Marital rape

[opebo]

No/Yes.

I believe it would be extremely hard to prove this sort of case.  In fact I'm amazed one can legitimately convict in most rape cases.  Certainly within marriage is seems like one where it would be difficult for the State to determine what happened.  I prefer a very high standard of proof for prosecutions.. can't say I know that much about the law.

[dazzleman]

No/Yes.

I believe it would be extremely hard to prove this sort of case.  In fact I'm amazed one can legitimately convict in most rape cases.  Certainly within marriage is seems like one where it would be difficult for the State to determine what happened.  I prefer a very high standard of proof for prosecutions..

I agree with you.

[KEmperor]

My greatest problem with the issue is trying to prove it.

Indeed.

[nclib]

No/Yes.

I believe it would be extremely hard to prove this sort of case.  In fact I'm amazed one can legitimately convict in most rape cases.  Certainly within marriage is seems like one where it would be difficult for the State to determine what happened.  I prefer a very high standard of proof for prosecutions.. can't say I know that much about the law.

Wouldn't that be Yes/No?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here's the problem with rape in a situation that is not black-and-white.  Rape is the only crime I can think of where the act itself is not a crime, but the determination of criminality rests totally on the consent of one of the parties to the act.

I don't think that's true.  If I walk into your house and ask you if I can take your television, and you say "yes", and then I take it, that's perfectly legal. 

If I walk into your house and ask if I can take your television, and you say "no", (or I never ask), and then I take it, that's a crime.

This situation may odd, but something like this is very common in the case of white collar crime, isn't it?

What is the difference between this situation and the consent involved in rape?

[dazzleman]

Here's the problem with rape in a situation that is not black-and-white.  Rape is the only crime I can think of where the act itself is not a crime, but the determination of criminality rests totally on the consent of one of the parties to the act.

I don't think that's true.  If I walk into your house and ask you if I can take your television, and you say "yes", and then I take it, that's perfectly legal. 

If I walk into your house and ask if I can take your television, and you say "no", (or I never ask), and then I take it, that's a crime.

This situation may odd, but something like this is very common in the case of white collar crime, isn't it?

What is the difference between this situation and the consent involved in rape?

Good point.  If the house has signs of forced entry, and the person breaking in doesn't know you, then it's fair to say that you didn't consent.

But if there is no sign of forced entry, and the person with the TV is your best friend, claims you gave it to him and that you have now reported it stolen because you're having a fight about something else that took place after you gave it to him, then the issue becomes a lot murkier.

A case like that belongs on Judge Judy, not in the legal system.

That's the way it is with marital rape in many ways.  The relationship of marriage implies sexual availability, and unless there are signs of physical abuse, I think a conviction would be very difficult in a case like this.

[opebo]

No/Yes.

I believe it would be extremely hard to prove this sort of case.  In fact I'm amazed one can legitimately convict in most rape cases.  Certainly within marriage is seems like one where it would be difficult for the State to determine what happened.  I prefer a very high standard of proof for prosecutions.. can't say I know that much about the law.

Wouldn't that be Yes/No?

No, I meant No/Yes.  Objective morality does not exist, so I would never say anything is 'immoral'.  However I would defnitely prefer this type of rape to be illegal.  I was just commenting that it would be hard to prove, and in general I prefer a very high standard of proof for criminal convictions. 

[The Duke]

Are people with Washington avatars born this condescending, or do you all take classes?

Yeah, I have some idea about the technical details of how a rape is executed.  However, as I've said, the concept seems "foreign" and "strange", not impossible.  I've never heard of an actual case of marital rape, though they may well be fairly common.  Again, its seems a bit bizarre to me.  As dazzleman said, but you've all ignored, the dynamics of itneraction change when someone is in a relationship with you.

In case you were wondering, this is the conversation I was talking about people trying to avoid when subjects like this come up.

Yes, apparently these people would be perfectly happy with a system that allows women to make false accusations of rape in order to get a better financial settlement, or better child custody arrangement, in the divorce that she is secretly planning.

I really hate this constant harping on women as victims within marriage.  The implication that women are helpless, abused victims, even of the men they have chosen to spend their lives with, permeates the liberal side of this discussion.

And those on the left have resorted to their familiar tactics of condescension, and trying to paint anybody who doesn't accept their suppositions without reservation as morons.  I'm surprised by Gabu's attitude; he never really seemed that way to me in the past.

I don't think that rape can exist within a real marriage.  This is not a legal problem, but a relationship problem.  Certainly, if a woman is truly suffering from abuse at the hands of a husband, the law should protect her, provided that she exits the relationship.  But these types of cases are a small minority of "abuse" cases.  Most abuse cases are a two-way street, and the party complaining of abuse usually remains in the relationship voluntarily for quite some time after making claims of abuse.  One cannot claim her husband "raped" her, seek a legal solution to a personal problem, and then remain in the relationship.  The solution to this so-called problem is not really a legal one, though legal measures can apply in the most extreme cases.

Here's the kick. I'm not even diagreeing with them!

All I did was remark that the concept is strange and that I have a hard time imagining how this sort of thing happens.  But there really are times that you can't have a conversation with a liberal, any liberal, no matter how reasonable they may seem.

[Gabu]

Here's the kick. I'm not even diagreeing with them!

All I did was remark that the concept is strange and that I have a hard time imagining how this sort of thing happens.  But there really are times that you can't have a conversation with a liberal, any liberal, no matter how reasonable they may seem.

Um, your post made it sound like you didn't understand what marital rape was, so I was attempting to explain.

I'm sorry if it came off in a condescending manner.

[nclib]

I'm just trying to point out the practical difficulties involved in suddenly starting a crusade against marital rape.  In concept of course rape is wrong, but the problem is how to define in a reasonable way, that protects men from false accusations, whether or not a rape actually takes place.

The difference I have with the feminists is that they're not too concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.  I am.

I'm a male feminist, and yes I am concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.

However, just like any other crime, the first priority is to protect the victim.

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

[opebo]

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

Actually I would hope we would err on the side of presumption of innocence in both robbery and rape.

[WalterMitty]

nclib, of bigger importance to me is the bizarre anti-gambling laws that nc has.

we need to work to repeal those.

i couldnt care less about 'marital rape' or whatever else the feminists are thinking aobut today.

[Ebowed]

So you don't think rape matters.  I see.

[WalterMitty]

So you don't think rape matters.  I see.

rape is already illegal.

[Ebowed]

So?  There are people who think it should be legal when done by married people.

[nclib]

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

Actually I would hope we would err on the side of presumption of innocence in both robbery and rape.

Of course one should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

My point was about how the laws themselves should be written.

[nclib]

nclib, of bigger importance to me is the bizarre anti-gambling laws that nc has.

we need to work to repeal those.

I would agree that those laws need to be changed.

However, it is much worse to be raped then not to be allowed to gamble.

[The Duke]

So?  There are people who think it should be legal when done by married people.

Has one person on this thread said that?

I'm just trying to point out the practical difficulties involved in suddenly starting a crusade against marital rape.  In concept of course rape is wrong, but the problem is how to define in a reasonable way, that protects men from false accusations, whether or not a rape actually takes place.

The difference I have with the feminists is that they're not too concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.  I am.

I'm a male feminist, and yes I am concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.

However, just like any other crime, the first priority is to protect the victim.

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

In robbery, though, there is evidence aside from the victim's word.  Not always the case in rape, which is why so many people are cautious about the subject.

[dazzleman]

I'm just trying to point out the practical difficulties involved in suddenly starting a crusade against marital rape.  In concept of course rape is wrong, but the problem is how to define in a reasonable way, that protects men from false accusations, whether or not a rape actually takes place.

The difference I have with the feminists is that they're not too concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.  I am.

I'm a male feminist, and yes I am concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.

However, just like any other crime, the first priority is to protect the victim.

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

You talk about protecting the "victim."  But in the case of false accusations, the person falsely accused is the victim.  I don't think there should be an automatic presumption that a woman claiming rape is telling the truth.  There has to be some corroborating proof.

It's a lot harder to make false accusations about robbery than rape.

[Hitchabrut]

Yes/Yes

[MissCatholic]

This is a non issue. If my future husband was to try and rape me then he better be prepared when i cut his friend off.

[A18]

No/No

[MissCatholic]

No/No

please explain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Dibble]

No/No

please explain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite simply, he doesn't believe there is such a thing as marital rape, that marriage means you're entitled to have sex with your spouse whenever you want or some such rot.

[MissCatholic]

No/No

please explain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite simply, he doesn't believe there is such a thing as marital rape, that marriage means you're entitled to have sex with your spouse whenever you want or some such rot.

do you think thats an apporiate attuitude for the 21st century maybe in the 2nd century!