Two different stories about consent and "rape", a paradox

Who are you to determine what they will?

This is all the more reason why maybe there should be two different forms of marriage for people to be able to choose from, with different legal implications. The Socially Progressive Left obviously has a very different view on marriage.

If the man wants to enter into a "progressive" marriage, he better be aware the woman can sue him for rape if she even claims he slipped off his condom. The woman, meanwhile, should be aware she is not going to get any alimony.

 

They are the SAME situation ...being married does NOT change that/

What can't you get about being married NOT changing anyone's rights ???
IT DOESN'T AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN IT DOES.

 

What can't you get about being married NOT changing anyone's rights ???
IT DOESN'T AND YOU HAVE NEVER PROVEN IT DOES.


BTW, YOU don't want the government in the bedroom but you LOVE Big Government when it's in a woman's womb..

 

I haven't been trying to...that would be YOU.

Even if the "socially Progressive Left" feel that way they aren't trying to cram it down other's throats as YOU are trying to do.
Each couple that marries have different views on marriage..

LOL women get alimony , women get alimony

...and they don't lose their rights when they get married

 

This is a man whom the woman has chosen to enter into a marriage with, to devote her life to, to enter into a sexual union with. She has already had consensual sex with him plenty of times before. The man is not really doing anything physically that different to her from what he has already done many times before.

It's obviously not the same as what we ordinarily think of as rape.

To top it all off, the two are presumably remaining faithful to each other, so it's not even like the man could introduce a disease to her. And even if he gets her pregnant, that is not so terrible either because they ARE MARRIED.

If you want to call it "rape", then we are just arguing over semantics. It's not anywhere near as bad.

 

Once again your defense of rape is quite sickening....and your idea that people lose rights when they marry is really only your dream....nothing to do with reality.

 

It is rape. Period. That's not semantics. That's just acknowledging the consent matters. Why are you so offended by the concept of a woman having basic rights?

 

I'm probably just repeating myself over and over again, but... there is some level of consent that already exists. The woman did consent to sex with that guy. She consented to a sexual union with him, an exclusive sexual partnership, she consented to numerous sex acts in the past with that specific guy, and by staying in that marriage relationship she is tacitly consenting to continuing ongoing sex in the future, at unspecified times.

It's not exactly the same level of consent that is violated in a rape.

Okay, think of it this way. Suppose the woman has an eye surgery in both eyes, temporarily cannot see, and someone else takes advantage of her and pretends to be her husband and she "consents" to sex.
That is pretty much the complete reverse of what non-consensual marital sex is.

When you think of it that way, and use some logic and thought, I think you will be able to see that there are many consensual aspects that do exist in this situation, even if the woman didn't give her consent in this specific instance.

 

The whole argument ignores the basic concept that consent is not a one time never to be revoked matter. While I will agree that getting married is implied consent, the woman still has the right and ability to withdraw consent, even if it is temporary. In other words, using your initial example (or one example given earlier. I've not the time to scroll back on my phone), if he initiates and she says no, she has withdrawn consent, at least for that time, and his continuance does constitute rape.

 

I'm probably just repeating myself in my attempt to get you to actually respect women. Consenting to sex in the past does not mean consent to all future encounters. Legally, or ethically. Can you understand that consent matters?

 

We are talking about different levels of consent; and the argument is not only about consent.

Like has already been repeated over and over again, there can be consent to some aspects of a sexual encounter, but not to others. It's not just a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Even if the woman does say 'no', she can have a lot more legitimate reason to say no in one situation than another.

In the first story in the opening post, the woman did not even say 'no' before or during intercourse.

 

Yes, it ****ing is. If a woman says no, she is denying consent. ****ing her without that consent is rape. Listen. Learn.

 

Well there's our problem. You are trying to make this all, 100%, about consent.

Reality is that is NOT the only reason rape that rape is wrong.

If you only bothered to think about this, you would see that a woman can have many very strong and legitimate reasons not to want to have sex in an ordinary rape. You seem to just brush all that away when you say the only reason it is wrong is because of how the woman was whimsically feeling in that moment.

Or to go second-guessing, after the fact, what decision she would have made, if she had known certain facts. (like in the first story in the opening post)

 

That's 100% what separates consensual sex from rape.

Reality is that rape is 100% wrong.

Did you actually read this before posting it?

 

We are not talking about whether "rape is 100% wrong". And even if that was what we were talking about, surely you would agree that some rapes are worse and more wrong than others?

No, you just think it is. It is a percentage, but not 100%.


You don't seem to be making any arguments here. Just repeated and insistent claims.

You seem to have very "black and white" thinking.

 

It is no okay to have sex with someone who has told you they don't want to have sex with you. Period. It doesn't matter if they consented in the past. Please tell me you understand this.

 

That is never what I have claimed.

Just that it might not rise the level of being an actual rape.

(And remember, in the first story, which you still view as a rape, the woman did not say she didn't want to have sex to her partner before it happened)

 

You claimed that previous consent somehow counts. It doesn't.

 

It is a factor.

You are trying to make this all 'yes' or 'no', black and white.

Did it occur to you that one violation could only be 10% as bad as another violation, in some different situation?

 

Yes . . . and? I don't understand why you are perplexed by this concept. What don't you get?

 

No means no. If she says no, it is black and white. If she says no, don't **** her. Otherwise it is rape. Do you understand? If you don't, we have a serious problem.

 

Well, then there are really TWO different issues here. You view both situations as a rape, but your argument about consent doesn't really apply to the first situation.

 

Yes, it does. And both situations are rape. "Consent" through deception isn't consent.

 

You're trying to apply the same exact rules that apply to casual sexual encounters to long-term committed relationships and marriages.

The fact that you view a situation between two random people as applying exactly the same to a situation between husband and wife is absurd.

Just as one example, a long-term boyfriend doesn't have to specifically ask his girlfriend for permission before he hops in the bed naked with her and presses up against her. If he has already done it many times before with her. So there is a difference.

 

Consent applies to both. Yes. The exact same ****ing rules apply to consent

The fact that you think that consent only sometimes matters is both absurd and worrisome. Please learn that rape is wrong.