It is quite obvious that he and his minions do not value women as human beings.
Consequently they shall never know the true love that only a cherished, valued woman may give.
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
It is quite obvious that he and his minions do not value women as human beings.
Consequently they shall never know the true love that only a cherished, valued woman may give.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
because i make my point by asking the questions :duh:
K:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Then quit whining when I don't bother to answer.
lifeisgood
New member
And some make their point by not answering. :duh:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
genuineoriginal
New member
No, that is the loser feminist redefinition of rape.
You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even accept that there was a change in the definition since 1960.
See this:
_____
Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices, and Challenges in the United States
The common law in the United States defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a
female, not one's spouse, by force and against her will (Connerton 1997;
Kennan 1998; Murphy 1006; Spohn 1999). Feminists and criminal law reform-
ers have criticized these traditional elements of rape because the law's applica-
tion placed an undue burden upon victims and severely limited the types of
forced sexual violation that were recognized as criminal. Since the late 1970s,
states began legal reforms to address the inadequacies that existed in the com-
mon law's definition of rape and in its application. A second wave of legal re-
form began in the mid-1980s in order to further address concerns that rape laws
continued to place undue emphasis on the behavior of victims rather than on
that of the offender. This chapter examines rape law reform in the United States
and the legal issues that still remain with state definitions of the crime of rape.
_____
Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices, and Challenges in the United States
The common law in the United States defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a
female, not one's spouse, by force and against her will (Connerton 1997;
Kennan 1998; Murphy 1006; Spohn 1999). Feminists and criminal law reform-
ers have criticized these traditional elements of rape because the law's applica-
tion placed an undue burden upon victims and severely limited the types of
forced sexual violation that were recognized as criminal. Since the late 1970s,
states began legal reforms to address the inadequacies that existed in the com-
mon law's definition of rape and in its application. A second wave of legal re-
form began in the mid-1980s in order to further address concerns that rape laws
continued to place undue emphasis on the behavior of victims rather than on
that of the offender. This chapter examines rape law reform in the United States
and the legal issues that still remain with state definitions of the crime of rape.
_____
lifeisgood
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
Why are you trying to change the subject?
The thread is about whether it is right that sex within a marriage has been criminalized.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'd feel humiliated in either scenario
and the baseball bat one seems a heckuva lot easier
lifeisgood
New member
genuineoriginal
New member
Actually, it is not.
Against her will is not the same as without her consent.
In the many cases where a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, where both agreed to have sex in their drunken state, the sex was not against her will, but it is now defined as being done without her consent since she was drunk.
| Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”: “They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’” Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. |
In the case of these college students, the sex was not done with violence or the threat of violence, nor was the sex done against her will.
She even consented to the sex at the time, just because she was tired and wanted to go to bed.
She removed consent six weeks later when she reported she had been raped.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
lifeisgood
New member
Probably because you're a man.
Both would touch your manhood.
For the receiver or for the giver?
lifeisgood
New member
Only for those who agree that the married woman deserves to be raped if she does not acquiesce immediately.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
male on male rape is considered to be more shameful and humiliating for a man than male on female rape is for a woman
for the perpetrator of the assault
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
who agree with the historical and scriptural definition of rape
If you have a problem with God's decisions, take it up with Him.
You are incorrect. The thread is about rape within marriage.
In a good marriage rape would not occur.
Once rape occurs in a marriage the woman will hate and fear her husband. If he doesn't beat her to death she will try to escape.
It appears that you consider a wife to be a slave?
^ This.
- Status