Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - Page 8 - 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.
#15228421
Godstud wrote:He won't rape her anymore.

Yes. that's right. When she leaves him.

Please explain to us why arresting him is needed.


Godstud wrote: No. reality doesn't work that way. There are factors like coercion and other things that factor in,

Depending on what type of coercion, the husband could be separately prosecuted for that.

You can view the physical force or threats as a crime, not the sex. If there is criminal coercion (and there is sufficient evidence for that, which is another topic), he can be arrested.

Godstud wrote: It's not that simple, moron, and ONCE is too many times for a rape.

She agreed to have sex with him. She agreed to marry him.

It's definitely not the end of the world if it happens ONE time. She can leave him after that. She doesn't have to put up with him ever again if she isn't willing to.

Godstud wrote:Yes, an asshole fool misogynist who thinks women are property WOULD think like that.

That is a straw man. The argument is not because women are property.
#15228423
Godstud wrote: It's not that simple, moron, and ONCE is too many times for a rape.

You are right, this is not simple. You should not view things in terms of black & white.

When you marry someone, you agree to have sex with them. (Especially if the marriage has already been consummated)
She might not have agreed to that specific instance of sex, but she agreed to sex with that same person numerous times before.

Trying to claim that having sex with someone without their permission, when you have had sex with their permission numerous times before, is anywhere close to being the same as having sex with someone else without their permission who has never given you permission to have sex with them before, that is absurd!

Especially when it is inside a marriage. She didn't just agree once to have sex with him, as a casual fling; she agreed to marry him!

That's not my entire argument, that is only part of the argument.
#15228426
The fact that you even think this is rape shows what a dim view you have of marriage.

Something strongly tells me you don't view marriage as being a lifelong permanent sexual commitment to that one person.

That probably accounts for a large part of our divergent perspectives on this.


Now, if you're talking about a "modern" so-called "marriage", where sex is not confined to that marriage, then I can totally see how that would be a completely different situation. That's not really a real "marriage", so I could totally understand how the same rules of consent that apply in casual sexual relationships would apply.

In a traditional (conservative) marriage, once one of them has sex outside that relationship, they have broken the rules of consent. A husband who has an affair and then forces himself on his wife should face criminal penalty.
#15228431
Puffer Fish wrote:Please explain to us how putting the man in prison will "protect" her.
Godstud wrote:He won't rape her anymore.

Puffer Fish wrote:it's only possible for a spouse to be raped by their spouse ONCE. They always have the option of leaving the marriage after that.
Godstud wrote: No. reality doesn't work that way. There are factors like coercion and other things that factor in, but you ignore because it ...
It's not that simple, moron,

Please explain to us why it "doesn't work that way" and why it's "not that simple".


My claim is, if she doesn't want to have sex with that person, she can leave. (He can't have sex with her if she is not married to him, or legally separated). There is no reason to put the man in prison.

This isn't just any man, this is the man she married.
#15228451
I explained it. I have neither the time, nor the crayons to repeat myself.

Puffer Fish wrote:My claim is, if she doesn't want to have sex with that person, she can leave.
But he can coerce her thru children, financially, violence, and other ways. You don't even TRY to understand, because you are a MISOGYNIST. :knife:

Puffer Fish wrote:(He can't have sex with her if she is not married to him, or legally separated).
:roll: He's a rapist. You think he fucking cares? If he'll rape his wife(the person he vowed to love, cherish and respect), he'll rape someone else. You aren't using your noggin.

Puffer Fish wrote:This isn't just any man, this is the man she married.
I am sure if she knew he was a rapist piece of shit, that she wouldn't have married the asshole. People don't knowingly marry rapists.
#15228454
Puffer Fish wrote:When you marry someone, you agree to have sex with them.


I want to believe this, but times have changed. A lot.


Puffer Fish wrote:Trying to claim that having sex with someone without their permission, when you have had sex with their permission numerous times before, is anywhere close to being the same as having sex with someone else without their permission who has never given you permission to have sex with them before, that is absurd!


Rape means "forcefully have sex with someone without mutual consent".
The two things you raised only differ in details, but both fit the definition.
#15228457
Patrickov wrote:I want to believe this, but times have changed. A lot.
Times haven't changed. In the last 50 years we've just acknowledged that sex has to be consensual.

Non-consensual sex is sexual assault(rape).

Patrickov wrote:Rape means "forcefully have sex with someone without mutual consent".
The two things you raised only differ in details, but both fit the definition.
Yes, because he's trying to change the definition of rape to push his misogynistic rape agenda.
#15228461
Godstud wrote:You HATE women? :eh:

See a doctor. It's a mental illness.


I think it's more like I am too into the traditional (Chinese) stereotype of men and women's roles, and find myself unable to adapt to the current world.

Although as I said, what's wrong is wrong.
I think it's much, much happier if the women I like jump on me rather than me have to force my way in any way.
#15228463
Patrickov wrote:I think it's more like I am too into the traditional (Chinese) stereotype of men and women's roles, and find myself unable to adapt to the current world.
That's not misogyny. Liking the traditional role of women in society is not misogyny but it is a bit archaic, obsolete, and bit old-fashioned.

Patrickov wrote:I think it's much, much happier if the women I like jump on me rather than me have to force my way in any way.
As it should be, and as it is in a loving relationship.
#15228478
Puffer Fish wrote:being a lifelong permanent sexual commitment

I had a godless civil marriage service, but even for the religious, that doesn't mean what you think it means.

Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.

— Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae #13, July 25, 1968
#15228606
ingliz wrote:Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.

— Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae #13, July 25, 1968

I don't disagree with this, but there is a difference between moral and legal.

Maybe you need to go back and re-read, because you posting something like that tells me you do not understand my position.
#15228607
Godstud wrote: But he can coerce her thru children, financially, violence, and other ways. You don't even TRY to understand, because you are a MISOGYNIST. :knife:

If he is coercing her financially, if that is really the case, then she should have no reason to call the police.

You see the paradox there?


Violence? Like I said, he could totally be criminally charged for that, separately from the act of sex.
And indeed, in several states where marital rape is illegal, the use of violence is a necessary component for it to be a criminal offense.


You still have NOT given us an adequate answer.
#15228626
Puffer Fish wrote:If he is coercing her financially, if that is really the case, then she should have no reason to call the police.
Are you a fool?

Do you honestly think coercion is acceptable? :eh: It's not. In fact, it's a crime.

I know you love rapists, but fucking wake up!

Puffer Fish wrote:Violence? Like I said, he could totally be criminally charged for that, separately from the act of sex.
Why? To make you feel better? :eh:

Many crimes involve violence and they do not charge separately for them.

Puffer Fish wrote:You still have NOT given us an adequate answer.
You don't LIKE the answers, because they don't fit your rapey narrative.
#15228634
Godstud wrote:Do you honestly think coercion is acceptable? :eh: It's not. In fact, it's a crime.

You do realise that some marriages are practically legalised prostitution?

It's a marriage, so the same rules do not apply.


Godstud wrote:Are you a fool?

And tell us what happens to her if he is sent to prison. Isn't it the same thing that would happen if she had just left him in the first place??

If she is sending him to prison, it's obvious that financial coercion is not very strong.
#15228637
Puffer Fish wrote:You do realise that some marriages are practically legalised prostitution?
So??? :eh: If it is consensual sex, then it's legal. If your marriage is like that, then I pity you.

Puffer Fish wrote:It's a marriage, so the same rules do not apply.
That. Is. A. Lie. The same rules regarding consent for sex, still apply in every civilized country in the world.

I know you want it so you can rape your future wife, but it just isn't going to be legal. You can always just fuck off to shit-hole Turkey where it is, Rapist.
Last edited by Godstud on 21 May 2022 11:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15228639
Puffer Fish wrote:Because sex inside a marriage is not the same thing as rape.
It isn't the same as rape as long as it is consensual!

Fuck you're thick. :knife:

If sex in a marriage is not consensual, then it's RAPE!

Violence is not acceptable in a marriage, either! Do you want to complain because you can't beat your wife?
Last edited by Godstud on 21 May 2022 11:37, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13

https://youtu.be/dCJMQgfHXNI A brief overview of t[…]

Abortion on wheels

What must be done, must be done.

If it is not about punishing the pregnant person […]

^ The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) can[…]