PDA

View Full Version : Rape Inside of Marriage?



Loki
Tuesday, June 10th, 2003, 08:39 PM
In another thread, Sigrun (the redhead goddess ;) ) was quoted as saying the following:


My philosophy of life is that my body doesn't just belong to me to do with as I please - it also belongs to my husband and children. My body is for my husband's pleasure and my children's health.

And then...



As far as rape goes, it was only fairly recently that women were given any rights at all. Previously, we were the property of our fathers, and then our husbands. Until recently, there was no law against a husband raping his wife. Because there is no direct documentation that these things took place doesn't mean they didn't take place. Even today where there is much support for the victims of these crimes, only about 10% of rape victims ever report to the police.

I have a few questions regarding this:

1) Define rape inside of marriage (and by implication, and possibly more relevant, abstinence inside of marriage)

2) If there is such scanty evidence available for this act, how do we know for sure that it is so common? Isn't it merely a feminist tool of gaining sympathy? I mean I am married to a lovely woman, and I would never in my whole life consider forcing myself on her without her blessing. This wouldn't even be necessary.

3) How does one balance the fact that a) Your body also belongs to your spouse, and b) You have the right to refuse sexual intercourse, and upon breach of this trust, is called rape? It sounds logical that one should never force oneself on another human being, even your wife (or husband). But consentual sex, and rape is not always easily and accurately defined, since sexual acts often happen spontaneously and in the blink of an eye.

Hope someone can provide some clarification.

Regards,

Loki

Sigrun Christianson
Wednesday, June 11th, 2003, 04:46 AM
Hello Loki -

I actually have a ton to write on this subject, but it's almost 9pm and whaaaaay past my bedtime. I'll reply when I have more time to give you a full and complete answer.

-Sig

Blue Eyed Devil
Thursday, June 12th, 2003, 06:16 PM
The point of creating laws against rape inside of marriage was not to protect women, but to destroy marriage. The whole point of the Jewish scoundrels Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug and their fellows was not to promote happiness for women, but to promote the destruction of the foundation of White America: the White family. As with all of the facets of the Anti-American Revolution of the 1960s, the Jerry Rubins, and Abby Hoffmans and all the other Jewish leaders of the various factions of the Revolution the point was never to promote the well-being of some downtrodden section of society as they claimed. It was to attack all of the pillars of White society in order to make it a far weaker, but safer place for the Jews to live in.

Women today are not more secure than they were in the 1950s. They are no freer in any real sense of the word, and yet they have had their families taken from them through the divorces caused by the Jewish created feminist practices that have been nearly universally implemented throughout our society, and over 80% of their children are now raise without both biological parents in the home. Our families are destroyed, and women are being raped today in numbers that are manifold higher than they were in the 1950s. America is failing, the White race is being exterminated, and woman are not better off as a result.

Though there are many facets to the Anti-American Revolution they all have the same goal: Destruction of White America. This includes feminism, as well as the civil rights movement, and all of the other Jewish fronts of attack against us. None of these movements have improved the lot of those they claimed to be helping, in fact they have made it worse for them. But the bulk of what they have actually accomplished is to gut our society and the future for our children.

taran
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:12 AM
1) Non-consensual sex.

2) Don't know.

3) If each spouse's body belongs to the other, then the spouse that didn't want sex at a particular time, has the same right to control her spouse's body and prevent him from raping her as he has the right to control her body and rape her. Those rights cancel out. Marriage is not slavery. The partners are moral equals, even as they are physically different.

The larger context is how to have a happy marriage. This is actually pretty easy. If the woman gives her man sex regularly, she can pretty much get what she wants in the marriage, and the marriage will probably be a happy one.

RusViking
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 12:14 PM
The point of creating laws against rape inside of marriage was not to protect women, but to destroy marriage. The whole point of the Jewish scoundrels Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug and their fellows was not to promote happiness for women, but to promote the destruction of the foundation of White America: the White family. As with all of the facets of the Anti-American Revolution of the 1960s, the Jerry Rubins, and Abby Hoffmans and all the other Jewish leaders of the various factions of the Revolution the point was never to promote the well-being of some downtrodden section of society as they claimed. It was to attack all of the pillars of White society in order to make it a far weaker, but safer place for the Jews to live in.

Women today are not more secure than they were in the 1950s. They are no freer in any real sense of the word, and yet they have had their families taken from them through the divorces caused by the Jewish created feminist practices that have been nearly universally implemented throughout our society, and over 80% of their children are now raise without both biological parents in the home. Our families are destroyed, and women are being raped today in numbers that are manifold higher than they were in the 1950s. America is failing, the White race is being exterminated, and woman are not better off as a result.

Though there are many facets to the Anti-American Revolution they all have the same goal: Destruction of White America. This includes feminism, as well as the civil rights movement, and all of the other Jewish fronts of attack against us. None of these movements have improved the lot of those they claimed to be helping, in fact they have made it worse for them. But the bulk of what they have actually accomplished is to gut our society and the future for our children.
Data for the many conclusions you have drawn here please.

Agrippa
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 03:22 PM
1) Non-consensual sex.

Well, thats an interesting point because it raises the question what signs of approve you might need.
F.e. can a woman which said just ones "better not", but then do nothing say she was "raped"?
Do you need a written permission?

I mean you can say thats ridiculous, but if there is no massive violance and the woman didnt resist physically or dont even scream it is for me no rape.

There were cases especially in the US were women came up with the idea they were "raped" many years after the "incident" and there was no violance involved and they dont even made their rejection clear during the act.

Furthermore its something different to be raped by a stranger, maybe even a diseased, ugly etc. person or someone with which you have sex every week...
Just think about children in such cases, you can never compare such "rapes".

In marriage (less but even so in fix relationships) the judgement must be milder, thats just logical.

I see a reason to punish rape in marriage if violance is involved and the woman is injured. Such things should be punished anyways and thats something which I say although I think the patriarchalic system should be revitalized and the man has certain rights in marriage.

But that doesnt make the woman his property, especially not if he is abusing his rights and position in a very asocial way.

But if a woman which was not injured, there was no massive violence involved etc. comes up in the divorce "he raped me 2 years ago because I didnt gave him my written permission..." its a bad joke and such things shouldnt be persecuted.

Such "rights" of the women are just good for family destruction, abuse and to further asocial behaviour and for nothing else.

If a man is brutal and doesnt use his rights with responsibility, he should be punished by the collective. If he is reasonable and not senseless brutal he has his rights in marriage.

If women dont want that they shouldnt marry at all, because marriage is not just the "moment in which you are in a nice white dress..." because if so it marriage is just pointless.
Thats the situation today and it is made even clearer by the further developments in the legal form of marriage, with homosexual marriages and perveted things like that.

Marriage is the exclusive right of a man to secure a woman and her sexuality for him, to be sure that her children are his children.
To make up a stable family and to form the first cell of the society.

The new "rights" promoted by radical emancipation just destroy societies cohesion and are good for nothing, at least if you look at the big picture.



The larger context is how to have a happy marriage. This is actually pretty easy. If the woman gives her man sex regularly, she can pretty much get what she wants in the marriage, and the marriage will probably be a happy one.

Sounds good and I give you my consent, but I see one problem with such a view on marriage and sex.

Again I want to compare it with animals, the Bonobos. If sex is used in a relationship as a leverage, it makes the man weak and depending in a negative way.
If in such a way women can control a man, maybe even politically (there is an interesting comedy about such problems in Greek antiquity) it is undignifiedly and makes the man a depending ape which lose control.

In fact that was the major reason why the Marxist feminists tried to further free sex although it made women even more to "sex objects".

VilhelMina
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:39 PM
1) Define rape inside of marriage (and by implication, and possibly more relevant, abstinence inside of marriage)

2) If there is such scanty evidence available for this act, how do we know for sure that it is so common? Isn't it merely a feminist tool of gaining sympathy? I mean I am married to a lovely woman, and I would never in my whole life consider forcing myself on her without her blessing. This wouldn't even be necessary.

3) How does one balance the fact that a) Your body also belongs to your spouse, and b) You have the right to refuse sexual intercourse, and upon breach of this trust, is called rape? It sounds logical that one should never force oneself on another human being, even your wife (or husband). But consentual sex, and rape is not always easily and accurately defined, since sexual acts often happen spontaneously and in the blink of an eye.

IMO - Forcing. Anything other than consensual sex between both parties. But then that is limited to "personal" limitations.

Feminists embrace "victimhood". They have a extraordinarily narrow view of what is appropriate sexual behavior. A common refrain in the feminist movement is that rape is a nightly occurrence in most bedrooms across the country. Some even believe that all acts of sex are rape, and that men should simply “give up their precious erections and have sex as women do”. These ignorant and insulting statements, besides trivializing the real trauma of actual rape, infantalize women by rendering them unable to make real choices for themselves, something that in any other context would be anathema to any feminist.

Verslingen
Sunday, September 12th, 2004, 11:13 PM
I do not think that rape laws have any hinderance to marriage. There is a lot of abuses that weak men inflict on their wives. I am the man of the house and my wife is my subordinate but she is also a person to be treated with respect. If a man is sick enough to take such advantage from a weaker person he is also likely to assault children. It is a power issue and some men can't be man enough to control that power. My philiosphy is if she doesn't want it now she will soon with a little help. Sometimes women just need a little kindness and their reward to you will ber astounding. Hmm maybe my wife and I need to stop being "kind" five kids and she might be preg. again.



hahahah
:prost
verslingen

green nationalist
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 04:50 PM
I consider myself pretty conservative and place high value on the marraige and the family however i will say that i find this view of Women as being inferior or "subordinate" as ridiculous in the 21st century.

Both parties are equals in a relationship, true different roles are assigned by Nature to each but you cannot say "Because I am the bread winner and more physiclly stronger, you as the weaker sex and the homemaker must subordinate yourself to me as I am the man" this breeds discontent and sadness in a woman and sickens the family unit, it gives rise to screwed up kids and maybe its as result of this early 20th century view of marraige that the world is as F''''ked up as it is today.

A man has no right whatsoever to force himself on his wife, she is a human being with a important role to play in society, she is not a slave, any man who feels the need to degrade himself in this way is a cowred and cretin, and should be shot. All rape is disgusting in or outside a marraige, it demonstrates weak spirit, a sick mind, and a lack of respect for women and the self.

We are not Muslims, we dont stone our wives and daughters for refusing our advances, we dont use rape as a torture or terror tactic.

we are Aryans and should behave with Honour and dignity we are not savage animals.

ARYANOUTLAW S.S.
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 09:15 PM
Marriage is a joining of two people who love each other.If rape is involved it is not marriage anymore it is a act of violence. S.S.

Agrippa
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Marriage is a joining of two people who love each other.If rape is involved it is not marriage anymore it is a act of violence. S.S.

I agree and wrote more above, though I have just to add that the only problem might be what the defintion of "rape" is.

Verslingen
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 04:17 PM
There are things that I can do that my wife cannot perhaps subordinate was a bad choice of words but I doubt my wife at 1.55 m 58 kg can carry as much as I can at 1.93 m and 113 kg. I think men have resposiblities to protect his wife but aslo to respect her own strengths and space.

V.

gorgeousgal2k2
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Are you any of you saying this is OK? :mad

Rape inside of marriage is when one of the partners FORCES the other one to have sex, when they don't want to at the time, and they force them to anyway. It is normally carried out by violent people who would have raped and beaten anyway, even if they were not married.

You know what rape is. It's a violent despicable crime. The idea of making that law was because previously men who did force their wives to have sex (or women who forced their husbands to) were not able to be prosecuted under the law.

Saying that rape laws are to undermine marriage is to say that rape is a part of marriage, which it is NOT. Most of the time rape is not reported anyway even if it is by a stranger, because people are ashamed of it. Especially when the person raped is a man. I think it is to protect people, why should the fact that a person is married mean they are not to be protected from their spouse? After all you are most likely to be murdered by your spouse or your partner, and if this person can already rape you with impunity that makes a little bit more likely that they could kill you and think they could get away with it.