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. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Maybe it's simply a one off Operation like that.. coordinated
  3. Place your (pretend) bets..

    Based on the impeachment process requiring the republicans to vote in favor of it I cant imagine any of the dems actually think removal from office is an option. I do however, perhaps romantically, hope that some of them are still considering pursuing the impeachment process due to their own moral convictions. While the current conventional wisdom seems to be that it would be a bad political move for the dems I think we can look at history a little and see how the public nature of the impeachment process brought Nixon's approval ratings from absurdly high levels (like near 80% if i recall correctly) down into a range where there was no political will for his party to protect him. Personally Ive come around to the position that what we need to be doing is ending the conditions ripe for a Trump - or a Clinton for that matter - rather than damaging the nation through removal attempts. I am intrigued by the secret indictments however. That has nothing to do with the dems and is honestly the one thing that should have the whole criminal enterprise terrified.
  4. I don't believe you

    You reckon? I think it was just rude and ignorant . Men do not have the right to rape women. it was not rape when it occurred in a marriage, even though to day it might be seen as such. Then it was neither legally nor conceptually rape, as consent was outlined in law by the process of formal marriage. This was one of the reasons why formal marriage was so important to both men and women of the time. Basically, if you did not want to have sex, you chose not to get married. (and some people, especially women, made that choice) Outside of it, sex was illegal and seen to be immoral. Inside it, sex was not just legal and moral, but assumed to be an integral part of the relationship Even as late as the seventies there was a lot of legal and social pressure not to have sex before marriage, or outside of it . Children were raised in those beliefs and values You always claim you have had enough when you are proven wrong on the facts of an issue, and no longer wish to argue them.
  5. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    There have actually been Buddist attacks on Muslims in Sri Lanka in the past year. http://theconversation.com/violent-buddhist-extremists-are-targeting-muslims-in-sri-lanka-92951
  6. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    It is pretty important after most tense moments, we all practice containment at times. Much like siblings fighting over a toy if Stop does not mean STOP! You end up with worse than what you started with
  7. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    As these issues tend to be very contentious we avoid over moderating, however I am getting mighty impatient with the level of personal attacks taking place in here. Debate the topic or I will be forced to remove personal attacks and issue warnings.
  8. I don't believe you

    it was criminalised in south Australia in 1976, (same year that I was married ) making this one of the first western jurisdictions to do so
  9. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    Yes. I remember reading where they wanted to let tensions ease.
  10. I don't believe you

    Rapists are pathetic people, and many of the victims have come to that realisation. That seems like the best way to resolve the anger and feeling of humiliation. Incarceration acts to keep them off the street.
  11. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    Eh, if that's it then it's no big deal. I get disappointments far worse at work. The way everyone was hyping it up made it sound like some big catastrophic secret. Sour grapes for me is hiring a guy and finding out he has no license and listening to him beg to hurry up and get the drug test done so he can smoke pot and then hearing about it from my boss because he asked him too after I said no.
  12. I don't believe you

    What? You are showing your ignorance. You have misunderstood your piece of post entirely Read the bits included in my post above about the effects of this judgement. Where is anything in your post that shows that rape in marriage was ever considered a crime or could even exist, under English/western law
  13. "Terrorists" kill 200+ in Sri Lanka

    My guess is the Sri Lankan government is trying to avoid a civil war crisis. It is so very important to contain the violence in the early days, to let it run amok unabated could put the country into total chaos.
  14. I don't believe you

    Concerning Marital Rape and Amnesty etc. Like a year ago, still happening here and there on this rock-- 2018 10 May 2018, 20:35 UTC Maybe still goes on but the world does not hear.
  15. 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
  16. "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.
  17. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    Lots of sanctimony too. I agree, keep it up.
  18. 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.
  19. "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.
  20. 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.
  21. Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

    The image you project, sucking on sour grapes, is quite sufficient. Do go on and on and on...…...
  22. "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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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 .
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  1. Load more activity