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

So it is.
It is enough there to tell some girl that she is beautiful.
Then she can accuse you of "rape" - and you will never see the daylight again.

 

Why always husband and wife?
Can't you imagine that un-married people have sex, too?

 

Of course I can, but Kazenatsu insists that marriage makes a difference here, so I'm trying to show him the flaw in his "logic." He's arguing that marital rape isn't rape because marriage implies consent.

 

Where in the marriage vows did I agree to pegging?

 

The same place where you agree to forever give up your right to consent.

 

Sometimes you gotta take one for the team

 

You're a really good sport about getting pegged, then. Good on you for being open-minded. Not my thing, but I can respect it.

 

You two apparently did not read this thread discussion well. I previously explained that there is a difference between "normal" sex and other forms of sex.

This isn't just a concept that I invented. It is the traditional view.
If a husband pushed his wife into a, shall we say, "non-conventional" form of sex, he would be viewed with much less sympathy, and criminal action against him would have been more likely.

Obviously the woman did not sign up for that.

 

Any time she says no, she didn't sign up for it. That's how saying no works.

 

So you don’t have to take one for the team? No bend for a friend? No stoop for the group?

 

Personally I do think the husband/wife should have to make sacrifices for the sake of sexually satisfying their partner, but that is a whole different level of expectations.

There should (in my view) be a legal distinction between "vanilla" sex and other forms of sex, in this sort of situation.

It would be ridiculous for the husband to tie up his wife and start whipping her in some sort of demented BDSM fantasy, claiming that she married him so she signed up for this.

 

It would be just as ridiculous to claim that it isn't rape for a husband to rape his wife. Your entire argument is based on the idea that a woman is property and has no agency once she says "I do." Maybe you can one day learn that wives are humans with rights.

 

What if the married couple did engage in bdsm on the regular but she didn’t feel like it anymore?
What if they liked to asphyxiate her during coitus but she no longer wanted to?

 

I think an argument could be made that that would be somewhat of a legal defense for the man. Should it then be legalized in that situation? No, but I would think the punishment should be less, and maybe they will scrutinize the evidence more, and perhaps not choose to convict him in some cases.

 

That is an interesting question, and I'm honestly not entirely sure. It is complicated by several details. I think it also depends on whether it can be proved that she is willing to continue later on asphyxiating herself, even after the alleged assault.

Putting someone's life at risk (against their will) is just not the same if that person puts their own life at risk in that same way all the time.

I'm inclined to believe it should be illegal, but that is probably mainly because I do not approve of that practice in the first place (whether consensual or not). It should probably result in less punishment. After all, if the same man is only doing the exact same thing that he has consensually done to her before...

 

Sounds like circular logic.

It would be no less meaningful for me to make the statement "It would be ridiculous to claim that something that isn't rape is rape."

Even if we do accept that it is rape (whatever meaning that has), I have still laid out a list of reasons why there are some significant differences when it happens inside a marriage (a traditional conservative marriage; if you're talking about one of these modern marriages then all bets are off).

 

She must have missed the "to have and to hold" part of the marriage vows.

But like I said, this does not apply to many modern marriages, which are either totally changing the traditional vows, or they do not mean them or do not even know what it means and are saying them only out of tradition.

When marriage has become "You are my semi-permanent sexual partner, and I'm not really committing myself to you very seriously, and my promise isn't really that strong because I need to consider my own self best hedonistic interests in the future, and it is possible someone better may come along", then obviously that is not the same sort of marriage that there used to be and different rules will naturally be seen to apply.

It's very revealing that some in this forum have said "If a husband's wife is not having sex with him, he should get it from somewhere else." That is totally revealing about what their conception of "marriage" is.

If that's what you think is a normal marriage, then I can see how you would view it as natural and self-evident that no special rules should apply. Because this form of "marriage" really isn't that different from casual sexual relationships with numerous different partners.

 

"To have and to hold" does not mean "I revoke my right to consent and can be raped any time my husband wants." The only thing "revealing" here is your belief that it does.

 

It seems you are attempting to create an argument from extremes.
That is not exactly what I claimed.

 

You literally claimed that "to have and to hold" means the woman gives up consent in perpetuity. If you would like to backtrack now, then feel free to do so. That's a smart move.

 

The wedding vows have changed, worse translated in todays vernacular is 'best', "Do you take, xxxx for better or best", for rich or richer, good times and great times till boredom do you part?

 

"...until your new wife does not feel like putting out anymore..."

 

some democrats say that there shouldn't be any age of consent.

most rapists are democrats in general. and that is why so many politician democrats and democrat voters always stand up for themselves.

 

You should try to read threads before "commenting" in them.

 

SUch is his worldview. He only thinks in terms of groups, and I do use think rather loosely, and never in terms of individuals. And then he ignores all that the groups he favors does wrong. Like the fact that the democrats have been the ones who have had the age of consent raised and the republicans who fought to keep them low.