Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - Page 10 - 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.
#15228920
MistyTiger wrote:How do you know? Have you been speaking with dozens of battered wives who are unwilling to sue for divorce? What makes you qualified to make this claim?

Please explain what the point is of prosecuting the husband if the wife will not seek a divorce.

Doesn't that sound like the woman is being very illogical to you?
#15228932
Puffer Fish wrote:Doesn't that sound like the woman is being very illogical to you?
:roll: You're advocating rape in marriage as something to be overlooked, so don't talk about illogical. :knife:

If a man is raping his wife, the marriage is already KAPUT, and he belongs in jail, where you should join him. I only see you as a future sexual predator, with the attitude that you display in this thread.
#15228943
Puffer Fish wrote:Please explain what the point is of prosecuting the husband if the wife will not seek a divorce.

Doesn't that sound like the woman is being very illogical to you?


Do you understand why people are prosecuted? It is because they did something WRONG. It can be morally wrong and/or legally wrong to do. The husband is prosecuted in cases where he is reported to the authorities as he was reported in the article that you posted on page 1 of this thread. She filed a formal complaint and since there was a jury, her case was heard in court.

How much do you know about the legal system and court system anyhow? A criminal case is separate from a civil case. Rape is a criminal offense and therefore it's a major subject in criminal court cases. Divorce is a civil legal matter so it is a civil court case subject. A woman can choose to just file a criminal case and not a civil case. Perhaps the criminal case took a lot out of her both emotionally and financially, have you considered that? Legal battles are known to be expensive for both the prosecution side and the defendant side. While in a criminal case, the lawyers could be public defenders not so with civil cases. With a divorce proceeding, the plaintiff has to hire their own private lawyer and a lot charge by the hour. Divorce is not cheap.
#15229003
Puffer Fish wrote:Like I said before, it is only possible for the husband to "rape" his wife ONE time.
That's completely illogical, and only shows how foolishly stupid you truly are.

If I punch you in the face today(for being a rape apologist), tomorrow, and then the day after that, have I only assaulted you once? No. That would be THREE assaults, and even then, doing it once was a crime, even if you deserve it.

Puffer Fish wrote:There is no need to have laws to prosecute him.
Except that it's a fucking crime, you sexual assault advocate!

Piss off @Puffer Fish. You've shown that you're pro-rape, and probably a likely sexual predator.
#15229017
Godstud wrote:That's completely illogical, and only shows how foolishly stupid you truly are.

Well, you've failed to make any logical argument to the contrary.

My whole point is that if the wife is not satisfied with how her husband treats her, divorce is an option. After she divorces, he will not be legally permitted to come close to her the same way again.

This should have been totally obvious to you, if you had bothered reading this thread, but instead you went on to make some totally disingenuous analogy that doesn't even correlate with the facts.
#15229018
Godstud wrote: Except that it's a fucking crime, you sexual assault advocate!

Then you have resorted to the barest logical fallacy.

"It's illegal, so that's the reason it's wrong and should be illegal"


(And I won't even address your numerous ad-hominem attacks)


You people are only confirming my views that you have no true logic and it's all just emotion!
#15229019
pugsville wrote:Nor does this mean the women or indeed anyone should not have rights.

The woman has rights. She can choose to become married to the man whom she chooses, and she can also choose to become divorced or legally separated from that man if she finds the circumstances of that marriage unacceptable to her.

No man can ever have sex with the woman unless she has consented to sex with that man before.
#15229031
Puffer Fish wrote:My whole point is that if the wife is not satisfied with how her husband treats her, divorce is an option. After she divorces, he will not be legally permitted to come close to her the same way again.
If she is raped, she also has legal recourse, which you don't like because you are a marital rape advocate.

Puffer Fish wrote:This should have been totally obvious to you, if you had bothered reading this thread, but instead you went on to make some totally disingenuous analogy that doesn't even correlate with the facts.
It is obvious to me that you support marital rape. You also made a ridiculously flawed argument about one rape being the same as numerous instances, which is makes as much sense as charging a person once for assault, when there are multiple instances.

Puffer Fish wrote:Well, you've failed to make any logical argument to the contrary.
You've yet to make ANY logical argument. You make it on your belief that women should be victimized within a marriage. This is an archaic and morally reprehensible thing in an institution designed around love and respect(in modern countries).

Puffer Fish wrote:"It's illegal, so that's the reason it's wrong and should be illegal"
It's also morally wrong. We have laws against rape in our societies because we don't think people should be forced to have sex without their consent.

Puffer Fish wrote:(And I won't even address your numerous ad-hominem attacks)
They are not ad hominems. You are a champion for marital rape, according to what you say in every single post you make. I find that as disgusting and reprehensible as pedophilia(do you support that, as well?).

Puffer Fish wrote:You people are only confirming my views that you have no true logic and it's all just emotion!
By "you people", do you mean the rest of society that doesn't agree with your marital rape promotion? Your entire argument is about how you feel about rape, so nice try, anyways! :lol:
#15229055
Puffer Fish wrote:The woman has rights. She can choose to become married to the man whom she chooses, and she can also choose to become divorced or legally separated from that man if she finds the circumstances of that marriage unacceptable to her.

No man can ever have sex with the woman unless she has consented to sex with that man before.


This is not how the law works. Created you own laws and definitions doe snot make for clear communication.
#15229173
Puffer Fish wrote:It's how the law worked 60 years ago.
Yes, and this obvious point has been made to you numerous times, so fucking get with the time. You just want the ability to own, beat, and abuse another human being in a marriage.

The laws and morality you want are those of a bygone era(for obvious reasons). We're sorry you might have to act like a decent fucking human being.
#15229178
Puffer Fish wrote:Then you have resorted to the barest logical fallacy.

"It's illegal, so that's the reason it's wrong and should be illegal"


(And I won't even address your numerous ad-hominem attacks)


You people are only confirming my views that you have no true logic and it's all just emotion!



It's illegal , immoral and despicable to all civilized people,

It's one on the litmus tests that separates decent civilized people from despicable people,
#15229190
Puffer Fish wrote:Like I said before, it is only possible for the husband to "rape" his wife ONE time.

There is no need to have laws to prosecute him.


Where does it say that ONE time rule? I have never heard of this before and I actually studied law. I was a Pre-Law student long ago before switching to business.

Rape can occur multiple times. I just did a google search with the words "husband rapes wife multiple times" and guess what, I found research which is more than what you provided. You only wrote your opinion.

Women who are raped by their husbands are likely to be raped many times—often 20 or more times.


Source: https://vawnet.org/material/marital-rap ... directions

Research indicates that wife rape victims are more likely to be raped multiple times compared with stranger and acquaintance rape victims. In research with wife rape victims, most report being raped more than once, with at least 1/3 of the women reporting being raped more than 20 times over the course of their relationship (Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985; Russell, 1990).

Source: https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawpreventio ... rape.shtml

I am sure I can find more updated information and research, but I need my sleep now.
#15229203
I don't suppose it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to you if the husband in question had stayed within the bounds of marriage and never had sex with anyone else or cheated on his wife during the entire length of that marriage?

Because to me, it could totally change the situation if the wife found out her husband had been cheating on her and that is the reason she did not want to have sex.
Then I could maybe be willing to call it a "sexual assault".

If he has broken the bonds of that marriage, then the marriage is already in tatters. She can't be expected to respect that union, just like he hasn't.
#15229205
pugsville wrote:It's illegal , immoral and despicable to all civilized people,

It's one on the litmus tests that separates decent civilized people from despicable people,

That statement is not true.

It was legal in the US before the 1960s, it was legal in the English-speaking world in the Nineteenth Century, and it is currently legal in most of the Muslim World. Whether you think their culture is barbaric or not, no one can deny that they are not "civilized".

I could be wrong about this but even in Communist China it is usually not treated as a criminal offense. They might treat it more as a possible domestic legal issue.

In the Bahamas it is not rape unless the couple is separated or there is a restraining order in place.
Same thing in Jamaica, except it also includes if one spouse knows they have an sexually transmitted infection.

Barbados only criminalised it 6 years ago.

Egypt has a court precedent that ruled that sex between husband and wife is not rape.

It's not considered rape in Libya or Algeria. The law does not specifically specify, but it is very unlikely any court will treat it as rape any time soon.

In India it is only a rape if the wife is separated or "estranged" from her husband. In that case it is not an ordinary rape and the maximum sentence is only 7 years. (compared to a minimum sentence of 10 years for normal rape)

Marital rape is specifically excluded from the definition of rape in English-speaking Nigeria, which has a population bigger than the UK, France and Germany combined.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 24 May 2022 04:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15229206
Puffer Fish wrote:That statement is not true.

It was legal in the US before the 1960s, it was legal in the English-speaking world in the Nineteenth Century, and it is currently legal in most of the Muslim World. Whether you think their culture is barbaric or not, no one can deny that they are not "civilized".

I could be wrong about this but even in Communist China it is usually not treated as a criminal offense. They might treat it more as a possible domestic legal issue.

In the Bahamas it is not rape unless the couple is separated or there is a restraining order in place.
Same thing in Jamaica, except it also includes if one spouse knows they have an sexually transmitted infection.

Barbados only criminalised it 6 years ago.

Egypt has a court precedent that ruled that sex between husband and wife is not rape.

It's not considered rape in Libya or Algeria. The law does not specifically specify, but it is very unlikely any court will treat it as rape any time soon.

In India it is only a rape if the wife is separated or "estranged" from her husband. In that case it is not an ordinary rape and the maximum sentence is only 7 years. (compared to a minimum sentence of 10 years for normal rape)



Making something Legal does not make it moral.
#15229207
Puffer Fish wrote:I don't suppose it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to you if the husband in question had stayed within the bounds of marriage and never had sex with anyone else or cheated on his wife during the entire length of that marriage?

Because to me, it could totally change the situation if the wife found out her husband had been cheating on her and that is the reason she did not want to have sex.
Then I could maybe be willing to call it a "sexual assault".

If he has broken the bonds of that marriage, then the marriage is already in tatters. She can't be expected to respect that union, just like he hasn't.


None what so ever. So what if a murderer is a faithful husband. It;s just irrelevant,.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Isn't America great?

Eat your heart out jealous foreigners. Only in […]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

If there's ever another civil war in the US the l[…]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/politics/meadows-te[…]

Good for Colombia for having a free and fair elec[…]