Bitcoin Forum

Not in India.
The government is facing some flak for this.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/04/30/modi-governments-reasons-why-marital-rape-is-not-a-crime/

Why isn’t it a crime for a man to rape his wife in India? The government says it’s because of poverty, religious beliefs, social customs and the mindset of the Indian society, among other things.

Just read the argument yesterday and it does not make any sense to not make it an offense. They argue saying that marriage is considered sacred and so it cannot be considered a crime. Rape in any terms is a criminal offense and making such excuses is just a way to protect the criminals. So many people get abused because of such baseless arguments saying that people will misuse it.

Religions all over the world use their beliefs as an excuse for violence and crime, India and it's religion is no exception.

It only became a crime in many first world countries shockingly recently.

I had a girlfriend who very much enjoyed 'raping' me. I well and truly did not enjoy it. At all.

no

Maybe in some parts of the world.
Times are changing. Public opinion might make laws change.

i care nothing for public opinion or man made laws. marriage means the woman submitting to the man, end of story.

You're an imbecile.

Unfortunately, that is the reality.

So if a husband forces his wife into sex against her will and consent ,taking advantage of her physically weak situation,that is an act of protecting sacred values of Indian marriage system  ???

India has to nurture its wonderful attitude towards the ladies somehow. You might as well begin at the source so young boys can learn at home.



Golly, are you one magnificent slab of machismo. If you ever feel like applying some of that to me I'd consider switching sides so you can rough me up a little (shakes tookus seductively).

Recently there has been a number of news reports about women being gang raped on the bus system in India. 

Obviously there is a broader problem in India concerning perception of women and their role and rights.

That Delhi rape case wasn't a case of marital rape. It's because of some *sick* men who think woman walking on the streets after 8:00 p.m. are characterless.  :-X

Marriages have become a joke when men think women are an item they bought from a shop and they can treat them anyhow they like.

Another article: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/anger-over-ministers-marital-rape-comment/article7157945.ece

Marriages are a joke, they do not lower the chance of breaking up, having a better family or make you any happier.

And whats up with people using gold/silver and diamonds to bribe their partner into marriage? Those rare earth materials have better uses in circuitry, use in thermal performace, and stronger cutting materials.

And lets not even get into alimony.

So to answer OPs question, yes..

Well, man made laws can get you into jail, if you fall on the wrong side of them.
That is one reason to at least acknowledge them.  :P

Sounds like an interesting story.

I think all women in India who are victims of marital rape should then give their husbands a few of those indian pharmacy pills in his tea then prepare to ram him in his ass with a strap on.

And due to poverty she had to use a sawed off broom handle screwed into a belt, no lube.

Rape is Rape, No one should be forced against their will married or not.

Yes, India is a wonderland for the ladies.

Marriage has always been a fucking joke, I didn't think too badly of it when I was younger but of course the more I learned about it the more I began to hate and despise the whole concept, one way or another, it's not about being in a relationship, it's about one person enforcing their will over the other ( That goes for women as well as men ) so no wonder a huge percentage of marriages end badly now.

If there are couple out there that have managed to avoid the shit that goes with marriage then good on them, but I'll be avoiding it like the plague.

Theoretically if it happens without the consent of a woman it is not acceptable in any case. In case of married woman such cruelty is hard to investigate and prove and substantial misuse potential exists. Even though there is a very big grey area, I am sure some cases are truly black and white. Something is hard to prove should not be an excuse for not having a law. In my opinion a legal protection should be available for any woman who wants to stand against such atrocity. The idea is to stop treating women as mere objects, their say in bed is as equally important. I won't be surprised if a big section of married women would say that it is their religious duty to be available for their husbands in every case

It's not 'theoretical' and it should be consensual either way, if as a man you're the slightest bit unsure if she actually wants it then get the fuck out of there so you don't get any trouble your way, it's actually really fucking simple, if a girl is fucking you about and won't give you a straight answer then don't even go there, run.

A rape is a rape, marriage has nothing to do with it.

Exactly my thoughts. If a woman is saying 'no' it means just that, just break the Marriage if you're not satisfied with your married sexual life, instead of forcing yourself on her.

thousands of years of history of every race religion and culture on my side, a century of judeo bolshevik feminism on yours

serve honour and OBEY rape within marriage is a contradiction in terms

Things change, honey.

Just to prove a point I like to track people like you down, marry them and then tickle them up and down all night long whether they give me their consent or not.

Call me.

XxxxXX

It's thousands of years of brainwashing and intimidation, unfortunately however refined you think you are at it the fear wears off eventually and people eventually stand up for themselves.

and we're no better off for it


this is what your standing up to the law of nature and tradition has brought us


https://i.imgur.com/nyrz7Li.jpg

I love how you chose two incredibly ridiculous stereotypes to make your point, you really are a dumbass.

Naw. I think it's nice. I'll guess that he switches between masturbating between the two depending on whether he raped his wife that night or not.

if only they were ridiculous, our below replacement birthrate levels say different, this is what the egalitarian jew indoctrinated pussified modern man has led our civilisation to, better face up to it, how does it feel to wake up every morning look in the mirror and see this beta coward staring back at you


https://i.imgur.com/I7ewYx1.jpg

as common as breathing....? That would suck so much. Can you imagine having to defend women as frequently as you breathe? It'd be like being Captain Kirk in tOS, but you wouldn't even have time for them to repay the favor. -UNLESS THE WOMEN USE BITCOIN AND SCAN CAPTAIN KIRK'S URI TATTOO! obviously

Marriage is definitely not a joke, but it has been rounded up in a mushi act by all "eternal love" books and romantic art. What marriage is planned to be is an economic union and to guarantee the rights of each side in the family. If the husband and wife love each other - great, if not - well there can never be a full happiness. :D 

The idea of romantic love in marriage is an extremely recent arrival. Now everyone can have independence if they want it, that's the main reason people go into it.

The concept of my financial future and the very shelter over my head entirely depending on the way someone who is a stranger at present 'feels' about me means I won't ever be going down that particular road.

Marriage is not a joke but men are making it a joke these days by getting married to a woman and thinking they own her. The marriages that used to be a lifetime commitment earlier does not even make sense these days. Whether love or arranged marriages, it is necessary for both the partners to respect and trust each other rather than be deeply in love. These days people believe in trial and error and then such cases of marital rape and assault are revealed.

There are so many celebrities as well who have been victims of such crime and they come out with it while some hide it just to save the marriage. It's not a sacred relationship that you need to stick to it just for the sake of being in a legal relationship and the man takes advantage of this helplessness.

Admit it that you're a gay.

End of conversation.

LOL! More like you're gay for wanting to be in a sexless and loveless relationship in the first place :P

Gotta love religious logic.

If being gay means that you don't end up homeless, destitute and cut off from your children after your dream marriage fails then count me in as gay as fuck too.

Do same-sex marriage partners stay together after marital rape?

:)

Aw, she just wanted more kids. That's why she raped her husband.

[He's 87, and works the docks. But they have so many kids already that he had to take a second job tending bar. Of course, she raped him in his sleep.]

 :D

What, are you going to adopt?    ;D

I've gotten this far in life without wanting offspring for one single second. I think I'm good to go the distance now. There's enough people in the world already. I'll give my replacement ticket to those who actually want to do it.

If we lived healthy and peacefully to, say, a thousand years, you would want kids after a while.

:)

Going on my genetic history, my ticker will explode like a hand grenade within 15-20 years. It wouldn't really be fair on anyone involved to croak before they were ready for it.

If we did live to a thousand years, there's no way unlimited childbirth would be permitted but I'm sure I would get broody at some point in those circumstances.

If we were healthy enough to live for a thousand years, our mentality would be healthy enough to develop inertialless space drives that would take us even to the far galaxies. Throughout the universe we would terra-form untold numbers of planets, and live happily ever after. Children would be a sought after enjoyment.

:)

Marriage is an act for the society. It is meant to protect the rights of the couple, not to take away the right of the woman to say no.

Marriage is a method that God developed, and gave to us so that we could joyfully make more people for God. Of course, we mess everything up that we do, and so some of us don't want the joy of children as God would have for us.

:)

Hmm. You've talked me into it then. Drop me an email when there's a space ark ready to go and I'll show up with my babymother.

Kids are great, but don't take me too seriously.    :D

I think the western definition of "marital rape" is way to goddamn wide. In some countries it means partner being abused to the point of being hospitalized. In others, its sufficient, that woman makes up her mind post-coitus and man is considered guilty, until proven otherwise.

Right!

Part of the question should be, "Is it a crime for a marriage partner to deny sex to the other partner when the other partner requests (demands) it?" And if it is a crime, is it always a crime? Or are there certain circumstances under which it is a crime, while it is not a crime under other circumstances?

After all, indulging in the sex act is a great portion of the reason why people get married in the first place.

:)

Rape is physical damage to the property of a person, legal or not is a despicable act

But in marriage, each partner is property of the other as well as his/her own property.

:)

It's what happens when you put backwards thinking medieval psychopaths in charge of the justice system, it is partly thanks to the efforts of real activists getting blocked at every turn that we're seeing just how bad everything is.

No. Rather, that's what happens when activists try to use the medieval thinking of the courts to push their case through.

The courts are required to use medieval thinking because all of their foundational paperwork - the Constitution back to the Magna Carta and beyond - is written in medieval style language. They don't have a choice, because they took an oath to uphold the Constitution, so they have to do it Constitution style, which is in sort-of medieval language.

When activists go into their courts, and try to use the medieval language of the courts without being licensed (like the attorneys are), the courts can do anything to them that they wish. Nothing the activist says means anything except that the court recognizes it.

If you want your pet activist to win in court, get him to stand as a man, present, not represented in any way, so that the courts have to present their case as men, not as some corporation like THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etc.  Get him to file his case against the man who is a government officer who is hindering him. Man may do no harm to man. But if you don't call a man out in court, you have entered their medieval courts.

:)

i agree that once a husband force his wife to have sex it would still be considered as a crime...though they can legally do it yet if it is done with violence the husband must be punished to what ever extent of law a country he resides at.

Rape is a common language term.  When the rapist goes to jail it's for sexual assault.  It happens something like every three minutes in the United States.  Mostly female victims but there are some males too.

Interesting view.
Even if it is a crime to deny sex, the punishment should be divorce / partner walking out. Definitely not rape.

Walking out momentarily, perhaps. But not permanently.

When people live in a marriage relationship, they live in possibly the closest relationship of any. Sports team players don't live that close, even when they are executing well-practiced plays.

The point is. Each partner in a marriage relationship is going to have different ideas than the other at times. How much denial is one supposed to put up with from the other? How much rape is one supposed to put up with from the other? Rather, they should both live up to the marriage agreement.

The marriage agreement, especially if it is not written, includes abstinence at times, and indulgence at other times. At times the one wanting sex should bow to the wishes of the one not wanting sex. At times the one who does not want sex should bow to the wishes of the one who does.

Unfortunately the world is not all that friendly all the time. Is it a crime? Perhaps. Is it their business? Yes. Was it in the marriage agreement? In some marriage agreements. Should government intervene? Yes, if government was in the agreement... and if the agreement is broken, possibly.

This whole question must be applied on a case by case basis. There is no one answer that fits every case, no matter how people on the outside feel about what goes on between a married couple.

Another consideration is the idea of illness. An overwhelming desire for continual indulgence, or an overwhelming desire for long term abstinence, might be indications of mental or physical illness in one or both of the partners. Is illness a crime?

:)

In majority of arab countries, marriage is indeed good reason to get sex for "free". Also as part of this arrangement, woman is expected to provide both sex and children, unless her health prohibits it. Forcing partner to sex is therefore no offense there, women would be will advised to keep silent about it, as inability to provide for their husband readily is considered shameful. That´s why I earlier mentioned very vague international "standarts".

I have one important thing to say about this. No matter the country and the laws, there is no government that has any other reason to exist than to uphold private property rights for the people. If you follow the laws back to their origination in every government, you will see this. And because of who and what people are and are to each other, there is no greater foundational law between people other than to "love your neighbor as yourself," especially if your neighbor is your husband or wife.

:)

That´s idealistic approach BADecker, while I find it cool and all, it completely ignores the human nature and its historical development.

Laws emerged as codified rules of tribal customs, reflecting moral views of locals. Indeed the purpose of man in this conservative environment is to provide for and protect the family (basis of clan and through clan of larger society), while (young fertile) woman is the prerequisite for existence of family.

This may give you some outlook, why outside of our liberal, postmodern bubble, it is indeed not only possible, but "norm" to arrange marriages, "abuse" ones children or even commit "honor killing". Individual becomes a liability, when his actions put rest of the clan at danger or even make the group appear weak. This is not specialty of Islam, Hindus, east Asian and Westerners have all build basis of modern day society around this model, while it excused countless acts of wrongdoings, it proved itself as working.

It IS rather idealistic. It is, because nobody takes the laws back down to their bottom line to show that they are there for helping people and nothing else.

If a clan or family agrees to killing anyone who has harmed no-one else, that clan or family is the one doing the harm.

Actually, one of the reasons that the U.S., Britain, Canada, and Australia have had as much success as nations as they have had is that they adhere much to the principle of "Love your neighbor... ." While they don't do it officially as love, it is built into the basic laws of these countries, that people can do almost anything that they want as long as they harm no-one, nor damage his property. Living people can even stand up against corporate governments in these nations, and win.

:)

It's not rape if you yell "Surprise!" first.

Anglo-saxon model is also traditionally outlined along the lines I described above (that´s why, you make such a big deal about "anti-discrimination" in modern day caste society), I see success rather in advantageous geographics, can-do attitude rightfully attributed to anglo nations and perhaps even genetics.

Postmodern "free thinker" is historically unproven model, only socially accepted in the past 50 years or so. Time will tell, if he has any future. I am sceptical. Old Rome (after leaving behind its traditions) also had no effective answers for religious fundamentalism and tribal mentality.

Yes it is, but its very very very hard to prove.

On the other hand, I`ve saw many "crazy" wifes who faked their rape and self inflicted wounds, then blamed on the housband. And then the housband got to jail innocently, it was only years after that it was proven that the woman lied.

So as much sympathy i got for women who get beaten and raped by their husband.

Women have also alot of power, and can get the guy in jail innocently aswell.

So getting married is alot of risk.  ???

No matter which model anyone looks at, when you get down to the basics, all people are the same and different.

People are all the same in that they need air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and clothing and shelter. In addition, they all have consciousness, the ability to think, emotions, arms hands heads legs feet, etc.

People are all different in the fact that there are no two people exactly the same in any of the things mentioned.

All models at their basic form go back to "love your neighbor as yourself" because all are the same. This means sharing as needed. Love is necessary for overlooking the differences.

:)

Remember kids its not sexual harassment if you are not aroused.

Well, the victim certainly isn't aroused in the same way as the rapist. Otherwise it wouldn't be rape.

:)

My cousin had this Jehovah's Witless that used to work for him, the last time I ever had the displeasure of talking with this pos he was going on about how he used to rape his wife at night while she slept - of course she'd wake up and from how he told it wasn't happy about it at all - when I told him that was rape he said "There is no such thing, she is my wife and god says I can do whatever I want to her..." Jesus fucking Christ...

Maybe she should have asked permission for it before. I mean basic rule of liberty: Ask permission before using something that is not yours.

(Ex: If you need to ask permission for abortion from the government that means that your body is the property of the government)

But in peer-peer case, he should have asked her at the day that she would like that surprise sex at the night, and if she said yes than it would be ok. Otherwise it might be immoral to just do her without she knowing it .

The United States and the other common law countries have been very obliging in this. The U.S. created the 14th Amendment so that people who want to be owned by government can let it happen. At the same time, people can be people, not owned by anyone except God. But in such cases, the government still maintains within itself the ownership of the position of each person, just for the event that the person might want to come back into slavery. Indeed, there might be some times when a human might find it advantageous to partially partaken of the position of his government owned person.

:)

Oh I know that it just reminded me of a funny argument I saw.

I doubt if any court will agree with that.  :)

I figured, but was simply playing along.    :D

Exactly.
But how about the woman is the one who's forcing the man?
Is that a called rape? or hes just lucky to have that kind of wife?

He is not lucky, especially if she is a nympho, and the men's balls are dryed out.

But men dont really care, its only the "poor" women that play the victim always. Males are stronger and dont play victims, they strugle through it.

"Is a wife merely body parts?"

What compels a wife to continue living with her husband who is a sex maniac? What kind of man commits such atrocious acts on his wife, almost daily? Why does he treat the mother of his own children in such an inhuman way? Is it because marital rape is not an criminal offence,compared to one committed on an outsider?? This is also a crime.

I think these kind of cases are very rare.
It would vary from country to country, but I think rape can be only committed by a man.
The victim could be male / female.

I don't think consent is very widely understood by most people. Even in the US, there has been major backlash to the idea that "enthusiastic consent" needs to be there for sex to not be considered rape.

I used to feel like Al Bundy at times with my ex, I was working nights and she was had been prescribed adderall which turned her into a nympho - it was fun at first but then got old real damn quick lmao

of course it is, no means "no"

not only that, but an idiot aswel, marriage is manmade law lol


rape is rape .... period

Ofcourse it's a crime. I believe it's an criminal offence and why women have to sacrifice herself everytime? Its an criminal offence in many countries while some countries just ignores it but forcing a women to do unusual act without the consent is a rape. So not an usual act to do.

Marital rape is considered a criminal offense in many countries including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada,Cyprus, Denmark,England,France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel.....

Sadly, until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., some states still don't consider marital rape as serious as other forms of rape....

In my experience it is usually the Man submitting to the Woman in a marriage!

As a more serious response to you, you are an idiot.  Whatever non-man made laws you think you are following are also man made rules.  In this case it is very clearly Man made too as only an idiotic man would think that a woman should submit to him in a marriage.

This thread needs clean up badly. Trolls and "white knights" overtook it, while rational disscusion waned.

I think, you are mixing up apples and oranges here, mister. What you have said is clearly based on fact (or rather western liberal morals), however your relativisation of differences gives NO explanation why in some cultures/ethnic groups western definition of rape is more prevalent, than in others. Futhermore, it makes no argument, if rape as byproduct of said culture is beneficial or harmful for the rest of the society - that makes binding laws afterall.

But a certain percentage of the population, for whom laws were established, are idiots.

There are real problems with applying the legal system to rape within marriage.  There would be a huge percentage of cases dropped by the DA for lack of sufficient evidence.  There would be lots of cases dropped before trial.  The publicity from booking the husband on rape charges would essentially ruin the marriage and mar the reputation of both parties.   Better for the wife to leave the husband. 

It would be a "no win" type of thing.  Except there is the winner, the State.  The Power of the State, extending into marriage itself.

The situations where a valid charge of rape might be made, and prosecuted, would be a situation where the two had been separated for a considerable time.

Well i dont know marriage is already very communistic.

You share your: money,house,car, life, why not share your body too?

It seems to me that marriage as a communist union between 2 persons is about sharing, so why not be like that.

DISCLAIMER: I`m libertarian, but we need to expose what marriage really is, it's a communist treaty between 2 person.

India??  :o
You didn't really read the OP, did you?  :P

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, the 9th Amendment:
From https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment, about the 9th Amendment:
In other words, the people are virtually free from the laws of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the several States except if they agree to be under them, or if a jury trial can be wrangled into convicting a person as though he were under these laws.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, the 14thy Amendment beginning:Read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

The 14th Amendment allowed people to bring their whole lives under U.S. law. Until that time, people were individually not within U.S. law except by and in the points of a contract contract they might have with government. After the 14th Amendment came into being, people could bring their whole lives under the laws of the States or the United States, and government could assume and presume that people were under the 14th Amendment unless the people told gov that they were not. Essentially, this is where the law went from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent.".

After the 14th amendment, the States started making marriage laws. Americans still have the right to get married outside of these laws, by contract (common law marriage). But now people can get married under the laws of the States as well.

If the marriage is done under common law, outside of the State's marriage licensing, either party of the marriage can get himself out from under States laws regarding the marriage if he works it right... even when the other party attempts to drag him/her under the State's laws.

If people get married through a State marriage license, the State controls the marriage according to the laws enacted by the State. Mostly there is freedom. But more and more the States are taking over the lives of the children born to this kind of marriage.

In America, it's yours and your partner's choice when you go into the marriage as to which way it will be for you and your partner. If you go in under common law, both marriage rape and marriage denial of sex are criminal or are not criminal. It depends on the terms of the contract. If the terms are not spelled out, it is assumed that the whole thing falls under the judgment of the marriage partners on a case by case basis... since both, sexual indulgence at times, and sexual abstinence at other times, are part of the reason for the marriage in the first place.

:)

This is why historically, Indians as a group, have been shunned in the west.
Not entirely fair to innocent people, but this is just... disgusting.

Especially how they back their actions up with "religion"...

For as long as individuals resort to knowledge/human knowledge for sustenance, issues like this one will remain unresolvable.
Humans pride themselves on being imperfect, a perfect solution to a problem is not possible within an imperfect world. The quest for a human world where everyone is content/happy is a fool's errand.
The only way for one to resolve one's life is to move out of the flux of knowledge/imperfect knowledge that permeates the human world. This path is available to each and every single living being.

And no, I'm not alluding to religion, God, or any other supreme being  :P

What's interesting regarding India, because of British rule in the past, formal India law is very similar to that which is in Great Britain. In other words, there is officially very much freedom in India.

The people of India don't understand the English common law that makes up their government and allows freedom. Many of them remain traditionally bound under whatever laws they had before ht British conquered them ages ago. However, some of the Indians are waking up. Mostly it is the ones who are in the ruling classes and the government. And they are using their knowledge about freedom to impose slavery and ignorance on the others.

:)

weak submit to the strong in exchange for protection is law of nature not man made, woman gets taken care of, provides sexual relations in return, its not a choice to accept one and withhold the other

It is more to do with customs than religion. Rape comes under criminal law. If this exception is removed, then everybody (from all religions) will be subject to it.

India does not have a Uniform Civil Code, but that is another story.

Well once it ends the women usually gets everything so.. not so sure how communistic that is.

It's crime in Turkey.
In best case scenario husband gets 7.5 years prison.

Also there's an ongoing trial and husband faces 21 years of jail time. Of course it'll be downed from some reasons but at least he'll be prisoned 7.5 years.

PS: Turkey may be seen as "islamic" country but no Turkey is a secular country ;)

That is what communism is, central planning. The government centrally plans your marriage, and if either one of you leaves, it's always the male that gets fucked, while the women gets away with child care money + wealfare + wife subsidy + half of your commonly owned wealth.

It is pure micro-communism in my view, and you would never want to become communist.