Is it possible to rape your spouse?

>consent cannot be given in advance
Why not? If I met a girl and she told me she will have sex with me after dinner in this super expensive restaurant, and after dinner she denies me it I have right to coerce her. Because that was a deal. Otherwise I should have right to sue her.
So what is even point of marriage then?

Marriage by law is invalid.

The concept of rape is false.

Hypothetically if you wanted to have sex with your wife, and she refused, and you coerced her into it anyway, and all the while she was screaming and crying and begging for you to stop, violently trying to resist to the bitter end, shouting for help, and immediately after you finish she runs to the kitchen, grabs a knife, and slits her own throat from ear to ear, would you see your actions as having had any relation to her decision to kill herself?

Marital rape has actually only been illegal in the west for less than a hundred years. In many countries it's younger invention than women's suffrage (ie. Finland was first in Europe to give women the right to vote in 1905 but only criminalized marital rape in early 1990s).

Evasive response

What the girl promised you beforehand is irrelevant, because she did not have full sovereignty over what she did with her body.

People's self-sovereignty is limited in some respects for their own protection. Suicide is illegal, people cannot sell themselves into slavery, and weird sex fetishists can't consent to being killed and cannibalized.

In the same vein, a person may consent to sex at the present moment, but they cannot make such a decision beforehand, since they were not fully cognizant of all of the circumstances. They can only make such a decision when they are about to do it.

Hot

>So what is even point of marriage then?
Financial stability

>Why not? If I met a girl and she told me she will have sex with me after dinner in this super expensive restaurant, and after dinner she denies me it I have right to coerce her. Because that was a deal. Otherwise I should have right to sue her.
You definitely shouldn't have the right to coerce her. That would be a god-awful principle to set in contract law and would lead to all sorts of problems in commercial disputes.

Her beach of contract should, however, be actionable, provided you are in a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal. The remedy would either be discharge by performance (i.e. she has the agreed upon sex) or pecuniary damages for the cost of the meal, the time you wasted and any loss of enjoyment. Alternatively, she could be made to cover the cost for a prostitute of equal calibre to her.

>So what is even point of marriage then?
less taxes.
cuddling and carpooling

If I am a citizen of a country I consent to defend it. If a war breaks out I will be drafted. It will be just because I enjoyed benefits of being a citizen. I can't try to avoid conscription claiming that I didn't knew that there will be invented new type of weaponry that can kill whole armies in a matter of seconds because I would lie to my government and that would be a breach of oath

>So what is even point of marriage then?
Cementing the fact that you agree not to fuck someone other than your signficiant other, and that you love each other.

What kind of fucked up marriage vow did your wife take? "Do you promise to provide sex, regardless of whether you want it, to your husband, so long as you may live?"

Not the answer to the question of OP but I find retraction of consent the most ridiculous thing. For example, the famous matress girl accused the guy she had consent sex with of rape only after he repeatedly rejected to have a relationship with her after the deed.

>Why not? If I met a girl and she told me she will have sex with me after dinner in this super expensive restaurant, and after dinner she denies me it I have right to coerce her. Because that was a deal. Otherwise I should have right to sue her.
You can't sell sex, or trade it, you can give it, and that descision may be influenced by what you've done for her before hand.

>Why not? If I met a girl and she told me she will have sex with me after dinner in this super expensive restaurant, and after dinner she denies me it I have right to coerce her. Because that was a deal. Otherwise I should have right to sue her.

Good luck convincing a court your coercion (which is never legal anyway) was justified because she broke your verbal prostitution contract.

Conscription IS immoral, it is only tolerated because the nation's survival is considered to be more important than the individual's rights. It's like killing in self defense; it's an inherently bad act made tolerable because of the extreme circumstances. Someone raping their wife has little to do with the nation's survival.

Your wife isn't a sex conscript.

>nation survival
No such thing. It's about government signing contract with citizen
But she signed a contract with me just like I signed it with government

>But she signed a contract with me just like I signed it with government

Once again, no she didn't. No wedding license includes a clause for unlimited sex.

So why you can annul marriage if there was no sex?

That used to be the deal though. If your spouse wouldn't fuck you then that was grounds for divorce. And I'm talking about medieval fucking Europe here. A man OR woman would get their marriage annulled if they felt their spouse wasn't putting out, because the point of marriage was to make babies and there was no point in having a "fruitless union".

Because having sex ONCE is part of the process, if you refuse even that then you have voided your marriage. But ONCE is all you're entitled to, and even then it has to be on your wife's terms.

You can, and I definitely have.

A marriage contract which stipulates full unrestricted access to the wife's body by the husband forever and whenever he pleases would never hold up in court.

You can't just put any demand you'd like in a contract and expect it to be legal simply because it was signed.

Well, it goes both ways. She has also full access to my body

Fuck off, that'a not how it goes, you inbred hillbilly rapebaby.

No, marital rape is literal nonsense and a completely modern, 20th century concept that only emerged with the dawn of 2nd wave feminism in the 1970s.
Think about it, the main purpose of marriage is procreation. Procreation involves sex. The wife gives the husband access to sex legally and she cannot go takesies backsies about it without annulling the marriage or divorcing her husband.
I mean if I have to draw up an analogy, imagine you rent an apartment and you want to play loud music in it. Your landlord knows about this, and it's specified in the lease that you are able to play loud music. Then one day the landlord decides to call the cops on you because he suddenly decided he doesn't like music anymore, without renegotiating the terms of the lease or terminating the lease first. Would that make sense? Fuck no. Neither does the concept of marital rape.

>your wife isn't a sex conscript
No, in this case she's more like a professional soldier who volunteered, enjoyed tremendous benefits and now is trying to chicken out and desert because a war is about to break out.

This isn't even a good analogy. Allowing a tenant to play loud music in the middle of the afternoon is different from allowing them to play it at 3 in the morning and intrude on everyone in the building's sleep. Context matters.

Sexless marriages can be annulled, but forcing yourself on your wife in her hospital bed after a major injury despite her refusal simply because she's your wife and you believe you should have access to her body whenever you like doesn't make it not rape.

Your analogy is retarded. Wife in this case isn't in shape to have sex and no one sane would require her to. We are talking about a case when a couple is in bed and wife is telling "no" because "my head hurts"

Perhaps she is saying "no" because she doesn't want sex at that moment and being a person with free will has a right to decide what happens to her body, unless you consider women property and thus sex . You are a despicable person, I'm not the one you were talking to

Sex slaves*. I hope my daughter would never marry anyone like you.

That's not rape, the retraction of consent before or during sex is, not after

Christ. This is the most hilarious post I've seen in awhile. Get your shit together, user. That's not how marriage works.

>read about people getting jailed for rape because the girl got regrets and cries to the police that she pulled her consent during intercourse thus it's rape

How to avoid this? Do I nowadays need a lawyer with a mutual form of consent ready to go and two witnesses present so I'm shielded from false rape accusations?

No, fuck off. You consented to marriage, you consented to sex. I work my ass off 8 hours a day so you can go shopping with your cunt friends and do your nails, and you won't even give me the sex I work hard to earn? Fuck you.

No because marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

What principle of contract is applied here in your learned opinion my colleagues? Frustration? Breach? Some form of respite in equity?

First of all the HCA has said that after women were made into people with the married women's property act marital rape has been prosecutable, It has also said that the case from which the concept of marriage as a defence against rape was used was wrongly decided and no longer good law.
Also with respect to that and so far as your analogy, if you had it as a term that you could play so loudly the police could be called on you at any point that would be an illegal term and void the contract or under the circumstances be a severable term and be removed from the contract.

I don't know what HCA is.

I sincerely hope this thread is mainly made of trolls

>You consented to marriage, you consented to sex.
Prove it.

High Court of Australia

>expecting people to know the judicial bodies in some random backwater non-country
Well thanks for clarifying at least

... man, his thread reminds me of when I was in 1st grade, and I had just learned of the concept of a prenup. I spent literal months trying to figure out how to make a prenup that would make it impossible for a girl to divorce me.

Thinking back I'm not certain if I assumed marriage entitled you to sex (I had been obsessed with sex since kindergarten), or if I just assumed it was kind of like a property thing and your wife was 'yours' in some legal way.

...

Anyway, marriage is mostly about financial stability and tax breaks these days. There is honestly little point to it unless you're really religious and romantic.

>having a daughter instead of a son
You had one job user.

>Not having a cute daughter no matter what, even if you have to bully your son into identifying as female so you can get him on the hormones.

What a cuck.

Marriage entitled you to sex until very, very recently. In some countries a wife denying sex was even prosecutable for it. So you were not wrong in your thinking.

I'm 26 and American. It'd already been like a generation-ish.

>wanting a faggot tranny child
I'd commit my kid to the nuthouse if this happened to me. Something your parents should've done to you as well.

>Literally the most externally quoted body by the USC

Please provide me an appellate level case affirming marriage as a defence for rape from anytime in history.

I'm not sure what those words mean.

>Wanting to fuck a male-identfying child who will only get more disgusting as hormones transform him.

WOW. Faggot.

It is in fact exactly how marriage used to work, and continues to work in large parts of the world.

>26 edgy fucks in here talking about enforcing contract
>Use words like appellate, HCA and USC everyone clams up.

Don't go around talking shit about the law or legal history if none of you know shit about the law of contract.

>wanting to fuck
>fuck
I don't want to fuck children, user. Sounds like you're pretty unhinged if this is something that crossed your mind.

I'm not a native English speaker.

Not those nerds, but maybe, MAYBE, Reg. v. Clarence (1888) ? Looks to be some BS in wales. The case is.... weird, though.

>I don't want to fuck children, user

... so why are you on Veeky Forums? Also, what good is having kids if you can't even fuck them? C'mon, senpai.

...

This is quite the thread.

I really hope it's just shitposting.

Though I suppose it's not like I didn't know there were severely fucked up and dysfunctional people on this site.

Do you come from a common or civil law country? If you come from a civil law country the word appellate would mean little to you.

>wanting to fuck your kids
You're from West Virginia aren't you

Civil law.

But user, that's literally not how marriage works anymore. Except for perhaps in nonwestern contexts.

Eh. I'm the guy talking about fucking your kids and I'm like, 90% shitposting. The other 10% is because I've thought about it, but since I'm never getting laid it's not really a problem I care enough to correct.

Nah. Thankfully not.

>adhering to something that was the norm on the entire planet until 40 years ago is fucked up
Reddit is that way ---------->

Are you implying this whole site thinks we should go back to doing things the way they were 40 years ago?

Because 40 years ago they'd kill all of us for looking at porn.

Where are you from if you could be killed there for watching porn? Somalia?

It's fucked up because today you should have the adequate tools to not be retarded.
I mean, 40 years ago nobodyn could use a web browser.

We're talking 40 years ago. I'm pretty sure the moral panic bullshit in the...

*quick math*

Fuck, I'm old. Nevermind. I guess 70s America was weirdly permissive. I keep forgetting I'm almost 30.

Definitely! Most rapes occur within marriage.

That's like kidnapping your children.

Are these marital rapes "well I thought I liked it but retracted my consent silently mid-coitus" cases?

You could never be killed for watching porn you retard.

"But contrary to the dominant narrative, nearly all child abductions are perpetrated by family members. Stranger abductions — certainly alarming and tragic — actually occur with “lightning-strike rarity,” as a report in the journal Criminal Justice Studies put it, in contrast to the more than 200,000 parental abductions committed each year that meet the criminal criteria and are not merely delayed visitations or misunderstandings."

Kinda, yeah.

I'm mostly talking about mob violence.

>equating technological progress with the introduction of some shit for brains law spearheaded by screeching feminists
OK pal

R v Clarence seems to be an interesting case one of the judges does say that a wife consents to sex with her husband (which I take to imply he means all the time) but that was only one judge and it was obiter.
The actual case revolved around the the wording of ABH and GBH within the relevant criminal act (which I know today does include infection by a disease and infliction by fraud).

The idea that marriage could ever be used as a defence to rape was abolished in the UK in RvR in 1991, the real question though is is there a case were someone got up on the ratio being marriage = consent before the abolition of the concept.

Civil law doesn't really have appeals as a rule. as for the issue in this thread you would have to provide case examples or statute on a per country basis to really see where the civil law stood.

>Think about it, the main purpose of marriage is procreation.
And you are already wrong. The main purpose of marriage is to obtain the status of "married" thus making it easier to do certain things. Including raising kids. At least that's how it is in the west.

>person gets lynched to death by an angry mob for looking at tits and pussy on TV
That never happened. Next time use an analogy that isn't utterly retarded from the get go.

You absolutely can kidnap your child what are you talking about?

>the real question though is is there a case were someone got up on the ratio being marriage = consent before the abolition of the concept.

Some quick googling and I couldn't find anything to support whether it has ever been successfully used. I did find a lot of shit claiming it was generally accepted as a thing after some dude's legal opinion on a book, but as for an actual case?

I'm not a lawyer. If it had been used as a defence, wouldn't that one case in '91 have mentioned they were overturning precedence?

When it was in the marriage contract no, now yes.
Marital rape laws literally made it possible for rape within marriage to happen.

My personal opinion though, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband (not just occasionally but unfairly often) she's a cunt, but it doesn't excuse rape, which as I said is possible within marriage now.

Kidnapoing your children is indeed equally nonsensical but with modern gynocentrism on steroids, it's legally possible apparently.
>cunt gets divorced
>gets awarded custody because of course
>dad takes the kid outside of court mandated visitation days
>CALL DA POPO SOMEBODY THIS EVIL MAN IS KIDNAPPING HIS OWN KEEED
Retarded I know but alas

I said YOUR children, not your relative's children. And It was ironical anyway.

>You can't sell sex, or trade it

People sell and trade sex all the time what

Here's a brain teaser for you

Why would you want to have sex with your wife if she doesn't want to?

Even in the best case scenario where she doesn't press charges and doesn't try to violently resist you, she's just going to lay there like a dead fish. How is that enjoyable for you? She'll probably resent and dislike you afterwards as well, sending the marriage into a death spiral.

So in the event that it was legal to have sex with your spouse against their will, why would you want to?

... you know these laws apply to unfit mothers taking their kids too, right? It's not even vanishingly uncommon like with fathers getting awarded custody. In lots of cases it's shit like 'the grandparents or the state got custody, and Krystal like the champagne took some crystal like the meth and grabbed her kid.'.

most family abduction is abduction by a parent who doesn't have custody.

Legally in most common law contexts you can't.

The point of sex is to create children, not to make the female feel good. That's beta logic.