Kate chose not to obey

[Al Swearegen]

No. If it is illegal to rape a woman THEN unless there is specific exclusions, the law applies to wives as well. Whether courts in a backwards way may choose at any point not to enforce that is another matter.

Uh, I think I showed you that there was a specific exclusion and it had been used.

(ie If the judge preceding over the court has been fed the whole no sex outside of marriage thing all their life and suddenly someone is bringing the complaint of rape, he may (wrongly) disbelieve men would do that to wives (in the same way that Queen Victoria when informed of male and female homosexual sex acts, banned homosexuality between men as a perversion but allowed lesbian sex acts on basis she thought it would not happen and could not bring herself to believe it was a real sexual persuasion and the sex practices true) or he may (also wrongly) say "Oh yuck vaginas..I don't want to hear about what goes in and out of vaginas. I am a sexually repressed man who only ever has sex with my wife in missionary position with lights off and covers on and try not to ever see her naked."

Nice ramble

But this is not the same as "being legal to rape wives. Can you should me where it is legal....actually legal. You make this claim a lot si let's not treat it as a given

I've shown you that it was legal for men to rape their wives.

http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge-bank/law-and-politics/features-and-resources/famous-cases-regina-v-r

The crucial case
In Regina v R (1991) the husband had been charged with rape upon his wife and actual bodily harm (ABH). The wife had left to live with her parents but there was no formal separation, although the wife had consulted solicitors. The prosecution claimed that the husband had broken into her parents’ home and raped her.

The defence argued that there was no such offence, because of the marriage exemption. The case was appealed until it reached the House of Lords. The judgment was given by Lord Keith of Kinkel who said that the contortions being performed in the lower courts in order to evade the marital rights exemption demonstrated how absurd the rule was. He said that, the marital rights exemption was a “common law fiction” which had never been a true rule of English law. Kinkel concluded that “the fiction of implied consent has no useful purpose to serve today in the law of rape” R’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, and he was convicted of the rape of his wife.

Yes you have show a judge making a stupid and incorrect and illegal ruling. We get that every other day in the media. That is NOT showing it is legal to rape a wife that is showing an incompetent and probably sexist and malicious judge making a stupid ruling and as I say we see a lot of miscariages of justices. YOu said you have shown where it is "legal to rape a wife" I contest that you have.

[RageBeoulve]

Annnnnd this thread is infected with unfair bullshit. Lemme help you, Ross.

[RageBeoulve]

Hurdur m-muh privlij

[RageBeoulve]

mu-sojiny

[RageBeoulve]

I <3 The psychopathic liberal agenda.

[RageBeoulve]

And now, for something completely different. Heroism. The only good "ism".

[RageBeoulve]

ITT: Targeting any demographic is the work of a sick mind. Quit it. Pic related. Its my reaction when I see this garbage.

[Al Swearegen]

Damn Rage I did not know you knew any of these BUT yes

[El]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?

I'm not saying it's barbaric.  I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it.  Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up. 

It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner.  Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves?  No.  But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.

Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.

As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed

OK, I'm not even sure if we're disagreeing or talking apples and oranges.

Are you saying the tradition wasn't sexist then, or are you saying it's not sexist now?

[El]

In Sweden women actually often insist on paying their restaurant bills themselves on a date.

Do you mean the full bill,  or just their half?   In the UK the term for splitting a bill is 'going Dutch'  -  i have no idea why

It's called dutch in the US too; never got it either. It seems more commonly expected these days; men don't necessarily always have the larger pay check anymore.

I think a lot of the time it's whoever asks for the date (if it's a first date or if it's obvious) who pays now.

Really?  Oh, the stupid awkward things I am so happy I avoid by not doing dinner dates.  Also, I wonder how much this explains men not making the first move even then I can kinda tell they want to.  (Answer:  It probably only explains the extremely cheap mofos.)

[Adam]

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html

[TheoK]

Not yet? Typically Britain. Here it has been a crime since 1965.

[Al Swearegen]

It's one of those "chivalry" things that falls both into the "sexist" and "sweet/d'awww" categories.  In its own context it was honorable and decent, and in modern times it's out of place and does have the unfortunate distinction of, in a sense, reinforcing negative stereotypes about women (that they "need protection," that they are weaker, that they are objects that can be taken or given away).  That said, there are still people who find it to be a lovely tradition and don't feel at all insulted or objectified by it.

It's natural for people to think of their family in possessive terms, my child, my spouse. To be possessive and even territorial in this sense of ownership, almost at an animalistic level when children are concerned. I'm not certain that equates to truly viewing people as objects.

Yes, but why, then, are men/sons not also given away?

I'm not saying it's barbaric.  I am saying that yes, there's an element of sexism to it, when you get down to it.  Les is hearing the word "sexist" about a practice he values and it's getting his hackles up. 

It's also- when you get down to it- a sexist tradition to have men always pay for dinner.  Does this mean men who pay for dinner are insulting and objectifying women, or even that they're sexist, themselves?  No.  But they are following another one of those chivalrous traditions that treats men and women differently.

Is that what is happening PMSElle or is it more truthfully that I am seeing the word sexism where I think it has no context.

As to the question posed, it may have more to do with the fact that the chance of women having survived their own birth and childhood illnesses were very likely to die off in one of many births they would have. Which of the two genders had the best prospect to earning money for the kids? If you say "Women could not be relied upon due to the increased chance of dying", then I think that we have agreed

OK, I'm not even sure if we're disagreeing or talking apples and oranges.

Are you saying the tradition wasn't sexist then, or are you saying it's not sexist now?

Sexist now

[RageBeoulve]

Damn Rage I did not know you knew any of these BUT yes

Yes, I know dude. I know..

I'm just SOOOO sick of dealing with this diseased garbage, its become difficult to respond when I see that state of mind beginning to fester.

[RageBeoulve]

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/28/news/in-britain-a-move-to-make-marital-rape-a-crime.html

I have to take action here. Soaf, what are you trying to prove? Muh privlig? Whats your problem, dude?