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 -

I don't believe you


Jodie.Lynne

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mr Walker said:

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.

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 

Mr. Walker, with all do respect, I've never seen a more severe case of anal retention. Rape is when you force someone, against their wishes, to have sex with you. Rape is not taking no for an answer. It use to be legal in marriage, but it was never right. No man who truly loves and respects their wife would ever do it. Those that do are selfish sons of b****es. They're not manly men, they're animals, disgusting and despicable excuses for men. Now why don't you pull that hole dug yourself, in on top of you and give it a rest.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes 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. 
'

 

let us read the rest of this source which you failed to footnote

https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1884&context=lawreview

 

Only four cases in Britain have considered the spousal exemption; only one actually held, following Hale, that a husband could not be charged with raping his wife;26 that case was heard in 1949.27 Is our authority, then, only forty years old? "That a rule like the marital rape exemption could date from a time when the status of women was supposed to be improved says a lot about that supposition," 28 and that jurisprudence for three hundred years has clung to Lord Hale's "Contractual Consent" theory29 "says much about contemporary society and the role of ideology in it." ' 30 On the strength of Hale's unsupported statement, the judiciary in the United States formally recognized the husband's immunity as early as 1857,31 but perhaps judicial acknowledgement occurred even earlier.32 Few cases have dealt with the issue directly33 because most statutory codifications and the common law required, as an element of rape, that the victim not be the spouse or wife of the perpetrator. 3 4

end quote 

In other words, while some did not like it, all "lumped it"  until the 1970s when things began to change and the law was challenged and altered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

let us read the rest of this source which you failed to footnote

https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1884&context=lawreview

 

Only four cases in Britain have considered the spousal exemption; only one actually held, following Hale, that a husband could not be charged with raping his wife;26 that case was heard in 1949.27 Is our authority, then, only forty years old? "That a rule like the marital rape exemption could date from a time when the status of women was supposed to be improved says a lot about that supposition," 28 and that jurisprudence for three hundred years has clung to Lord Hale's "Contractual Consent" theory29 "says much about contemporary society and the role of ideology in it." ' 30 On the strength of Hale's unsupported statement, the judiciary in the United States formally recognized the husband's immunity as early as 1857,31 but perhaps judicial acknowledgement occurred even earlier.32 Few cases have dealt with the issue directly33 because most statutory codifications and the common law required, as an element of rape, that the victim not be the spouse or wife of the perpetrator. 3 4

end quote 

In other words, while some did not like it, all "lumped it"  until the 1970s when things began to change and the law was challenged and altered. 

I don't give a bloody damn when the law was changed, because the change confirms marital rape as wrong, a despicable and reprehensible act and represents the culmination of the emancipation of women.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a neighbour who had a difficult birth, and some remedial surgery for tears. Hubby was somewhat impatient, apparently, and she confided she was suffering the painful consequences. Never thought the same of the bloke after that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Mr. Walker, with all do respect, I've never seen a more severe case of anal retention. Rape is when you force someone, against their wishes, to have sex with you. Rape is not taking no for an answer. It use to be legal in marriage, but it was never right. No man who truly loves and respects their wife would ever do it. Those that do are selfish sons of b****es. They're not manly men, they're animals, disgusting and despicable excuses for men. Now why don't you pull that hole dug yourself, in on top of you and give it a rest.

Philosophically I agree but rape could not exist in marriage because it was legally defined that a woman (or man) in a marriage could not withdraw the consent legally given during a marriage  ceremony

if something is consensual and legal then it cannot be rape.

The basis of this argument is that morality and ethics are not absolute but relative

Right is what we as humans decide at any one time is right. There are no absolute/ unchanging  moral rights and wrongs.    

Like others, you fail to distinguish reality from wishful thinking 

I am a better man than most  through both discipline and nature, and ethical education. However i cannot accept  that we can judge past people by our  own practices  and beliefs/values  nor tha t a future people can judge us by their own values.

My father would never have demanded sex from  my mother without her full and  willing  consent. My mother would never have dreamed of refusing it, without a good reason.  That is the way good, kind, people, who loved each other,  thought and behaved back then,  and still do today  

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Philosophically I agree but rape could not exist in marriage because it was legally defined that a woman (or man) in a marriage could not withdraw the consent legally given during a marriage  ceremony

if something is consensual and legal then it cannot be rape.

The basis of this argument is that morality and ethics are not absolute but relative

Right is what we as humans decide at any one time is right. There are no absolute/ unchanging  moral rights and wrongs.    

Like others, you fail to distinguish reality from wishful thinking 

I am a better man than most  through both discipline and nature, and ethical education. However i cannot accept  that we can judge past people by our  own practices  and beliefs/values  nor tha t a future people can judge us by their own values. 

Oh, right now, I have enough on my hands judging the ones here in the present. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I don't give a bloody damn when the law was changed, because the change confirms marital rape as wrong, a despicable and reprehensible act and represents the culmination of the emancipation of women.

The law makes it wrong from  the point the law changed. It does not make it wrong from  before then (although sometimes modern values are allowed to override this legal principle) 

Is it wrong to eat meat? 

if it becomes considered wrong  (and illegal) to eat meat in  20 years time, do you admit to being a criminal and immoral, today, for doing so, today? 

If it is wrong then, why is it not wrong now? why are you not an evil despicable human being NOW for eating meat or wearing animal products  once it becomes seen as such, in the future?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

The law makes it wrong from  the point the law changed. It does not make it wrong from  before then (although sometimes modern values are allowed to override this legal principle) 

Is it wrong to eat meat? 

if it becomes considered wrong  (and illegal) to eat meat in  20 years time, do you admit to being a criminal and immoral, today, for doing so, today? 

If it is wrong then, why is it not wrong now? why are you not an evil despicable human being NOW for eating meat or wearing animal products  once it becomes seen as such, in the future?  

Mr. Walker, if you are trying to persuade the women here you are a boorish and insensitive lout, I dare say you've succeeded. Your analogy is spurious and ludicrous, equating eating meat with rape. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

let us read the rest of this source which you failed to footnote

https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1884&context=lawreview

 

Only four cases in Britain have considered the spousal exemption; only one actually held, following Hale, that a husband could not be charged with raping his wife;26 that case was heard in 1949.27 Is our authority, then, only forty years old? "That a rule like the marital rape exemption could date from a time when the status of women was supposed to be improved says a lot about that supposition," 28 and that jurisprudence for three hundred years has clung to Lord Hale's "Contractual Consent" theory29 "says much about contemporary society and the role of ideology in it." ' 30 On the strength of Hale's unsupported statement, the judiciary in the United States formally recognized the husband's immunity as early as 1857,31 but perhaps judicial acknowledgement occurred even earlier.32 Few cases have dealt with the issue directly33 because most statutory codifications and the common law required, as an element of rape, that the victim not be the spouse or wife of the perpetrator. 3 4

end quote 

In other words, while some did not like it, all "lumped it"  until the 1970s when things began to change and the law was challenged and altered. 

You are the one claiming rape ( spousal exemption) was never looked judiciously as a crime and that it never came up prior to the 70’s. 

I have successfully refuted you, as this is just not the case. There were 4 cases looking at this as early as 1886.

You said prior to the 70s they would have been laughed out of court. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

You are the one claiming rape ( spousal exemption) was never looked judiciously as a crime and that it never came up prior to the 70’s. 

I have successfully refuted you, as this is just not the case. There were 4 cases looking at this as early as 1886.

 

No you did not You went to the case law in English law which ESTABLISHED the legal precedence that formed English and american law for the next 300 years.

This judgement was the basis (rightly or wrongly upon which all subsequent laws were based and why rape was specifically excluded between a married couple under English and American laws 

You have either mis read or totally misunderstood your source.  Yes there were some who felt the judge had made the wrong decision but legally  his decision established legal precedence and law until the 1970s  

One of those cases established the principle The others did not undo or refute it   The law  was only changed from  the mid 60s through the seventies, country by country, across the world 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Mr. Walker, if you are trying to persuade the women here you are a boorish and insensitive lout, I dare say you've succeeded. Your analogy is spurious and ludicrous, equating eating meat with rape. 

Thank you John. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are the one claiming rape ( spousal exemption) was never looked judiciously as a crime and that it never came up prior to the 70’s. 

I have successfully refuted you, as this is just not the case. There were 4 cases looking at this as early as 1886.

You said prior to the 70s they would have been laughed out of court. 

 

 

And they were. The law was very rarely challenged, it was so well established, and when it was, it was upheld. 

I was quoting a legal opinion which explained that, in 1963, a legal challenge to rape in marriage would have been laughed out of court.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Mr. Walker, if you are trying to persuade the women here you are a boorish and insensitive lout, I dare say you've succeeded. Your analogy is spurious and ludicrous, equating eating meat with rape. 

Not really interested in anyone's opinion about me The y believe as the y choose. 

If you do not see the analogy between the ethics of eating an animal or raping a woman, this only illustrates the point i am making. ONE is abhorrent in modern society, the other is acceptable.

 BUT what if both become abhorrent and illegal in the future,  are you suddenly evil for eating meat, just because those future people consider you to be so .?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Not really interested in anyone's opinion about me The y believe as the y choose. 

If you do not see the analogy between the ethics of eating an animal or raping a woman, this only illustrates the point i am making. ONE is abhorrent in modern society, the other is acceptable.

 BUT what if both become abhorrent and illegal in the future,  are you suddenly evil for eating meat, just because those future people consider you to be so .?  

Oh, Mr. Walker, in that fictional future they'll grow meat artificially, no actual living animal involved and there will be no stigma attached in it's consumption.  Hell, they'll even have pleasure 'droids guys like you can rape to your hearts content--you can even order extra breasts!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And they were. The law was very rarely challenged, it was so well established, and when it was, it was upheld. 

I was quoting a legal opinion which explained that, in 1963, a legal challenge to rape in marriage would have been laughed out of court.       

4 times is 4 times, it was looked at of the 4 cases only 1 was upheld. 

This establishes that there was a distinction and arguments being formulated between between consensual sex and rape within a marriage. 

The wheels of justice are notorious slow but they do turn the tides eventually. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No you did not You went to the case law in English law which ESTABLISHED the legal precedence that formed English and american law for the next 300 years.

This judgement was the basis (rightly or wrongly upon which all subsequent laws were based and why rape was specifically excluded between a married couple under English and American laws 

You have either mis read or totally misunderstood your source.  Yes there were some who felt the judge had made the wrong decision but legally  his decision established legal precedence and law until the 1970s  

One of those cases established the principle The others did not undo or refute it   The law  was only changed from  the mid 60s through the seventies, country by country, across the world 

No offense to you, but I will let Eight bits correct me if it happens to be needed. 

As he is our forum expert on the law, not you. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a Christmas truce on the Western Front, but there is no Easter truce on UM.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There was a Christmas truce on the Western Front, but there is no Easter truce on UM.

Just kids having fun.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good movies.

 

I think only ....if I  recall it correctly"""""  All Quiet on the  Western  Front  """"

UUUUUUUUPdate: BOTH OF THEM !

Edited by MWoo7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

Good movies.

 

I think only ....if I  recall it correctly"""""  All Quiet on the  Western  Front  """"

UUUUUUUUPdate: BOTH OF THEM !

I'm more the Kelly's Heroes kinda guy, myself.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'm more the Kelly's Heroes kinda guy, myself.

I am a “To Kill a Mockingbird” type gal,,myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I am a “To Kill a Mockingbird” type gal,,myself.

Gregory Peck? He turned down the role of Dirty Harry.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.