Is it possible for a husband to rape his wife?

[MrFun]

Or from the standpoint of religious-right Christians.

[aneeshm]

In a free country, it depends on the marriage contract, and is left to the couple in question to decide at the time of marriage. In most modern states, yes, it is possible.

(It's quite bizarre why this isn't extended to the economic sphere, though. Ancient alimony and "child support" laws, designed during the days of intact families and when a man couldn't rape his wife by definition, continue to cause untold misery. The sacralisation of physical consent, and the loosening of the sexual obligations of women, should have been simultaneously matched by the sacralisation of consent in the provisioning of economic resources and an equivalent of the loosening of the financial obligations of men. That was, at its root, what the old contract was based on - consenting to marriage was considered as equivalent to pre-consenting to any sexual activity within it, and on the man's side was considered equal to a commitment to financial provisioning of the pair. Hence alimony. If it had to be gotten rid of, it should have been gotten rid of wholesale. Otherwise, in time, rational actors will come less and less to engage in it, as the disincentives for one party outweigh the incentives, as is the case in most Western societies today (and as is happening in other societies attempting to follow that pattern).)

[KrazyHorse]

In a free country, it depends on the marriage contract, and is left to the couple in question to decide at the time of marriage.

No. You cannot consent by contract to all sexual contact at any future point whatever your willingness at that moment. Just like you can't contract to give somebody the right to cut off one of your toes without the option to change your mind later.

[aneeshm]

In a free country, it depends on the marriage contract, and is left to the couple in question to decide at the time of marriage.

No. You cannot consent by contract to all sexual contact at any future point whatever your willingness at that moment. Just like you can't contract to give somebody the right to cut off one of your toes without the option to change your mind later.

I know. Which is why I said, "In a free country". We aren't living in free countries, or anything close.

And you didn't address the thrust of what I said, regarding the obligations of the other side of the party. If one part is nullified, so should the other be. No longer should the husband be forced to support his wife once the union is dissolved. The same logic applies - you cannot "consent" to perpetually supporting someone without having an option to later opt out, no matter your willingness at that moment.

[KrazyHorse]

I know. Which is why I said, "In a free country". We aren't living in free countries, or anything close.

Sorry, but my definition of freedom doesn't include that kind of contract.

And you've obviously never heard of a "pre-nuptial agreement".

Holy ****. Learn something before you open your silly mouth.

[N35t0r]

um. Possible != legal

[loinburger]

So if I read this correctly, aneeshm says that in a free country marriage is a contract in which one side perpetually forks over money and the other side perpetually forks over sex?

[KrazyHorse]

Given that nobody would ever have sex with him except in return for a cash payment or at gunpoint, I can definitely see why he would read this thread that way.

[aneeshm]

So if I read this correctly, aneeshm says that in a free country marriage is a contract in which one side perpetually forks over money and the other side perpetually forks over sex?

No. In a free country, a marriage is whatever the two people decide it is, and is contractually agreed upon. The state isn't in the business. What you're referring to is what I described as the old understanding of marriage.

(Is it really that hard to get what I'm saying? Is there something in what I write which makes it difficult to understand?)

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes it is possible. It may sound silly because, well it's his wife, but it's not his wife, if you get the distinction. He doesn't own her.

[aneeshm]

Sorry, but my definition of freedom doesn't include that kind of contract.

In that case, we simply disagree on definitions. An adult should have the freedom to contract in things he can give, across space and time.

EDIT: It seems that your idea of "consent" is based on the idea of inalienable rights. I'm not a believer in inalienable rights. If you have a right, you can alienate it all you want. Otherwise, how is it a right at all? So consent is absolute, because it's derived from a right to your body. But like all others, you can alienate it in specific contractual situations.

And you've obviously never heard of a "pre-nuptial agreement".

I have. However, they can be very easily challenged in family court, where the protections of the normal legal system do not apply, standards of proof are lax to nonexistent, and the standard operating procedure is for the woman to lie through her teeth about "abuse" (normal woman are put up to it by their lawyers, by the way) in order to either get favourable terms or to nullify said pre-nupital agreement.

[DaShi]

Ah, here it comes.

[aneeshm]

Given that nobody would ever have sex with him except in return for a cash payment or at gunpoint, I can definitely see why he would read this thread that way.

No, actually, it's because unlike you, I happen to have an understanding of pre-modern ways of thinking and feeling, and I don't worship the present or the past.

[KrazyHorse]

You have little to no understanding of anything, from all evidence.

You're a spoiled little brat in a ****hole 3rd world country who thinks that he's a great deal more clever than he actually is. In reality, your world view is pedestrian and juvenile.

[aneeshm]

You have little to no understanding of anything, from all evidence.

You're a spoiled little brat in a ****hole 3rd world country who thinks that he's a great deal more clever than he actually is. In reality, your world view is pedestrian and juvenile.

You are a physicist who couldn't cut it, and makes (quite pathetic) attempts at putting an altruistic gloss on his failure. You are someone who pretty much admitted to giving up what you like to do. (IIRC, you also went ballistic over a trivial and practically insignificant difference in a test score between us.)

Many laughs and insults do not an argument make, KH. Specially not from someone in your position; it's not as if your world-view has resulted in any great things.