What's your opinion on marital rape? Should someone really have to ask their spouse for consent before sex?

[Apple1996]

I had some fights going on in a recent comment of mine. Some say its a big deal, others are saying its not a big deal.

by the way no I'm not getting raped by my husband. I give him the okay to do things to me when I'm sleeping.🤦‍♀️

This the question I commented on if your wondering
Did you feel satisfied after your most recent sexual encounter?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Their is no such thing as marital rape. Marriage is a reproductive contract and as such the reproductive act is literally part of that contract. By that rational we should start imprisoning women for illegally entering and loitering in their husbands house since most of those women are not asking permission every time they enter. We should also imprison them if they use their husband money to buy things or eat food he has bought and paid for because that would be marital robbery and marital breaking and entering. But you'll notice not one person has ever made that argument, so now ask yourself why? Because it doesn't benefit the woman. The fact is men have an obligation to their spouses, provide and protect, period. The obligations that women USE TO HAVE is be nurturing, maintain the home and family and have sex with her husband. Now we hear how it sexist to expect women to do that YET for some strange reason its not sexist to expect men to continue with all their traditional obligations, why? So no its not a big deal because it doesn't exist. Now if he gets physically violent, that is assault and battery and that is very real and very much does exist and he should be imprisoned for it, but that is not the same as "rape". Just for giggles I'd like to see a woman make a move on her husband and then be accused of marital rape, so we can see the very people who claim this is a thing try to go through the mental gymnastics for why it shouldn't count when women do it. Its an absurd and sexist concept. Just as your husband is allowed to get sexual with you (again, its one of the primary purposes of marriage (which is why its not considered valid until you have consummated it i. e. had sex)) your allowed to get sexual with him. Seeing your partner as a predator isn't a healthy relationship and a sign of mental illness in the person who thinks it (because if you think its rape when they try to get intimate with their partner then clearly you have problems you need to seek counciling for).

[PinkMichae]

If he forces her to have sex by holding her down and forcing his dick in her it is rape. That would go for a woman forcing her man to have sex when he's not up to it. So it does go both ways. It's this kind of messed up thinking that has turned me off of ever getting married. I'm happily unmarried. My partner and I come together emotionally, financially, and sexually because we want too. Not because some contract tells us we have too.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae As I pointed out that is assault and yes you can argue that its rape (but at that point its really irrelevant as again, its assault and battery and he will go to prison (sadly when the roles are reversed however she wouldn't suffer any consequence for the action). However marital "rape" has nothing to do with that, that's why they made it "illegal" because assault is already illegal. Its just another way to try and destroy marriage while removing any and all responsibility and obligations the woman has to her husband. As I pointed out if you/women/the people who make these claims, actually believed ANY of this, you would be imprisoning women left and right for illegally entering his home without his expressed permission, arresting them for using his money without expressed permission, arresting them for "sexual assault" when they unsolicited and without permission try to touch him in a sexual way. Yet NONE OF YOU are advocating for this, why? Because you don't actually believe any of this crap. If your exempt, if women are exempt, then you don't actually believe it, period. That's the point I was making. As for marriage being a contract, if you don't understand what its for then yes, that makes sense. Its not for you or him really, its about reproduction and raising children. See when you don't have pressure placed on you its real easy to make up an excuse for avoiding responsibility and for breaking up the relationship. Now if you don't have kids who cares, it only affects you two, but with kids? That's catastrophic for them. That's why we have marriage, because it forces the two parties to work together, to sacrifice for each other and their offspring and forces them to work out their differences for the sake of their children so that their kids can have a proper family (the children who do not have this have higher rates of criminality, academic failure, poverty, depression, substance abuse, divorce, etc.).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae So like I said, you can make what ever statements you want, you can even disagree with my view, I have no problem with that BUT if your not applying this to women and all the other things I pointed out, then your a liar and a hypocrite, no exceptions. So I'm ready to hear how you think women should be held to the same standard and get locked up for "sexually harassing" their partner and illegally entering their partners homes (oh and don't bother telling me that this is "different", its not. Shared bank account is a contract, he gives you a key that is also a verbal contract. All of these are equivalent to a marriage contract) etc.

[PinkMichae]

You act as if it's still the 1950's and women don't work too or own the home or jointly own the home they live in with their husband. And if the woman is the one who owns the home she couldn't kick him out either. But to compare that to martial rape is ridiculous. Marital Rape is a violent sexual act that physically hurts a woman or man. It's not just for women. It's for women and men not being forced into having sex against their will. The only reason it benefits women more is because women don't rape as much as men do. They made marital rape illegal because at one point men were sexually hurting their wives and the police would do nothing about it because it's a woman's duty to have sex with her man no matter how tired or whatever else was going on with her. Now that its illegal it's better because husband and wives make love because they both want it. Not just because he wants it. I'm sorry that doesn't benefit you as a man to have your own sex slave. But I'm really not. Besides when a man raped their wife that in know way was honoring or loving her. And in most cases it wasn't to reproduce. It was about control over his wife. You are wrong to say there is no such thing because it clearly says marital rape is illegal in 50 states. Unless you're from a different country that allows husbands to rape their spouse. If we went by what you say is a womans obligation I guess she doesn't need to have sex with him to please him. Only to reproduce. So once she reproduces she could never have sex with him again in their marriage and she would have fulfilled her contract.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae Not at all, I act like its 2019 where the statistical data shows quite clearly whom the bread winner is (its unquestioningly men. Women actually spend over 50% more then they earn, clearly that money is coming from somewhere (again, its from men). Pretending like we are all equal in all things when that is far from the truth isn't a very good argument. You know as well as I do that the man is still the bread winner. Women are not marrying men who don't earn as much as them if not more:https://onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372
women are not sticking by men who don't earn as much as they do if not more: www.asanet.org/.../aug16asrfeature.pdf
We know that women still prefer men to pay for dates: www.eater.com/.../study-plenty-of-women-still-want-men-to-pay-for-dates
So yeah, pretending like this isn't happening is rather absurd as you do it and the overwhelming majority of women do this. I don't have a problem with it personally, I do have a problem when women pretend like they don't however as that's just plain dishonesty. We know whats going on so lets move past the whole debate where I tell you the truth and then you lie to my face (as all the links show), that's just annoying and its not productive as we both know what the truth is so their is little point to it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae As for marital rape, again, no its not. See if that was the case the man would be arrested for domestic violence and assault. Does that happen in these particular cases of "marital rape"? No. It has nothing to do with violence because that is already illegal, it has to do with expecting sex from your significant other. Also it doesn't go both ways as women are never accused of it (and lets be honest, if they where nothing would happen as women are not even punished for domestic violence in most cases (which they commit far more frequently then men (70%)). As I stated before your creating exceptions to your own reasoning, which should immediately make you question it. How is her taking his money with out his permission not robbery? Why does that not count? Again, its simple, its not to the womans benefit for that to count.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae No one is justifying violence agains women, its been illegal for pretty much all of history (despite popular claims to the contrary (historical punishment for it was public flogging, if a woman beat her husband however, he would be dragged through the streets humiliated and pelted with pretty much what ever any one could get a hold of because as I have been pointing out, their is always a double standard that benefits women). So again, I will reiterate yet again, no one is supporting hurting a woman, that's not what is happening not a single person supports that so please stop pretending like this is what that is about as that has been illegal since the beginning of time. What is being pointed out is that "marital rape" is a different category because its not actually rape, its "sexual assault", for instance if a man tries to have sex with his wife and she doesn't want it she can claim he was trying to rape her. That's really messed up because again, marriage is a reproductive contract and a man seeking intimacy from his wife should be considered the most natural thing in the world. So again, your arguing something that isn't a thing, violence against the wife is always illegal (at least in the west), that's not what marital rape entails because that was again, I cannot stress this enough as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this incredibly important point, WAS ALWAYS ILLEGAL AND AS SUCH DID NOT REQUIRE A NEW LAW THAT TURNED EVERY SINGLE THING A MAN DID AS POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL WHEN IT CAME TO BEING INTIMATE WITH HIS WIFE. Now I personally think that any woman who would pull this on their husband, who again, IS NOT RAPING ANY ONE BECAUSE RAPE AND VIOLENT ASSAULT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL AND THUS NEVER NEEDED A NEW LAW TO MAKE THEM ILLEGAL AND I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD THINK THAT IT WASN"T WHEN IT CLEARLY WAS FOR ALMOST ALL OF HISTORY, should be left to be single for the rest of her existence because clearly she has some serious mental issues.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae So let me paraphrase this just one more time because I feel it bares repeating (on account of you intentionally ignoring this very important point), marital rape isn't a thing, rape has always been illegal in the US, period. Assault and domestic violence has always been illegal in the US, period. Ergo making a specialized law that deals with something that is already illegal but pertains to marriage, and is used almost exclusively in the sense of sexual assault and "harassment", is not necessary and is not a legitimate issue as again, say it with me RAPE AND VIOLENCE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. So I'm glad we cleared all that up. Now again, I would point out that you refuse to acknowledge marital theft and martial breaking and entering, that makes you a hypocrite with completely inconsistent values, well consistent only in that those values are for the benefit of you and other women. If marital rape is a thing (again its not, rape is, assault is, marital rape isn't (unless you think we should have a law about martial robbery, marital breaking and entering, marital murder, marital assault, etc?) then so to is marital robbery, period. Their is no other logical conclusion.

[PinkMichae]

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

[PinkMichae]

Marital rape aka spousal rape use to not have laws against it. But it does today. People can be charged with marital rape in most states of the USA.

[PinkMichae]

You say rape has always been illegal. But at one time marital rape was exempt. Therefore a man could force his wife to have sex and it wasn't illegal. Just like at one time a wife was considered to be a husbands property. Rape and marital rape were seen as two different things.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae Once again, RAPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. Again, that's not up for debate. Rape has always been illegal, can you disprove that statement? Has their been any time in the US history that rape was not illegal? Has their been a time in US history where domestic violence wasn't illegal? The answer is no. So why make a new law that makes something illegal that is already illegal? The answer is, as I have pointed out again and again, and again, and again, and again, is because it has nothing to do with rape. Marital rape isn't rape, its a law created so that women can punish and hurt their husbands and for feminist to put yet another stake in the concept of marriage. Why is this the conclusion drawn? Because RAPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. If a woman was batterd by her husband he would get arrested, we never needed a new law for that because we had laws for that. If a man held a woman down and forced himself on her i. e. raped her, it was illegal because yet again, RAPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. Now notice how you have not paid any attention to that statement. Ask yourself why. Why would you ignore the very very real issue with your argument and that is all the things you claim needed a law already had laws against it, had social norms and taboos against it (those who harm and/or rape women, in prison are usually beaten and killed because even criminals find it taboo). So again, all of this has always been illegal and is being used to destroy men's lives by spiteful ex wives who want to gain custody of children and gain his money. That's all it is because again, if he had done these things it would have already been illegal and he would have been arrested for it. So again, your wrong.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae Also, gain, your wrong no marriage was not an exemption from violence that's idiotically stupid, as stupid as claiming that women where property even though women had more rights and fewer responsibilities then men, not just now but through out history. A woman is not property when the man is required to fight and die on her behalf, she is not property when he is required to work himself to death in field or factory to provide for her to the point where he will be imprisoned for HER debts. She is not property when she cheats on her husband and the only thing he is legally allowed to do is divorce her (and pay her alimony afterwards for the rest of her/his life) and sue her lover for lost resources during the extent of the affair. You cannot claim she was property when she could have sex with a man then have him put in prison for several years by claiming he said he would marry her. You cannot claim she was property when by law the government could enslave men in the form of conscription (for military, police and fire department duties) while women never had these responisibilities. You cannot claim that harming your wife was acceptable in society when we LITERALLY HAD LAWS THAT REQUIRED THE PUBLIC FLOGGING OF HUSBANDS WHO DID HARM TO THEIR WIVES. So again, your wrong on so many levels. This is why I despise feminist, you just spew out bullshit without evidence, demonize men, then claim victimhood even though you as a woman have more rights and privileges then men have EVER had.

[PinkMichae]

You didn't even read the link I provided that verifies what I'm saying, did you? Whatever. You can argue the red ball is blue all you want. But it's still red. So we can agree to disagree.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae Yeah I did actually. Did you read anything I wrote? Of course not because you would have actually had a real rebuttal instead of repeating the same statement over and over again. As I stated, multiple times rape is illegal, yes? Can we agree on that? Okay, now how would a man rape a woman? Well by using force against her. Is using force against some one illegal? Yes, yes it is. Ergo "marital rape" is irrelevant as all the laws already deal with it. Also just because it wasn't illegal doesn't mean it was practiced. I mean, we have multiple states where bestiality is legal, does that mean every one is out fucking dogs? No, no that's not what that means.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae So even the premise of your argument is flawed, that is that it was some how a thing common enough to warrant legislation (no evidence of that) and then your claim that we needed a special law for it despite the fact that violence against your wife (not husband you can be ruthlessly violent to your husband all you want because you know "male privilege") is illegal. Now violence being the only way a husband could rape his wife, that would mean that by extension rape was illegal because you could not force sex without using violence which again, as I have repeated over and over and over again and you have completely ignored (just as you ignored all the links I provided showing that women do in fact use men's resources which you tried to argue otherwise), would make any rape against his wife (again, only when he does it, ironic that you feminist types don't talk about how rape against a man wasn't even made illegal until the 2000's and even now isn't even enforced (because again, "male privilege")) an ILLEGAL ACT DUE TO ASSAULT AND BATTERY. So inconclusion you are entirely wrong, as I showed from the beginning and you just can't admit it. That's fine, its your prerogative to be wrong, its your prerogative to endorse a law that is used to justify destroying men's lives (as most accounts of this seem to occur during divorce you know, when she is getting money and custody of children out of the situation) and to destabilize the institution of marriage, but that will never change reality. This isn't a disagreement, your just wrong.

[shinka1y234]

It is rape period and since when are woman allowed to take their husbands money without their consent?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 As I pointed out way to many god damn times, Marriage is a reproductive contract and as such sex is mandatory (hence it not being recognized as a legal marriage until sex happens). What you are ignoring other then that is, their is no way for a man to force a woman to have sex with him LEGALLY. If he tries anything like that its abuse and that has always been illegal in the US. As for taking his money yes she can and does, joint bank accounts for one. Now your going to say that this is different because having a joint bank account is consent, just like your going to say that him marrying her and having her move in is consent to her living in his house right? Well guess what? That's the argument I've made, that consent is in fact, and this should come as no surprise, consent. That is what marriage is, consent to sex UNTIL DEATH AND OR DIVORCE. Now again, if he tries to force her that is assault and battery and he will have violated the law and be punished accordingly with out hesitation. So their is no way for him to actually rape her legally because one, she has already given consent by marriage (again, its literaly function is to provide consent for reproduction), and any attempt to physically force her to have sex with him is illegal as that is assault and battery.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 Ergo we do not need a law to do what our laws already do EXCEPT in order to weaken the institution of marriage by one, very sexistly claiming that men are some how monsters and rape their wives to the point where we need an extra law to stop them from doing so (even though women rape men at comparable rates and are actually far more likely to commit domestic violence etc.), and two to give women an edge when it comes to hurting their spouse as these things usually are brought up during divorce, you know when the woman is taking the man for all he is worth and stealing his children from him and having him be portrayed as a monster, using a claim that could not possibly be proven to people who are biologically wired to side with her (as men and women are both biologically inclined to protect women). So yes I call bullshit because again, its already illegal, it only applies when it happens to women and never the reverse which is statistically just as likely, it also never applies to any other situation (ones that would put the woman at a disadvantage) and as far as I can tell does not provably occur with any real frequency (just as rape itself is incredibly rare (as FBI data shows)). So like I said its not a thing by actual definition of marriage and its not an issue because we have laws already in place that would prevent it anyway making any "marital rape" law redundant at best and at worse would create a situation where a man cannot even get sexual with his wife without it potentially leading to him being accused of sexual harassment and or rape.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 So unless your willing to apply this reasoning equally (again, marital rape being applied to women, marital theft, marital breaking and entering etc.) then I can safely say this is utter bullshit designed to give women yet another weapon to destroy the lives of men (this is quite common, which is why feminist and women have actively fought against equal rights for men, fought against gender neutral rape laws (which didn't occur until 2003), have actively tried to mask the rape rates of men (the feminist head of a CDC study labeled it "forced to penetrate" and put it under sexual harasment because apparently she felt it didn't count when it was a woman raping a man) etc.).

[shinka1y234]

Marriage does not force you to open a god damm joint bank account. So marriage does not force you to have sex with your partner. You define forced sex in marriage as a assault but law does not do that. "Today, marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state."

[PinkMichae]

@shinka1y234 I tried to provide a link that showed marital rape does in fact exist but he's just to set in his opinion. I never said there has to be a separate law as I do understand rape is rape. But I think they had their reasons because at one point it was believed a husband couldn't rape his wife because of this bs thought that a wife has to have sex with her husband no matter what. It's scary to think men use to believe that and unfortunately still do in some countries. So it makes since why they made a separate law instead of just classifying it as rape.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae No, you showed an article that had an opinion (I'm sorry but opinions are not evidence). So basically your argument centered around saying that it was made illegal because enough people protested ergo it must be true. That's not a valid argument. Again, no one was debating whether or not it was wrong to force sex on some one, its wrong and always has been viewed as such. However as the link you provided pointed out even, was that sex was considered a right guaranteed under the marriage contract for both spouses. Further more as I stated before marriage is a reproductive contract and therefore barring reproduction should then bar the spouse from the exchange of resources since this was the singular function of the marriage. You saying its a thing because its a thing is not a valid argument and it neve will be. I'm arguing my point by definition of marriage your ignoring that. Its like saying that being expected to work at your job or fulfill your work as per your contract as being akin to slavery, you can say it, you can believe it, but you will still be wrong. Their is a contract and that contract expects certain obligations to be met, you work for your pay. Marriage is reproduction with the exchange of protection and resources, if one fails in providing that which they are contractually obligated to give then that is a violation of that contract.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae That stated the contract does not allow harming the other (in fact, the exact opposite) ergo any harm to the woman (again, we as a society have always allowed women to harm men and to avoid their responsibilities, we never allow it for men though) is wrong and as I pointed out has always been illegal. Hurting a woman is illegal, period. Their is no argument or discussion about it, men where expected to fight to the death if a woman was insulted so we can rest assured that harming a woman for sex was always frowned upon and illegal (again, within the united states). So again, your ignoring literally everything stated, you just want some one to agree with you that your right and every one else is wrong and while your free to feel that way, its not going to change reality. So as even your link pointed out, to quote, "The lack of consent is the essential element and need not involve physical violence." i. e. they are saying that if a man cops a feel of his wife, that is marital rape. That is what I am saying is bullshit, because again, the whole SINGULAR PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE, thing. Obviously if you don't understand what marriage is or if you believe men are the evil boogie man who is out to get women, your going to believe that marital rape is a thing and I can't help you with that. Figure out what marriage is, learn the definition, then you'll understand what is being said, until then continue being wrong and making appeals to authority/ad populum arguments).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@PinkMichae Now the worse part of this is the fact that while a man cannot make sexual advances towards his wife, she can absolutely do that to him. If the world was fair and just you would be imprisoned for the very thing your accusing men of i. e. making a sexual advance towards their spouse whom they have a reproductive contract with. But unfortunately as I have stated several times, the laws are not equally applied and that is why you refuse to acknowledge the inverse i. e. women being punished for this (as well as fighting against gender neutral rape laws) as well as women taking resources from their spouse without consent (because again, its not about logic, or justice or the law, its about you getting to do what ever you want without having any responsibility or reciprocity).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 As for marriage, yeah it actually kind of does. Now maybe not joint account but what do you think alimony is? For almost all of history men have been LEGALLY REQUIRED to provide for their spouses. That's why we have alimony (which women get the majority of the time). So yes men are still very much obligated to provide for their spouses because as I pointed out this isn't about anything other then women trying to remove the obligation of sex and reproduction out of marriage while maintaining mens obligation to provide for them (as all the links I provided show as well as just common sense and the anecdotal evidence of pretty much every marriage you have ever seen).

[shinka1y234]

Well, the alimony is very unfair and I also I think that nobody should be forced provide someone except childreen. That is why alimony is to me stealing money. I mean you dont have to provide your partner before marriage. So why should you provide an adult woman who can care for herself after marriage? So if there would not such alimony thing would you think that marital rape exist? Also you can do marriage contract, can't you do that in US? Then marital rape and rape by stranger has the same characteristics. In both cases you are forced to have sex. So that is why marital rape considers as rape.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 But the marital contract requires sex to be validated and is a reproductive contract ergo any sexual act within the confines of marriage is already, legally speaking, agreed upon. Like I said I am not endorsing a man or woman being violent to their partner, I am not endorsing forced sex, I am saying that under the very definition of marriage, sex is explicitly necessary for it to exist and thus consent is given by the very act of getting married. By creating this law what people where doing is creating a law that was vague enough that it could be readily and easily exploited (and it has been). As the link provided by pinkmichae showed, it doesn't even need to involve force for it to be considered rape. That's not rape then, that is making a sexual advance, that's a man trying to have sex with his wife and that now considered the equivalent to rape. That's messed up, that is no more then an attempt to undermine the concept of marriage (which has been done in many different ways (from ignoring the roots of marriage i. e. claiming its about love when in fact its about reproduction and family, making divorce as easy as possible so that people feel like destroying their family is perfectly acceptable (even though its catastrophically damaging to the child (and the husband who is forced to pay alimony and child support)(and I would point out that some times it is necessary but most times its not, its just two people refusing to work with each other because their lazy), to this law that now provides women a weapon to wield against a man to avoid their end of the obligation while he is still bound by his (where again, you can say what you will but as all my links I provided show, men are expected by women themselves to take care of women (otherwise they will not have a relationship with them) yet its deemed sexist if a man expects his wife to cook clean, raise kids or have sex with him).

[Eila_]

you are insane.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Eila_ No, your just not paying attention to whats said. But like I said, you want to make a wife entering her husbands house illegal without permission or her using his money without his expressed permission and to hold her just as culpable for raping him under these laws as he is then fine, at least you would be morally/intellectually consistent, but we both know that is not the case. I think your insane because you advocate for violence and abuse of men while I am pointing out that harming a woman is always illegal. But that's society for you, women can be the most sexist and evil people in the world and we are all suppose to just kiss their ass and pretend like they are saints even as they push for more and more advantages under the laws to destroy the lives of others (because despite having all the privileges women like yourself just want more).

[Eila_]

Hahaha man you are funny I bet he is part of that boys club that can't stand women, forgot their name but yeah. Do I have to define the meaning of rape for you? If I am married and i say no and he continues to do what he pleases forcefully, it is fucking rape. Kapish mate? If I do the same to him, it is also fucking rape. This is some next level shit, comparing rape to a wife walking into her "husbands" house which they both live in. What the actual fuck. It's 2019 darling, women work and have their own fucking money, but if imaginery husband did rape me, I'd take every dollar of his and burn it in his face. Gosh, money hungry people are gross and you sound just like one. He thinks he is allowed to rape his wife because he makes a bit of money, fuck off.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Eila_ You obviously don't understand what marriage is, its a reproductive contract, that would be by assualt and battery. Also as the law shows marital rape has very little to do with forced sex as it even states he doesn't even have to get physical for it to be rape: "Marital rape or spousal rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without the spouse's consent. The lack of consent is the essential element and NEED NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.". This is why most of these accusations are made during divorce (and if memory serves nearly 40% of the accusations of "marital rape" occur after the woman finds out her ex has a new girlfriend (probably coincidental right?) But as I said you can tell how much of a hypocrite you are because the rules only apply to men never women. Your sexist as hell and don't understand what marriage is so its no surprise your so confused. Any way this is a meaningless discussion because your not going to listen and understand that at no point am I endorsing rape, nor am I endorsing violence towards women (shame that no one will do that for men though) but rather was pointing out that by definition martial rape cannot exist and that it would only be assault and battery (which are all very much illegal, well when a man does it (70% of domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men and we as a society couldn't give less of a fuck but if its a woman yeah that's definitely taboo)).

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Eila_ As my other sources pointed out yes women make their own money and yes this doesn't stop them from taking the mans money (again, every single source you do it, every woman does it don't be an idiot and pretend you don't, again, every study and statistic shows otherwise). I have no issue with money, not sure why your talking about it, I pointed out that by your rational that a woman who enters her husbands home without his EXPRESSED PERMISSION would be breaking and entering, that if she used his money (as all women do, again, lets not make believe that you don't your using mens money this is fact at least be honest about it) then that would be, again by your rational, THEFT. If your not applying your argument evenly then your being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent and a hypocrite. That was the point made, I don't think its wrong for a woman to enter her husbands house without his expressed permission or use his money because as per the marital contract he is obligated to provide for her. See how that works? Consistency she signs a contract signing over sex and reproduction ergo he is entitled to that, he signs the contract that signs over resources and protection ergo she is entitled to that. That's called consistent reasoning, your saying he signed that contract and has to take care of her (note, as you pointed out you have your own money but even you didn't deny you use his money because you do as all women do (again, lie if you want but its so pathetically obvious its a lie I don't know why you would bother) BUT even though she signed the reproductive contract she shouldn't have to follow through with her end of the deal.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Eila_ This is feminist in general really, you want to have all the privileges and none of the responsibilities and obligations. marital rape laws are just another tool to ensure you never have to do anything because you'll be able to punish him or black male him or take his money his home and his children from him with just an accusation, one that cannot really be proven but never the less will destroy his life (40% of rape accusations are provably false). Anyway while I enjoy talking to hypocrits and intellectually dishonest people, I have other things to do so good bye.

[Eila_]

Haha I don't enjoy talking to psychopaths. Not even bothering to read the crap you wrote. Byebye

[shinka1y234]

It is rape. Look at the definition. Rape is rape. Period

[hellionthesagereborn]

@shinka1y234 Yeah it is sex without consent that's the definition of rape, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this thread who understand that. Now what is marriage? Consent. End of discussion.

[Sensmind]

I can see both sides of the argument - It is really interpretation - Right we can all agree that when a spouse forces themselves on their partner without their consent it is marital rape/sexual assault. So we have cleared that up, nobody is for that.
Next we are into the grey area of implicit consent, your relationship is playful and full of surprises so you have giving your consent with the condition if when it happens if you say no or I am not in the mood they will stop. Also if at any stage one says I am no longer comfortable with this, ask me specifically first then boundaries change.
It is akin to some forms of BDSM with a SAFEWORD - All may not understand but the participants know and consent to what they have signed up for , agreeing to play by the rules.
Is the situation you describe or not acceptable, that is up to you and your husband - If we went down that road, the next poll would be telling you what yours and your husband's favourite position is.
You get my drift especially in close relationships, consent can be vocalised or implied as long as everyone is aware where the boundaries are, there will be no issues.

[MissKittyz]

I personally think that if your spouse is doing something sexually to you and you say NO many times and he keeps going, at that point, he is doing something that you said no to which isn't consent. I wouldn't go as far as calling it rape just yet but it is definetely something that should be talked about.

And for having sex with the sleeping person, I'd say it should be talked about beforehand. I've given permission to my fiancé to do anything he wants to do to me while I'm sleeping just like he has given me permission to do the same to him. So he has my consent and I have his. It is all about respecting your partner.

[PrincessGrail]

Many boyfriends have woken me up by doing sexual stuff. If I like it, I moan and start humping their face with my kitty. If I don’t like it, I say Stop it! and push them away.

This may be my last opinion. Gonna miss you girl.

[Apple1996]

Im gonna miss you too

[Apple1996]

Love you😘😘

[PrincessGrail]

Love you too 😍😍😍

[Apple1996]

Awhhh🌹🌹🌹🌹

[ZeussLightningBolt]

It's not rape if you yell "SURPRISE!"

[AustinMan]

There's an implicit consent for sex in a marriage but she can revoke it at any time by simply saying no. At that point, it becomes rape.

[shinka1y234]

And what if she is unconcious?

[AustinMan]

@shinka1y234 Then it's a point of contention, e. g. has she routinely enjoyed sex like that before or is this a one off?

[Blair1994]

I think its more than ok to put the moves on your partner.
Like if I had a husband and he rolled over and started making out with me and tried to initiate sex then I would be cool with that, and would be more worried if he didn't do it.

As long as the option to say no is always there once he tries to initiate. I would expect that once I said no he would back off straight away or else feel the consequences of my knee being rammed into his ballsack haha.

[WalterBlack]

It's nice to read a response that has some basis in reality. 👍

[Rica_ChicaUSA]

As controversial as it may be, in my culture women are supposed to be submissive to the man. That goes for any and all situations. We are raised knowing that when we marry a man it's our responsibility to please him. So no, I don't believe someone should have to ask a husband/wife for sex. It should come natural.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

This is common in Latin American countries In Cuba, even Catholic priests say that a woman must submit to her husband or she will go to hell

[Rica_ChicaUSA]

@ZeussLightningBolt I haven't heard it said as demanding as that, but I wouldn't doubt it. I do know that where I'm from, if a girl grows up not wanting to submit then she is encouraged to practice celibacy and never marry.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

I believe it. Latinos are still very backwards,

[sejla]

There is a problem though because there are times a woman should say no like 6 weeks after she delivers a baby. She can get a raging infection if she has sex during that time. Or maybe she's been throwing up for 3 days and still has to breastfeed. There are times when no is the humane answer.

[Rica_ChicaUSA]

@sejla Yeah, that's understandable. I was just referring to the general standard of it, excluding situations like medical problems.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@sejla Interesting. I didn't know that

[orangecherry]

@ZeussLightningBolt try not to be racist

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@orangecherry How am I being racist?

[orangecherry]

@ZeussLightningBolt "Latinos are very backward"... way to stereotype a culture. sounds racist to me

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@orangecherry Yeah, high rape and murder rates, sexism, corruption and scamming and favelas. Yep, Latino nations are VERY advanced.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

It's not just one country. They're ALL like that, except for Argentina and Uruguay. And guess who lives there, White Europeans.

[orangecherry]

@ZeussLightningBolt I can't decide if you're an edgelord or an actual racist ass. Either way, I think I'm done here.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@orangecherry I'm a factualist. If I was a racist why would I be talking to a Latina? Did I call her any slurs? We're talking about culture here. It's not MY fault they are the way there are. White people have a mass shooting problem. You STILL think I'm a racist?

[NorthwestRider]

That's stupid, it is the 21st century not the 19th century In my relationship, I am the submissive one

[Rica_ChicaUSA]

@NorthwestRider It’s not a matter of time; it’s the culture. It wouldn’t matter if this was the 40th century. Good for you, and regardless of how closed-minded you are, in my culture submission is feminine. You’d be highly made fun of. It’s not a matter of time or morality, but it is part of our culture.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

I agree with Chica

[Daniela1982]

Yes, what if she was not in the mood?

[Cryostatic]

There’s a presumption of consent when you’re married, that you are generally open to sexual contact and activity.

No still means no, though.

[oneleggedwonder]

This is very simple for me. As soon as a woman says NO, and the man has sex with her anyways, it is rape. A woman has the right to say no, a man has no right to have sex with a woman unless the woman says yes. It does not matter if this woman is your wife or not, rape is rape and its wrong. VERY few things make me want to kill another man, even if that man beats my ass. But if I ever caught a man raping a woman or child, I could easily end his life and we would have one less pimple on the ass of society.

[MissDawn7961]

Forcing sex on someone is never a good thing ! If you want to have sex with your spouse but they are not wanting it then , then why not wait until they want it? for doing it with a spouse who wants it with you and you with them will be the most loving and pleasurable sex you two can have ! Thanks

[Keyarose]

Of course you should ask your partner for sex before you touch them

[Warmapplecrumble]

It happens sometimes due to miscommunication. I've let it slide.

[Whocouldibe]

Rape isn’t usually tough to understand. Unless the partner is abusive it won’t happen

[GigiMary]

I think it depends on the people, but I personally never refuse to let my boyfriend have sex with me. I haven't ever woken up with it in me, but I imagine I would just be a little startled at first and then just submit and accept it. I love and trust him enough to let him do what he wants with me, when he wants it.

My boyfriend and I discussed this the other day and I told him that once we were married that I was his to use as he pleases. I feel like once I say "I do" I have consented to sex with him whether I want it or not from then on. Once again, I love him and trust him enough to give him that. I wouldn't want to get married if I didn't. ☺️

[nerms123]

yeah people should get consent first

[SkipStop]

Just because you're married doesn't mean you can force them to have sex whenever you want. Communication and agreement is key to a happy marriage. So I believe that "Marital Rape" does exist and should be taken seriously. I've seen multiple stories/news where the wife cut off her husbands dick because he didn't want to have sex. That is retarded and should be a huge crime.

[abc3643]

Yes.
Rape is rape - marriage or not.

[EmbraceThePain]

Let’s me realistic here, there’s a difference between actual rape within a marriage and flirtatious sexual acts done by understanding lovers. For example, if I’m washing the dishes and my wife decides to come up behind me, grab my junk, and whisper something in my ear, I’m not going to throw her to the ground and call the cops on her for sexually assaulting me; I assume the reverse situation would also be true. This can only be done if there is a level of understanding between the lovers that would make this justified. If I do this to my wife, then it’s only because I understand our relationship enough to know that this is perfectly fine and warranted. Now, if I had any reservations or doubts to the justification of this then I wouldn’t do it until I knew she was comfortable with it. If she is not comfortable with it at all and I still do it, then that is definitely wrong despite me being married to her.

[DevikaButts95]

Marital rape is possible as marriage doesn;t imply consent.
But like, marital rape really only applies if someone says no. Like I'd say there's implied consent for most things, but you can reject wanting to do said thing, then if they continue it''s marital rape.

[Lyndsielee666]

Married or not consent is consent and it should be respected.

[Adam1978]

I think the whole thing is to literal, in a marriage you should know each other well enough to not need to ask, you should always accept a rejection the rest is mutual agreement from previous love making. In general don't share bed with a guy if you don't want to be approached sexually.

[shinka1y234]

Wtf. If you are not in the mood? You can't force someone

[Adam1978]

I didn't say anyone should, I said that if your not interested keep the distance so he can't do what you don't want him to do. Be proactive make it clear ahead of time.

[wittymilf]

No body should force anyone else to have sex when they don’t want to.

[Dongtai]

YES. Or at least make sure it’s consensual. I never assume consent even inside of a relationship. The girl can call me annoying or whatever for asking but at the end of the day at least I’m respectful of another person’s body.

Rape is rape. I don’t care what adjective you put in front of it always make sure it’s ok.