Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15238649
You are a rapist wanna-be, if I go by your posts.

If someone says, "No." and you continue to have sex with them, then you are a rapist. It doesn't matter how many times they have agreed in the past. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Why are you so fucking stupid that you cannot comprehend this simple concept?

Now fuck off. I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain it further to you, you rape-loving POS.
#15238655
Godstud wrote:If you are using "implied consent", well that's something else, entirely.

Well, there is an implied "I don't find you hideously repulsive and I couldn't bear to enter into an intimate situation with you."

Just concede it, a woman who is raped by her long-time boyfriend is not going to be anywhere close to being as psychologically scarred as a woman who is raped by a stranger or molested by her uncle.

Most likely she's just going to be extremely annoyed and angry at him for a few days.

Might even try to guilt-trip or blackmail him into getting some money for shopping.


And when is she going to be most likely to call authorities? If there is someone else in the picture. If the reason she didn't want to sleep with him is because she found out he was sleeping with someone else.

Heck, there have been many women who falsely claimed rape on a man because he didn't call her back, resentful that he got her to put out without ever any intent of a continuing committed monogamous relationship.
#15238657
Ad Hominems? No. I find you to be a repulsive piece of shit who constantly advocates the rape of women in a relationship. Your arguments are SHIT and typical of misogynist Incels who hate women, because they've been hurt in the past.

The amount of injury in a rape can be MORE if the person is trusted, as most rapists are. The reasons for revoking consent are irrelevant. The courts don't ask WHY the victim said no. They just confirm if the consent was given, or not.

If your spouse says, "No."(or any variation on this), then it doesn't matter what the reason for not giving consent is. If you continue against their consent then you are engaging in rape.

Learn it and don't be a rapist. No amount of arguing is going to change what rape is.
#15238665
Oh, this should go without saying, but maybe it needs to be said...

If there is a rape pregnancy, that will be much less of an issue, or possibly not an issue, if it takes place inside a marriage.

The conventional (conservative) view of marriage is that, when a couple is a married, they are accepting of any children that might come into that union.

Therefore, when it comes to pregnancy, "marital rape" is not really doing anything that "normal marriage" does not already do. (Or not so much)

Traditionally, the issue of pregnancy was seen as the huge huge reason rape was so wrong. This comes from a time before abortions were possible or seen as acceptable.
#15238679
Puffer Fish wrote:That's when the female is NOT already in a consensual sexual relationship with that person.
A person can be in a consensual relationship up until the person rapes them. That happens. It's a sad reality that sometime a person is treated with respect up until they aren't.

Puffer Fish wrote:I find that argument of yours to be disingenuous.
Well, coming from the guy defending rapists with lies, that's rich. I really don't care what an amoral twat thinks about me as he advocates rape on a constant basis.

Remove the plank from your eye before complaining about the splinter in mine.

Puffer Fish wrote:If there is a rape pregnancy, that will be much less of an issue, or possibly not an issue, if it takes place inside a marriage.
Rape is rape regardless of if it takes place in a marriage, or not. You can't see to understand basic English. This has been explained to you numerous times.

Puffer Fish wrote:Traditionally, the issue of pregnancy was seen as the huge huge reason rape was so wrong. This comes from a time before abortions were possible or seen as acceptable.
Abortions have taken place throughout history. You're truly ignorant...

The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. Many of the methods employed in early cultures were non-surgical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... 0technique.

Rape is wrong/immoral/illegal in modern society and I don't give a shit if you think it shouldn't be.
#15238705
@Puffer Fish

Are you fucking serious? I'm glad that you stated that your view is the conservative view of marriage, but it has not been the 'conventional' view since the Middle Ages.

Should husbands brand their wives perhaps and if another man rapes her, it should be considered destruction of property? Is it still much less of an issue since the child will be raised by a mother and a father even if he is not the biological father? :eh:
#15238931
Godstud wrote:A person can be in a consensual relationship up until the person rapes them. That happens. It's a sad reality that sometime a person is treated with respect up until they aren't.

And it isn't the end of the world.

I'm not exactly condoning it, but it's not really like rape if it happens. Using the same name confuses and conflates the two.
It is a huge huge deal if the person who forces himself on her is her husband or long-term boyfriend, a person whom she has already been having a sexual relationship with.

How can you possibly claim that doesn't matter?

The main reason rape is wrong, and the most damaging part of it, is that someone is having sex with the woman whom the woman did not permit to have sex with her.

When that person is her boyfriend or husband, that is not the case. Yes, she might have been violated, but the implications of that incident are far less severe than if someone else raped her. Certainly when it comes to disease and pregnancy, but also psychologically too. A woman is not going to feel anywhere as psychologically violated if the man who has violated her by having sex with her has already had consensual sex with her in the past, on numerous instances.

When a woman is raped, she is going to have nightmares about that person involved in an intimate sexual act with her. When it is her husband or boyfriend, she ALREADY has experiences of that with that person.

The man is not seeing or really doing anything to her that he has not already seen or done to her before.

While you could argue there might be some overlap, they are really NOT THE SAME thing. Rarely is a woman who is "raped" by her husband disgusted and horrified; more often she is just annoyed and angry.
#15238938
Puffer Fish wrote:And it isn't the end of the world.
Yes, that the typical response from the rapist.

Puffer Fish wrote:I'm not exactly condoning it
But you are.

Puffer Fish wrote:It is a huge huge deal if the person who forces himself on her is her husband or long-term boyfriend, a person whom she has already been having a sexual relationship with.
Rape is rape. That you fail to understand this basic concept shows how stupid you are, and how misogynistic you are.

Puffer Fish wrote:How can you possibly claim that doesn't matter?
The reasons for committing the rape do not matter.

Puffer Fish wrote:The main reason rape is wrong, and the most damaging part of it, is that someone is having sex with the woman whom the woman did not permit to have sex with her.
No. The main reason rape is wrong is because it is done against the person's consent. Maybe I should beat the fuck out of you, without your consent, and we can talk about how it's not harmful.

Puffer Fish wrote:When a woman is raped, she is going to have nightmares about that person involved in an intimate sexual act with her. When it is her husband or boyfriend, she ALREADY has experiences of that with that person.
And it will surely change how she feels about said person and how much trust she has lost in them. It's harmful. You've already admitted to that. It's not dismissable simply because you are pro-rape.

Puffer Fish wrote:The man is not seeing or really doing anything to her that he has not already seen or done to her before.
:eh: Are you implying that being raped repeatedly isn't that bad?

Rarely is a woman who is "raped" by her husband disgusted and horrified; more often she is just annoyed and angry.
That is your stupid and ignorant opinion. It is not based on reality.

Intimate Partner Sexual Assault
The trauma of being assaulted or raped in a relationship.
Marital rape can be just as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, stranger rape. Marital rape often involves severe physical violence, threats of violence, and the use of weapons. Men who batter and rape are particularly dangerous men and are more likely to severely injure their wives and potentially even escalate the violence to murder than batterers who do not rape their wives. It is also important to point out that marital rapes can occur many times over many years (Russell, 1990).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... al-assault


So you're full of shit, and a rape advocate, as well.
#15240149
Godstud wrote: :eh: Are you implying that being raped repeatedly isn't that bad?

It is called divorce. Or legal separation.

Godstud wrote:Marital rape often involves severe physical violence, threats of violence, and the use of weapons.

It can, but most of the time it does not. If there is severe physical violence or use of weapons, that is a separate issue.

Puffer Fish wrote:It is a huge huge deal if the person who forces himself on her is her husband or long-term boyfriend, a person whom she has already been having a sexual relationship with.
How can you possibly claim that doesn't matter?
Godstud wrote: The reasons for committing the rape do not matter.

That is not what I claimed.

This doesn't have to do with the reasons why he does it. It has to do with the reasons why it is wrong to the woman.

You seem incapable of understanding this in terms other than black and white.

When it takes place inside a marriage it is a far different level of violation to the woman than when it takes place outside of a marriage, outside of an already established sexual relationship.
#15240151
Puffer Fish wrote:It has to do with the reasons why it is wrong to the woman.
It's wrong because it's against the law and anyone with even a hint of morality and ethics would see that.

Puffer Fish wrote:You seem incapable of understanding this in terms other than black and white.
Rape either occurs, or it does not. It's much like murder, in that regard. The person was raped. No grey area exists. There is no "sort of" rape. You're trying to imply it's OK under certain conditions or circumstances. Fuck off. It is not. Stop being a such a rape advocate. You're disgusting.

Puffer Fish wrote:When it takes place inside a marriage it is a far different level of violation to the woman than when it takes place outside of a marriage, outside of an already established sexual relationship.
NO. If it happens within a marriage there is a far HIGHER level of violation and I already provided you with evidence of that, which you ignored, because it doesn't conform to your idiotic, nonsensical pro-rape argument.

Anyone with a lick of sense, or even morality, can understand that sex between adults requires explicit consent, regardless of the relationship. When this does not happen, it is rape. It's that simple, but you're too simply to understand this concept. Go back to your cave, you Neanderthal.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

First two sentences: "The ICJ didn't say tha[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all of[…]