|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with power. It is one part of the feminist goal to expand the definition of rape and cast as many men as rapists as possible.
Unlike marital violence, marital rape can only be claimed by the female. It is a threat that empowers females and encourages false allegations. But feminists will always chose power over truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 07, @02:12PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The marital rape laws are part of the increasingly toxic cultural environment which all men face whether they are aware of it or not.
When you give one gender the legal power to criminalize the other gender's past conduct on the basis of subjective memory, AND you reverse the assumption of innocence until proven guilty (men accused of rape are guilty until they prove their innocence in a court system that a priori assumes their guilt...)then, you have all the ingredients for fascism!
Hey guys, it's surely time to re-read Orwell's masterpieces -- 1984 and Animal Farm.
Best to know where you are in the food chain of the coming feminazi utopia!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @09:16PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
... like the nightmare it is and get on with life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 05, @09:33PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but then again that's probably what the feminists want. Destruction of heterosexual marriage has long been a feminist goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 06, @01:11AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree except I think their goal has been more the destruction, rather than the prevention, of marriages. They set it up so marriage gives women a tremendous amount of power over men and that women have a huge incentive to file for divorce. Their goal, to me, is not so much to prevent marriage but to exploit marriage as a tool to harm men and benefit women. That said I think it's good that men avoid marriage under the current state of things and that men avoiding marriage is not giving in to feminism but in fact avoiding what feminists have set us up for.
Just a few hours ago I was on a pilot show in Los Angeles called "Jaime Unleashed" in which they had me and two women up there as panelists and the whole thing was about bashing men for not wanting to marry. The audience was about 100 people, 90% women, and totally anti-male. Only a very tiny number in the audience defended men, and they were bashed each time. I was bashed all the way through. I was called everything from "angry" to "emotionally constipated" even though the women were 10 times more "angry" than me and I smiled and laughed more than any of them. What a joke it was. Most astonishing was how the audience supported women threatening to leave men if they won't marry. I said "If you would leave him over that then you love marriage more than you love him and *you* are the one who is not ready to marry. He should run for his life." There was surprisingly some applaus for that. But most of them were pissed off and couldn't stand hearing the truth. They said a guy co-habitating and having sex with a woman is getting "free pussy." I said if that's true then the woman is also getting free dick, because women enjoy sex as much as men do. Nope, they couldn't handle that. Then they got all over a guy because he didn't feel ready to marry his girlfriend. I pointed out the irony of all these women pushing and making threats over marriage and then initiating 80% of divorces, and that men are the ones who take the risk of losing everything and being driven to depression and suicide, so men are RIGHT to not marry until they feel totally ready. They had no answer but to brush all that aside and pretend it meant nothing. Of course it means nothing to them since they're not the ones facing the risk.
One woman even said she was going to "kick her boyfriend's ass" for not marrying her, and the audience applauded. Had a guy said he'll kick his girlfriend's ass, for any reason, they'd have boo'd.
What a sad taste of reality that was. It confirmed my feeling and made me feel even better about having avoided marriage in my past relationships. I applaud men who don't give in to the pressure and I totally support the marriage strike. If a man doesn't feel ready to marry then he shouldn't, no matter what.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That taste of reality could make one vomit, I applaud your success in staying upright during it. :P And actually staying, and arguing, and such.
my boyfriend is rather wary of marriage altogether, not from fear of a lose-all divorce [that I gather, ] but from the idea of socially being tied to someone, nobody the circumstances, because he's the MAN in the marriage. That is what I've understood, at any rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, but then again that's probably what the feminists want. Destruction of heterosexual marriage has long been a feminist goal."
This, I believe is true. However, it may not be what most non-feminist women want. The more obvious it becomes over time that these stupid anti-male laws are the reasons men are rejecting not just marriage, but relationships at all, then maybe women will fight harder and meaner to stop these fem-bots. But, we have to be more vocal about it. They didn't do much to stop the NOW 30-40 years ago, because they were decieved, as many men were. Now, I think most folks see how low the feminazis can go.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that the term "marital rape" even exists proves that marriage no longer fits in our society. The whole point of marriage is two people working together for mutual happiness but the femenist aristocracy has brought it down to the level of prostitution. We need legislation tht would hold marriage contracts to the same standard as corporate contracts.
LONG LIVE THE MARRIAGE STRIKE!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 06, @07:24PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The existence of "matital rape" proves that women have been liberated from one of the traditional obligations of women, namely to provide for the sexual needs of her husband. This is, I believe, right and proper. What is not justified, in my opinion, is that society simultaneously forces the husband to fulfill the traditional obligations of men, namely to provide for the material needs of his wife (even to the point of imprisoning him or driving him to suicide).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All right, the reason we have specific marital rape laws is because . . . what? That in this day and age there are judges who say "well, it is your husband's lawful right to beat you to within an inch of your life and rape you, in front of 12 witnesses. Sorry babe." Uhm... I really doubt there are.
Sure, I'll agree that if a husband does rape his wife, that is still rape. But I don't understand the specific law... Then again, I think our current criteria for evidence in rape cases needs to be overhauled ANYWAY, they're moronic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, I'll agree that if a husband does rape his wife, that is still rape.
So, do you think un-conditional sex with the man you loved enough to marry is "rape" then? I'm not doing this to flame you, but I think this could be an interesting conversation.
But I don't understand the specific law.
That's alright, it's why this is an Ask Ads topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>So, do you think un-conditional sex with the man >you loved enough to marry is "rape" then? I'm >not doing this to flame you, but I think this >could be an interesting conversation.
no flaming taken. I think that would boil down to consent - if the husband you married goes crazy and rapes you, and we're talking a struggle with violence here, that's still rape. YOU feeling like YOU should give consent all the time isn't your husband forcing you - you could argue that it's society's conditioning led you to it, despite your deeply ingrained lack of consent, but then one could argue the husband was conditioned into it also...
Does failure to continue to consumate still considered grounds for divorce? You look like a jerk if you leave a relationship over it, but seriously, if it's that or commit "rape" I'd go with the former. Or, conversly, if you feel this 'sex all the time' thing is, at least irritating and at worst rape, wouldn't you seek a divorce on grounds of incorrigible differences?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unconditional sex = rape
Now I have to take an exception to this, and there is a very good reason. read on:
No flaming taken. I think that would boil down to consent - if the husband you married
goes crazy and rapes you, and we're talking a struggle with violence here, that's still
rape.
But why trust her implicity? It's rarely that simple. To prove it, I'll tell a story. About two
months I met up with my pal Marty and we went down the pub for a drink, and we bumped into
John, a decent guy we've known for a good few years, after we chatted for a bit he left. Marty
told me that John's new girlfriend Jacqui is very kinky, or to say exactly what he said, she
loves being taken roughly when it comes to sex and that anal sex is the only thing she goes
for.
Now let's supposed they get married, and accidentically he takes her a bit too roughly, she
goes to the cops and claims marital rape and shows them the "evidence" he'll have on earth
trying to prove his innocence. Why you ask? because even through it might look rape, it wasn't.
Warren Farrell reffered to laws like marital rape as "government in the bedroom" or to put it
simply, the marital rape law is insane because both parties consent to sex when they marry.
You feeling like YOU should give consent all the time isn't your husband forcing you - you
could argue that it's society's conditioning led you to it, despite your deeply ingrained lack
of consent, but then one could argue the husband was conditioned into it also...
That sounds like it could easily lead to a nature versus nuture debate, and I think we
should stay away from it for now.
Does failure to continue to consumate still considered grounds for divorce? You look like a
jerk if you leave a relationship over it, but seriously, if it's that or commit "rape" I'd go
with the former.
We only hear about folks who chose not to consumate since they tend to be the exception :)
Or, conversly, if you feel this 'sex all the time' thing is, at least
irritating and at worst rape, wouldn't you seek a divorce on grounds of incorrigible
differences?
I'd probably try to work out a comprimise, and would try a host of other options first.
Let's keep this going, I think I can get plenty of brainfood out of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"because even through it might look rape, it wasn't. "
The thing is, that can happen in ANY relationship, a one-night stand to a 15 year marriage. I don't see why there is a specific difference if one is married. One implicity agrees to have sex if one follows someone into a bedroom and immediately strip off their clothes. However, I would define it as rape if then the person [unexpectedly] pulls out a gun and sticks it to the other's head - let's picture it as the woman pulling out the gun and demanding the man perform oral sex on her or be shot - would that not be defined as rape? Or some other sexual offense [if rape is only defined as penetration]?
There wouldn't really be any way of proving it was rape [short of maybe several witnesses and such], and saying "well, he was married to that woman, that implies consent" seems rather callous, doesn't it?
You could say 'they shouldn't have gotten married if they didn't know the other had that quirk!' but I think plenty of people get led into bad marriages (how about 'for the children?')
and shouldn't be 'punished' for it like that.
>That sounds like it could easily lead to a >nature versus nuture debate, and I think we
>should stay away from it for now.
Yeah, I was just wondering if that was a defense in such a case "well, they were conditioned to give consent, so they didn't really." which would be, also, really difficult to prove.
>We only hear about folks who chose not to >consumate since they tend to be the exception :)
I've heard about stories "back in the day" as such for grounds of divorce, but was wondering if a judge would still take that.
>I'd probably try to work out a comprimise, and >would try a host of other options first.
well, okay, I'm assuming there is no other alternative, you've tried everything, but goshdarnit, they want it too much and aren't going to back down...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, that can happen in ANY relationship, a one-night stand to a 15 year marriage. I don't see why there is a specific difference if one is married. One implicity agrees to have sex if one follows someone into a bedroom and immediately strip off their clothes. However, I would define it as rape if then the person [unexpectedly] pulls out a gun and sticks it to the other's head - let's picture it as the woman pulling out the gun and demanding the man perform oral sex on her or be shot - would that not be defined as rape? Or some other sexual offense [if rape is only defined as penetration]?
That gun incident would probably go under sexual misdemeanor (spelling?) or coreced intimidation, at a guess, since cops love going soft on women. That said, I'm no legal eagle.
There wouldn't really be any way of proving it was rape [short of maybe several witnesses and such], and saying "well, he was married to that woman, that implies consent" seems rather callous, doesn't it?
Well, I think being callous is alot better than getting the state to regulate private relationships don't you?
Is there a specific objection you have? if so, let's hear it.
well, okay, I'm assuming there is no other alternative, you've tried everything, but goshdarnit, they want it too much and aren't going to back down...
Well, to be honest, I'd be too busy enjoying the ego boost for awhile to do much about it, but since I've not been in that situation (yet) I can't quite comment too well on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>That gun incident would probably go under sexual >misdemeanor (spelling?) or coreced intimidation, >at a guess, since cops love going soft on women. >That said, I'm no legal eagle.
Doubtless the DA would only charge them with such, but I meant would it personally, to you, mean that? It is neatly defined as rape to me.
>Well, I think being callous is alot better than >getting the state to regulate private >relationships don't you?
The state regulates our behavior all the time, though. We aren't allowed to murder, steal, assault, and by virtue of that, rape - how is the same behavior okay when one is in matrimonial 'bliss' but not when one just 'shacks up?' We can't do "whatever we want" with our children by virtue of the fact they're our children, they have certain rights [such as the right not to be exploited in child porn], and I don't think husbands and wives should enjoy less rights than the unmarried.
I'd laws only pertaining to the unmarried would imply a woman would never consent to sex unless married! That certainly could not have gone over well for the past falsely accused of rape.
>Is there a specific objection you have? if so, >let's hear it.
Like any current rape laws, they only apply [in practice or in writing] to women. A man just can't go to the police and say he was raped by a woman, even if the law has an open definition [such as "sexual acts by use of force without consent"] he'd either be laughed out, or his case would be knocked down to misdemeanor. Harpies will/would cackle at him all the way through the trial, dismissing him as a eunuch, a whiner, a loser who is 'scared of a powerful woman.' T'ain't right, and marital rape laws, when they crop up, seem to be written to add to the effect.
>Well, to be honest, I'd be too busy enjoying the >ego boost for awhile to do much about it, but >since I've not been in that situation (yet) I >can't quite comment too well on it.
LOL.
There was a trial in the dark ages, where a woman [successfully] divorced her husband for, probably, erectile dysfunction. I imagine there was a more recent one, don't ask me when, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubtless the DA would only charge them with such, but I meant would it personally, to you, mean that? It is neatly defined as rape to me.
Having seen what lawyers did to my folks, I'm not really too sure, I know it sounds like a poor man's excuse, but if you knew what happened, you'd understand.
The state regulates our behavior all the time, though.
Yeah, but a status quo argument (I'm taking a guess here) won't get you too far in the long term anyway.
Like any current rape laws, they only apply [in practice or in writing] to women.
What, it's the double standard that gets you? I thought there was something else bothering you?
I think I might just write an article about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like any current rape laws, they only apply [in practice or in writing] to women. A man just can't go to the police and say he was raped by a woman, even if the law has an open definition [such as "sexual acts by use of force without consent"] he'd either be laughed out, or his case would be knocked down to misdemeanor. Harpies will/would cackle at him all the way through the trial, dismissing him as a eunuch, a whiner, a loser who is 'scared of a powerful woman.' T'ain't right, and marital rape laws, when they crop up, seem to be written to add to the effect.
A hand gun or two makes the above neither here nor there. He doesn't have to deal publicly with the sexual aspect of the assault, he merely needs to deal with the violence that can be verified. He can be healed and that is what counts.
This is a good example of how women don't get men.
Rape is an act of violence, but it is the violence that mano-a-mano are concerned with.
Women have decreed that rape is a crime that is special and unique; a crime that requires a stiff penalty at the minimum, as if the humiliation is a uniquely egregious part of the experience and requires extra attention. Humiliation is an egregious part of any violent experience.
There is significantly much at play here that is no more than superstition.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Having seen what lawyers did to my folks, I'm >not really too sure, I know it sounds like a >poor man's excuse, but if you knew what >happened, you'd understand.
*is confused* hrm. okay.
>Yeah, but a status quo argument (I'm taking a >guess here) won't get you too far in the long >term anyway.
Aw, but they're fun!
Anyway, my point was that in ANY communities we set rules of conduct, from small [the community elders decree] to our elaborate governments for millions of people. Saying one doesn't want their bedroom regulated can be justified - to an extent. I don't want someone regulating what is legally normal sex [think sodomy and bdsm laws] but I would want someone regulating the age of the person in the bedroom.
>What, it's the double standard that gets you? I >thought there was something else bothering you?
There is? *is once again confused* My first problem was that I didn't understand the specificality of marital rape laws, then double standards: wives are less important than girlfriends, men less important than women.
>I think I might just write an article about >this.
Cool, have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>A hand gun or two makes the above neither here >nor there. He doesn't have to deal publicly with >the sexual aspect of the assault, he merely >needs to deal with the violence that can be >verified. He can be healed and that is what >counts.
So he shouldn't pursue a specific sexual assault charge, because the violence is the aspect which is damaging and verifiable? I don't see how waving a handgun at someone is a verifiable charge.
As for healing being the important part, quite. But I'd rather that woman not be able to threaten men any more.
>This is a good example of how women don't get >men.
As rapists or as victims thereof?
>Rape is an act of violence, but it is the >violence that mano-a-mano are concerned with.
>Women have decreed that rape is a crime that is >special and unique; a crime that requires a >stiff penalty at the minimum, as if the >humiliation is a uniquely egregious part of the >experience and requires extra attention. >Humiliation is an egregious part of any violent >experience.
>There is significantly much at play here that is >no more than superstition.
Granted, I've never been raped nor had someone very close to me BEEN raped, so I don't have any direct experience as such.
But, I would take an educated guess that the humiliation aspect is precisely what distorts someone's psych. The additional lack of public support for male victims of rape I can once again only take an educated guess would make it worse.
If someone held me down and kicked me, yeah I'd be upset and hurt. If they held me down, took my clothes off and raped me, even though the physical pain might not be as intense, the mental anguish would make the experience more damaging.
But, enlighten me. Why does whomever regard it differently? How do you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the "patriarchy" has been around for millenia, and it wasn't until the emancipation of women that anything changed. Up until that time everyone either held their shame to themselves or took matters into their own hands. The rape of men by either sex is just another cultural abstraction of the model victoriously achieved by gender feminists.
In a culture so obssesed with sexuality, so obssesed with self gratification, rape can hardly be the trauma now that is was when virginity could mean the difference between family life or starvation or prostitution.
I don't buy the poor fragile psyche thing at all, there is nothing in the DSM-IV that lists a category of psychiatric disorder that occurs exclusively from rape. If rape is such a horendous crime then how would a woman possibly survive a crippling injury by a drunken driver?
It's just too open to interpretation.
----
Donald Cameron
Amateur At Large
Dundas, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of marital rape the word of the woman is law. How else could it be? Do married people have sex? Of course they do. Do they always have sex under the most romantic conditions possible? No, of course not. Then if the wifie poo really wants to stick it to the man then all she has to do is fuck him and then call the police and claim he raped her and then she really fucks him! How can a man defend himself from this type of accusation? Well, he can't and that is the problem with it. That is why most states had the marital exemption rule to the rape laws. The concept was that it was better to let 9 wrongdoers go free than to convict one innocent man. Now this concept is turned bass ackwards. It is better to convict 9 innocent men (as long as they are men of course) than to let one "get away with it" as they say.
This is just one example of judicial rot that has been a byproduct of 30 years of the feminist movement. Thanks alot for nothing buttheads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My only problem, to date, is that is seems to only apply to women: "oh, dear ickle female, did your horrible husband ask you to have sex when you weren't sure, at that moment? the bastard! prosecute him for rape!"
I do believe there are situations we'd define as rape inside of a marriage, but should also be held to standards of rape we do not yet have: more clearly defined evidence, less persecution of the accused, etc.
It is really hard to prove a rape occured, but laws that lower evidence and 'protect the victim' are not better for 'catching' rapists, they're better for harming everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
