Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - 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.
#15226686
A woman in Iowa claimed her husband repeatedly raped her on several different occasions.

This is what Gina Battani told a jury about what happened to her:

She was in the shower, rinsing shampoo from her hair when she felt his hands on her. She pleaded with him to leave, to stop touching her in places she didn't want to be touched.

"Shhh," she heard him say.

She tried to get out of the shower, but he blocked her way with one hand, continuing to touch her with the other. Again and again, she asked him to stop and let her out.

When he did, she grabbed a towel and started to leave. But he came up behind her and wrapped his arms around her, pinning her hands to her side so she couldn't move. He walked her to the bed they once shared and pushed her, face down, onto it.

She was in the shower, rinsing shampoo from her hair when she felt his hands on her. She pleaded with him to leave, to stop touching her in places she didn't want to be touched.

"Shhh," she heard him say.

She tried to get out of the shower, but he blocked her way with one hand, continuing to touch her with the other. Again and again, she asked him to stop and let her out.

When he did, she grabbed a towel and started to leave. But he came up behind her and wrapped his arms around her, pinning her hands to her side so she couldn't move. He walked her to the bed they once shared and pushed her, face down, onto it.​

Iowa woman accused her husband of rape; almost no one believed her (desmoinesregister.com)
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 524826002/

The jury decided that he was not guilty. It took them less than two hours to reach the decision.

The woman had this to say about the verdict: "Because he was my husband, no one seems too concerned about what was happening."


Some thoughts:

The woman DOES have an obligation to her husband. It might not be every night, but the woman should give him what he wants at least two times a week... or at least once a week.

This isn't some strange man. She DID choose to marry him. She did already choose to have sex with him. Is it really so terrible having sex with him again.

In a marriage there is an implied contract and implied sexual consent.
If she really doesn't like what he is doing to her, maybe she should seek a divorce. Or even at least a legal separation.

There are many who would question whether it is even actually possible for a man to "rape" his wife. That certainly can be a grey zone. I would say yes, it is possible for a husband to "rape" his wife, but it's definitely not anywhere near the same type of rape as what most people normally think of when the word rape is used. There are many different situations and many different degrees of rape. This was a very low degree of rape, towards the bottom, close to the border of not being rape.

How can a woman stay with a man, and keep claiming rape? One rape, yes, but you keep staying with that person, living with them, sleeping in the same bedroom with them, and then you want everyone else to believe that they keep raping you?

When you MARRIED someone, that tells the whole world that you are consenting to sex.
A husband should be "entitled" to one free "rape". Afterwards the woman better leave if she does not want to be the subject of his advances.

She can get a divorce and withdraw her consent at any time. This type of behavior would certainly be legal grounds for a divorce, which is a moot point because no fault divorce laws exist everywhere now.

If this happened in a very conservative area where women stay at home, and the women have few other options outside a marriage, I could understand how that might be a little bit of a different situation, but there are very few places like that now.

If the husband used severe physical force and physical force to compel his wife to have sex with him, or physically hurt her, that could be a different situation, but is not what happened in this story.

The jury was correct in voting not guilty. Even though there are a lot of Progressives and Feminists these days who would vehemently disagree with the jury's decision.

Marriage should be a way to protect the man from allegations of rape. He marries her in the presence of many witnesses so the whole world knows she is agreeing to sleep with him. She shouldn't be able to make the legal accusation against him that he raped her.
#15226692
Marrying someone does entitle you to sex on demand. A woman does NOT have an obligation to fuck her husband when he demands it. That not what marriage is. Only in backwards bumfuck Iowa is it not rape to have sex with a woman against her will. :knife:

Marriage vows commonly state to love AND respect each other. Rape isn't respect, but I am not sure that you, @Puffer Fish, understand that, do you?

Marital rape is a thing. That Iowa lawmakers and the misogynist rednecks of Iowa don't know this, is pathetic.

USA is NOT a civilized nation. Not by a long shot.
Last edited by Godstud on 11 May 2022 10:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15226694
Puffer Fish wrote:A woman in Iowa claimed her husband repeatedly raped her on several different occasions.

This is what Gina Battani told a jury about what happened to her:

She was in the shower, rinsing shampoo from her hair when she felt his hands on her. She pleaded with him to leave, to stop touching her in places she didn't want to be touched.

"Shhh," she heard him say.

She tried to get out of the shower, but he blocked her way with one hand, continuing to touch her with the other. Again and again, she asked him to stop and let her out.

When he did, she grabbed a towel and started to leave. But he came up behind her and wrapped his arms around her, pinning her hands to her side so she couldn't move. He walked her to the bed they once shared and pushed her, face down, onto it.

She was in the shower, rinsing shampoo from her hair when she felt his hands on her. She pleaded with him to leave, to stop touching her in places she didn't want to be touched.

"Shhh," she heard him say.

She tried to get out of the shower, but he blocked her way with one hand, continuing to touch her with the other. Again and again, she asked him to stop and let her out.

When he did, she grabbed a towel and started to leave. But he came up behind her and wrapped his arms around her, pinning her hands to her side so she couldn't move. He walked her to the bed they once shared and pushed her, face down, onto it.​

Iowa woman accused her husband of rape; almost no one believed her (desmoinesregister.com)
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 524826002/

The jury decided that he was not guilty. It took them less than two hours to reach the decision.

The woman had this to say about the verdict: "Because he was my husband, no one seems too concerned about what was happening."


Some thoughts:

The woman DOES have an obligation to her husband. It might not be every night, but the woman should give him what he wants at least two times a week... or at least once a week.

This isn't some strange man. She DID choose to marry him. She did already choose to have sex with him. Is it really so terrible having sex with him again.

In a marriage there is an implied contract and implied sexual consent.
If she really doesn't like what he is doing to her, maybe she should seek a divorce. Or even at least a legal separation.

There are many who would question whether it is even actually possible for a man to "rape" his wife. That certainly can be a grey zone. I would say yes, it is possible for a husband to "rape" his wife, but it's definitely not anywhere near the same type of rape as what most people normally think of when the word rape is used. There are many different situations and many different degrees of rape. This was a very low degree of rape, towards the bottom, close to the border of not being rape.

How can a woman stay with a man, and keep claiming rape? One rape, yes, but you keep staying with that person, living with them, sleeping in the same bedroom with them, and then you want everyone else to believe that they keep raping you?

When you MARRIED someone, that tells the whole world that you are consenting to sex.
A husband should be "entitled" to one free "rape". Afterwards the woman better leave if she does not want to be the subject of his advances.

She can get a divorce and withdraw her consent at any time. This type of behavior would certainly be legal grounds for a divorce, which is a moot point because no fault divorce laws exist everywhere now.

If this happened in a very conservative area where women stay at home, and the women have few other options outside a marriage, I could understand how that might be a little bit of a different situation, but there are very few places like that now.

If the husband used severe physical force and physical force to compel his wife to have sex with him, or physically hurt her, that could be a different situation, but is not what happened in this story.

The jury was correct in voting not guilty. Even though there are a lot of Progressives and Feminists these days who would vehemently disagree with the jury's decision.

Marriage should be a way to protect the man from allegations of rape. He marries her in the presence of many witnesses so the whole world knows she is agreeing to sleep with him. She shouldn't be able to make the legal accusation against him that he raped her.


Your just wrong. There is no ethical basis for marriage as sexual slavery for women. Your claims are medieval.

There is no grey zone. It *IS* rape.

Your position is just ridiculous.
#15226736
Saeko wrote:Note: DO NOT google

I googled it.

Emerging into the mainstream, Sounding is a practice where men insert specially designed items, made from metal or glass, into the opening at the end of their penis. This practice aims to enhance their sexual pleasure and even encourage exploration of the penis by their partner.

It sounds painful to me.


:lol:
#15226739
ingliz wrote:I googled it.

Emerging into the mainstream, Sounding is a practice where men insert specially designed items, made from metal or glass, into the opening at the end of their penis. This practice aims to enhance their sexual pleasure and even encourage exploration of the penis by their partner.

It sounds painful to me.


:lol:


Weird? Painful? Yes. But @Puffer Fish apparently believes that every man should face the possibility of this sort of thing happening to him when he gets married whether he likes it or not. :hmm:
#15226766
Saeko wrote:Weird? Painful? Yes. But @Puffer Fish apparently believes that every man should face the possibility of this sort of thing happening to him when he gets married whether he likes it or not. :hmm:

PF would likely argue that the marital contract specifies consent to coitus, which sounding obviously isn't. Some people hang on to antiquated traditional views, especially those based on religion, long after they are clearly known to be wrong. Look at how long it took to convince Christians that the biblical passages condoning slavery were well past their best-before date (plenty of Muslims still haven't figured it out).
#15226796
Truth To Power wrote:religion

If PF tried that on here, he would be in deep shit. The 'religion' argument won't fly in Malta, a deeply religious country. In Catholic Malta, a rape that occurs between husband and wife is considered aggravated because it is perpetrated on a family member.
#15226797
pugsville wrote:Your just wrong. There is no ethical basis for marriage as sexual slavery for women. Your claims are medieval.

Oh come on that's an absurd thing to say. In Britain the high court didn't rule that a man could rape his wife till 1991 and it wasn't explicitly stated in law until 2003. I know there's no absolute agreement on when the Medieval period ended in Britain, but I'm pretty sure you're way way outside the scholarly consensus, way, way way outside. There was a survey in 2018 that claimed 25% of the population still believed that non consensual sex was not rape.

Whether it was explicitly stated in law and religious texts or not, it was pretty much accepted in every agrarian and industrial society in the world that sex with the woman was part of the marriage contract. With me it was almost like I was a born a radical liberal, for most of my life I've been well ahead of the population on social issues. For example I supported the right of women to work in mines when the National Union of Miners, darlings of the far left opposed it. That's why I'm not well disposed to taking moral lectures from lefties.

I find most people are incurious. Most people don't want to understand why social attitudes were so different even in the quite recent past. I'm very happy to live in a culture where women's consent is the social norm, but I still like to understand the material conditions of the past that made our ancestors different social attitudes quite rational.
#15226817
I really liked Truth to Powers definition, I was content with it; then ingliz happened.

We can barely get men to the doctor for prostate exams so I don’t think it will catch on. Stats on visits to the ED for sounding incidents gone wrong could be amusing..
#15226818
Rich wrote:Oh come on that's an absurd thing to say. In Britain the high court didn't rule that a man could rape his wife till 1991 and it wasn't explicitly stated in law until 2003. I know there's no absolute agreement on when the Medieval period ended in Britain, but I'm pretty sure you're way way outside the scholarly consensus, way, way way outside. There was a survey in 2018 that claimed 25% of the population still believed that non consensual sex was not rape.

Whether it was explicitly stated in law and religious texts or not, it was pretty much accepted in every agrarian and industrial society in the world that sex with the woman was part of the marriage contract. With me it was almost like I was a born a radical liberal, for most of my life I've been well ahead of the population on social issues. For example I supported the right of women to work in mines when the National Union of Miners, darlings of the far left opposed it. That's why I'm not well disposed to taking moral lectures from lefties.

I find most people are incurious. Most people don't want to understand why social attitudes were so different even in the quite recent past. I'm very happy to live in a culture where women's consent is the social norm, but I still like to understand the material conditions of the past that made our ancestors different social attitudes quite rational.


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,.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

By whom? By US, UK, Spanish or French soldiers? G[…]

Feeling Biden's inflation yet?

Supply and demand, @BlutoSays . If demand exceed[…]

Amazing story

It started going down when daddy's spoiled boy pre[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Igor Antunov Well, Finland and Sweden are joi[…]