Re: voluntary rape
Chumly wrote:Here's a new (to me) phrase and a blurb about it. Draw your own conclusions.
Quote: The concept of voluntary rape
Rape is bad. Let there be no doubt about it. A man (or woman) entering or otherwise sexually abusing and molesting the body of a woman (or man) against her (or his) will is in my mind a disgusting and unforgivable crime. I am thankful for every law that is passed to punish committers of rape and to help the victims. I even remember making a little victory dance once my country decided it was forbidden by law to rape your spouse.
Strangely enough,
prior to that law you were allowed to rape someone
once you were married to that person. Bad thing indeed.
http://www.cecile-weekly.com/index.php/the-concept-of-voluntary-rape/
It was not strange.
For
centuries, it was understood that at the moment of marriage,
by the act of marriage, there
WAS a
de jure and
de facto union of the sexes,
and that consent to coitus was a deep and permanently abiding element
of the contract of marriage.
In other words,
the contract of marriage included a permanent waiver
of objection to coitus.
If this understanding was
INCORRECT,
then what was the purpose of getting married ?
WHAT was a wedding intended to accomplish, if not that ??
In my jurisdiction, NY, the rape statute
defined the crime as coitus forced upon
a woman who was not his wife.
By deleting that statutory language,
the essence of what the legislature was saying
is that sex is only a trivial and negligible incident of marriage.
From that reasoning,
I DISSENT.
( Note that tho I have had delightful young ladies living with me
[seriatim] over the years n decades, I have never been married
and will preserve that state of affairs. )
David