Marital Rape - What a "Can of Worms"!

Strike the root ^ | Stuart A. Miller

[wimpycat]

Whoops, you weren't talking about rape, you were talking about mistresses. Still, I don't think "holding out" is much of an excuse for cheating. Actually, I'd be more forgiving of my husband for cheating if I had a debilitating illness or medical condition that prohibited sex.

[Terriergal]

scary. Something like this shouldn't be even considered unless there is a formal restraining order on one of the spouses.

[AppyPappy]

I am telling you that only 70 years ago it was universally accepted by church going bible thumpers (male AND female) that wives were not to refuse sex as per commanded in the bible. I find it odd how people are so determined not to aknowledge this fact.

Repeating a lie does not make it a fact.

[AppyPappy]

So, using your logic, it is OK for a wife to sell herself as a prostitute if her husband won't give her money.

[mamelukesabre]

Repeating a lie does not make it a fact.

~~~~~~~~~~`

What part of my post are you calling a lie?!?!

I think you have some explaining to do Mr. If you are going to call someone a liar you'd better * well have all your * ducks in a row.

NOW LETS HAVE IT! either a retraction or a clarification, I mean it.

[wimpycat]

I agree, and I think that was one of the main reasons for passing a law like this. Too often, estranged husbands would rape their wives, but...since they were married, the idea was that a wife couldn't be "raped" by her husband.

Luckily, it would take a lot of extenuating circumstances (i.e. history of domestic violence, witness testimony, etc.) to convince a jury (especially if I was on the jury) of rape of a woman by her husband.

[AppyPappy]

The fact you think "bible thumpers" believed women cannot refuse their husbands.

[wimpycat]

So, using your logic, it is OK for a wife to sell herself as a prostitute if her husband won't give her money.

Good comeback! If the husband's not "getting any" at home, he should look to himself and his wife to find out why, instead of just "getting any" outside the marriage. If serious contemplation and marriage counseling doesn't work, maybe they should get divorced instead of cheating on each other.

[wimpycat]

Although I don't think the Bible ever justified that way of thinking, I think Mamelukesabre has a point. It doesn't matter if it was in the Bible or not, really. The fact is that certain groups of people, both so-called "Bible-thumpers" and non-bible thumpers as well, have throughout history believed that women should always submit to their husbands' sexual whims whether they felt like it or not. They didn't call it a "wifely duty" for nothing. During the Victorian era, all the fashionable experts believed that decent women weren't supposed to enjoy sex anyway. I don't think the people at large believed it for a second, but "Close your eyes and think of England" was the fashionable advice to give to a young woman on her wedding night.

[drjimmy]

The statistics cited in this article are either contradictory or unbelievable.
Many of them are also non-sequitors. They don't have any relationship to the issue of marital rape. While the issue is worthy of some discussion, this article is bullfeathers.

[Chemist_Geek]

Actually, being simple and hopeless helps keep me single. :^)

But, reading news stories like these makes me thank God I'm single.

[Chemist_Geek]

Very, very few ADAs out there are willing to risk charging a man with rape without, at the very least, some physical evidence. I am not saying it never happens, but it seldom does, and when it does, the likelihood of the accused walking away is damn near 100%. Ask any prosecuting attorney. Even with physical evidence--in many cases, overwhelming physical evidence--a lot of ADAs would rather plea the charge down than go to trial on a rape charge.

He (the defendant) is still ruined financially and has a public image as an accused sex offender. Unless he moves far, far away, he might as well have gone to jail...

[mamelukesabre]

The fact you think "bible thumpers" believed women cannot refuse their husbands.

~~~~~~~

Let me reiterate your statement. You are saying that I am LYING if I say: "I think that bible thumpers beleive that women cannot refuse their husbands".

Would you like another shot at that? Because that statement is absolutely nonsense. In the first place, the above statement is impossible, and in the second place, I never said "I think that...". I stated it as a fact with first hand experiences, not as my opinion. And finally, I was stating what was beleived SEVENTY YEARS AGO, not the present. (or at least by those that were married 70 years or more in the past)

[jimt]

I would advocate at least several years of dating and/or cohabitation before you even consider it. Know your partner before you go down that road.

Didn't help me with wife number two, she was a convincing and unprincipled liar. And yes, she does vote 'rat.

[BikerNYC]

Marriage does in fact imply consent 24/7. One cannot rape their spouse if they are still living as husband and wife.

Do we have any volunteers to test wasfree's legal theory on a resisting spouse? Let's see if a local prosecutor agrees with the theory.

[jimt]

So, using your logic, it is OK for a wife to sell herself as a prostitute if her husband won't give her money.

Not at all.

I think the logic is that husbands and wives both have obligations to satisfy each other to the best of their ability sexually, and to be monogamous, if they want their spouse to be monogamous. If they're not monogamous or trying to satisfy each other there's something seriously wrong with the marriage anyway.

Similarly, they both have a responsibility to support each other and their children.

A woman whose husband gave her no money would have a good case for what used to be called "non-support". I can't see any moral case for prostitution. Dancing at a topless bar, maybe, but not actual sex for money.

[mamelukesabre]

WOW!

Are you my grandmothers back from the grave?

Maybe you noticed I did not indicate my grandfathers' beleifs, only my grandmothers'. It is interesting that my grandfathers both held a slightly less strict interpretation of this than my grandmothers did. Both grandmothers held extremely strict and rigid interpretations of this particular bible passage. I think it is accurate to say that women of that day considered their individual responsibilities and obligations to the marriage of utmost importance and took pride in the success of their marriage. And the men felt the same way about the "man's" responsibilities as well. It was almost like there was a contest between the sexes as to whose role was the most critical and who lived up to their obligations more perfectly.

When it became publicly known that someones marriage was a "little rocky", the women typically blamed the wife and the men typically blamed the husband. Today it seems this is reversed. Men generally will fault the wife and the women will generally fault the husband of a failed marriage.

[wimpycat]

skipping straight past the obvious ass-headedness of this post and going for the less obvious...

You said, "Times like when the wife is hell bent on some destructive behavior that will hurt the relationship or kids. He has the right to veto her."

If the man is the ultimate boss, what happens if it is the husband is hellbent on some destructive behavior that will hurt the relationship or kids? Is it just "too bad" for the family if the "boss" is an A-1 jerk?

You've confused "authority" with tyranny, I'm afraid, in sexual matters. According to the Bible, man is the head of the wife just as God is head of the Church. (It's funny how men seem to skip over that second part, isn't it?) Just as God never forces man to do anything against his will, so does a good husband never force his wife to do anything against her will. He can persuade, nag, cajole, but never, ever force. Any husband who forces sex on his wife is not only a jerk, but he commits rape and thereby loses his authority. A cruel, tyrannical husband has no authority over his wife in any Christian sense of the word. So the authority you speak of is NOT absolute.

[AppyPappy]

Here's what you said:

. I am telling you that only 70 years ago it was universally accepted by church going bible thumpers (male AND female) that wives were not to refuse sex as per commanded in the bible.

Now, prove it was universally accepted among the people you slur as "bible-thumpers".