Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - Page 11 - 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.
#15229281
wat0n wrote:You are the one complaining about the quoting of Hale. You still have not backed your claims about him up.

Are you implying only women can have abortions?

You have yet to prove he lied about it, just as you have yet to prove Hale lied in his work about 17th century English common law.

Thus far you have only been engaging in some association fallacy here.


So you think Hale was actually discussing a real legal tradition when he defended marital rape.

Why?
#15229284
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog why did you move this quote away from the other thread?

Take this idea back there and we'll go on.


Because this is where it is relevant.

The actions of the man in the OP were seen as legal precisely because of Hale and his legacy.

You seem to think that there is something to this tradition. I would like to know why.
#15229368
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.


The major question I have is why would a loving husband force himself on his loving wife? Isn't it more enjoyable if both sides are enjoying it freely? A woman can say no because maybe she has a migraine, she is menstrual (some women think menstrual blood smells like fish blood, hardly sexy), maybe she is feeling indigestion...there are many reasons why a woman is not "in the mood" for sex. I believe that it's wrong to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Like if a woman just broke her leg, do you think she wants to have sex with a man? If it's really painful then probably not. Not everybody likes extreme pain while having sex.

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.


Marriage should be about love and respect. If a husband does not respect the wife, the wife can say, "Hey you, you don't respect me. I am unhappy about this. We need to discuss this." If instead the husband is like, "Me don't want to discuss. You need to open your legs for me." Then this has entered the territory of rape. This is unacceptable and barbaric. A marriage is a partnership, a relationship, it should not be focused on whether the man is getting any.
#15229388
Puffer Fish wrote:I don't think you understand why marital rape is different from regular rape then.
It isn't but you're too fucking stupid and much too much of a rape advocate to think otherwise.

It doesn't matter if the husband was nice and faithful, any more than if that serial killer was a good neighbor.

You're just another sexual predator looking for excuses. Fuck you.
#15229455
It would be interesting to compare your views in this thread discussion to this one:

Woman sent to prison for "sexual assault" for misrepresenting her gender
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=181278

Hypocritically, most of you who support the right of consent in this story and call it "rape" had the complete opposite opinion in that other thread, where I argued it was rape and most all of you argued it was not.
#15229467
Tricking someone into thinking you are something that you are not(misrepresentation), is normally fraud, but in a sexual situation, you could argue it was a form of sexual assault/sexual deception, but it might fall into a grey area of the law.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. If a man/woman consented to sleep with a person with EXPLICIT CONSENT that the person was a female/male, and they were not, you can argue that they were guilty of having sex without consent.

@Puffer Fish Quote the people who said it was NOT rape. You make false claims constantly.
#15229469
Puffer Fish wrote:It would be interesting to compare your views in this thread discussion to this one:

Woman sent to prison for "sexual assault" for misrepresenting her gender
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=181278

Hypocritically, most of you who support the right of consent in this story and call it "rape" had the complete opposite opinion in that other thread, where I argued it was rape and most all of you argued it was not.


You misrepresenting what people said on the other thread.
#15229486
pugsville wrote:You misrepresenting what people said on the other thread.

My apologies. I posted that same thread on another forum and got different responses. I guess I had that in mind.

The American Progressive Left has become so ideologically radicalized they have to insist it cannot be rape, because gender does not matter and sexual attraction is gender-fluid, supposedly. (Okay, and it was also posted in that forum's "Gay & Lesbian Rights" section, which probably had something to do with it and attracted certain types of respondents)
#15229490
Puffer Fish wrote:My apologies. I posted that same thread on another forum and got different responses. I guess I had that in mind.

The American Progressive Left has become so ideologically radicalized they have to insist it cannot be rape, because gender does not matter and sexual attraction is gender-fluid, supposedly. (Okay, and it was also posted in that forum's "Gay & Lesbian Rights" section, which probably had something to do with it and attracted certain types of respondents)


Yeah right no one here made that argument. Phantom arguments on other boards are pretty irrelevant. Go there if you want to debate those views,.
#15229638
From the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 ...
"RAPE (from Lat. rapere, to seize), in law, the crime of having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, forcibly and unlawfully against her will."



The simplistic idea that "rape is rape" is not so totally simple as that.

"The law of England regards as immaterial whether the woman is chaste or unchaste, married or single, provided the offence has been committed forcibly and without her consent. The offence is complete if consent is extorted by means of threats of death or immediate bodily harm, by fraud or by false pretenses or representation, such as the impersonation of a woman's husband (Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885)."​

So even if she willingly consents to sex in that specific instance, it can still be rape.

Imagine a man who takes advantage of a blind woman and she thinks he's her husband.

So consent to specific acts of sex is not the complete definition of what rape is.
#15229647
It's not 1911, you dumbass. I am sure if you go back far enough it says about how great slavery and beheading your enemies is, too. :knife:

Puffer Fish wrote:Imagine a man who takes advantage of a blind woman and she thinks he's her husband.
:eh: That would be rape. It would be tricking the blind woman, who give consent under the false assumption that it's her husband. You're advocating rape YET AGAIN.

Puffer Fish wrote:So consent to specific acts of sex is not the complete definition of what rape is.
Consent is a key component of rape. You like to gloss over that fact.

You're just another scumbag misogynist who wants the be able to rape his potential spouse. You lack the morals and ethics of a reasonable and rational person, when it comes to dealing with women. Your argument are not logical, but based on your emotions.
#15230016
Godstud wrote: :eh: That would be rape. It would be tricking the blind woman, who give consent under the false assumption that it's her husband. You're advocating rape YET AGAIN.

Consent is a key component of rape. You like to gloss over that fact.

I think you miss my point. She could still consent to sex in that specific instance, but it would still be rape.
So rape does not always correlate to consent.
My argument boiled down to, if rape can exist in the presence of consent to sex in a specific instance, then there's not a necessary reason why lack of consent to sex in a specific instance would automatically equate to rape, in all cases.

Godstud wrote:You're just another scumbag misogynist who wants the be able to rape his potential spouse. You lack the morals and ethics of a reasonable and rational person, when it comes to dealing with women. Your argument are not logical, but based on your emotions.

All I'm asking for is to turn back the clock to the 1940s.

Do you think people were crazy and unreasonable then?
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 27 May 2022 07:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15230028
Puffer Fish wrote:I think you miss my point. She could still consent to sex in that specific instance, but it would still be rape.
So rape does not always correlate to consent.
Yes, it does if the consent is given under false pretenses.

Puffer Fish wrote:My argument boiled down to, if rape can exist in the presence of consent to sex in a specific instance, then there's not a necessary reason why lack of consent to sex in a specific instance would automatically equate to rape, in all cases.
Wake the fuck up! If explicit consent is not given for sex, it is rape. Why are you always condoning rape? Are you just trying justify something you've already done? :eh:

Puffer Fish wrote:All I'm asking for is to turn back the clock to the 1940s.
No. Fuck off. This isn't the 1940s.
#15230273
Godstud wrote: Wake the fuck up! If explicit consent is not given for sex, it is rape.

It sounds like this is a definition argument.
You are using the word with a slightly different definition.

You know what a circular logic fallacy is, don't you?

Your argument basically boils down to "It is rape because that's the definition of rape"

When you use the word it may not have exactly the same meaning as when people in other parts of the world use the word. Or how the society in your country's past used the word.


This isn't just some arbitrary exception. There are some legitimate reasons why, when it is done to a spouse, it is not as bad and is not the same thing as it is when done to someone who is not a spouse. The issue is not merely one all about consent in that individual instance.
#15230348
Puffer Fish wrote:It sounds like this is a definition argument.
You are using the word with a slightly different definition.
That is the definition and the LEGAL definition. You hate both because they don't support your misogyny and rapey BS.

The definitions are extremely similar:

Rape
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

Rape
A crime at common law defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with someone without their consent and by means of fear or force.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rape

Puffer Fish wrote:You know what a circular logic fallacy is, don't you?
Yes. That's what you are doing because you are delusional in your support of raping your wife.

Puffer Fish wrote:Your argument basically boils down to "It is rape because that's the definition of rape"
Words have meanings. That is how language works.

Puffer Fish wrote:When you use the word it may not have exactly the same meaning as when people in other parts of the world use the word. Or how the society in your country's past used the word.
The meanings of some words change, too. We are discussing this in English. The meaning of rape/sexual assault has not changed. You're now arguing about definitions to support your pro-rape stance?

Puffer Fish wrote:This isn't just some arbitrary exception. There are some legitimate reasons why, when it is done to a spouse, it is not as bad and is not the same thing as it is when done to someone who is not a spouse. The issue is not merely one all about consent in that individual instance.
No is IS an arbitrary exception because rape is illegal in our society.

It is WORSE when done to a spouse because this isn't some random person, but a person you have made marriage vows to. This is a person you have vowed to love and respect. I'll bet you are one of those cunts who preaches about the sanctity of marriage, but then wants to beat and rape his wife. :knife:

You really hate the idea of consent, don't you?

Stay away from women. You're toxic.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

America was always a shithole backwater, a nation[…]

JINO, judge in name only

you like the choo? No sir, find i like it too muc[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Let me know another example when a perfectly heal[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why did Lysychansk fall so fast? https://i[…]