Right, so we can get rid of 'spousal rape'. That's all the senator is saying.Rape is rape, it doesn't matter if you're married. No means no, period.
It's one thing to prove sex occurred, but it's another to prove that the sex was rape. How do you do that?
Right, so we can get rid of 'spousal rape'. That's all the senator is saying.
I wonder if the GOP has learned anything from the Akin debacle. If they are smart, they will disown Mr. Black before his hideous immorality is made national news and taints their party image.
So? Can't agree with everything a politician says or does.He also called birth control "baby pesticides"
Right, because the republican image is so pristine right nowI wonder if the GOP has learned anything from the Akin debacle. If they are smart, they will disown Mr. Black before his hideous immorality is made national news and taints their party image.
Yahoo!
So there it is.
Man and woman are married.
Can a man rape his wife? Can he be charged with the crime of rape? Sentenced and sent to jail?
That kind of rape.
Is there such a thing as spousal rape?
Does no mean no in a marriage?
Or is DICK Black's view reasonable and valid?
You are dancing... rape is illegal. Show where being in a marriage allows rape to be legal.
At-will marriage, similar to at-will employment. While doing the job, you have duties and obligations, but you can quit any time you like. If you don't want to have sex with your spouse, then imo you should leave the marriage.
These laws are for when the couple does not agree. Remember we're talking about spousal rape, meaning one party wants sex and the other party does not. If you marry under the auspice that you would give yourselves to each-other, and then one person changes their mind, the law allows this to be grounds to terminate the marriage.
I don't even know why you're thinking of medical problems. That has nothing to do with anything. This is about willful refusal.At this point we're not talking about rape...
So any time you hear 'doesn't have sex' you assume it's intentional?
I'm thinking along the line of stuff I have experienced: 'health issues prevent arousal' and 'marital problems causing intimacy to be more difficult' and various other things. You're still leaning toward 'it's intentional' or 'it's done to hurt'.
I hope you're not really thinking that if one partner develops a health issue and is unable to perform (etc) that the other partner can declare that as a reason for divorce. See - this is what I mean by 'not having sex' isn't necessarily the same as 'withholding affection'
Two people can be going through serious issues that make sex simply not possible or likely - and still be very affectionate and loving. Vice versa.
I don't even know why you're thinking of medical problems. That has nothing to do with anything. This is about willful refusal.
Before 1993 it was just 'rape', which has been illegal for centuries.
No, it wasn't. Before 1993, if a woman told her husband "no", yet he continued to have sex with her anyway, then there was nothing she could do with it. He could not be charged with rape of his wife. Even the military had an explicit exception for the UCMJ rape article that protected a man from getting charged under that article if the two were married.
The views which contributed to rape laws not being applicable in marriage can be traced, at least partially, to the 17th century, to English common law, which was exported to the US: the views of Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist, published in The History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), stated that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife because the wife "hath given up herself in this kind to her husband, which she cannot retract" (this would remain law in England and Wales for more than 250 years, until it was abolished by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, in the case of R v R in 1991).[1] The strong influence of conservative Christianity in the US may have also played a role: the Bible at 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 explains that one has a "conjugal duty" to have sexual relations with one's spouse (in sharp opposition to sex outside marriage which is considered a sin) and states that "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another (...)"[2] - and this is interpreted by some conservative religious figures as rejecting to possibility of marital rape.[3]
Prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was not a crime. Traditional rape laws in the US defined rape as forced sexual intercourse by a male with a "female not his wife", making it clear that the statutes did not apply to married couples. The 1962 Model Penal Code stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: (...)".[4] In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption.[5] On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.[5]
In some states, notably New York - in People v. Liberta 1984 [6] - the courts had been involved in striking down the marital exemption as unconstitutional. The decision of the New York Court of Appeals, delivered by judge Sol Wachtler, stated that "a marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body as does an unmarried woman".
If it's written in the contract then there it is. Are you going to go around and witness every marriage and listen to the vows? Are you going to scrutinize every pre-nup? Are you going to eavesdrop on every conversation? If a man or woman promises to rape their spouse then it's in the contract.
I understand the question, you failed to understand the answer. There is no marriage contract you sign, what you sign is a license. One of the obligations of that license are that you comply with state law on the matter of marriage. While all states now allow No Fault divorces many do still have At Fault divorces to address when a spouse violates the terms set in law of said license.
Further you show you don't read very well (from the link):
Once again there is a legal obligation to have sex with your spouse. The license can be withdrawn if you don't and you would be at fault. It's part of deal, don't like it, don't get married. Now, does this mean you can't rape your spouse? That's still a debatable legal point and in effect the law is all over the map and unevenly applied because it's a rock and/or hard place question.
However, assault is clearly illegal and carries the same potential for penalty without the rape question even being necessary.
Right, so we can get rid of 'spousal rape'. That's all the senator is saying.