[wat0n]

@Puffer Fish if your partner doesn't consent anymore, why not just break the marriage off? You say she could have filed for divorce, but he could have done as much.

[Istanbuller]

It is better you pay for it. I mean escorts. You can do what you want by long hours. It is a proper solution.

[Puffer Fish]

The consequences of such [marital] [i]rapes are no less dire just because the perpetrator is a spouse. Indeed, women who are raped by their husbands suffer severe and long-lasting physical and mental health problems.

They can, in some situations.

This is not in all, or even most of these spouses who would file complaints.

You are ignoring that any woman who is the victim of spousal rape does have the escape option of immediate divorce (or legal separation), and then it can never legally happen to her again.

So if it was so terrible, it is only a one-time thing for her.

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish if your partner doesn't consent anymore, why not just break the marriage off? You say she could have filed for divorce, but he could have done as much.

You are correct. If she no longer wanted to continue having sex with her husband, why didn't she seek a divorce?

[Puffer Fish]

How is that an argument?

Because conservatives have some valid reasons for wanting to try to restrict sex to marriage.

With that being in place, the man does not really have any other possibility of "release", other than his wife.

Under those circumstances, we should feel more sympathetic to the man.

But if, on the other hand, it is seen as perfectly fine for the husband to go out and hire a prostitute, and he has been doing that, then yes, I would agree with you that would totally change the circumstances and he better get consent from his wife. That is no longer an "ordinary" marriage, not as conservatives envision it.

[Puffer Fish]

The physical effects of spousal rape often include injuries to vaginal and anal areas.

And it has already been explained in this thread that those two are not the same. The husband does not have a right to "less conventional sex". In those cases he better get her explicit permission.
Marriage (well, at least if a woman is involved) is not implied consent to that type of sex.

This is the reason many states traditionally had sodomy laws on their books. The idea was to protect the women. Since the presumption that men would try to force it on them and they would not want it.

It seems you are not understanding my argument very well, if you are bringing up things like this.

[ness31]

‘back end sex’ is exempt from Puffer Fish’s requirements for martial duties

Lolz, thanks for the laugh, I needed that

[Puffer Fish]

‘back end sex’ is exempt from Puffer Fish’s requirements for martial duties

Lolz, thanks for the laugh, I needed that

It used to be common sense. If you travelled back to the US in the 1930s, any respectable person would tell you this.

Now you just find it funny because the culture which your grandparents embraced seems so alien to you.

[ness31]

It used to be common sense. If you travelled back to the US in the 1930s, any respectable person would tell you this.

Now you just find it funny because the culture which your grandparents embraced seems so alien to you.

Don’t worry Puffer Fish, ‘back end sex’ is alien to more people than TV and social media would have us believe Unless you’re gay, then it’s par for the course.

Edit: wait, unless the couple are gay, then ‘back end sex’ is normal…gets confusing don’t it

[Puffer Fish]

Other bodily injuries are also common. For example, Campbell and Alford (1989) reported that 50 percent of the spousal rape survivors in their study were kicked, hit, burned, or stabbed while being raped. Many survivors go on to report lacerations, soreness, bruising, torn muscles, and broken bones (Adams, 1993).

And that is a red herring.

The man does not need to be charged with spousal rape for him to be charged for physical abuse of the woman.

This really has little to nothing to do with the legality of "spousal rape" laws.

[Puffer Fish]

Don’t worry Puffer Fish, ‘back end sex’ is alien to more people than TV and social media would have us believe Unless you’re gay, then it’s par for the course.

There's also "breast-a-sex", which one African American teen told me about.

I'm not exactly sure how I would feel about a husband trying that on his wife when she wasn't really in the mood.

Probably would be a grey zone.

[ness31]

Imagine the poor judge having to differentiate between anal sex, vaginal sex and ‘breast sex’? There’s obviously varying degrees of violation.

[ingliz]

the man does not really have any other possibility of "release", other than his wife.

Well, if that is the case, and he cannot control his urges, why not chemically castrate the prick. Or better still, do it the old-fashioned way, surgically.

[wat0n]

You are correct. If she no longer wanted to continue having sex with her husband, why didn't she seek a divorce?

This does not excuse rape

[pugsville]

Because conservatives have some valid reasons for wanting to try to restrict sex to marriage.

With that being in place, the man does not really have any other possibility of "release", other than his wife.

Under those circumstances, we should feel more sympathetic to the man.

But if, on the other hand, it is seen as perfectly fine for the husband to go out and hire a prostitute, and he has been doing that, then yes, I would agree with you that would totally change the circumstances and he better get consent from his wife. That is no longer an "ordinary" marriage, not as conservatives envision it.

No. Oh men need release therefore rape is ok.

"Conservatives" had a basic problem with respecting women/

[pugsville]

It used to be common sense. If you travelled back to the US in the 1930s, any respectable person would tell you this.

Now you just find it funny because the culture which your grandparents embraced seems so alien to you.

No. simply not true you are constructing an imaged past.

Rapists are NOT respectable people even in the 1930s.

[Rich]

Fuck Turkey. No one here lives in that horrid barbaric country, except rapists, apparently.

We were never discussing TURKEY!!

The OP is about an incident in USA.

Its not just Turkey. I think you will find such views the norm in Muslim cultures. Here's a view from Malaysia.

Islamic scholar: Wife cannot deny husband sex 'even when riding on a camel'

[Puffer Fish]

It is better you pay for it. I mean escorts. You can do what you want by long hours. It is a proper solution.

If this is the type of marriage where the man can just hire escorts, then it is a very different marriage from what the opening post was envisioning. If the man is out there having sex with other women, then it is definitely the type of relationship where the man needs to tread very carefully and get much more explicit permission from his wife for any sex acts with her. It's no longer such a "special" sexual relationship. (In the old days this was very much grounds for the wife to obtain legal separation or divorce... well, I don't know about in the Muslim World)

Part of the whole reason the husband can have sex with his wife without having to get her explicit consent every time is it's assumed he is NOT having sex with other people, and that that was implied in the relationship contract. That could potentially spread an STD to her, for starters.

I see from your name you come from Istanbul, which is the part of Turkey with a much more European outlook.

[Puffer Fish]

Rapists are NOT respectable people even in the 1930s.

It would have been seen as an issue between husband and wife. It would have been left up to THEM to resolve, on their own.
The privacy of the marriage bed.

There's nothing unnatural about a husband having sex with his wife. Yes, in some cases it can be abuse, in other cases just a not so nice thing to do to her. In any case she does (if other aggravating factors are absent) have some obligation to her husband. Which is a mitigating factor to her husband. It doesn't make what he is doing okay but he is getting something she owes him.

An analogy (probably a bad one) would sort of be like if you gave a prostitute a large amount of money in agreement that she would sex with you the next day. She takes the money and refuses to give it back. Then you have sex with her even though she says no. It might still be seen as sexual assault but the fact she had taken your money would be a significant mitigating factor for the man and result in less punishment.
Let's presume this was a prostitute who had already had sex with you several times in the past before this.
Not trying to imply that marriage is like prostituting, but you seem to believe marriage means nothing, so maybe this will help you better see things from another perspective.

[Puffer Fish]

No. Oh men need release therefore rape is ok.

"Conservatives" had a basic problem with respecting women/

And people like you will just look for release outside of a marriage.

Something that is equally as bad, if you talk to many conservative women.

(At least he won't bring home an STD to her when she later decides to have consensual sex with him)