Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yea and being in prison accused of rape of all crime when you didn't do it sucks too. That's why there needs to be proof. You seem to keep wanting to ignore and talk over this issue because you know you have nothing to rebut with. Now you sunk so low that you're trying to paint a graphical and emotional picture as to imply that because some women are actually and horribly raped that some how means that all men who are accused are guilty and the burden of proof should all but disappear. All the anal penetration talk in the word is not going to divert my attention away the fact that you are wrong.
I'm not implying that because a woman is raped every 2 minutes in this country (which raises the bar far above "some women are actually and horribly raped), that all men who are accused are guilty. I'm saying that your presumption that a woman is lying because there is no way to prove that she didn't consent, is a presumption that demeans women, and minimizes the crime of rape.
MY gold standard in marital rape is the woman's word.
She's the one who has to consent. And if she does not consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter if he's her husband. She didn't consent. It doesn't matter if they sleep in the same bed. She didn't consent. It doesn't matter if she walked around the bedroom buck naked. She didn't consent.
If she doesn't consent, then the husband violated her. And he doesn't get to do that.
I'm only asking you that question because I want you to think about rape from the woman's point of view. I want you to think about how awful it is to be raped, how you feel about yourself, how you feel about the world afterwards. And how it feels when men like yourself presume that you are lying, rather than telling the truth. Because telling people you've been raped feels soooooooo goood.
Yes and your "gold standard" is not proof that a crime way committed. Your "gold standard" does not prove that she's not lying. What you're suggesting is that based on a woman's word alone with the absence of any other evidence, a man should be convicted. What you're suggesting is that we ignore the fact that women do lie about rape. You're suggesting is that we to ignore the fact that no one is assuming that the woman is lying, but during an investigation, there still has to be proof that she's telling the truth. What you're suggesting is utterly and completely idiotic (for the lack of a better word).
MY gold standard in marital rape is the woman's word.
She's the one who has to consent. And if she does not consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter if he's her husband. She didn't consent. It doesn't matter if they sleep in the same bed. She didn't consent. It doesn't matter if she walked around the bedroom buck naked. She didn't consent.
If she doesn't consent, then the husband violated her. And he doesn't get to do that.
I'm only asking you that question because I want you to think about rape from the woman's point of view. I want you to think about how awful it is to be raped, how you feel about yourself, how you feel about the world afterwards. And how it feels when men like yourself presume that you are lying, rather than telling the truth. Because telling people you've been raped feels soooooooo goood.
I see DDs point about his TV but I also see your point as well. Unfortunately, a woman's word may not be enough, otherwise it would be a he said/she said thing.
Yes and your "gold standard" is not proof that a crime way committed. Your "gold standard" does not prove that she's not lying. What you're suggesting is that based on a woman's word alone with the absence of any other evidence, a man should be convicted. What you're suggesting is that we ignore the fact that women do lie about rape. You're suggesting is that we to ignore the fact that no one is assuming that the woman is lying, but during an investigation, there still has to be proof that she's telling the truth. What you're suggesting is utterly and completely idiotic (for the lack of a better word).
And your attitude is exactly why a rape is committed every two minutes in this country, and why women don't report when they've been assaulted.
The issue is CONSENT. And the only person who can say for sure whether she consented or not is the victim. So, her word is not good enough for you. So why do we bother to prosecute rapists? As long as he says she consented, that seems to be your gold standard.
So let me ask you. What are you suggesting? That we let husbands rape wives with impunity? What are the alternatives?
Do you believe that rape is widely underreported?
Do you believe that men are accused falsely of rape more often than women are actually raped?
What do you suggest we do? Nothing?
How in the hell do you people go from one person claiming that there must be proof to them saying that husband should be allowed to rape their wives? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone... What's with you people. Then you all ask loaded questions as if the rape did actually occur, so let me flip it and use the same tactic on you jmqueen.
What are you suggestion?
That we let wives falsely accuse their husband's of rape without a trail and without any evidence?
Are you saying you agree with putting innocent men behind bars for a rape they didn't commit?
How evil and inhuman of you jmqueen!
Even though not as many women lie about being rape, but still a very large number do lie, do you believe we should just lock up any and every man who's ever accused of rape? That the accusation alone means he's guilty?
I see DDs point about his TV but I also see your point as well. Unfortunately, a woman's word may not be enough, otherwise it would be a he said/she said thing.
That's all you get is her word. Every once in a while you get a serial rapist, then you get several women whose "word" together constitute proof. And you have your pedophiles, where the law says children can't give consent, so that would be statutory proof. But whenever it comes down to an adult woman, it's her word that she didn't consent. And only her word. Because stranger-rape isn't the norm. Women are raped by men they date, by men they work with, by men they are friends with. These men know the women, they know their schedules, they often know where they live, what kinds of cars they drive, where they shop. They have relationships with these women, and they can all claim, she consented. All you get is her word that she did not consent. And because there are those that argue that's not enough, most rapists get away with it.
And your attitude is exactly why a rape is committed every two minutes in this country, and why women don't report when they've been assaulted.
The issue is CONSENT. And the only person who can say for sure whether she consented or not is the victim. So, her word is not good enough for you. So why do we bother to prosecute rapists? As long as he says she consented, that seems to be your gold standard.
Because you're looking at it from a view that you know the the crime happened. You're looking at it from an invalid view that many women do not and would not lie about rape. As far as you're invalidly concerned, all men accused of rape did it and if they didn't do it, so what, collateral damage. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that both parties are equally credible and I need something - anything to break the tie. That tie breaker would be my evidence. In the case of marital rape, it would make breaking that tie all the more difficult.
How in the hell do you people go from one person claiming that there must be proof to them saying that husband should be allowed to rape their wives? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone... What's with you people. Then you all ask loaded questions as if the rape did actually occur, so let me flip it and use the same tactic on you jmqueen.
Because you demand that there must be proof, knowing that there is no "proof". There is only her word that she didn't consent. And if your demand for proof is the litmus test, when there is no "proof", then all a husband ever has to say is she consented. And poof, he's free. To rape her again, and again and again.
Because you demand that there must be proof, knowing that there is no "proof".
You do know that makes absolutely no sense at all. So if you're ever accused of any crime and there's no proof, you want the prosecution to make something up? To just come up with something anything? You're making absolutely no sense and I feel like i'm wasting my time trying to have a logical discussion with someone who lacks any logic what so ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
