Woman claimed her husband repeatedly raped her, jury says he is not guilty

Which will just contribute to marriages collapsing.
This might not be good for the man, or for the woman.

I'm aware of one man who is considering a divorce just because his wife keeps calling the police on him and making stuff up and exaggerating. He's afraid it could just continue to escalate and if he doesn't get out now, his wife might get so emotional in the future her false accusations could send him to prison.
In the old days, he wouldn't have had to be considering that.

If he leaves her, there's probably no other man that would be suitable for marriage with this woman. She has been officially diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

 

You posted a bible verse that was saying she must submit. I don't remember which one you posted, perhaps one of these 3.

...
Ephesians 5:22-28.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church

Colossians 3:18,19.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.

1 Corinthians 11:3.
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

I should say sexual assault is sex against the will of the other.

Rape is a little more involved.

...
Definition of rape
(Entry 1 of 4)

1 : 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 — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
2 : an outrageous violation

 

Sorry, it's not that simple.
You are just making up definitions and pulling them up out of thin air. The woman chose to marry her husband. She chose to enter into a sexual relationship with this specific man, and chose to engage in sex with him in the past.

Not just a "sexual relationship", but an exclusive long-term sexual relationship, where they were only supposed to have sex with each other.

This isn't some casual sexual fling.

 

❓️~ I never commented on this thread. That comment is from another topic ... '

 

I see, so according to that definition, it's not "rape" if it happens not to be against the law and there is no threat of injury.

 

It is that simple.
I don't make up things. I give definitions.

...
What is Sexual Assault?
The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa

...
And the post you responded to had a definition for rape.

The woman is not a man's property upon marriage. Why do you think they are? Because of the bible?

 

Then it doesn't seem like you are making an argument at all.

How about this? Rape does not include sex in marriage. The end.


You want to talk about definitions?
How about this? 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."

 

How do you assume that à no from time to time equals not wanting a family?
The OP says he assaulted her "repeatedly". It is basic psychology that you do not attract someone by using physical force. I know I dont get my dog to return by shouting at her.
You so conveniently forget that marriage vows ask each to "HONOUR" the other. You have no information on how often she says Yes.
You seem to have the médiéval assumption that marriage is a licence for sex on demand. Yet the love that is supposed to leadership to marriage is about care, respect, tenderness, communication, protection. NOT assault at will.
Men do not own women today. The idea is arrchaic.

 

That depends on the definition of "assault". We are talking about semantics. This is not a good basis to have a logical argument.

Would you be willing to state instead that he forced himself on his wife several times?

Even if he did do something bad, theoretically worthy of being punished, we have to weigh the severity of what he actually did with the certainty of evidence that he did it. (Some might not like that concept because it could incentivize the woman to lie, or tell a bigger lie)

I do not forget that. But that is not a legally imposed obligation. That could be an argument to impassionately argue in the court room but it is not really a legal argument.

I don't think it can be used to "neutralize" other implicit consent in the marriage agreement. The vows are really a separate component from the covenant.


Please tell me if you are having difficulty understanding and translating all the words I am using. I know English is not your first language. I can repeat the entire messages in my future posts in French if that makes it easier for you.

 

You know, it would be interesting to compare your views in this thread with this one:

woman sent to prison for "sexual assault" for misrepresenting her gender

Very paradoxically, I think most of you who say it is rape in this thread would say it is not in that other story, and vice versa too.
Even though both involve more complicated cases of "consent".

 

OK. Enough squirming.
First, English is my first language. I was born in the UK, began speaking English as my first langage, liked in the US for 17 years and want back to the UK where I studied English langage and Litérature and taught them at high school level for nearly 40 years until I retirer.
So I am quite sensitive to your wriggling, sqirrming, torturous attempts to avoid your own contradictions.
You dont get to quote biblical text or marriage vows at me and then prevaricate over the important Word both say...HONOUR.
And à convenant is a defined relationship between two or more parties. VOWS that they will be respected. There is nothing "implicit" in them. It is clear and agreed in front of witnesses. You dont get to start rewriting them.
Nowhere does the convenant say à man can demand sex whenever he wants. Or that à woman has to lié back and take whatever makes him feel good.
You are confusing promises of fidelity with your archaic assumption of à Mans rights to assault his wife. And it is assault /rape when she says no. It really is that simple.
I suggest you go back and reread what the marriage service says. What both vow to each other. "To love and HONOUR" ...which means respect and implies à position inferior to the other. It moves towards worship and submission.
Love is about GIVING, not taking. A Christian doesn't marry for free sex on demand. Even in Islam the first responsibility of à man is to PROTECT his family. Not to make demands against their wishes.
Now stop diverting, ignoring and skirting around the points I make to you and diving into semantics. The OP says repetitively" and the fact that à jury did not uphold her complaint is truly appalling. But since it has drifted into a discussion about the proper treatment of à married woman by her husband, it should conform to what he promises IN PUBLIC to her.
And that, in plain English, does not include sex on demand against her expressed wishes .
A vow to honour in à legal ceremony is not an obligation?? On what planet?
And if you wish to write in French, and the forum rules permit, I will reply in kind. I have been speaking French since I was five and living it for 20 years.

 

Another diversion.
We are discussing the repeatedly assault of à man against his wife, inside a hétérosexuel marriage.
Nothing like your story.
stop wriggling..

 

Marital rape is rape. No one owes you sex to the point that you can force them into it. No one. Not getting enough from your spouse? Try to work it out. If you can't, get a divorce. If you force yourself onto your spouse against their will, you are a rapist. If you defend someone for doing so, you are a rape apologist.

 

The laws don't give a rats patooty about your personal opinion. THE END!!!!

If you want to live 1911 or earlier, by all means do so.
Don't expect the rest of the world to go back to knuckle dragging times.

 

You are making a false and casual equivocation fallacy. Whether it should be a legal matter is not exactly the same question as what you consider it (word semantics) or whether it is wrong.

The wife does have some duties and obligations to her husband, which, while it doesn't make it right, does mitigate the wrong that was done to her a little bit. But that is not the main reason for my argument.

There is also "statutory rape", which is not quite the same thing as "rape" (despite the name). It depends exactly how you are using the word and what conception you attach to it.

In some legal jurisdictions, whether it is viewed as being a criminal offense is dependent upon the exact level of "force" used.

Which I think is not entirely unreasonable.

In the state of South Carolina, a weapon or aggravated violence has to be used for it to fall under the legal classification of rape.

 

The country of Bangladesh has a law that makes marital rape illegal if the wife is not older than 13 years.
Since apparently some girls marry at age 12 or 13 there, and due to their vulnerability are seen as deserving of special protections.

While that age is far too low, this type of age-dependent law is something to consider. For example if the girl is younger than 18 or 19, or if she is in her early 20s and her husband is much older than her.

 

This 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.

 

I accidently put this here, but I think I'll leave it because of the connection to the other thread.

Say someone gave you a sandwich and you ate it and then later on tried to give you another sandwich, but you said you were not hungry, would it be ok for that person to force you to eat that sandwich?
What if you made a deal with that person that they would make you sandwiches, and you would eat them, would it still be ok for them to force you to eat it?

Now let's say that someone offered you a some fried shrimp, and after you ate them, you discovered they were actually fried crickets, do you have the right to be mad?

This is what consent is about.

 

Oh, yes, he does.

 

No, she doesn't....she is not property....women do not give up their rights when they marry.

 

I was talking about ethics, not legality. You are the one making the false equivalence that you are accusing me of.

 

Another straw man.

 

You're being illogical Fox Hastings. That is only a small part of the total argument.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, she doesn't....she is not property....women do not give up their rights when they marry.

It's a statement of fact....maybe that's why you think it's illogical.