ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So to reenact the scenario with these other conditions, on Monday the wife wasn't murdered, on Tuesday she was murdered, and on Wednesday she wasn't murdered.
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
He presented a scenario that didn't specify whether force was involved or not. All that's "apparent" is that the wife wasn't happy with sex on Tuesday, it doesn't state why that is. As already explained - in what could hardly be clearer terms - if she was forced into it by her husband then he is guilty of raping her. If it was for some other reason then obviously that is not rape. Do you need it spelled out in a larger font or something?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If that's in reference to me then I know fine well I ain't thanks. Could hardly have been any clearer on this topic from the outset including your feeble scenario.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
My initial response to Derf after he'd presented his scenario:
"Your scenario is lame as anything frankly. Do you honesty think that loving married couples have sex on set days or something? If the wife complained to a friend that her supposedly loving and cherishing husband had forced her into sex against her will then her friend would be right to call it rape. Proving something like that in court isn't easy as others have mentioned already but its still rape regardless. If it could be proved then the verdict should be guilty of rape and the wretch of a husband be lobbed in jail."
The scenario is far too vague to determine what the complaint is about but if her friend encourages the wife to file rape charges then that obviously implies force. Derf doesn't consider forced sex in a marriage to be rape which is obvious nonsense. No inconsistency here, no lies either and you have gotta be bored to be this desperate.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I mentioned about a mile back "Thomas Jefferson rape" though, there's no force there, but there's implied force, maybe, sort of, and I think this is probably the most disturbing element of this matter, because Jefferson raped not with force, but with a power imbalance, and there are lots of husbands who have the kind of power over their wives' lives where you could argue in a law court that it is like a perpetual power imbalance, given the power the husband has to inflict damage on his wife's life, lifestyle, livelihood. At the drop of a hat.
Jefferson didn't force his Black slave woman to have misplaced marital relations with him, but it was certainly rape, that's the sticking point. Fortunately the burden of proof is heavy for the prosecution so it protects innocent men from felony perjurers, but it's unfortunate for those rape victims who are left with a very heavy burden of proof. Should we shift the burden of proof, for just rape? The Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings testify against it. It would be worse than that was.
Thomas Jefferson rape is more like child rape, it 'doesn't leave a mark' but it is most certainly rape, and it is violent, even though it doesn't necessarily leave a mark.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I'm not a fan of the "power imbalance" argument as in any relationship there are power dynamics in both directions, and rarely static.
And you found him guilty.
Do you need it spelled out in a larger font or something?
You can make up as many things as you like to put in bold font and insert into someone else's ideas. They are still not his ideas.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The question for me is whether it interferes with informed consent, which means the same thing for me as a free and voluntary choice. If it interferes with that, and it's deliberate, I have a hard time not at least entertaining that a rights violation's occurred, or at least listening to the case. And of course I could be wrong, so I'll extend a margin of safety to avoid dealing in trifles. Forget the trees, look at the forest, is there some big picture, high level, panoramic view, conceptually zoomed out, that seems at first blush to be a possible rights violation situation?
And Jefferson owned the woman, legally. Today we don't have anything like that exactly. But if you're holding a woman basically hostage for her job unless she provides out-of-place marital relations to you, that's akin to Thomas Jefferson rape, maybe call it Matt Lauer rape or Kevin Spacey rape. I'm not trying to defame or libel either of them, I'm just saying where there's fairly thick smoke there's a reason to suspect a fire.
Still extremely difficult to meet the burden of proof in a law court since it 'doesn't leave a mark', it doesn't change that.
Like felony perjury in that way.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Found who guilty? The hypothetical husband where it hasn't been determined in the scenario whether he's forced sex on his wife? You're all over the map, even more so than normal.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What are you prattling on about now? That was my response to Derf after posting his lame scenario, that was it. How is that "inserting into someone else's ideas"?! Of course my responses are not Derf's ideas, duh...
Last edited:
Simple. Fred put forward a scenario that involved no force. You found the hypothetical man guilty. Now you're trying to justify your idiotic response by pretending that your hypothetical should replace Fred's and asserting that the lack of evidence is evidence.
Good thing Derf is pretty easy going.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nope, but no surprise that you persist with this loony tune stuff. I've answered this all ends up. The scenario was vague, nothing is specified as to why the woman is unhappy with sex on the Tuesday so it can't be determined if the husband forced her into sex or not. He would be guilty if so and not if he didn't. It's simple all right and you talking about idiotic responses is a laugh riot in itself. You've already made a clown of yourself (well, again to be fair) with your asinine comment about my regarding it as rape if a woman has regrets after sex.
He's the greatest.Good thing Derf is pretty easy going.
And yet you would find him guilty.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Only if it can be determined, otherwise no, not at all. Could hardly be clearer.
Then retract your assessment
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, absolutely no need.