[MistyTiger]

If a man wants sex, he can just solicit for it on tinder....way less expensive than getting leg shackled to a woman. Between the wedding, the ring and all that other stuff...it's a pain on the wallet, right?

Rape is rape. Rape is always wrong.

It's stories like this that make me think that being single is the best way. A single woman doesn't have to feel obligated to provide sex just because a man thinks it's his right as her husband. Caveman attitude.

[ness31]

If people are in a functional marriage I wouldn’t have thought rape would ever be an issue. Just goes to show how many marriages on convenience there are out there I suppose.

[Godstud]

Just as there terrible women out there, @MistyTiger, there are terrible men, as well. Don't let that stop you from finding the right person for you.

If a woman gets raped in a marriage, then when he gets his dick cut off, we should just put that down as "accidental".

[Puffer Fish]

If a man wants sex, he can just solicit for it on tinder....way less expensive than getting leg shackled to a woman.

Reveals what you think about marriage.

No he can't. Cheating on his wife might even be worse than having sex with her when she doesn't feel like it and says "no".

[Godstud]

Reveals what you think about marriage.

You advocating rape says a lot more about you. @MistyTiger is quite reasonable and logical about it. You think rape is just fine in a marriage. That's fucked up!

I hope no woman ever marries a man who thinks raping her is OK.

No he can't. Cheating on his wife might even be worse than having sex with her when she doesn't feel like it and says "no".

He can fucking masturbate if he needs it that badly. Do you really think cheating on a spouse is comparable to sexually abusing them? WTF is wrong with you?

I am married. I cannot conceive of forcing myself on my wife if she's not in the mood, not feeling well, or tired. I get over it. I don't just RAPE her, like you evidently would.

I don't run out of the house to find a prostitute or someone else! I take care of myself, if I have to. I'm not that fucking entitled, nor am I so fucking desperate that I cannot control myself and have to sexually assault the person I love. That's not love.

Are you an Incel, by chance @Puffer Fish? You sure talk like one of those demented misogynists who think they are entitled to sex on demand.

Do the police have you on a sexual offenders list?

[pugsville]

Reveals what you think about marriage.

No he can't. Cheating on his wife might even be worse than having sex with her when she doesn't feel like it and says "no".

Sex should be consenting adults. Sexual assault is NOT a preferable option unless your entire morality is deeply warped.

[Rich]

No it is not. It;s not saying this is the middle ages. It's saying the attitude is one of a medieval outlook. Not the same ting.

Medieval attitudes can survive and indeed thrive into the modern world. It is a medieval attitude., grounded in the outlook,.

They are not mediaeval attitudes. More extreme attitudes were clearly prevalent in the classical period. I'm no expert but I bet there were similar attitudes in the Archaic period, the Iron age and even the late Bronze Age.

it seems to me that these attitudes were entirely consistent with and a natural outgrowth of an industrial economy. They weren't just some hang over from the 14th century. They were consistent with the status of women in an economy centred on mining, iron, steel, metal working, heavy chemical industries and pre computerised production line work. There are rational reasons why the attitudes of university graduates on women were decades ahead of those in the manual working class.

[Puffer Fish]

I am married. I cannot conceive of forcing myself on my wife if she's not in the mood, not feeling well, or tired. I get over it. I don't just RAPE her, like you evidently would.

I think you are creating a red herring in this argument. That's not the point.

The issue is whether this is a case for government to get involved. Treat it like a RAPE case when it was between husband and wife???

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish If it is witnessed, or reported, then it is the duty of the government to respond to that crime, with the justice system. I don't care about your demented excuses. They come across as disingenuous and perverse.

It's rape/sexual if it's perpetrated against ANYONE who does not give consent. It doesn't matter if they are married, or not. Marriage is not a blanket sexual consent.

I hope your spouse or future spouse knows your feelings about marital rape.


Marital rape in United States law, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. Today, marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state.

[Puffer Fish]

Do you really think cheating on a spouse is comparable to sexually abusing them? WTF is wrong with you?

It's not exactly sexual abuse in the same sense with any other form of sexual abuse.

The woman has already had (consensual) sex hundreds of times with that man, what's one more time?

Sex between husband and wife is perfectly natural. This isn't really anything unusual, or maybe it is better to say too unusual.

And is this really "abuse"? If he just had sex with his wife when she said no and wasn't really feeling like it, is that really abuse in the sense of a woman being raped? (You know, raped by a man who's not her husband, or whom she hasn't been having sex with over a long period of time)

I agree this can fall under the category of marital abuse, but in a way it is not really like what people normally think of as sexual abuse. It's not like she is being made to have sex with a strange man who hasn't already had sex with her (which is the biggest and most important component of any incident of sexual abuse).

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish If it is witnessed, or reported, then it is the duty of the government to respond to that crime, with the justice system. I don't care about your excuses. They come across as disingenuous and perverse.

This is totally something that belongs within a marriage. It is for the two to work out.

If he's abusing her, to a level where she can't stand it, she needs to get an immediate legal separation.

If she wants government to intervene, she's going to have to show signs of severe injuries.

In some cases the police might be willing to put the man in jail for a few days just so the woman has time to gather up her belongings and leave, and have time to officially file for divorce and a restraining order. (This might be if there were other compounding circumstances, like if the husband tried to force her into an orgy with someone else, or maybe if the husband has been sleeping around and the wife is afraid he might have an STD, something that goes beyond what is ordinarily acceptable and would do something to her she has not already consented to in the past. For example, some states in the US have traditionally had laws covering sodomy that could allow the man to be arrested if she files charges)
If the woman wants to get government to punish her husband for having normal and ordinary sex with her, she should be required to do something before the fact. To change the legal status, making it no longer an ordinary marriage.

[Godstud]

It's not exactly sexual abuse in the same sense with any other form of sexual abuse.

Yes, it is. It's sex without consent. That's why it's illegal.

The woman has already had (consensual) sex hundreds of times with that man, what's one more time?

Rape is actually a breach of the marriage contract.

Sex between husband and wife is perfectly natural. This isn't really anything unusual, or maybe it is better to say too unusual.

Yes, and it's consensual. When it's not, then it becomes illegal. I know you are smart enough to tell the two apart.

And is this really "abuse"? If he just had sex with his wife when she said no and wasn't really feeling like it, is that really abuse in the sense of a woman being raped? (You know, raped by a man who's not her husband, or whom she hasn't been having sex with over a long period of time)

If you are sexually assaulted, against your will, then it is rape. Period. If it happened to you, you'd identify it as such, too. You're trying to excuse sexual assualt, and that's fucked up.

I agree this can fall under the category of marital abuse, but in a way it is not really like what people normally think of as sexual abuse. It's not like she is being made to have sex with a strange man who hasn't already had sex with her (which is the biggest and most important component of any incident of sexual abuse).

It DOES fall under the category of marital abuse AND sexual assault, even if your misogyny tells you otherwise. Everyone knows that sex, without consent is sexual assault, except for you, apparently...

You're wrong about it being worse with a stranger. Many people are sexually assaulted by friends, "loved ones", and people they know. What makes it the same, is that it's also betrayal of trust.

Marital rape should be treated more severely as it is also breaking marriage vows.

If he's abusing her, to a level where she can't stand it, she needs to get an immediate legal separation.

Yes, and charge him with sexual assault.

If she wants government to intervene, she's going to have to show signs of severe injuries.

Fuck you. Why does she have to prove injury just to make assholes like you happy? Rape is rape, even if he did not injure her, physically. Many sexual assaults do not create injuries. That does not mean there is no harm done. Are you trolling just to be an asshole, or are you being serious, here?

If the woman wants to get government to punish her husband for having normal and ordinary sex with her, she should be required to do something before the fact. To change the legal status, making it no longer an ordinary marriage.

Sexual assault is not normal and ordinary sex. Normal sex includes CONSENT.

Any marriage where sexual assault occurs in, should be annulled, if the victim wants it.

[Puffer Fish]

Yes, it is. It's sex without consent. That's why it's illegal.

But she has already given consent for identical acts like that in the past, and there is a vague concept of implied consent if she is within a marriage.

So it's not the same level of violation of consent.

This should be obvious.

Don't forget her duties and obligations to her husband, which if this happens, we can presume she is not meeting. (Doesn't make what he does okay, but is a mitigating factor, since she's in the wrong too for not having sex with him)

You imagine he can just go have sex with some other woman or use pornography, but you have to realise that in conservative culture that is not seen as an acceptable alternative. The wife's moral rights over her husband will also be violated if he does that. It's really as if a lot of you believe marriage means nothing.

At least if he has sex with her rather than another woman, he won't bring home an STD to her.

[pugsville]

It's not exactly sexual abuse in the same sense with any other form of sexual abuse.

The woman has already had (consensual) sex hundreds of times with that man, what's one more time?

Sex between husband and wife is perfectly natural. This isn't really anything unusual, or maybe it is better to say too unusual.

And is this really "abuse"? If he just had sex with his wife when she said no and wasn't really feeling like it, is that really abuse in the sense of a woman being raped? (You know, raped by a man who's not her husband, or whom she hasn't been having sex with over a long period of time)

I agree this can fall under the category of marital abuse, but in a way it is not really like what people normally think of as sexual abuse. It's not like she is being made to have sex with a strange man who hasn't already had sex with her (which is the biggest and most important component of any incident of sexual abuse).

Sex without consent is rape.

[Godstud]

But she has already given consent for identical acts like that in the past, and there is a vague concept of implied consent if she is within a marriage.

If I give you consent to have sex with me, today, it is not consent to have sex with me 2 weeks away. You don't understand consent, do you?

Implied consent? No. That's not a legal thing, either. That's a made-up term supported only by rapists and assholes.

This should be obvious.

It is obvious that it's an excuse that no one accepts.

Don't forget the her duties and obligations to her husband, which if this happens, we can presume she is not meeting. (Doesn't make what he does okay, but is a mitigating factor, since she's in the wrong too for not having sex with him)

Sex is not a duty or obligation. When a woman marries a man, they are not obligated to give him sex on demand. She is NOT in the wrong for NOT having sex with him. WTF do you get that idea from?


Your pathetic attempts at moralizing is just excusing marital rape. What you are suggesting is immoral, and against the very sanctity and idea of marraige.

[Puffer Fish]

It is rape.

The entire country of Turkey would disagree with you.

[Puffer Fish]

If I give you consent to have sex with me, today, it is not consent to have sex with me 2 weeks away. You don't understand consent, do you?

But the point is, it's not anywhere near as bad.

I didn't say it was not bad, just that it is was not a matter for government to get involved in. Not unless there is some more serious compounding factor, and it was not just a case of ordinary sex being pushed on her.

She has already agreed to that exact thing, with the same person, plenty of times before.
It is her HUSBAND, the man she agreed to marry.

Besides that, sometimes women can lose their temper, and they shouldn't just drag the man off to prison just because the woman loses it.

In how many of these cases that a wife claims "rape", will the wife not divorce her husband, if the government doesn't do anything? I bet you that wife in the story is still married to her husband.
It's obviously illogical to claim rape, but then decide to stay married to that man. But women are often not logical.

In these type of cases, it's a nanny-state government that gets involved in marital disputes like this.

[Puffer Fish]

Your pathetic attempts at moralizing is just excusing marital rape. What you are suggesting is immoral, and against the very sanctity and idea of marraige.

You're just creating a red herring. I am not condoning marital rape or saying that is some great thing that husbands should do.

I'm just saying this sort of thing is probably not an area for government to get involved in, in most cases.

Aside from the issue of consent, what is being done to her in that situation is perfectly normal and natural. The only difference is this time she didn't want it.


Society used to have a different view about this sort of thing. See the film Marnie (1964) starring Sean Connery.

[XogGyux]

The entire country of Turkey would disagree with you.

Doubtful that all women of Turkey agrees with this crap, half the country are women you know?
Even if it was true, it is still wrong.

[Godstud]

But the point is, it's not anywhere near as bad.

Yes, it is.

I didn't say it was not bad, just that it is was not a matter for government to get involved in. Not unless there is some more serious compounding factor, and it was not just a case of ordinary sex being pushed on her.

Any sex where consent is not given, is NOT ordinary sex. Ordinary sex is between two CONSENTING adults.

She has already agreed to that exact thing, with the same person, plenty of times before.
It is her HUSBAND, the man she agreed to marry.

So what? Agreeing to marry someone is not giving consent to sex on demand. What part of that can't you understand?

Every time you have sex there has to be consent. Period. It's that simple. Normally, between married people, this is easily given. Sometimes, he or she, says, "Not today.". That does not mean you can still do it, because he/she was OK with it the day before...

Besides that, sometimes women can lose their temper, and they shouldn't just drag the man off to prison just because the woman loses it

Ah, so now we see the REAL argument. You're playing a VICTIM, aren't you?

In how many of these cases that a wife claims "rape", will the wife not divorce her husband, if the government doesn't do anything? I bet you that wife in the story is still married to her husband.
It's obviously illogical to claim rape, but then decide to stay married to that man. But women are often not logical.

In most cases, the rapist gets away with it. Relationships aren't simple.

Men are often not logical, either. Why would you hurt the woman you loved, by sexually assaulting her? Think on that one, a bit.

You're just creating a red herring.

It's not a red herring. That's a bullshit assumption. Stop trying to excuse rape.

I am not condoning marital rape or saying that is some great thing that husbands should do.

It is not something that ANY husband should do, as it's a crime.

Aside from the issue of consent, what is being done to her in that situation is perfectly normal and natural. The only difference is this time she didn't want it.

Sexual assault is NOT normal and NOT natural among human beings. If the person does not want it, and you force them to have sex, then that is sexual assault.

Consent is needed for any sex(regardless of how many times you've given it in the past). That's the reality.

Society used to have a different view about this sort of thing. See the film Marnie (1964) starring Sean Connery.

It's a movie, dumbass. It's also almost 60 years old.