn't want to victimize his wife. A real woman wouldn't let him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I still agree with the sentiment. Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 13, @11:48PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's so much the women who are the danger it's the judges and laywers and police persons who rush to their defence if they claim a man isn't responding to their manipulations.
In a police state men can be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night for no good reason. Is it really any different when it happens when a woman phones ahead of time?
Are there any women who actually fear men? Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was attempting to give advice to a guy who said his girlfriend is afraid of penises. On that board another girl replied saying that she was too. Apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was attempting to give advice to a guy who said his girlfriend is afraid of penises. On that board another girl replied saying that she was too. Apparently.
Off-topic, but LadyRivka a while back brought up the term "phallophobia," which is fear of a penis, especially erect. Apparently, it's a condition that does exist with some women. Unknown whether it is psychological, physiological, or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @08:49AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess women have to have mental problems to be afraid of the men they can have taken away at any time. I'm not dismissing her problem but comparing it to a false allegation of violence I can't offer too much sympathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Are there any women who actually fear men? Why?"
Yes, some women who have been raped or physically abused by one man, fear all men as a result. It is not always the case but it does happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @06:51PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
That's too bad for them but all men are suffering from laws that presume guilt not based on facts.
A rape victim may fear me for being a man but I fear her because she can ruin men's lives based on accusations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edvard Munch [guy who painted 'The Scream'] was in a mental hospital for two years for "fear of women." A good number of his paintings depict women as vampires or otherwise anti-nuturing 'better half.' Always wondered why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person has been raped, I'd say she/she has every right to accuse his/her attacker and to "ruin" that person's life.
It is a very tricky situation. How to protect the real victims and punish the real criminals, but protect the rights of innocent and wrongly accused citizens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[sorry : was trying to do "he/she" but it came out wrong. not really a freudian slip but...]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is a very tricky situation. How to protect the real victims and punish the real criminals, but protect the rights of innocent and wrongly accused citizens?"
Which is the greater injustice? A guilty person going unpunished or an innocent person jailed? Answer that and you know which way to resolve those "tricky" issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They both seem damned unjust to me. A guilty person free and unpunished can commit more crimes. A person who is innocent does have some opportunity to prove his innocence in a court of law, but that is not always failsafe either. I hope that DNA testing helps with some of that. I am always amazed when I read of cases where someone convicted of a crime is exonerated years later based on DNA. There is an organization (sorry, I can't remember the name, just recall an article about it) that works to provide this service to convicts who say they are innocent. I don't know statistics of how many actually are innocent as they claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a very tricky situation. How to protect the real victims and punish the real criminals, but protect the rights of innocent and wrongly accused citizens?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," William Blackstone
"...it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." Benjamin Franklin
"A person ought not to be condemned on suspicion; for it was preferable that the crime of a guilty man should go unpunished than an innocent man be condemned." - Emperor Trajan
In the ninth century, King Alfred is said to have hanged a judge for having executed a defendant "when the jurors were in doubt about their verdict, for in cases of doubt one should rather save than condemn."
"Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers to escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned." English chief justice John Fortescue
"it is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest." Henry v. United States (1959)
"it is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned." In re Winship (1970)
"I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, as bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free." Justice Harlan
"I will not destroy (Sodom)it for ten's sake." - God
See? Nothing hard about it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"They both seem damned unjust to me."
How insightful of you. The fact that they are both unjust is the crux of our dilemna here. This proposed law seeks to correct an apparent injustice (an unknown number of marital rapists remaining free) but, by (I am told) lowering standards of evidence and diluting the presumption of innocence, it creates the strong probability of another injustice (innocents falsely accused and convicted).
Eliminating one injustice creates another. You've asked if there's another way. No one has suggested one and this law is the one we must evaluate, because this law is proposed in the real world.
So, we are forced to choose between injustices. We must choose between letting the guilty go free or punishing the innocent. Which brings us back to the question - Which is the greater injustice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @09:57PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Here, Larry, is the crux of the problem:
A. We won't admit there are a certain amount of injustices we will never cure. Our system traditionally was set up to avoid injustices, not to make sure and catch every guilty person whatever the cost.
B. Wiccid's question was a good one, and, as she does sometimes, she surprised me. WHY THE HELL DOES NO ONE EVER ASK THIS QUESTION? It's always give up more of your rights and you will be safer, or do nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is indeed the best thing to do (as I suspect is the case in terms of "marital rape" ), but often something else could be done other than trampling on people's rights, if only people would think about things a little.
Oh well, what do we expect? It's all about voting blocs and Benjamins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said. I share your suspicion about "marital rape." My answer to Wiccid's question about an alternative was "DAMFINO."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....--clip some excellent quotes--
"it is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches, that the guilty sometimes go free than that citizens be subject to easy arrest." Henry v. United States (1959)
"it is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned." In re Winship (1970)
===============================================
These are considered excellent quotes from wise men. Unfortunately, they are men that male hating feminist despise. The hatred of feminist is so deep that they have literally undone most of the protections that prevent innocent men from being criminalized. It is a serious tragedy that our well meaning legislatures have failed to recognize that there is a larger agenda.
The feminist call these men part of the patriarchy. As such their ideals and values are to be condemned, and modern feminist are quick to condemn these wise men as literally evil. They literally hate the values they have taught. So, you see, feminist really do not get it. If you quote these men they will look at you funny. Just mentioning their names is a terrible thing in their minds. To them this is backwards thinking.
This law that is being proposed is clearly part of a larger hate agenda that feminist support. If there is any doubt, here are some of the quotes from the popular and respected feminist leaders of our time. These are the modern feminist counterparts to Winship, King Alfred, and Franklin. They are considered wise and knowledgeable. They are the role models for our daughters that the modern media holds forth as wise and respectable.
Their wisdom follows:
================================================
"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
Marilyn French
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College.
Assistant Dean of Students.
"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to f^$#/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
Judith Levine,
(Explicative masked by me)
"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
Journalist Sylvia Fraser
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan,
Ms. Magazine Editor.
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon,
quoted in
Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist".
Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).
==============================================
Get it? It is all about the systematic criminalization of innocent men. They have no other agenda. This law will help to incrementally accomplish the feminist agenda of hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've asked if there's another way. No one has suggested one and this law is the one we must evaluate, because this law is proposed in the real world.
Actually, you are mistaken Larry. We have a combinitation of DV laws and rape laws on the books that can be used. The idea that a marital rape law is need is simply a false assumption.
The only intent of this law is to weaken the protections that men have and subject them to further risks of false allegations.
We already have widespread allegations in divorse cases against men by women. Those false allegations include, domestic violence, child abuse, molestations, false allegations of fear to obtain a restraining order, and now rape is to be included in the mix.
Today, 70% (see Miller) of divorses will involve false allegations against men by women. This is standard procedure in a divorse court. Further, over 70% of those allegations are proven false.
Clearly, this law has no other purpose other than to further criminalize innocent men. To understand why feminist have this agenda, it is necessary to examine why they hate men. I encourage you to look around. This link has a list by Shrock detailing some of their hate speech. It demonstrates what motivates feminist in their agenda of criminalizing men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHY THE HELL DOES NO ONE EVER ASK THIS QUESTION? It's always give up more of your rights and you will be safer, or do nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is indeed the best thing to do (as I suspect is the case in terms of "marital rape" ), but often something else could be done other than trampling on people's rights, if only people would think about things a little.
I keep wanting to say it was Tommy Jeff who said this, but I have this observation to add to Mr. Proud's set of insightful quotes - "Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither." This choice seems pretty clear to me.
Unless, of course, one is of the type to whom life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of slavery and chains. And willing slave is about the lowest form of life I can think of.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have much meaningful response to this, I think *pukes* will sum it up.
*sigh* Unfortunately, I know one guy who quotes
"All sex is an act of violence" it must be incredibly depressing to view every expression of sexuality as a male as violent, evil, etc. Why do feminists feel this is so terribly different from calling every sexual expression of women as sinful, unnatural, trying to bring good men down, etc. Morons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep wanting to say it was Tommy Jeff who said this, but I have this observation to add to Mr. Proud's set of insightful quotes - "Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither." This choice seems pretty clear to me.
It was Benjamin Franklin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From urban legends web site www.snopes.com:
Quote: "All sex is rape."
Speaker: Catharine MacKinnon
Status: False.
Origins: Feminist legal theorist and anti-pornography crusader Catharine A. MacKinnon is no stranger to controversy. During her more than twenty-five years in the public eye, she has placed herself at the heart of a number of storms raging through the realm of public opinion. She has asserted that rape laws are written to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims, and that pornography is a violation of civil rights. She is notable for the part she played in bringing about Canada's tougher anti-pornography laws, and in persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt the view that sexual harrassment is a form of sex discrimination.
MacKinnon is not universally respected or liked, even within the ranks of feminism. Her outspoken nature and strong opinions have created enemies for her, and she has become a convenient target for anyone looking to run down the movement by caricaturing one of its prominent members as a strident harpy who has loudly asserted as fact any number of fool-headed opinions. It is therefore not surpising that she would be tagged with having made a pronouncement such as "All sex is rape," a statement that calls into question the sanity of the person who utters it even as it alienates most everyone who hears it.
MacKinnon never made the statement which has been attributed to her. (The quote she never gave has since been variously rendered as "All sex is rape," "All men are rapists," and "All sex is sexual harassment.") Criticisms of MacKinnon's work argue that she implies all men are rapists, but the quote given here was created by MacKinnon's opponents, not MacKinnon herself.
MacKinnon claims the first reference to her alleged belief that all sex is hostile surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. According to MacKinnon, the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws.
Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that "all sex is rape" or "all men are rapists." When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I'm not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."
MacKinnon was further tied to the quote she did not utter by a March 1999 article by conservative commentator Cal Thomas in which he incorrectly identified her as the author of Professing Feminism and quoted her as saying: "In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Not only is the quote misattributed, but the the putative source, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women's Studies, is a book criticising the work of MacKinnon and other feminists, written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the one. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From urban legends web site www.snopes.com:
Quote: "All sex is rape."
Speaker: Catharine MacKinnon
Status: False.
So what?
"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
Marilyn French (her emphasis)
"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
Marilyn French
"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.
"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)
"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
J. Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)
"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
Robin Morgan
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.
So did she say "Those Exact Words?" No, but words to that effect, and words repeated by many other Feminist icons and leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, if you would like to perpetuate falsehoods in the name of your "religion", go ahead. I personally like to check things out, there is a lot of B.S. on the internet being passed off as "truth."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proudman, do you have specific citations for these statements that you attribute to MacKinnon? If she did, indeed, make them, then wiccid is defending a monster. In other words, she is a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From urban legends web site www.snopes.com:
Quote: "All sex is rape."
Speaker: Catharine MacKinnon
Status: False.
Nobody has made this claim as wiccid attempts to claim. If they have please quote them and demonstrate this assertion was made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, if you would like to perpetuate falsehoods in the name of your "religion", go ahead. I personally like to check things out, there is a lot of B.S. on the internet being passed off as "truth."
Well, as the late great mayor of New York City once said, let's look at the record.
(I actually have the books under the aegis of: "Know thine enemy.")
And they are all here.
I suppose it's just a patriarchal plot out to discredit a fine upstanding wimmyn like Kate MacKimmon, though - all forgeries, eh?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proudman, do you have specific citations for these statements that you attribute to MacKinnon? If she did, indeed, make them, then wiccid is defending a monster. In other words, she is a feminist.
Well, I have the books here myself, as I said otherways, and I find these quotes in the text.
Sounds like WS is perpetuating falsehoods in the name of her pheminist religion.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't that an arresting painting!!
I presented a litho copy to my best woman friend I have known for 25 years since university. She teaches art at UCB, so I thought she might find it interesting.
She freaked OUT!! The painting terrified her. She gave it to one of her male students. Who that told her he was very impressed by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting screams:
(incl. The Wedding, Bride with Whip)
http://www.geocities.com/footsienotes/Scream.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, if you would like to perpetuate falsehoods in the name of your "religion", go ahead. I personally like to check things out, there is a lot of B.S. on the internet being passed off as "truth."
I believe that if you really did "check things out," that you would have more rational arguments other than what appears to be a plagiarized response that was largely copied from www.snopes.com. At first when I read this I thought, “how about that. Surprise! Wiccid has done some research!” Then I examined the work, and I found nothing that represented original thinking and reasoning.
Further, if you did check out your sources, you would be constrained to acknowledge that there is a false allegation crisis caused in part by inflated (male hate) feminist statistics.
I have yet to find a single credible study that supports those produced and supported as gospel Koss or MacKinnon. In fact the credible studies belie them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I actually have the books under the aegis of: "Know thine enemy.")
And they are all here.
Smart Gonzo. VERY respectable. Those of us that have the real references are the ones that are credible. Those that plagerize their references look like little more then ignorant asses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....wiccid is defending a monster....
You got it. Wiccid is doing just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do feminists feel this is so terribly different from calling every sexual expression of women as sinful, unnatural, trying to bring good men down, etc. Morons.
It's great to have you here, crescentluna. It's also very sad that so many women (and, yes, some men) spew this sort of thing and so few stand up to the hatred and lies. There really is precious little difference between what feminists are doing to men and what the German Nazis did to the Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issues of men's rights & of women's causes, are an even smaller part of a much larger issue.
It can happen here. Some comments from a man who has associated internationally, a U.S. citizen originally from another nation. From "How to Be Invisible", J.J. Luna, St. Martin's Press, 2000:
"An ominous trend in the United States over the past decade has been one of increased government surveillance over its noncriminal citizens. This includes the increasing demand for your Social Security number, the prohibitions against depositing or withdrawing large sums of cash from your bank account, the iron-handed regulations aimed at commercial mail receiving agencies, and the demand for your government-issued picture ID at the airport. I will not here speculate on the real reasons for this increased control, nor will I comment on the claims others have made, that U.S. citizens now have less privacy than did German citizens in the 1930s."
--"How to Be Invisible", J.J. Luna, St. Martin's Press, 2000, p. 193.
-----------------------------------
A German professor describes the coming of fascism in his book "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-35" by Milton Mayer, University of Chicago Press, 1st printing 1955.
From www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html
""What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."
"Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - and kept us so busy with continuous changes and "crises" and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the "national enemies", without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?"
------------------------------------
IN MY OPINION, FASCIST FEMINIST OPPORTUNISM WILL COME BACK AROUND TO BITE THEM (and us ALL). Another quote from Luna p. 193:
"Further you will be less likely to suffer the fate of the traveler whose case was discussed on "Eye on America, " part of the CBS nightly news with Dan Rather on April 6, 1998.
Amanda, a fifty-four-year-old social worker who had been an American citizen for the past twenty years, took a trip to India. Upon her return to San Francisco, she was taken aside by U.S. Customs personnel and strip-searched. When nothing was found, she was x-rayed. When the x-ray showed nothing specific she was taken to a hospital and x-rayed again. Still nothing specific, so was she released? No. She was forced to take a powerful laxative that sent her to the toilet twenty-eight-times, with agents present to examine the stools. Only when all results were negative was she released, twenty-three hours later, without an apology. As Dan Rather correctly pointed out, once you are in the clutches of Customs agents you lose almost all your rights. No cause whatever is needed for a strip search, and you will not be allowed to call your lawyer, nor anyone else. Why was Amanda, carrying a U.S. passport, subjected to this treatment? Because she fit the so-called profile of a drug runner:
1. Her U.S. passport showed a foreign country as a place of birth,
2. She was a "woman traveling alone," and
3. She wore "bulky clothing."
==============================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I am not a feminist, I don't like misrepresentations being perpetuated on the internet. I have the same reaction to morons who circulate the Clinton "hit list", the "Al Gore quotes" that are actually Dan Quayle quotes, the "you just aborted Beethoven" anti-abortion nonsense, bla bla bla.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silly human, I state very clearly where I lifted the information. I never claimed the words were my own. I even list the address where I got it. Plagiarism my mama's booty. This is a message board, not a college philosophy class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome.
True. However, men do need to talk about it and help educate each other. It's their duty as Real Men(TM). This is an appropriate place for it.
For instance, a woman calling a man weak or spineless is a classic, powerful shaming technique.
Hopefully, women of goodwill can also listen and do some honest introspection into their own behaviors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wicci: This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome.
Larry: For instance, a woman calling a man weak or spineless is a classic, powerful shaming technique.
Ha ha ha! I like it!
At least she didn't suggest we are gay.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sd,
I figured one good irony deserved another. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are men really so weak?
Now wiccid is using shaming tactics to demean men. She simply cannot let up with her hate speech.
The plain fact of the matter is that men are under a massive assult. Therefore, dialogue is entirely appropiate. Don't let the male hater shame you into silence.
We don't have to agree with everything that is said, and we don't need male haters using shaming tactics to silence men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "women manipulate men" argument is really getting tiresome. Are you really so weak? Are men really so weak?
When I was saying women manipulate I was basically saying give women some more credit at handling themselves and thier enviroment. This is not entirely a bad thing, its that women are capable just as any man. And don't worry I won't be shamed into shutting up, Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=========================================
Wicked, wicked, been out of touch a few days, my back was turned, and it got stabbed. Lucky thing the knife missed my backbone. Except I have none. Immune to the multiple plunges.
So, I’ll admit, my dirty sinful secret, my inferior evolvement as a man. I never made it thru the evolutionary prenatal process. I really am an invertebrate. Just a jelly fish who did well and learned to type.. you know, the typical American success story. So, blame it on mom, for better & for worse.
“Good God, man, get a spine”, you wrote.
I’m still evolving. Try it yourself some time. You may catch up with me.
Now even more seriously, Wicked wrote, “Take some responsibility.”
I only take responsibility where it is due for the better. Otherwise I don’t waste my time with the lesser. So, feel lucky, I‘m feeling charitable this morning.
“A real woman wouldn't want to manipulate her husband. A real man wouldn't let her.”
I agree here. Do you know any? “Real” ones? Or just ones who market the standard brands of canned responses? For that, go to any supermarket or mall. Don’t look here, I’m fresh out of stock. And my prices are too high for you, and your credit’s not good.
While I’m still feeling charitable speaking to another species & order:
Let’s try responsibility. I’ve been responsible for hiring who knows? Maybe a thousand hard working people. I testify for hardworking. They worked for me. And up close & personal, daily. This is not just the personnel department here... to be politically incorrect, ‘human resources’. We are hands-on; we make it happen theory to development to implementation to operations. A couple of more thousand have worked for me, but I’d didn’t hire them. Labor to professionals. We deal in reality, real responsibility, and I always cut the crap where I saw it. Our jobs depended upon it. Sometimes this meant for survival: Hence, we do not always work by the rules. We do not work along standard lines, we work cooperatively within reality, and we get the jobs done. Hence we can break some rules--the one who do, do rule. That in fact, is why we did best of any. But that means you have to have balls, and a few good women, ovaries.
I think & operate the same way along academic lines. Innovation & application. Tabula rasa & refreshed daily--Hallelujah, born again!
But that was only business. Let’s get personal, the home personnel. BTW, Wicked, speaking of “communication”, that priority feminine buzz word from on high: What do you share of yourself?
Personally, my several rare fraus, who immensely deserve responsibility, are so responsible themselves, that I can’t even mention them. Because they are rare and well known. So, I know the best, and I don’t need instructions from an undergrad whose credits are lacking. I don’t even have to take care of them. They take excellent care of themselves, unlike most women. They never needed me except for myself. And I never needed them for their body or sex. I had plenty of that, official license or not. We got together for the greatest responsibility, ourselves, and taking care of ourselves mutually.
Note the key word above about these special women is “rare”. They are. Most are not. I am no more a democrat, than modest. I am NOT a Democrat or Republican, with the caps. Again, if you want clichés, you need go no farther than your local mall. Or your local feminist coven.
Try some evolved thinking, Wicked. And give me some time, too. See you next millennium and we’ll compare anatomy.
===========================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I would hope that we can raise above the petty namecalling and blame game that occurs on the pop-fem boards.
I have some thoughts on the issues the article brought up. He makes some excellent points on the issue of proof. How do you prove something that is not illegal is illegal when it occurs. We assume that sex occurs naturally with people in a long term relationship and that it is consentual. There are famous feminist articles that have argued that any heterosexual sex is rape (ie. women are raped in any sexual encounter with men.) The simple fact is that while one can assume that when a single female says not want to have sex you can base some of the arguement on her sexual history with other people. How can you do this with married people where sex is assumed to occur. While I know that there are cases where married women have been forced to have sex by their spouses it seems that marital rape would be more likely to fall under a domestic violence umbrella. I would argue strongly for the stipulation that rape could only occur after a restraining order was issued and the husband informed of the order OR in cases of obvious physical harm. (I will avoid the false accusations of DV for now.)
The people that have pointed out that male issues seem to always turn to women is so very true and we still seem to be doing it!!!!
We are talking about women this and women that instead of how men are being discriminated by the issue. MY problem with the case of rape, besides the before mentioned false accustaion,is that society still sees women incapable of raping mem. (I actually had a female instructor last quarter say,"Men can not be raped." I was floored and only replied," Yes they can!!") Rape is still worded in ways that only allow for female rape to be occur. Words that assume penetration is the only way to rape someone is misleading, envelopment is also a way of raping men. I have made the case for awhile now that men can (and are) raped by society. If rape is defined as being forced in to having sex by a physical or emotional threat then I strongly suspect that men are raped as frequently as women. One of the key components of proving rape has occurred is that the victim must have stated they did not want to have sex verbally or physically stating so. My point is that men are taught to never say, "No" to any offer of sex, reguardless of the situation. While some men do frequently a refusal of sex from a women by a man is seen as unmanly and often puts his sexuality and ability into question. (think about the Viagra commericals and how they play on this idea.) Men are not allowed to say no to sex and if you take the ability to say "no" to sex away then I would say that men are forced into having sex by social pressure. Women know this can make the offer of sex at will knowing that men should not (or can not) say no to them.
My problem is how are these laws worded. Do they include the concept that men can be raped in marriage? How will the laws protect innocent men that are doing nothing more than having sex with their wives?
Just a few ideas to think about.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @11:53PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
*If rape is defined as being forced in to having sex by a physical or emotional threat *
Well,Tony, I don't accept that definition of rape, so I avoid most of the questions you raise. I deny that someone can make an "emotional threat". What is it? "If you don't have sex with me, I'm going to be sad all night"! . So the couple has sex. Then he/she claims rape ? Know how crazy that is? How can my emotional state "force" you to do something? Should we outlaw the expression of disappointment or anger in marriage?
This is the same "psychological coercion " crap that feminists have used to successfuly broaden the definition of rape beyond almost all meaning. And I ain't buying it.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What it seems to me is that all Feminists want to do is turn every women into a Lesbian, in fact its the 'Feminists' who are doing the raping, but using coercian of 'man hating' to have female to female sex. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an added note, on the date rape drugs out there. Most of them are not 'date rape' drugs. When most of these people are caught carrying this stuff, horse tranqs, its not to ply some unsuspecting persons drink. Most of these people are 'dealers' and they are selling the stuff to people who want to take it of their own free will. And yes many of them are women.
But of course girls don't do drugs don't smoke pot in fact don't even j-walk. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original date-rape drugs was said best:
"Candy is dandy; liquor is quicker."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uh... anonymous... wake up at the keyboard.
"I have an added note, on the date rape drugs out there. Most of them are not 'date rape' drugs."
Nearly everything, substance or ploy, could be interpreted as a date-rape device if we stretch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 16, @10:59AM EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
And I'll bet you know only too well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with that definition either hence the use of IF. My basic point is that this seems to be an extension of the rape case feminist have used to futher "protect" women from a percieved threat. The problem with the proposal of a marriage rape law that allows wives to use evidence of sex and proof is inherently problematic since we assume that consentual sex is an assumed part of marriage. Combine that with the traditional use of indirect violence by women this is a loaded gun for vengeful women to use against husbands.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
================================
=======================
From Smoking Drive:
"It's obvious what's in it for her -- access to his resources -- but what is in it for him? it cannot be sex.... marriage gives him no right to that. I suppose it must be love....
Or manipulation"
-------------------------------------
Choice questions, Smoking gun,
Why marriage? Like Why Sex? Some answers to those question are not quite so obvious as the first glance & the ordinary answers... whether or not the questions are proposed facetiously. For example, genderized sex is not necessary for reproduction & successful evolution, and may even be on-the-balance-sheet a handicap.
It's easier to answer 'why marriage' than the sex question. The Why Sex is still the #1 question in theoretical evolutionary biology. (yeah, I’ve read Margulis’ answers & others, but do not entirely agree)
The larger "manipulation" is even more basic than our societal interaction, and the one to blame for greatest manipulation are our genes... yet even there, genes only explain the reproduction necessity of a larger manipulation.
As the manipulation is manifested, call it sexual drive, libido, or just ants in our pants. Regardless of the underlying drive in the way it presents itself, the larger libido seems more mysterious than even sex (sex meaning in humans, genderized sex).
Marriage seems to be several steps down the chain from whatever the basic drive is. Obviously marriage means to most, the societal recognition & support of mating (in addition to marriage serving as a more modern manmade ‘production & marketing’ manipulation).
Before modern “romance” entered into the marriage also, for better & for worse as ‘they’ say, marriage was confined to the framework in which to conduct the BUSINESS of having children. More correctly, that of providing the institutionalized frame in which to hold together the long period of raising children. Historically, marriage was NOT often viewed as romance or love, or to a great extent as sex. To the contrary, many have viewed marriage and romance/love as being mutually exclusive.
Historically applied in modern terms, as the revisionist version of the song sings:
“Love & Marriage? Love & Marriage, goes together, like a horseless carriage.”
Then in addition, as with most any common practice in society, Why marriage is because everyone else is doing it, so I’m doing it.... to fit-in, to not seem antisocial, or for practical purposes where marriage is almost a job requirement, such as climbing the business ladder or even politics (in addition to the wife, add at least 1-kid & 1-dog).
In addition, “Why marriage” is the ego of sorts, and often even due to a lack of self-esteem which uses marriage as an attempt to build up self-worth: ‘Real men’ & ‘Real women’ marry, be a potent stud & be a fertile babe and get pregno & have kids. Many if not most people get married to show the world how worthy they are, looka-me, someone wanted ME! Pretty impressive, eh? Married & pregnant.
Regardless, it seems clear that marriage=sex is not a synonym. Some people can get sex very readily without marriage, and further, get more sex without marriage, particularly better quality sex and even more love & romance. Women can obviously get a waiting line of sexual suitors, and so can some men... both of them without needing to marry.
Although usually intimately connected, sex and reproduction (mating drive) may not be synonymous either. In fact, with most religions for those of their special clergy at the very top, this separation of sex and reproduction is not only recognized, it’s required. The basic reason for abstinence & virginity of those searching for greater answers is basically NOT that sex is evil. Instead, just the opposite. The drive is shunted from reproduction & marriage, into a drive toward what they think are more important uses for it. Many of those orders consider that for more advanced humans, totally devoted attention to marriage & reproduction is an Earthly carnal loop of birth & death. The point of their reproductive avoidance is to break that loop (for them, and not for their supporting masses).
An interesting connection with the religious view, is that 'sex' increases as evolutionary evolvement increases. The more evolved a creature, the more sexual. And the more complex the sexuality becomes. The more sexually differentiated the organism becomes as its complexity increases. Despite the myths & politically-correct dreams of unisex, as we have evolved, we move toward greater sexual difference.
We are evolving toward a greater sexuality, certainly as to gender differences, and probably as to metaphysical differences.
Hence, the answer to “Why marriage?” is relatively simple. The answers to sex & the drive to mate are very complex. I can’t answer those questions. And best of my studies of others’ opinions and of science, neither can anyone else.
Yet, many exceptional people, science to theology to philosophy, are seriously trying to answer the basic questions. And to view some of those preliminary answers even in the hard-sciences, as to their hypotheses, begins to sound more like metaphysics. No doubt because it is. That is, metaphysics for the present, and tomorrow’s science.
As to LOVE, a question of love? That is paradoxically the easiest, AND the most difficult to answer. Because you can give any answer. Any answer that you feel at any given moment, and you’ve got LOVE.
The English language is retarded of definitive and individual words for myriads of “loves” and to distinguish & communicate the differences. I love my husband to pay the bills, says she. Says he, I love pizza, I love my dog, I love my mother & father & children, I love to play ball. And getting back to basics, I love sex.
I personally, do not love my children or grandmother or dog, as I love my lover or wife. No matter, speaka-duh-English, I may love them all.
================================
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
