I don't believe you

[+Sherapy]

41 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Times have changed, and the submissive wife has become a rarity, one hears more about "hen-pecked" husbands these days. Of course in times past, say pre-1960's, there was little way for a woman to escape a bad marriage, especially if with young children, the welfare system offered nothing. No doubt this did encourage "bad" behaviour from some men, they basically had a captive. And of course no-fault divorce has also greatly altered the picture. The past is in many ways, a foreign land, and in 50 years time, people might think today's norms outdated.Where I am the focus is on equality of the sexes and team playing. 

Marriage is about equality now. We work together on everything, each helps the other, especially with the kids. 

Even when I was a stay at home mom, my hubby helped with every thing, or we hired help.

He recognized the importance and time commitment raising kids required over and beyond feeding and clothing them. 

My husband is amazing on every level. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Marriage is about equality now. We work together on everything, each helps the other, especially with the kids. 

Even when I was a stay at home mom, my hubby helped with every thing, or we hired help.

He recognized the importance and time commitment raising kids required over and beyond feeding and clothing them. 

My husband is amazing on every level. 

Good ! One does hear quite a bit of "damning by faint praise" of the spouse, in conversation.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Did you ever see “Enough” with Jennifer Lopez. 

I actually think that movie is a good case study on morality.

It presents a very specific situation and circumstance in which premeditated murder ends up being the moral choice. It's rare for that to be, but it does happen in situations like that.

That's not to say I'm arguing morality to be subjective, I'm simply saying there are some situations where what's typically considered to be evil can turn out being the right choice overall.

[+Sherapy]

15 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I actually think that movie is a good case study on morality.

It presents a very specific situation and circumstance in which premeditated murder ends up being the moral choice. It's rare for that to be, but it does happen in situations like that.

That's not to say I'm arguing morality to be subjective, I'm simply saying there are some situations where what's typically considered to be evil can turn out being the right choice overall.

I think the husband was a cop in the movie, she didn’t have many options in the film. 

Did you ever see “Sleeping with the Enemy”?

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Did you ever see “Sleeping with the Enemy”?

I did at some point, but I don't remember much about it. It's been years. Did it have Julia Roberts in it?

[+Sherapy]

24 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I did at some point, but I don't remember much about it. It's been years. Did it have Julia Roberts in it?

Yes. A very good story about how to get out of the abuse when one has no means. 

[Aquila King]

Just now, Sherapy said:

Yes. A very good story about how to get out of the abuse when one has no means. 

There are a lot of people stuck in situations like that sadly, and often the only means of escape being to go outside the law... 

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I actually think that movie is a good case study on morality.

It presents a very specific situation and circumstance in which premeditated murder ends up being the moral choice. It's rare for that to be, but it does happen in situations like that.

That's not to say I'm arguing morality to be subjective, I'm simply saying there are some situations where what's typically considered to be evil can turn out being the right choice overall.

 

How about the movie "Dolores Claiborne". 

Protect a child. What ya gotta do sometimes. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

On 22/04/2019 at 4:27 PM, Sherapy said:

Now, your just flipping the script as they say., changing your claims, arguing against yourself now. You and I have been done posts ago with this discussion.

Moving on...

As i said; this is  your usual tactic when proven wrong on a factual basis 

[Mr Walker]

On 22/04/2019 at 5:59 PM, eight bits said:

First, I am not a lawyer. Second, the real difficulty here is not so much working out the history of the law as working out what in hell Mr Walker is claiming exactly. If the law makes an exception for something, then there is no such thing as the something for which the exception was made? Huh?

At any given time, there are widely recognized wrongs that are not criminalized. Further, of the things that have been criminalized, prosecutors may decide not to seek punishment for incidents of the wrongful behavior, often because the chances of prevailing before a jury are dismal.

The absence of a criminal sanction or the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution does not magically transform a wrong into a right. Conversely, the criminalization of something or the increased chance of successful prosecution from one era to the next doesn't retroactively make anything wrong that wasn't already wrong in the first place.

Consider something concrete with much lower temperature than rape. Selling, importing or manufacturing alcoholic beverages was generally legal in the United States until shortly after WW I, became almost entirely illegal at the federal level for several years, and then in the 1930's became legal again (i.e., a prerogative of the states).

It is absurd to argue that the moral character of these activities changed back and forth according to the  letter of the law. These activities weren't even the focus of what some people thought was immoral, the personal consumption of alcoholic beverages. Consumption was NOT prohibted at the federal level.. The prohibited activities were ancillary to the targeted "immoral" behavior, but other ancillary aspects (possession, gifting, even family-scale production) were not prohibited.

So, why were selling, manufactuiring and importation targeted? Because they are public acts, in contrast to private acts, like consumption, possession and gifting. Public acts are for more likely to be criminalized than private ones - not any hard and fast rule, as possession of many things is criminalized, but what is private is difficult, politically and practically, to criminalize.

We know that the toleration for alcohol consumption wasn't because of moral acceptance or myopia on the part of prohibition advocates. Reducing consumption was the very point of criminalizing whatever public aspects of alcohol culture they could criminalize, practically and politically.

In light of that, I have no idea why Mr Walker introduces the changing state of criminal law as a surrogate for what is morally wrong, or widely perceived as morally wrong. He surely has made no showing that an exception for marital rape reflected widespread moral acceptance or myopia rather than a practical and political accommodation of a sphere of privacy surrounding marital relations in general.

My point was in response to the definition of rape ie forcing sex without the  consent of the other party.This was definitely illegal.

 BUT,  prior to changes in the law in the seventies  no such entity as rape could exist in marriage because of the legal presumption, successfully  argued in a number  of cases, and thus established as precedent, that the legal act of marriage conferred ongoing and irrevocable consent to sex by either partner at any time 

This was found to be the case, even where the man was suffering a serious STD, and even where a few judges questioned it's morality  

ONLY the initiation of divorce proceedings, which signified a legal withdrawal of consent,  OR a court order, could over ride that English (and American) law

People can think of me as they like or call me any names they like, but that was the law and it  was how the law was applied 

it goes to my point that ethics and moralities are not absolute but based on cultural relativism 

Of course the "moral character" of  "rape"  changed  

Morality, and right and wrong changed.

The y are NOT fixed, but abstract concepts of the human mind, and people change their values and attitudes  so that our moralities and ethical values change over time 

Our beliefs and customs determine what we feel are right or wrong, and our laws tend to be tied to, but sometimes lagging behind, those beliefs and customs 

[Mr Walker]

On 22/04/2019 at 6:00 PM, Hammerclaw said:

There are a lot of things people did in the past that were not good things, were never good things, that we don't do anymore. Brutality was a fact of life and people learned to live with it until they learned better. Like the eruption of Vesuvius which buried Pompeii and Herculaneum, bad things happened in the past, awful things and there's no way to sugar coat them. People did what they did back then because they didn't know any better, but take a child from that era and give him a modern education and he could fly a space shuttle. They were no different and no better or worse than us save for behaviors they had not grown out of. We must be cognizant of the lessons of the past in order not to repeat them. Never sanction rape, murder, incest or fratricide because it was once acceptable. You come across like a man out of his time, balking at the changes in the world around him. You are--in many respects--like a Victorian man, lost in a future not his own. At least, that's the image you unwittingly project. But hey! You're not here to win a popularity contest, so no matter.

Define "good"

In general you will find such definitions tied to our values  and beliefs 

Thus what we see as good/bad may be quite different in another time or culture 

We all like to think that our own beliefs, values, customs and moralities, are the best, and superior to all others across time and space.

  But that is not so 

I agree with what you say but see it differently  The future will adopt  its own values beliefs and moralities from what is required for the survival of individuals and society.

We do not know what they will be but they could include improvements (from our point of view) or going backwards(from our point of view)

for example. Two solutions to a future lack of protein are to enforce vegetarianism on all, or to use human beings for protein Only those in the future can decide which is right for them. We wont be there . 

Oh and yes  I am old fashioned but for very good reasons I can see from  life and studies that, while our standard of living in material terms has improved since Victorian times,  our quality of life measured on psychological and social terms has not. We are not as free, or fit, as people from  that era  (although we like to think we are free) and we live in a decaying social structure which threatens the prosperity and well being which we have purchased by mortgaging our lives to greed and materialism Plus of course the sexualisation of society and young people 

Pornography is the most common thing watched on  the internet.

it debases women, and commercialises and objectifies them.

Yep i am old fashioned  enough to believe that is wrong, and one of the reasons why women are so badly treated and disrespected in the modern era.

My mother was more empowered and respected than most modern women,  despite living from 1922 to 2015 and leaving school aged 13 to go to work on the farm .  

Edited April 23, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

And, you are not evil for it. 

Of course he is not, but neither was a man who forced his wife to have sex with him, when  this was not just normal, but expected and agreed upon by both parties in their marriage contract  

My point was that future people will see him, you, and even me, as evil barbarians, just as you see people from  the past 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I never did see the J-Lo movie, but I do remember “Sleeping With The Enemy” with Julia Roberts. I sometimes remember scenes from that movie, and reflect on that. What gets me, is how the marriage occurred in the first place. The appearance of a wonderful suitor, who turns once the marriage has started. I often have wondered how they do start, but with a lot of years of public and religious ‘urging, suggesting, and pushing’, there is a lot of ‘fakeness’ That occurs to get there. I never really saw my parents in such a situation, ( I feel fortunately) and my hubby, is the example for me as a perfect gentleman. That being said, I have seen examples of marital abuse, and it has me   

I cannot forget hearing the sounds next door, (in military housing, where the houses were like town houses, and walls were what separated the hoes) in the master bedroom of a woman screaming and the sounds of fists hitting flesh. Another time, while out for my favorite thing, walks, walking past a couple, who were tending to their yard, the husband yelling and ordering his wife to do things. And, it horrifys me. (I’m wondering if I spelled that correctly) Anyhow, for all of some of talk about pushing marriage, and love, and what one has to do within it and what love to them is, how can you abuse the one you love?!?!? When a man expects his wife to vow to obey him, is he really loving her? 

Rape, to me from how I understand it, is violence!!! It’s a horrible act, From what I got from this page:

Quote

noun

unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of anotherperson, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consentof the victim.

statutory rape.

an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:the rape of the countryside.

Unlawful, and violent. Violence. 

A true loving spouse would never be violent to another, would they?! Right?!?! Whether the laws said it was allowed or not, doesn’t make it a good law. If you look At varying laws that are probably still considered legal, (but ignored)  you would wonder why were these laws made in the first place. There were probably reasons, but probably in my book, very stupid reasons. I don’t think, even if they were created, doesn’t make them right, even then. 

From my secular raised observations, for all this talk of love your neighbor and just have ‘love’, doesn’t seem to coincide with the behavior of those spewing such talk. Any society that is being felt to need to subjegate people for their success, isn’t a society that should survive in the first place. A healthy strong society, is a society that doesn’t depend on the subjugation of others, but is independent of that and is successful of the equal respect and teamwork of everybody. 

Someone who loves someone, doesn’t consider them someone to hurt if they don’t get their way. How can one love and expect they need to force themselves on someone at the same time. Rape is violence, is always considered as violence, no matter what the frame of mind was. It’s still violence. You don’t love a spouse you show violence on. That’s not a healthy and strong marriage. That’s a marriage that is a lie. 

I think, on top of knowing that rape legally expected in marriage was wrong and making it illegal, I think the majority of people knew in their consciousness it was wrong and feel shamed that was part of their history. 

Just because something was ‘alright’ to do at the time, doesn’t make it right at any time. 

The very thought, that some considered it as normal and alright, because it was in the laws, disgusts me.  

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And, it horrifys me. (I’m wondering if I spelled that correctly)

Horrifies would be the proper spelling. I'd never correct someones grammar uninvited but your question seemed genuine.

8 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

The very thought, that some considered it as normal and alright, because it was in the laws, disgusts me.  

I actually challenge that entire concept because regardless of the society and regardless of the form of violence or sadistic behavior there have always been those who have placed themselves above all of that as much as possible. "Elites" if you will. To me this signifies that no one ever viewed it as alright and that those who wrote history viewed it as alright to happen to others not as alright in general.

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Horrifies would be the proper spelling. I'd never correct someones grammar uninvited but your question seemed genuine.

I actually challenge that entire concept because regardless of the society and regardless of the form of violence or sadistic behavior there have always been those who have placed themselves above all of that as much as possible. "Elites" if you will. To me this signifies that no one ever viewed it as alright and that those who wrote history viewed it as alright to happen to others not as alright in general.

You know very little of the Victorian Age, apparently. Examine, if you will, the callous indifference displayed by society in general and a disenchanted husband specifically toward his wife.

https://www.charlesdickensinfo.com/life/marriage/

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

21 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And, it horrifys me. (I’m wondering if I spelled that correctly)

Horrifies would be the proper spelling. I'd never correct someones grammar uninvited but your question seemed genuine.

And I thank you.   Normally, I would open another window and spell out the word in a search engine and see how it comes out. I was kind of lazy today, (no excuse of course) So, yes, I appreciate your post, and I’m not offended.  

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

I actually challenge that entire concept because regardless of the society and regardless of the form of violence or sadistic behavior there have always been those who have placed themselves above all of that as much as possible. "Elites" if you will. To me this signifies that no one ever viewed it as alright and that those who wrote history viewed it as alright to happen to others not as alright in general.

Thank you for your reply. That is what I have always thought. 

 

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You know very little of the Victorian Age, apparently. Examine, if you will, the callous indifference displayed by society in general and a disenchanted husband specifically toward his wife.

https://www.charlesdickensinfo.com/life/marriage/

Oh I recognize those realities. My point is that if you took any of those husbands and physically dominated them their first thought wouldnt have been "im weaker so this is how its supposed to be" it would have been "damn this sucks".

I guess I feel like the argument Walker is making while being based on human nature is also negated by human nature.

I feel like im not communicating effectively here.....maybe ill give it another go in a little bit LOL

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh I recognize those realities. My point is that if you took any of those husbands and physically dominated them their first thought wouldnt have been "im weaker so this is how its supposed to be" it would have been "damn this sucks".

I guess I feel like the argument Walker is making while being based on human nature is also negated by human nature.

I feel like im not communicating effectively here.....maybe ill give it another go in a little bit LOL

Yeah, don't board a sinking ship with out a life jacket. Wives were chattel at the beginning of the Victorian Age. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Granted, reading Hammie’s link, reminds me of the ‘injustice’ of how women are treated, and especially in marriage, it has been for years the way society has saw it. I’m reminded of a case that occurred In my own state.  And despite the police ignoring her and her cries for help, because she was married to him, doesn’t make it right. I don’t think it’s a consensus that what went on, like the example in Hammie’s link, that was right as well. A loving spouse, would not see it as right, I really don’t think. 

I have been under the observation (in various ways) that marriage in the past, (and probably still now in some areas) was more of a confidence, and a way to solidify ties with families, even nations. Love had nothing to do with it, from how I understand it. So, women pretty much had no say in the matter. 

I really cannot understand how some, in their beliefs and such, can say they love and were taught to love, everyone, and view mistreatment to some as normal. I really cannot understand this. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, don't board a sinking ship with out a life jacket. Wives were chattel at the beginning of the Victorian Age. 

Granted, this was the mindset for so long, (and still so in some areas I have noticed), but wouldn’t you think that society as a whole is ashamed of that? 

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You know very little of the Victorian Age, apparently. Examine, if you will, the callous indifference displayed by society in general and a disenchanted husband specifically toward his wife.

https://www.charlesdickensinfo.com/life/marriage/

And yet, there seems little change. Both sides do it to each other these days is all. The story of Charles and Diana would be a well known modern day example of similar behaviour. OJ Simpson. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Granted, this was the mindset for so long, (and still so in some areas I have noticed), but wouldn’t you think that society as a whole is ashamed of that? 

Back then they were hooked on this "Sanctity of Marriage" thing. People looked the other way and didn't interfere in someone else's marriage. The man, the head of the household, ruled the roost. His "housewife" managed the household and domestic chores and responsibilities. Couples with cordial loving relationships might look askance at those that were not, gossip about them, snidely, even commiserate. Yet, interventions were rare. No one assumed shame or responsibility for another's sins.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And yet, there seems little change. Both sides do it to each other these days is all. The story of Charles and Diana would be a well known modern day example of similar behaviour. OJ Simpson. 

Except Dickens didn't commit murder. He was narcissistic pedophile with a Lolita Complex. The change, today, is Mrs. Dickens would have taken him to court for all he was worth. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

13 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Granted, this was the mindset for so long, (and still so in some areas I have noticed), but wouldn’t you think that society as a whole is ashamed of that? 

Back then they were hooked on this "Sanctity of Marriage" thing. People looked the other way and didn't interfere in someone else's marriage. The man, the head of the household, ruled the roost. His "housewife" managed the household and domestic chores and responsibilities. Couples with cordial loving relationships might look askance at those that were not, gossip about them, snidely, even commiserate. Yet, interventions were rare. No one assumed shame or responsibility for another's sins.

I’m aware of this, and of this in the general sense. But, I asked of how society sees this of today, in the past tense. Ashamed!! Don’t you think, we of today, look back at this and feel ashamed of our thinking? I would think, even then, there are those who saw it as wrong and felt helpless in changing it. I would think it was the thinking, (the seeing it as wrong and wanting to change it) or we wouldn’t have the people who went about in trying (and succeeding in my opinion) in changing it) Obviously, the way I see it, it’s changed, because how it was brought to the attention of how wrong it was. 

I would think, as a whole mindset, we are ashamed of how it was looked and played out at the tie. 

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Except Dickens didn't commit murder. He was narcissistic pedophile with a Lolita Complex. The change, today, is Mrs. Dickens would have taken him to court for all he was worth. 

Well, if she had a better lawyer.

From Einstein to Tiger Woods. I have to say I just don't understand the behaviour myself. I wonder if they thought like Walker and Hab and justified the unjustifiable through appeals to authority?