Is Marital Rape a Crime?

[maartenhaha]

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.

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


rape is rape .... period

[stromma44]

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.

[Salman Anjum]

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....

[NUFCrichard]

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.

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.

[Okurkabinladin]

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

[Okurkabinladin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

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.

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.

[GreenStox]

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.

[panju1]

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....

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

[BADecker]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment, about the 9th Amendment:

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed.  In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

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:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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.

[brendanjhwu]

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"...

[ObscureBean]

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 

[BADecker]

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"...

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.

[saddampbuh]

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.

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


rape is rape .... period

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

[panju1]

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"...

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.

[RitzBitzz]

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.

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

[cakir]

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

[GreenStox]

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.

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

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.