Thread: A Sensitive Issue

OK, so I don't really know how well I'm known here, so I'm a little nervous about tarnishing my good (non-existent) name, but I read something the other day that kind of made me feel a bit uneasy. I couldn't find a news article on the web for it, so I'll run it by you.

The English Courts have made a ruling (which now makes it law) that the starting point for sentencing of a man convicted of raping his wife is now to be the same as that for raping by a stranger - 8 years.

The judge said things like, "rape is rape". He said that if someone is abducted off the street, dragged off, and gang-raped, that this was still "rape", and on par with marital rape. Not only that, he said, but marital rape was even worse, because it involved a breach of trust.

Now, I agree rape is bad. Don't get the wrong idea. But to my mind, those are two very different levels. I've read alot of rape cases, and there are some cases where the couple come home, all hot for each other... they get started... and then the woman decides to go cold, but the man doesn't want to, and is a little more persuasive... the wife gives in to her husband after all... then, bam. Rape. The woman doesn't actually have to raise any forceful objection. We're not necessarily talking about pinning the arms back and going hammer-and-tongs here.

Sometimes a woman changes her mind in the middle of an S&M session and decides she wants out, but the husband thinks it's all part of the game....

At the end of the day, it all depends on the particular facts, but I think that as a rule, those who commit marital rape are not generally such deviant, dangerous member sof society as those who abduct and gang-rape strangers off the street. And it worries me to see that they're being put in the same basket.

So, I'd like to hear what everyone else thnks about this.

?

i'm sure they've taken your point of view when they made that decission.....and as with all laws...there's to be a valid reason and a proper trial before someone is given that verdict

Just dont ask any American male what he thinks. Becouse theres a crazy double standerd here in the states. Such as recently a teacher got cought having sex with one of her students and only got comunity servise. If it had been a male teacher he would have had the book thrown at him.

Originally Posted by crazydiamond

i'm sure they've taken your point of view when they made that decission.....and as with all laws...there's to be a valid reason and a proper trial before someone is given that verdict

Well, yeah, obviously, but this is putting the 'starting point' at the same level, which is saying that in substance, they're considered as equal evils. The policy ramifications of it are pretty strong, and it could easily be the start of a pretty slippery slope.

Originally Posted by mudd00000000

Just dont ask any American male what he thinks. Becouse theres a crazy double standerd here in the states. Such as recently a teacher got cought having sex with one of her students and only got comunity servise. If it had been a male teacher he would have had the book thrown at him.

That's pretty gay too. There's that whole "but a guy would enjoy it" bullshit song-and-dance pretense. So what if he did? There's been many a girl that would have enjoyed her part in that kind of situation if the positions were reversed, but that never enters into it.

The situation I was talking about is what worries me more at this point, though

I'm sorry what I first said is wrong she got off completly despite a plea of guilty. Heres the storyhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/21/charges.dropped/index.html

But what I had writen also takes effect in most other countries thers probally a double standerd out there in England also. And any wife, thats angrey enough at her husband, can probally yell rape and at the very least get him thrown in jail for the night. And worse yet get the rape sentice threw. It isnt unlike married people to have sex and she could just turn around right afterwords call the police.

So now you can get sued for raping furniture? What is this world coming to.

*gets into his feminist dodging stance*

If they're married there has to be a really good case for rape. Otherwise she'd be just told stop lying. Cuts, stranggle marks, blood under finger nails and other stuff. Rape isn't just 'having sex'. It's violet and if the evidence doesn't support that then the woman is seen as lying for whatever reasons.

Originally Posted by Chizabubble

If they're married there has to be a really good case for rape. Otherwise she'd be just told stop lying. Cuts, stranggle marks, blood under finger nails and other stuff. Rape isn't just 'having sex'. It's violet and if the evidence doesn't support that then the woman is seen as lying for whatever reasons.

Yeah in a perfict world maybe. But what most women need to do is cry wolf and the police will come guns blazing. Like I said befor it will at least get the guy thrown in jail for a night.

A sub who doesn't want to continue in SM sex is a moron, use your fucking safe word.

Originally Posted by mudd00000000

Yeah in a perfict world maybe. But what most women need to do is cry wolf and the police will come guns blazing. Like I said befor it will at least get the guy thrown in jail for a night.

perfect world? are you kidding me? a night in jail, big deal. You get that if you are suspected of robbing a shop. Most men would do that no bother if they had nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of. I'll tell you something fucked up:
in Italy, no matter the circumstances, If a woman was wearing jeans, it's not rape.