Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I don't believe you

    What fantasies? What facts? You have to believe what is necessary for you to validate your own beliefs LOL i never TELL my wife anything There is no error. It was both law and custom and was proven so when legally challenged. In 2006 a woman brought a rape case against her husband dating back to 1963. it went to the high court and she was successful in a spilt decision BUT everyone agreed that if she had done this in the 60s or 70s she would have been laughed out of court https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/how-glyn-scott-sued-george-pycroft-in-the-high-court-for-rape-in-marriage/news-story/c3fcb73ffed871adcbb130077067ee0b “Australia in 1963 was a very unenlightened society,” says Sydney barrister David Bennett QC. “It still imprisoned people for consensual acts of homosexuality. Women were sacked from the public service for being married. The idea that a man could be guilty of the rape of his wife in 1963 would have been laughed out of court. Today we have all kinds of legislation to protect people’s rights but we were a long way from that happy nirvana in 1963.” In legal terms, could a man rape his wife? For hundreds of years the answer to that question was no. She was his property. Carnally, he could do as he pleased. The legal basis for this immunity could be traced to the extra-judicial writings of Sir ­Matthew Hale, a former Chief Justice of the Court of the King’s Bench, which were published in 1736 in The ­History of the Pleas of the Crown. Hale said: “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for … the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.” In practice, Hale’s maxim – known to courts as the “marital immunity” – means that Glyn had given consent to sex with her husband upon marriage and she could not retract that consent except by divorce. South Australia’s then solicitor-general (now Supreme Court judge) Martin Hinton QC took the opposing view. “This was a question that everyone assumed they knew the answer to, but which had never been decided,” he says. “Could a husband be charged with the rape of his wife in 1963? We argued that while the marriage immunity certainly applied at some point, the law had changed by 1963.” When did it change? “We didn’t have to say,” Hinton says. “We only had to convince the court that it had.” On May 30, 2012, the High Court announced its decision: it had split 5-2 in favour of Glyn, with the majority – Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel – holding that if Hale’s marriage immunity ever applied in Australia, it had at some point dissolved, and ceased to exist by 1963. There were two fiery ­dissents. Justice Dyson Heydon wondered: “What would have happened if [the accused] had been charged immediately after the offences had occurred in 1963?” He doubted that any court would in those days “find in favour of the idea that a man could rape his wife”. Justice Virginia Bell agreed, saying: “It cannot sensibly be suggested that [Pycroft] would have been prosecuted for those offences… This is because, at the time, it was understood that the crime of rape could not be committed by a husband against his wife.” Criticism came from another, perhaps unexpected, quarter – feminists. Associate professor at the Flinders University Law School, Mary Heath, says: “I am a feminist and I thought the decision was wrong. The High Court is saying that rape in marriage was always a crime and to me, that is disrespectful to the lived experience of many women, who suffered terribly. To say to them, ‘the law was always on your side, and all you had to do was go to the police’. ” end quote It was very divisive with even feminists disagreeing but it proves my point. It took over 40 years before attitudes had changed enough for such a case to be brought or to be successful and it took a modern, not an historical pov., by the judges for it to succeed. Ps i wouldnt recommend reading the account. It is very disturbing
  3. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    They said the block will remain until their investigation is completed. I don't know how much media knows that they are withholding because Sri Lanka has asked them not to make it public yet. I know one are the names of the people detained. Can't find anything on that and I've read a lot of reports today. Only that 10 were turned over to the equivalent of our FBI. They said no one has claimed responsibility but if they traced a safe house (3 policemen died there because the suspects set off a bomb as the police approached) they must have a good idea of who it was. I guess they aren't ready to release that yet.
  4. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    Lots of sanctimony too. I agree, keep it up.
  5. I don't believe you

    The UN made Marital Rape a Human Rights Violation in the early '90S when it was made a crime in both Australia and America.
  6. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    I suppose Sri Lankan officials are as trustworthy as our own. Unless you have a preferred version of events there is no reason to block eye witness accounts. They're mistaken if they think that speculating and false information always go hand in hand. Many times speculating is how the right answer is found.
  7. I don't believe you

    He was using a graphic dramatic point to help you understand how offensive you are. You repeatedly post over and over for years with no regards for the females on the board about how men have the right to rape women, what is your reason for this? Then you say you respect women? Rape is an awful act find something else to discuss. We have had enough.
  8. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    The image you project, sucking on sour grapes, is quite sufficient. Do go on and on and on...…...
  9. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    That's what NBC said. Blocking social media won't stop people from speculating and spreading false information. News outlets are getting what Sri Lanka officials are releasing. That's not a lot right now.
  10. I don't believe you

    No you are not familiar with it so, I suggest you read every word. You are back peddling now that I have posted it, you are busted cold this time. Walker, admit it.
  11. I don't believe you

    civil? if your comments were civil i would hate to see your incivility. Please report. We will see what the mods make of your inciting rape with a sex aid I was tempted to report but i found your comments more amusing than offensive became the y were so wrong and ignorant Ive outlined my sexual life, and its moral basis. It is very different to yours and yet i make no judgement on yours, and call you no names or think of you in any lesser way . What you believe or think of me is both irrelevant and clearly totally wrong, I've never raised a hand or a voice against any woman in anger, or forced any adult woman to do ANY thing they were not completely happy to do down to even the smallest choice, like what to eat or whether to go out etc, or what to spend money on .
  12. Hi, so this used to happen to me all the time when I was a young child. I felt quite tortured by this experience, I would complain to my mother and she would let me go into her bed with her, whereupon she would also experience the shaking, pushing, jolting etc...therefore we concurred that the phenomenon was related to me somehow and not the bed I was sleeping in. Make no mistake though, it was quite otherworldly and not something I was physically causing. It would be impossible for me to do so and we both knew it. Anyway I pleaded with whomever or whatever to please leave me alone! I would say in my head and out loud “please leave me alone, I can’t help you and I dont know what you want. I just want to sleep and I need you to let me be” finally after several nights of pleading with whatever or whomever- my normal life resumed. Hope this helps.
  13. I don't believe you

    You simply do not back up your fantasies with facts. Hey if it worked for you to tell your ole lady she had to consult and concede to you whatever floats your boat, but you are in error on stating as a fact that a women agreed to consensual sex as part and parcel of the marriage contract, therefore a man could rape her as he pleased.
  14. Overdueleaf

    redbuds, dogwoods, crabapple, pear, and forsythia are all in bloom making the afternoon drive that much more colorful. Spring is truly a wonderous time of year

  15. Well, it is supposed to be the Rio Grande river. But from what I read, it is a dry riverbed right now where the even occurred.
  16. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    That simultaneously blocks the spread of true information.
  17. I don't believe you

    I am very familiar with this case and the history since then. This is the first case law upon which all later western case and precedent law was established. it is the genesis of WHY, until 1960 there was no such thing as rape in marriage. While some might have disagreed, it was never legally overturned or even seriously challenged, and became more and more enshrined as a principle in western law.
  18. Trump Wanted To Put Migrants In Sanctuary Cit

    Oh, it doesn't say that anywhere. Standing guard duty on a wall isn't repelling a foreign invasion, sadly. They could help process the refugees I suppose. If Trump had half a brain he could just hire more border patrol to do guard duty constitutionally. But sadly he is too fixated and the wall and seems to have neglected everything else. Border patrol agent numbers are down, facilities are over crowded, and not enough judges to process people just to name a few. Maybe hiring a head of homeland security and a head for ICE would help. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/10/border-patrol-recruitment-crisis-1157171 Using the army probably wouldn't even help because they are suffering shortages as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/us/army-recruiting-shortage.html Seems like we don't have enough soldiers to meet our normal requirements, let alone standing guard duty in a desert. Hmmm, now that I had to think about it, don't you think it's weird that no one wants to work for Trump or the army, the border patrol, lead ICE, or lead Homeland Security during this National Emergency?
  19. I don't believe you

    I have been civil with you, although I have had to bite my tongue several times this evening in dealing with you. Would you care to edit this attack on my mental and emotional state, or should I just go ahead and report you? Considering that you always claim the victim status. MY nasty comments????? The only reason that you and Habitat are so smugly demanding what women can and cannot do with their own bodies, is because neither one of you have to bear the burden of your own edicts.
  20. I don't believe you

    Yup and prior to the 1960s rape in marriage did not exist in law because, as a legal contract, marriage conferred ongoing and perpetual consent to sex between the couple, which could not be unilaterally withdrawn inside a marriage by either individual This was clearly outlined and defined, in both case and precedent laws, throughout the world, So sex within a marriage could not be illegal, and thus could not be rape (unless of course it was regulated (as it was in some jurisdictions) to limit its scope to the missionary position) Not illegal. Consent given by law in a marriage of consenting adults Thus, not rape.
  21. I don't believe you

    The actual legal genesis of the marital rape exemption is a statement made three hundred years ago by Sir Matthew Hale: "but the husband can not be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself in this kind unto her husband marriage" doc trine allowed a rapist to escape prosecution by marrying his victim, it could be argued as a corollary that rape within the marriage would result in the same immunity. Contrary to his usual practice, Lord Hale cited no legal authority for this proposition. He also intimated that women could easily fabricate rape charges, a concern which has evolved today into the "cry-rape" syndrome.' Given his background as a judge at the 1662 witchcraft trial in Bury St. Edmunds and "systematic biases against women,"'he may have created the marital rape exemption. Whatever its inception, the fact remains that with little or no in- dependent analysis, authorities have relied upon and cited Hale, and his unsupported pronouncement became the flimsy fulcrum upon which the marital rape exemption rested. The issue was not considered by a court until 1888 in Regina v. C7arence, when the judges addressed the issue in dicta. Even then the judges divided on the issue. Two judges, Wills and Field, were opposed to Hale's pronouncement. Wills argued: If intercourse under the circumstances now in question constitute an assault on the part of the man, it must constitute rape, unless, indeed, as between married persons rape is impossible, a proposition to which I certainly am not prepared to assent, and for which there seems to me to be no sufficient authority... I cannot understand why, as a general Judge Field, criticizing the lack of authority, also noted "[t]he authority of Hale C.J. on such matter is undoubtedly as high as any can be but no other authority is cited by him for this proposition.” And, I should hesitate to adopt it. In other words, Walker is in error on many levels. https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1884&context=lawreview '
  22. But not during the presumed time of Atlantis. It can be established that there was no culture calling itself Atlantis during that time.
  23. Have you ever read Napoleon Hill's masterpiece? I have. Practically every sentence in my original copy is underlined. I didn't just read it Habitat...I memorized it. So trust me when I say you don't know what you are even talking about. You have absolutely no clue. But...perhaps this could be a turning point in your own life. Grab a copy at a library or your local bookstore...read the first chapter...then we might have something to discuss! A friend of mine who teaches a local college business class asked me if I would speak to his class. I said I would. I'd never spoken in a public forum before. I spoke for an hour and a half...and at the end of my talking I gave each student a signed copy of Napoleon Hill's, Think and Grow Rich. If I have anything at all to thank for all the successes in my life...it is that book. You know not of what you speak!
  24. I don't believe you

    Yup that is exactly how it was. it applied to both men and women but due to biology and social customs more men took advantage of it than women At the time we married my wife couldn't get a passport or a bank account without my permission. It wasn't right by modern standards, but it was the law and custom of the day and thus WAS right within the society of the day You truly are an idiot and a bit emotionally overwrought I can only wish my wife showed that amount of sexual imagination In reality, as stated i have never made any attempt to have sex with any woman without fully informed consent, and have refused sexual overtures from them which i felt were inappropriate. But it goes beyond sex. I was raised to see men as owing a duty of care and protection to women and to honour and respect them as our wives, mothers, sisters and companions, giving them a special place above men. Today that is seen as a bit sexist but luckily i still live in a community where such values are appreciated and i am thanked rater than abused for throwing my cape down on a puddle for a woman I think i have mentioned before that i have never considered sex with another woman since I met my wife in 1972. Love, respect, honour and duty, would prevent me thinking or acting on such a thing. Due t her medical condition we have not had sex for over 20 years. it does not diminish or affect my love affection and respect for her, or make me need any other source of sex. That is why i am not offended by your rather nasty comments. I know myself, and the man that I am, and I know how lucky I am to have the lifelong wife and companion that i do, even if putting on a sex aid would be beyond her wildest comprehension .
  25. I don't believe you

    "You have heard the teachers of the law say, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every man who looks upon a woman with intent to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. You can only judge men by their acts, but my Father looks into the hearts of his children and in mercy adjudges them in accordance with their intents and real desires."
  26. I wonder what the trump narrative will be?
  1. Load more activity