Gun Control UK Style

And if we're talking about Sean Connery-style domestic violence, no I don't believe that should be grounds for permanently taking away the man's rights...

(he took a lot of flack for his comments in the Barbara Walters interview and later had to backpedal)

Oh, and let's not forget the double standards. Women can get away with doing all sorts of stuff to men that the man would be arrested for if he ever tried. That was the case in my family.

 

What particular style is being referred to that applied to the individual Sean Connery?

 

Psychological abuse is of course a significant issue. Rape is also a significant issue. There are different aspects in spousal abuse. However, I referred to something rather specific: wife beating.

 

And spousal rape isn't the same thing as rape rape. Not saying it's okay but they're not anywhere close to being in the same league.

(For those who stress the equivalence, I believe they trivialize real rape, to some extent)

And I simply stated that I don't believe it's appropriate for you to so cajoledly put all these cases under the same umbrella.

 

Rape Rape ?
Are you kidding ?

 

Are you kidding? You think it's the same exact thing for a man to rape a woman who already consented to have sex with him the other night as it is a man whom the woman never consented to have sex with before?

 

I do not kid about Rape.

Rape is one crime, and spousal Rape is still Rape as it is no longer consensual and is prosecuted by the same standard, since consensual sex is not a crime, hence why age of consent is an issue as Statutory Rape of a person below the age of consent.
The violent crime of Rape is independent of marital status.

 

And then we can go all the way, and it becomes a slippery slope, and it ends up like Sweden where a man can be prosecuted for "rape" because he non-consensually slipped off his condom without the woman knowing or giving her explicit consent. (Julian Assange)

The fact that trying to draw an equivalence to rape ends up trivializing actual rape can be seen in the standard rape sentences meted out in the UK, which are far far lighter than those in the US. A brutal rape by a stranger in a dark alley is not the same thing as a woman being coercisively violated by her husband, but the UK almost seems to treat it as such.

 

You can be prosecuted for Rape of a Woman after consensual sex, and she files charges as well as D.N.A. tests that prove your sperm was in her Vagina.
Be careful who you have sex with.

Like many celebrities accused of Rape, 20 years after the original alleged crime.

 

There;'s no rational reason to place ineffective and meaningless restrictions on the exercise of a right.

I see you have mastered the post hoc fallacy.
Tell us how correlation proves causation.

Ah - the ad hom. Final refuge of those who know they cannot meaningfully add to a conversation.

 

I believe marriage (or even being in a long-term committed relationship) constitutes some level of consent. I'm not saying the woman gives up all her rights to not consent, but there is some level of background consent that has already been given.

Societal attitudes have changed about this over the years. If you think about Alfred Hitchcock's 1964 film Marnie, there's a scene where the husband (coincidentally played by Sean Connery) rapes his newly married wife on their honeymoon cruise. The appearance of such a scene like that in a movie at that time would have never been acceptable to show to the public in theaters if the two characters hadn't been married.

 

Rape is a crime of violence, and consent evaporated when a Woman acuses a Man of Raping Her with evidence presented by a Physician, regardless of marital status or prior relationship as crimes of violence are prosecuted as such, including any violent crime involving sex.

 

I've heard of stories of women ruffing themselves up a little bit so they can show proof of domestic violence and get the man out of the house.

We're not just talking about putting the man in jail for a little bit, we're talking about permanently taking away his rights for life here.

 

Vaginal tearing and DNA + Medical evidence, is sufficient prosecutorial evidence of Rape.

 

By your standards any wife could easily accuse her husband of rape if they got into a fight or were going through a messy divorce, and the wife wanted to make sure she got a bigger share of the assets or gain full custody of the children (allowing her to collect child support, a frequent reason).

 

Not my standards, if a married man is charged with the Rape of his Wife, a crime of violence, he will be prosecuted for that crime.

 

Not saying it is not appropriate to have the man punished in that instance, but due to the particular nature of the circumstance I do not believe it is justified grounds to take away his civil rights for a very long extended period of time.

 

That was the final intrinsic destruction of heterosexual marriage predicted by wingers, occuring in 2052, and Gay People were NOT the cause.

 

Your extreme views keep slipping through. I have no time for it.

 

Exteme? You and DoctorWho are the ones who live in a whacky country taken over by feminist values, where marriage counts as nothing and a woman's husband is punished like a rapist just as if it had been any other man.

Most of the world doesn't see things the way you do. Take the muslims for example, although they take things to the other opposite extreme.

 

They just make that violence 100% more likely to be lethal be that for victim , perpetrartor ..... or didnt you get the memo ? Do the math though I know thats a challenge for you mathematically challenged guys

The sad truth is you like the violence and dress up the legitimacy for that in your wildly skewd interpretation of your long obsolete 18th century constitution ... but hey fill your boots after all who cares as long as its someone elses usually impoversished loved ones paying the ultimate price .... right ?

 

Wouldn't you say such a criminal is likely to eventually go on to kill someone anyway?
Yet we can't permanently put them away until they do so.
So, the way I see it, maybe it's better (relatively speaking) that they kill someone and get that out of the way as soon as possible so they don't go on to do any more damage to society.

(of course I'm not saying this is the case in all cases, but it is the case in some)

 

No thats pure 'Dirty Harry' Hollywood. The real world really isn't like that ..... even in the US

 

In other words you're arguing that 99% of the people who would kill someone with a gun wouldn't bother killing someone using other means at their disposal, if you took the gun out of the equation.

Or do you believe most of these killings aren't really done with the explicit intention specifically to kill and there are lots of people who enjoy going around stabbing or shooting people, so better that they use a knife because that carries a slightly lower risk of fatality? (Because that could be an argument right there)

 

Yes I am arguing that. A gun makes that much too easy as your consequently abysmal murder and gun death stats across the board confirm