Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty - Page 12 - 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.
#15230352
Godstud wrote:That is the definition and the LEGAL definition. You hate both because they don't support your misogyny and rapey BS.

The definition has been CHANGED. Due to Feminist ideological and social bias, and marriage becoming seen as much less important and sex outside marriage becoming much more common and prevalent than it used to.

Now they have begun trying to apply rules that apply to casual sex (outside of marriage) to sex inside of marriage. Probably something that most of the society could not yet imagine at the start of the "sexual revolution".
#15230355
Yes. Definitions of words change. This happens to many things. Morality changes, as well.

Slavery is no longer acceptable. Raping your wife is no longer acceptable. If you don't like that, then tough shit.

You have no argument.

You're a rapist looking for someone to agree with your immoral/illegal and disgusting archaic views.

If I knew who you were, I'd contact your local police and report you as a potential sexual offender.
#15230361
It's not "left" to not want to rape and hurt others. I think you lack any morality. Slavery is ALSO not acceptable now.

Educate yourself.
In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_ ... historical)%20linguistics,time%20have%20very%20different%20meanings.

20 words that once meant something very different
https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-onc ... different/


Puffer Fish wrote:You realise that is even more twisted than marital rape?!
:eh: Words changing is more twisted than marital rape, which you say is nothing? Fuck off, Rapist wanna-be!!
#15230401
Godstud wrote:People don't knowingly marry rapists.

Some women most definitely do knowingly marry rapists. In modern western societies women skew significantly more liberal than men on women's issues, but a surprising number of women have quite reactionary views on these questions. In addition women are attracted to dominance men. What is referred to as "toxic masculinity" could also be called intoxicating masculinity. Take OJ Simpson, he was certainly very attractive to a lot of women, but even he suffered from his nice guy image. After he murdered Ron Goldman and his children's mother, he had women throwing themselves at him like never before.
#15230421
Rich wrote:Some women most definitely do knowingly marry rapists.
Nope, and your example is not a person who was a rapist, but a murderer.

Rich wrote:After he murdered Ron Goldman and his children's mother, he had women throwing themselves at him like never before.
He was a murderer, not a rapist. Some people have mental illnesses that make them attracted to this sort of thing.

Being attracted to a dominant male does not mean that that dominant male doesn't have consent to sex.
#15230439
Godstud wrote:
Nope, and your example is not a person who was a rapist, but a murderer.

He was a murderer, not a rapist. Some people have mental illnesses that make them attracted to this sort of thing.

Being attracted to a dominant male does not mean that that dominant male doesn't have consent to sex.



This is the old world trying to kill the new. I usually call it the Modern Era, and it started in the 1800s.

Dominance, violence, misogyny, terrorism, maybe even the Civil War. Ahh, the good ol' days.
#15230475
Puffer Fish wrote:The definition has been CHANGED. Due to Feminist ideological and social bias, and marriage becoming seen as much less important and sex outside marriage becoming much more common and prevalent than it used to.

Now they have begun trying to apply rules that apply to casual sex (outside of marriage) to sex inside of marriage. Probably something that most of the society could not yet imagine at the start of the "sexual revolution".


Oh, so you think that before the "sexual revolution", women always liked being sexually roughed up and abused by their husbands? That is so messed up. At any time period, women were raped by their husbands. It's just that the law has evolved to eventually realize that marital rape is wrong and should be punishable by law, thereby protecting the victims.

I'm glad that the US recognizes domestic abuse and the abused can report it. And the authorities will investigate the incidents. Any kind of abuse is damaging to physical health and mental health. I have known people with mental issues, not necessarily caused by sexual abuse, but I know it's hard for them to live normally with their issues. I admire them for doing their best to get through their days, despite their mental baggage.
#15230584
Godstud wrote:Nope, and your example is not a person who was a rapist, but a murderer.

He was a murderer, not a rapist. Some people have mental illnesses that make them attracted to this sort of thing.

:lol: I have to say your faith in murderers is touching. He murdered 2 people, one of them the mother of his children, who were upstairs at the time, nearly severing Nicole's head. He'd severely beaten her on a number of occasions, the idea that he wouldn't force sex, or that a female partner wouldn't agree to sex out of shear terror is just absurd. If a man is willing to batter a woman let alone murder one, I think a woman can take it as a fairly safe assumption that he won't be respecting her physical boundaries.

Being attracted to a dominant male does not mean that that dominant male doesn't have consent to sex.

I agree with what the rules should be, but enforcing those rules is very difficult when so many woman do not prioritise respect for this sexual and physical boundaries or in many cases don't even believe in the principles.
#15230586
Rich wrote::lol: I have to say your faith in murderers is touching.
:roll: I do not "have faith". I am going by what I know, not what I suspect. You are making a claim you can't support. There was no evidence that he raped his wife. I was going by the simple facts. I have no doubt that other murderers might not do this, though. I just think your example was perhaps poor.

Rich wrote:I agree with what the rules should be, but enforcing those rules is very difficult when so many woman do not prioritise respect for this sexual and physical boundaries or in many cases don't even believe in the principles.
:eh: You are trying to blame the victim for being victimized. Do you have evidence to back up this absurd claim?
#15230602
Godstud wrote: :eh: You are trying to blame the victim for being victimized. Do you have evidence to back up this absurd claim?

If you mean I'm trying to shift the blame and reduce palpability of the perpetrator I am most certainly not. O.J Simpson should have received the death penalty and might well have done if it had been a Black African woman that he'd murdered. He should also have been convicted for the assaults earlier.

However if you mean do I blame women for contributing to the acceptance of a culture where women's sexual and physical boundaries are not respected, I most certainly do. The Simpson case is a very useful one because, it has been so well investigated, analysed and publicised. We have evidence that Simpson sexually assaulted Nicole Brown on their first date. But she continued because "she really liked him". It was her choice repeatedly not to press charges. She lied to the police falsely claiming that any violence was as much her as him.

I'm giving this one well known, even notorious example, but it is indicative of what happens in so many heterosexual interactions. Some women are very strong in their assertion of their boundaries and that's good, but it is just a fact that many women are not. You see the problem is the left doesn't really care about women's rights. Its only interested in them as a way to attack "capitalism" or "Whites"

To really establish a fully new culture would require women to break off relations immediately that their boundaries are crossed. But his is not going to happen. So we have to deal with the messy situation as best we can. If a friend was stealing stuff from your house you wouldn't keep inviting the round.
#15230680
I was going to stay out of this but what the hell. It is a quiet day.

The jury acquitted this guy in less than two hours. Perhaps the jury looked at the evidence and said, "it is she said/he said". In that case they must, under US law, acquit. In a criminal matter the evidence required for conviction is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt". If any member of the jury had doubt that a rape occurred they must vote to acquit. That is what happened with OJ (more is the pity). OJ was found "responsible in a civil case because the burden of proof there is only "preponderance of evidence".

I will say first off that forcing a woman to have sex is wrong. Full stop.

There is a problem with the issue of rape in general. It is an extremely charged word, and should be. But we are applying it in a wide variety of circumstances where it was not traditionally applied. Maybe we need some new terms. But this much is sure. The consequences for finding this guy guilty would have been to ruin his life. Maybe even lock him up for all of the rest of it. If I had been on the jury and faced with the possibility of putting some guy away forever or even just destroying his life, I would have to have some pretty good evidence.

There are those I have read who are deeply concerned by what they see as the overuse of the criminal courts to change what was, wrong as it may be by today's standards, traditional behaviors steeped in time. I doubt there are many on this thread mature enough to be capable of discussing this without bringing up the very worst cases upon which to base their argument so I probably won't engage.

My guess is that this was a combined case of over-charging the husband and/or proceeding to court without evidence sufficient to secure a guilty verdict in what most would see as the second most serious crime that there is. Actually this is pretty obviously what happened. Speaking ONLY with the comments in the OP, I am troubled by the assertion that this happened more than once and the woman did not act. None of us heard what the jury heard. In the US, because of dismissing the jury while many points of law are discussed, frequently nobody involved in the case actually hears what the jury hears and only what the jury hears.

I am a fan of juries. They are the backbone of our society. The jury of our peers stands all of us as equal before the law. Juries do not always rule as we would have them rule but they are the final deciders. As far as I am concerned the husband did not do the crime. The wife may not like the decision but that is too bad. The jury simply did not believe her. And that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
#15230928
Godstud wrote:@Drlee Read some of the shit Puffer Fish says, and you'll see this is just a thread trying to pretend men are victims as he justifies, and espouses, marital rape.


There is no justification for spousal rape. It seems to me to be the most abject act of betrayal that one can possible do. If it is true forcible rape it is a horrific crime.

It is, though, the very devil to prosecute.
#15232292
Drlee wrote:I am a fan of juries. They are the backbone of our society. The jury of our peers stands all of us as equal before the law. Juries do not always rule as we would have them rule but they are the final deciders. As far as I am concerned the husband did not do the crime. The wife may not like the decision but that is too bad. The jury simply did not believe her. And that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

I just think maybe the law should do more to specifically try to define what can constitute adequate evidence for the crime.

For example, if the only evidence is the woman's claim, should that be enough to be able to convict? The jury does not know because there is no law to guide them. Or in another case, if some illegal object is found in a person's house, should that be enough to convict them of an illegal possession charge? Again, the law does not give any guidance on this to a jury. The jury is pretty much going to have to make up their own law, because the law does not tell them how to interpret it, in what are very common types of situations.

Drlee wrote:There is no justification for spousal rape.

It is, though, the very devil to prosecute.

And that is why I started this thread discussion:
"How should accusations be handled in domestic relationships?"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=182198


By the way, excellent overall post. I can tell you put a lot of thoughtfulness into it and tried to be very reasonable, even if I didn't quite agree with every last one of your points.
#15232293
Puffer Fish wrote:For example, if the only evidence is the woman's claim, should that be enough to be able to convict?
It normally is not sufficient evidence. That's why your ranting is so unnecessary.

Puffer Fish wrote:Or in another case, if some illegal object is found in a person's house, should that be enough to convict them of an illegal possession charge?
Yes, since it's their house. They are the property owner and are responsible for things on their property. Personal responsibility.

Puffer Fish wrote:Again, the law does not give any guidance on this to a jury. The jury is pretty much going to have to make up their own law, because the law does not tell them how to interpret it, in what are very common types of situations.
The juries do not make up the laws, and are informed of what is, and what is not, written in law. They do not make the laws.

The jury's job is not to "interpret law". That is what the lawyers are there for. The juries are there to make a decision based on that interpretation, and make a judgement. The judge guides proceedings so they remain within the boundaries of the law.

You should sit in on some court proceedings. Most people don't have a clue how the law works, and TV is a terrible place to learn.
#15232297
Drlee wrote:There is no justification for spousal rape. It seems to me to be the most abject act of betrayal that one can possible do. If it is true forcible rape it is a horrific crime.

There could be some differences though between whether something is wrong and whether it should be prosecuted.
Even if it is wrong, there are some specific reasons that exist in this situation for why it should perhaps not be prosecuted, or why government should be reluctant to prosecute it.
#15232298
Puffer Fish wrote:For example, if the only evidence is the woman's claim, should that be enough to be able to convict?
Godstud wrote:It normally is not sufficient evidence. That's why your ranting is so unnecessary.

But you admit it sometimes is?

Why would you be opposed to a law directing the jury not to do something if you claim the jury will not do it anyway?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

If only that was true, maybe schools would be a l[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

The removal of rights was done by SCOTUS. This sho[…]

Krugman on Putin

Russia is backwards. You would need to be "[…]

How is this an argument against vaccines? The pl[…]