I don't believe you

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

How many children are adopted each year?

Around 140,000 children are adopted by American families each year.⁷

 

https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics

Only newborns adopted to strangers are relevant.

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Only newborns adopted to strangers are relevant.

Again, why?

I fail to see the relevance of this stringent criteria of yours.

[Habitat]

Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

Again, why?

I fail to see the relevance of this stringent criteria of yours.

I'm not going to tell you this again, abortion allows women to get rid of an unwanted baby before anyone other than the woman even knows there is a baby coming, failing that, expulsion from the birth canal is the first available opportunity. Why would you then delay "getting rid of" the baby you don't want.

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@Habitat

Please read this statement by your hero, and stop fangirling long enough to comprehend the statement.

According to him, there was no rape in marriage, until the 1960's. When, presumably, the first cases of rape were brought to bear against husbands by wives.

In his deluded state, since there were no lawsuits, rape didn't exist before that time.

And in an earlier post, W stated that if the attacker didn't think it was rape, then it wasn't rape.

I wonder how either of you would feel about the matter if you were in prison, and became victims of rape.

I'm not wishing it upon either of you, but it might cause you to empathize a little bit. It just might open your eyes (among other things), if you could see the issue from the other side.

You cant have a crime, or indeed an act , when there is no such entity known by law or by custom.

Rape in marriage dd not EXIST prior to the 1960s. There was no such thing (outside of Russia and one other country )  You can't say now that it was rape, when it was NOT rape then, This is true for murder or any other abstract concept. 

And no it was not brought about by law suits because the law was established and very clear. Marriage gave ongoing sexual consent  which could not be unilaterally withdrawn by either party. So, as social attitudes changed the LAW  had to be changed.  

I never stated tha t if an attacker didn't see it as rape it was not rape. i said that if in a society a crime is not seen as a crime, then it is NOT a crime.

  We decide what is right and wrong, and we do so as groups of social animals. We change our minds over time what is right now may be wrong in the future. What is wrong now might be right in the future. 

 

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Again, why?

I fail to see the relevance of this stringent criteria of yours.

Habbie, made a claim said adoption was non existent in the west originally to support his abortion is the reason adoption is down claim. 

 

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I'm not going to tell you this again, abortion allows women to get rid of an unwanted baby before anyone other than the woman even knows there is a baby coming, failing that, expulsion from the birth canal is the first available opportunity. Why would you then delay "getting rid of" the baby you don't want.

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I'm not going to tell you this again, abortion allows women to get rid of an unwanted baby before anyone other than the woman even knows there is a baby coming, failing that, expulsion from the birth canal is the first available opportunity. Why would you then delay "getting rid of" the baby you don't want.

You are not making sense.

If a woman goes through carrying, and delivering her pregnancy, and gives the child up for adoption, then why are you insisting that "ONLY NEW BORN ADOPTIONS" are relevant?

What do you propose for the 6 month old, unadopted child? The 1 year old? the 10 year old?

Are you being deliberately dense? Or just trolling?

[Jodie.Lynne]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Rape in marriage dd not EXIST prior to the 1960s.

Define the act of rape. Use legal terms, or make up your own definition, as you are wont to do. Then tell me that marital rape didn't exist. 

Here, let me help you.

Merriam-Webster. I highlighted an important phrase.

RAPE

1 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception — compare sexual assault, statutory rape

 

Here is the definition for 

SEXUAL ASSAULT

illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (such as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Jodie.Lynne

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You are not making sense.

If a woman goes through carrying, and delivering her pregnancy, and gives the child up for adoption, then why are you insisting that "ONLY NEW BORN ADOPTIONS" are relevant?

What do you propose for the 6 month old, unadopted child? The 1 year old? the 10 year old?

Are you being deliberately dense? Or just trolling?

Irrelevant as it pertains to abortion. Of course people change their minds, but this would require (to be relevant) a woman who decided she did not want the child whilst pregnant, changed her mind when it was born, then a while later, reverted to again not wanting the child. A limited number would fit that scenario. Women that only decided past the point that an abortion is going to be legal, that they don't want the child, would be a small minority too.

[Will Due]

 

"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."

 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Will Due

[Mr Walker]

37 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

BULLSHIRT!

Do you think, because it is within marriage, a woman doesn't have the right to say "NO"?

If so, why not? Is it because she is the property of her husband?

By this argument, a wife has the right to purchase a strap-on sexual device and penetrate her husband, with or without his consent. And from the sound of your argument, Mrs Walker should do just that. It might just teach you some humility, if not an appreciation for a woman's right to her own body.

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 .    

 

[+Sherapy]

35 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Define the act of rape. Use legal terms, or make up your own definition, as you are wont to do. Then tell me that marital rape didn't exist. 

 

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
'

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Define the act of rape. Use legal terms, or make up your own definition, as you are wont to do. Then tell me that marital rape didn't exist. 

Here, let me help you.

Merriam-Webster. I highlighted an important phrase.

RAPE

1 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception — compare sexual assault, statutory rape

 

Here is the definition for 

SEXUAL ASSAULT

illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (such as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority

 

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. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You truly are an idiot and a bit emotionally overwrought 

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.

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That is why i am not offended by your rather nasty comments.

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.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Jodie.Lynne

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

The actual legal genesis of the marital rape exemption is a statement made three hundred years ago by Sir Matthew Hale: "ut 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- trine15 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.” 

In other words, Walker is in error on many levels. The first time this issue came up was in 1888. 
'

 

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.  

[+Sherapy]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

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 .    

 

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. 

 

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

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.

 

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 . 

[+Sherapy]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

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.  

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. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

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 . 

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. 

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

The UN made Marital Rape a Human Rights Violation in the early '90S when it was made a crime in both Australia and America. 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

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. 

 

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 

 

 

 

[MWoo7]

Concerning Marital Rape and Amnesty etc.

15 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

   . . . Marital Rape a Human Rights Violation in the early '90S when it was made a crime . . .

  Like a year ago, still happening here and there on this rock-- 2018

Quote

 " . . . Sudanese court’s sentencing today of a 19-year-old woman to death for killing her rapist husband in self-defence highlights the failure of the authorities to tackle child marriage, forced marriage and marital rape, Amnesty International said today.  "

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/sudan-death-sentence-for-raped-teenager-is-an-intolerable-cruelty/

10 May 2018, 20:35 UTC

Maybe still goes on but the world does not hear.

Edited April 22, 2019 by MWoo7

[Mr Walker]

16 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

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. 

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  

 

[Habitat]

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

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. 

 

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.

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The UN made Marital Rape a Human Rights Violation in the early '90S when it was made a crime in both Australia and America. 

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  

[Mr Walker]

25 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

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. 

 

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.  

Edited April 22, 2019 by Mr Walker