|
|
|
|
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 9:21:42 PM |
Good God! When did we suddenly get transported back to the eighth grade?
It takes one to know one... either grade eight, nine, high school or university - irrelevant.
That you have no clue is really disturbing.
That you can't answer the question is really disturbing.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect, both morally and legally. Again, I suggest you avail yourself of the public library and look up your state criminal statutes. Read them. You may be surprised.
I'd believe you when you give an argument that is actually decent.
Prostitutes make a conscious business decision. That does not equate to being in a relationship (unless you are suggesting that women in relationships are nothing more than whores.)
Women in relationships can't make conscious decisions, be it is business or otherwise? Oh... and let quote you:
That you inferred such says much about you and your not so subconscious misogyny.
If a woman submits because she feels she has no choice, it is rape.
Submitting to something implies a conscious decision, does it not?
Geez, how hard is that to process. It doesn't matter what you think it is, or want it to be. It is the LAW, brainiac.
Quote the law.
Which you just accused me of "making' you do. C'mon, Sparky, you gotta try harder.
You obviously have difficulty grasping the concept of choice. It's seems that you should be trying harder.
Uh, nope. Not really. Perhaps sarcasm, in addition to logic, is something you have difficulty processing.
Between you and I, you are the one having difficulty processing logic.
Here, lets test the theory:
Premise 1) if A then B
Premise 2) A
Premise 3) not B
Conclusion: ?
I should post myself a reminder to bring my violin in to this thread the next time I come.
Sure, but perhaps you should also bring a friend who knows logic. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 9:32:56 PM | Re post #208
If your partner says no, there is clearly non-consent, and if you continue despite a clear lack of consent, it's rape.
Exactly. And defined for what it is, I think that there would be general consensus, that it's something that should bring the full force of the law into things.
For those who choose to blur the line, by referring to any conflict in a relationship as "rape", there's a simple test.
In most states in the U.S., one has justification to resist a forcible felony with force. Rape, obviously, is a forcible felony. So, if a woman had a gun nearby, and her husband or relationship partner were raping her, she would be fully justified in shooting him, and would not be charged with a crime.
So, defined as post #208 did, a woman would, indeed, be justified in shooting him.
If a man pouts, whines, or cajoles a woman for sex, woult it be "ok" to shoot him?
If a man says that he won't stay in a relationship, if the sex is unsatisfactory, would she be justified, under the law, in pulling out a gun and shoting him?
If he leaves the relationship, has an affair, or otherwise attempts to be controlling, manipulative, or verbally abusive, is it justifiable homicide if she shoots him?
In situations, where it would be justifiable homicide, in resisting a forcible felony, then it's rape. If not, then it doesn't rise to the level of "rape", and calling it rape trivializes the issue.
Fact is, for those who have been raped, it's ridiculous to read some of the posts that call fairly normal "conflict" in a relationship be defined as "rape". | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 9:45:09 PM | Whoa! A fast 9 pages already....
I'm with NOLA - the information is in the clinical books about rapists. Rapists come in many forms but their behaviors are most common.
Not sure why the word relationship is in the title of the thread....for a year I facilitated two treatment groups a week of rapists on probation. I think if someone tried to explain the concept of a relationship to the guys in the rapist treatment groups they'd hit a wall.
My experience working with rapists; they may fake a relationship to groom a targeted victim, or they may have a relationship fantasy about a targeted victim, but they have no idea what a common relationship is. As has been pointed out, its all about power, control, dominance, and "I want what I want when I want it."
If there are theories of biological causes they are in textbooks.
Guarantee, if even the most macho man on this thread were asked to sit in a room with a treatment group of ten convicted rapists for two hours he would know from the first moment that "these people are different" and after a brief period of amazement and awe he'd yearn to escape the intensity of the group.
As has been pointed out, if the OP wants info about rapists its nowhere near this board.
OP could find some first hand information from calling her local adult probation office and asking which mental health agencies in her area treat rapists. Then call that/those agencies and and ask to speak to the therapists who lead treatment groups for rapists.
Other than NOLA, haven't seen any posts here yet indicating they have clinical knowledge of rapist mind set and behaviors. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 10:08:21 PM | | OP, rape is very possible in an established relationship. been there done that, dropped the guy like a bad habit. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 10:20:59 PM | Yes, of course there's irregularity. But one person's "probably" isn't evidence that this has actually happened. A man who got raped by a woman and reported that to the law might face disbelief and ridicule, and perhaps much the same gauntlet that most women once had to go through in reporting a rape. But my belief is that most police officers nowadays would treat that man's charge far more seriously than you or the poster in message 37 think, just as any woman's charge of rape is taken much more seriously than it once was.
Sadly, that means there are some women who will indeed use such a claim falsely as a weapon, but no, a woman's claim of rape isn't treated as gospel. There is still shame and fear involved in publicly admitting to having been raped, and a case gets to court, there are still attorneys who will do their best to sully a victim's reputation in the process of defending the rapist, just part of the reasons so many rapes go unreported. By both genders.
The above is in response to:
Msg: 37 -- Here is the kicker... I wanna see a man going to the police
station to report a rape by a woman. He'd probably get laughed at.
Umm, does ANYONE see ANY irregularity here? A MAN's claim of rape is summarily DISMISSED. A WOMAN'S claim of rape is accepted as GOSPEL. It has ALWAYS been that the woman's offense seeks revenge and the man's offense, whilst seeking revenge finds ridicule.
Riverkilt, I disagree with this part of your statement: "if the OP wants info about rapists its nowhere near this board." There are at least two posters on this thread who have told us they themselves have been raped. I am sure they have some hard-won insights and info on rapists...
--Ms. Flis | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 10:52:12 PM | In most states in the U.S., one has justification to resist a forcible felony with force. Rape, obviously, is a forcible felony. So, if a woman had a gun nearby, and her husband or relationship partner were raping her, she would be fully justified in shooting him, and would not be charged with a crime.
Where do you get your information from? A victim of rape isn't allowed to shoot someone with immunity from prosecution. The amount of force one uses in self-defence is measured against the amount of force being used against them to determine whether or not, self-defence is even arguable. The only place where it might actually have weight is in the rape victim believing from the circumstances that her life is being threatened at the same time as she is being raped. She would still be charged with, at the very least, manslaughter and it would be up to the jury to determine whether or not she was in fear for her life when she pulled the trigger. (I'd love for a good criminal defence lawyer to visit this thread!)
So, defined as post #208 did, a woman would, indeed, be justified in shooting him.
No, she wouldn't. She would be justified in slamming his dooey in a drawer, in running away from him and in doing anything she needed to do to get him off of her but I seriously doubt that she would be found to be justified in shooting him. That's called "excessive force" which would take her outside of the intentions of the principles of self-defence.
You missed the point of post #208 which was... "Rape is usually more about power than about sex, and I suspect a lot of relationship rape is caused by someone thinking they have the "right" to their partner's body."
And that sir, takes me back to your original post #6 which states:
My undeniable "rule" for myself, is that being told "no" is a final answer. If I were told "no"...it would process as "never", and I'd exit the relationship, but I would never "rape".
This thread wasn't even past the first page before you started posting about your belief that you have the right to your partner's body and to threaten abandonment if your partner ever says "no" to you. You go on in msg. 14 to say:
Nothing "creepy" about it. It's foundational to the "marriage covenant".
I would not "force" a partner, so if she said "no", she would be physically safe . However, when one enters into marriage, both people, as part of the "covenant" surrender "self" to a greater "us", so if one, or the other, denies his/her partner, then it is a violation of the covenant.
Interesting that when you are called on your "undue influence", you accuse everyone else of "blurring the lines" between rape and the elements that constitute "consent" or even, a person feeling free to say "no" to you. It's even more curious that you are so deeply concerned with the "lines" between "rape" and "coercion". Methinks you have given this particular subject a lot of thought in more of a c.y.a. process than anything else. Your indignance at people blurring the lines between rape and being told that if she doesn't have sex on command, she will be abandoned, is pretty ironic considering that the thread wasn't 10 minutes old before you inserted your obvious "blurring of the lines"!!!
Just because someone learns to fly under the radar of a criminal offence, it does not mean that he is not doing something that is offensive and of a criminal nature. You can see that while the law does not (and cannot) cover every scenario, the juries can and do speak to the fact that a man who has visited this kind of "marital obligation" on the shoulders of his spouse may very well be considered to be "abusive" and her sentence for any events that came about as a result of having to live under those circumstances will tend to be compassionate. Most of the world acknowledges that women lived under this kind of oppression for far too long and it is simply, unacceptable to decent people.
Even when a person goes through an entire trial, one must remember that "not guilty" does NOT necessarily mean "innocent".
You might want to think that one over and take a look at who is "blurring the lines".
Riverkilt, I disagree with this part of your statement: "if the OP wants info about rapists its nowhere near this board." There are at least two posters on this thread who have told us they themselves have been raped. I am sure they have some hard-won insights and info on rapists...
And many more that aren't saying so but have also been there. Men who think that once they are in a relationship with a woman, they should have free access to their partner's bodies and that a woman who says "no" is being "controlling", are still far too common. These are the same men who are actually so afraid of intimacy that they literally operate to make themselves as unappealing as possible and then, dare their partners or wives to refuse them. It's just... sick!
| |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:08:57 PM | A victim of rape isn't allowed to shoot someone with immunity from prosecution.
That kind of misses the point. In the United States, in most jurisdictions, while a forcible felony is being perpetrated, a victim has the right to resist with deadly force. She doesn't have to believe that her life is in danger, merely that she might suffer serious bodily harm, or loss of property.
In most states, a homeowner can justifiably shoot and kill a burglar who has broken into the home, so long as the burglar is in the home.
In any case, the point was to illustrate something, not to debate it. The point was to make the difference between rape and what's not rape, but, I guess it's now about how many nits can be picked. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:17:00 PM | That kind of misses the point. While a forcible felony is being perpetrated, a victim has the right to resist with deadly force.
The victim is only entitled to resist with the amount of force necessary to stop the offence.
And the point I am making is not about what would be considered justifiable in self-defence... I think you know that.
Ahem....
In any case, the point was to illustrate something, not to debate it. The point was to make the difference between rape and what's not rape, but, I guess it's now about how many nits can be picked.
If you're going to "illustrate something", then illustrate it with some knowledge behind it.
The "nits" to be picked are perhaps, necessary nits if they serve to educate someone about the many shades of rape... Where a person "rapes" by using threats of abandonment, he is still attempting to force a woman to abandon her free will and the courts DO recognize it when it all comes out, as it inevitably does.
But, if you want to continue to claim that women should have a right to control sex in a relationship, and that men, who won't stay in such relationships are "rapists", have at it. I give up.
As to your post below... let's be very clear... What I am saying is that no human being, male or female, has the right to control sex in a relationship!!!! A person who declares that the first time their partner says no, he is leaving is even MORE controlling than the woman who occasionally says no...
It's pretty clear who wants the control in YOUR dating protocol and that leads to the question of why you feel so entitled? What thinking woman would even get into a relationship with such a man? Hmmm???
Never mind... you've answered that question with your self-professed need to be with women who are far younger...
| |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:18:35 PM |
Just because someone learns to fly under the radar of a criminal offence, it does not mean that he is not doing something that is offensive and of a criminal nature
That's not even logical or consistent within the sentence. If it's "under the radar of criminal offense", then it's not "of a criminal nature".
Regardless, round and round we go, and it's going nowhere. If people clearly state expectations of each other, as a precondition to having a relationship, they are justified in leaving, if those conditions, at some point in the future. Leaving a relationship isn't rape, and in equating it with rape, it obscures the actual issue of rape.....
But, if you want to continue to claim that women should have a right to control sex in a relationship, and that men, who won't stay in such relationships are "rapists", have at it. I give up. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:19:20 PM | Well, most of the sites I looked up said coercion… but didn’t define it. This one did…
Coercion
Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do – like being sexual or performing certain sexual acts. Examples of some coercive statements include: “If you love me you would have sex with me .”, “If you don't have sex with me I will find someone who will.”, and “I'm not sure I can be with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me.” Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes. Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:22:04 PM |
The victim is only entitled to resist with the amount of force necessary to stop the offence.
Difference between Canadian law and the United States. In the U.S., in most states, if someone were trying to rape you, you could blow his ass away, and not fear facing criminal charges. It's not required, in the U.S., that you attempt to flee. The mere fact of forcible felony is sufficient.
So, it was to illustrate the difference between actual rape, and a woman feeling a man is being 'controlling". One is a crime. The other could be dysfunction, or a difference in opinion, but hardly "rape". | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:25:35 PM | Re post #219
If we get to the point, that people define a man saying "if you loved me, you'd have sex with me" as rape, then 95% of teenage boys are rapists.
I really feel like I've stepped through the looking glass in the POF fora, sometimes, where the real world has been suspended.
In any case, I "resign" from this thread. I'll leave it to the women, who will blithely follow Prof. McKinnon, who, more or less, define all heterosexual sex as rape. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/5/2008 11:34:58 PM |
In any case, I "resign" from this thread. I'll leave it to the women, who will blithely follow Prof. McKinnon, who, more or less, define all heterosexual sex as rape.
If you want to resign from the thread, do so with dignity and reason. The "real world" does not accept a man using threats of abandonment to guarantee his right to quash his partner's free will and ability to decide if she wants to have sex or not. When you get that it's YOU who thinks you should be able to "control" women with your threats to abandon rather than women trying to control your ability to have sex, you might actually start to make some progress.
Margo's post was right spot on and as usual, you'd rather run than admit that any of us are making logical and reasonable points. So keep running...  | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 12:40:51 AM | One last comment.
A woman has every legal right to "control" her own body and sexuality, and if a man tries to force her against her will, then he is, in fact, a rapist.
However, a woman's right to control her sexuality does not entitle her to control mine. So, if an agreement is reached, in terms of giving her fidelity,based on us each representing that we will respond to each other's sexual needs, and then, at some point, she decides not to meet my sexual needs, she is not entitled to my fidelity. That was, after all, the "deal", the agreement we had.
If I then choose to control my own sex life, rather than allow it to be controlled, it's not rape. It's ludicrous to say that it is. Demanding that a man remain in the relationship, and remain faithful, when she changes the "deal", is controlling, IMO, and trying to twist that into a discussion of "rape", demeans the whole discussion of rape in relationships.
I have been a victim of a deviant sexual assault, and it deeply offends me, to see the horror of rape turned into a discussion of why women should get to make all the decisions in relationships, and if a man doesn't accept that, to have her call it rape. IN fact, it's a bit like saying that a bank is "stealing" your house, if it forecloses, when you no longer keep up your end, by paying the mortgage. An agreement between two people to be in a relationship, premised on mutually agreed upon expectations, is not something that one party can change, while expecting the other to continue to fulfill that which he agreed to, based on the other's agreements.
In other words, if, for whatever reason, the sex diminishes, and the man decides to look elsewhere as a result, the woman wasn't "deceived", and she certainly wasn't "rapted"
I found that I "lost it", when a poster who I deeply respect, quoted some addled college code of conduct that makes men rapists for saying "if you loved me, you'd have sex with me". If that's the new definition of "rape", then rape is nothing more than whatever a woman chooses to call "rape",and I'd rather not date at all, than to every woman who doesn't like how things turn out, feel entitled to call a man a rapist.
This isn't just another forum topic, and I can't contain the feelings that some of this brings out. So, it's best to quit the discussion. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 12:50:11 AM | Consistent response, whether personally or through law will eventually put this behavior to extinction, case and point – How many men will stick their toy in a crocodile’s jaw? Billions of men out there, but how man? Next to zero, that is the answer. Cause the croc will have a consistent response no matter what waters they swim in.
If there is really harsh penalty or every woman who got raped shot the loser in the place where the sun don’t shine every time then that behavior will go extinct pretty quick.
Reality is that there are a lot of weak minded women who tolerate this. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 12:54:19 AM | Thing is Melo, is that I've been following this conversation page after page. Eventually I googled ... coercion is mentioned in many legal definitions of sexual assault/rape... but it wasn't defined. It would seem the law has changed.
It would also seem this law would leave things open to a reversal in the morning ~ that is kind of scary in my view.
Here is the Canadian law... which doesn't use coercion...
273(2) It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused
believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter
of the charge, where
(a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s
(i) self-induced intoxication, or
(ii)recklessness or willful blindness; or
(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known
to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
This was a revision to the "honest mistake" defense. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 1:05:11 AM |
However, a woman's right to control her sexuality does not entitle her to control mine. So, if an agreement is reached, in terms of giving her fidelity, in the expectation of having sexual needs met, and then, at some point, she decides not to meet my sexual needs, she is not entitled to my fidelity. That was, after all, the "deal", the agreement we had.
No one is saying you don't have the right to control your sexuality... No one! As a matter of fact, I would be the first one in line to say that you and you alone have the obligation and duty to see to it that you maintain full control of your sexuality. Do you get that?
What I am saying is that you don't have the right to control anyone else's sexuality either!! In my mind, it is only the most desperate of women who would enter into an agreement to always be available sexually to any man or accept being abandoned. The agreements two people make in a relationship extend to far more than meeting one another's sexual needs and when either one of them abandons those shared responsibilities and obligations that tend to develop over time, the abandonment of the duty to fulfill someone else's sexual needs becomes moot.
The point is Melo... Your sexual needs are YOURS! They don't belong to your partner! If they are such that a normal woman with a normal libido who is also perhaps working a full time job or caring for children has no licence to put you off without your abandonment, then it is YOU who is insisting that SHE look after YOU.. not that YOU look after YOU!.
From what you've posted in the forums, you have no need of a woman's company other than to fulfill your sexual needs. You say this in many, many posts. Unfortunately for you, most of us realize that we are far more than just some kind of sexual appliance for men. I can't imagine.. .honestly, cannot imagine.. .what kind of woman would agree to your "terms" at the outset of a relationship.... except a truly desperate one!
Your attempting to have women accept an agreement that says that as soon as she says no to you, you're gone is a form of coercion. You appear to be the only one here who can't see that.
I have been a victim of a deviant sexual assault, and it deeply offends me, to see the horrow of rape turned into a discussion of why women should get to make all the decisions in relationships, and if a man doesn't accept that, to have her call it rape.
You keep saying that you were the victim of a deviant assault. I have responded by saying that if that is true, then you should know better than anyone else, how precious the right to your choice to make love or not make love is. It deeply offends MANY of us to hear a man say that he has such a need to control women sexually that he actually threatens to abandon them from the get-go if he doesn't get his way. This isn't about women getting to "make all the decisions in a relationship". This is about a man deciding she is not going to have the right to CHOOSE to make love with him without his being punitive about her saying "no" - right from the outset and actually thinking he's within his rights to do so.
I found that I "lost it", when a poster who I deeply respect, quoted some addled college code of conduct that makes men rapists for saying "if you loved me, you'd have sex with me". If that's the new definition of "rape", then rape is nothing more than whatever a woman chooses to call "rape",and I'd rather not date at all, than to every woman who doesn't like how things turn out, feel entitled to call a man a rapist.
Some addled college code of conduct??? I don't think that Margo took that off a college bulletin board. And if you are offended by what constitutes coercion, then why not just be less willing to coerce??
Frankly, as I said before, you have quite clearly stated that the only thing you need a woman for is to service your sexual needs so your indignation is just as farcical as pretending you don't understand that coercing women into having sex IS a form of emotional blackmail that smacks of covert sexual assault. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 2:05:04 AM | This is a very sensitive topic, and I can see that tensions are becoming elevated on both sides. It is also a very important topic because of the pervasiveness of abuse in our society. I am actually stretching an agreement with my departed wife by eriting what I am about to write. I had told her spirit that I was going to make a best effort attempt at remembering only the good times we had. This thread has stirred me to write of some of the bad.
From time to time, my wife would choose to assert herself by restricting my sexual access. I know I slept on the couch a few times when she was angry and using her exclusion weapon. I became an early advocate of the "no means no" movement. I accepted my punishment for the behavior I had offended her with as gracefully as possible whether I thought her judgement was right or wrong. No meant no.
Silken Fire said:
What I am saying is that you don't have the right to control anyone else's sexuality either!! In my mind, it is only the most desperate of women who would enter into an agreement to always be available sexually to any man or accept being abandoned. The agreements two people make in a relationship extend to far more than meeting one another's sexual needs and when either one of them abandons those shared responsibilities and obligations that tend to develop over time, the abandonment of the duty to fulfill someone else's sexual needs becomes moot.
A relationship should be always caring and concerned for what offends and what brings joy. Every effort to bring joy to your partner should be made at all times. You should never make a choice to offend. Once the choice to offend the other is made, the relationship becomes unhealthy. Refusing sex without cause is an offense. Refusing it for an unjust cause is a matter of opinion, and is also an offense to the one who would believe it unjust.
The choice to abandon a partner is one which should never be made or taken lightly. For the guys, "It's cheaper to keep her" rings so true once you have a committed relationship. To actually threaten it is not acceptable from the female side, because it would shatter many of them. It is as close to a terrorist threat as you can get without a show of stregnth or weapon. If you consider leaving a women because of sexual restriction; consider it silently, make your plan to escape, and leave. Threats are unacceptable. Occasionally our mouths will say things we don't mean. It is best to learn how to curb our tongues and consider other solutions.
My own philosophy has developed over time, and now; no means Know. Know how to deal with this situation before it arises. Know how to control your reaction. If you encounter this type of Poker game, all of the cards are going to show after the bets are placed. Know how to play your hand, and show her how good your hand is if she doubts you and wants to see. If you require more visual methods to resolve your urges, buy a movie. If she is bluffing, she will be the one to give in. If she isn't, then show her love her in new ways. Men need to be proactive and make sure a woman is happy. You can't assume that they are. Learn how to understand her feelings, and do your best to help her feel better.
If you ladies think it is rape to use some forms of persuasion to ensure that the deed is done, do you also think it is robbery for a fine looking woman to ask a man to buy her a drink? | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 2:31:19 AM |
A relationship should be always caring and concerned for what offends and what brings joy. Every effort to bring joy to your partner should be made at all times. You should never make a choice to offend. Once the choice to offend the other is made, the relationship becomes unhealthy. Refusing sex without cause is an offense. Refusing it for an unjust cause is a matter of opinion, and is also an offense to the one who would believe it unjust.
You speak in ideals... I don't believe anyone goes into marriage or even a committed long term relationship thinking that they want to bring their partner or spouse anything BUT joy and happiness. But life happens. Today's women are especially busy with their careers and many of us have already raised our families, done the double-shift of home and careers and we're more than entitled to the right to say either "yes" or "no" without our similarly-aged partner having a hissy fit!
Refusing sex without cause? What is that? If either person refuses sex it's because they don't want it and neither one should feel "forced" to subject their bodies if their spirits aren't into it as well. This sense of obligation that men think women should have is just bogus and it is what turns so many of us off!
If you ladies think it is rape to use some forms of persuasion to ensure that the deed is done, do you also think it is robbery for a fine looking woman to ask a man to buy her a drink?
Threatening to abandon the relationship if you don't get your own way about things is not a simple "form of persuasion". Most couples share mutual obligations - financial and otherwise. Each day 2 people spend together is an investment. The world perceives a couple as being a "partnershp" and expects the promises made to be honoured. Any guy or gal that buggers off just because someone says "no" to them, is not the most responsible guy in the executive team.
If you truly want a woman to be "turned on" and willing to make love often, I strongly suggest that you leave her with her feeling of having a choice about it all. And perhaps, back off when you see that someone is overwhelmed with her career and various other obligations. Gawd almighty! There's more to life! | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 3:09:54 AM |
we're more than entitled to the right to say either "yes" or "no" without our similarly-aged partner having a hissy fit!
Sure you are, and most men would be offended just by mentioning that their reaction was a hissy fit. I agree that men should accept the word "no" and then make their decision based on the reasoning, not on their desires, expectations, or needs. They should take into account any objections you have, and deal with it as if it were any other problem which threatened the relationship. If the reasons are part of a healthy reaction to a new development, then they should act accordingly. Similarly, if they percieve a threat to their own concept of the relationship, they should make a proper choice for themselves and the whole if possible.
Refusing sex without cause? What is that? If either person refuses sex it's because they don't want it and neither one should feel "forced" to subject their bodies if their spirits aren't into it as well. This sense of obligation that men think women should have is just bogus and it is what turns so many of us off!
I said "Just" cause. Not only should you have cause, it should be fair to your partner. If he is doing his best to make you happy, I don't see why you would refuse on many fair reasons, but if your spirit isn't into it, then that should be fair enough. He might have to work on your spirit, and if you can tell him why, he will have more information to base his reaction on. He might want to question why you aren't willing to do your best to make him happy. He might tell you what makes him happy instead of getting angry about you not making him happy. Would you be willing to be obligated to having a happy and healthy relationship? My wife used to call my performance my duty when she wanted action. I sure do miss her.
Threatening to abandon the relationship if you don't get your own way about things is not a simple "form of persuasion". I stated it using those words because people were using the word coercion, and weren't really explaining the methods of coercion. I recognized the degree of severity of an abandonment threat as one of the single most threatening things a man can do without using force, and actually said it was near a terrorist threat.
Any guy or gal that buggers off just because someone says "no" to them, is not the most responsible guy in the executive team.
Responsibility goes two ways. Understanding the reason, and actually having a reason is the responsibility of the person who is refusing. To do it as punishment is asking for trouble in the relationship.
If you truly want a woman to be "turned on" and willing to make love often, I strongly suggest that you leave her with her feeling of having a choice about it all. And perhaps, back off when you see that someone is overwhelmed with her career and various other obligations. Gawd almighty! There's more to life!
Worse come to worse, I can handle my part. I would require basic communication and try to understand her choice, and accept it as her choice even if I didn't like the reason. No means Know that I can make the decisions that will improve my quality of life without anybody elses input whatsoever. No means Know that I really do live in this skin all by myself, and you can't make me angry. I must become angry to be angry. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 3:24:12 AM | In most states in the U.S., one has justification to resist a forcible felony with force. Rape, obviously, is a forcible felony. So, if a woman had a gun nearby, and her husband or relationship partner were raping her, she would be fully justified in shooting him, and would not be charged with a crime.
That's completely ludicrous. She'd be charged with manslaughter. 1) Rape is a hard charge to prove, and is often not convicted because of that, and 2) Silken Fire is spot-on about excessive force. Regardless, there is no prosecutorial immunity from murder because of a rape. You can get huffy if you like about how you didn't want to debate and were only using this to illustrate a point, but that point is illustrated based on completely erroneous assumptions.
However, a woman's right to control her sexuality does not entitle her to control mine.
Of course it doesn't. Which is why, if she doesn't want to have sex some night, you're entitled to masturbate or whatever. If she honestly doesn't want to have sex right then, that's not controlling behavior as long as she's not using her sexuality to manipulate you.
So, if an agreement is reached, in terms of giving her fidelity,based on us each representing that we will respond to each other's sexual needs, and then, at some point, she decides not to meet my sexual needs, she is not entitled to my fidelity. That was, after all, the "deal", the agreement we had.
I'm not sure how you don't see the inherent controlling behavior in this view. If she says no once, she's deciding not to meet your sexual needs? So she needs to be ready to open her legs to you at any moment or she's breaking the deal? Do you discuss this with her ahead of time? Because I sure as hell wouldn't agree to that. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 4:20:20 AM | Everybody, please stop!
All that's happened since OP's question has lead to nothing but arguments. Have they got anywhere? No.
I agree with the early posters that the OP has brought up a sensitive issue which is better kept out of POF Forums. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 11:11:09 AM |
In most states in the U.S., one has justification to resist a forcible felony with force. Rape, obviously, is a forcible felony. So, if a woman had a gun nearby, and her husband or relationship partner were raping her, she would be fully justified in shooting him, and would not be charged with a crime.
A charge will always be made when one human being kills another. In her case, depending on the circumstances, she could be charged with anything from "justifiable homicide" to "manslaughter." Whether or not the case would ever see in the inside of a courtroom is another thing. But, a charge would be made.
Fact is, for those who have been raped, it's ridiculous to read some of the posts that call fairly normal "conflict" in a relationship be defined as "rape".
Here's a newsflash, Sparky. I've been raped. I was married for 13 years to a sexually, emotionally and psychologically abusive man whose behavior escalated until he committed what you call "real rape." It started out with guilt trips about how I was being "selfish" to be so cruel as to deny him "affection." Thirteen years later it ended with me bleeding and requiring surgery. Why? Because that time, I refused to give in after being harassed. During the course of the marriage I lost a child due to what you have difficulty acknowledging as rape.
For many years, I suffered through enduring what he did to me because I felt like it was what a good wife would do if she loved her man and wanted to hold her family together. I refused to believe that what he was doing to me was rape, even when I was physically damaged. But, it was. It took me almost ten years to realize it because I was so brainwashed by bull$h!t about "real rape" and wifely duty.
There is no argument you, or anyone else on this board, could possibly offer that will hold any weight because I've heard it all before, a million times, most often when I was in the middle of being abused. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 11:30:18 AM |
That kind of misses the point. While a forcible felony is being perpetrated, a victim has the right to resist with deadly force. The victim is only entitled to resist with the amount of force necessary to stop the offence.
I think it's important to note that this is subject to definition by each state's criminal codes as well as each jury's interpretation of those codes.
SilkenFire you were correct in pointing out that a jury is involved. The law is very specific, but limited in it's definitions. That's why we argue before a jury, so that they can weigh ALL of the evidence to determine if it fits the letter of the law.
The laws are written to take into account varying degrees of sexual assault. Some are misdemeanors. Some are felonies. For instance, in Louisiana, ANY penetration (against a person's will, obviously) with any part of a body or object is considered felony rape. That means if a man grabs a woman's crotch and sticks his finger into her vagina, it is felony rape. This also means if a woman insists on giving her hubby's prostate a little tweak after he has already said NO, then that also fits the definition of felony rape. Grabbing a woman's boob without consent is misdemeanor sexual battery. Same if a woman, without consent, grabbed a guy's crotch.
The laws are pretty specific. Once again, for anyone honestly interested in the LEGAL definitions, please go read your state's criminal codes. As Riverkilt mentioned, there are also other resources to help people understand the psychology behind this subject. Be aware that much of this information is also used forensically (meaning, it will be used in court to help determine if a crime has been committed.)
Regardless of what any of us personally feel or think or believe about the subject, the legal and psychological definitions are the ones which will be used if ever the question of criminality comes into play in more than just a rhetorical context. | |
|
| rape in a relationship?
Posted: 12/6/2008 11:38:53 AM |
Refusing sex without cause is an offense.
What if I just don't feel like it? Is that unjustifiable? What if I'm not hungry? Will you force me to eat?
Are you talking about an occasional refusal or a perpetual refusal? There's a difference. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
