Posted on 11/01/2007 5:07:20 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
In a rare rebuke, the city's bar association condemned a judge who dismissed rape charges in the alleged gang rape of a prostitute and instead called it a theft of services.
The prostitute admitted going to a home on Sept. 20 to have paid sex with a customer but said she was instead gang-raped by four men, including the customer, while he fixed a gun on her.
Municipal Judge Teresa Carr Deni dropped the rape and sexual-assault charges at an Oct. 4 preliminary hearing, but upheld robbery, false imprisonment and conspiracy charges against Dominique Gindraw.
Deni has since heightened the furor in defending her decision to a newspaper.
''She consented and she didn't get paid,'' Deni told the Philadelphia Daily News. ''I thought it was a robbery.''
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
I would argue that if you look at marriage as the possession of a woman by a man, the Stone Ages suited you more than our current time.
Spousal rape is real....not a “leftist theory”.
I have to say that posts such as yours are some of the most bizarre I have ever read on FR. Haloween ghouls have nothing on the scary world which would happen if your ideas woere put into practice.
Here’s my point: Those who would argue that prostitution should be legalized, or would argue that sex is not the immense act that it is, and that it has been traditionally considered to be, must also be of the opinion that rape is not so large an offense, either.
_____________
How do you get from consensual sex (with or without money) somehow being equivalent to rape. There’s so much connective tissue missing there that I just can’t get from A to B.
No, that’s not just you. That is what is right, and thankfully that is also the law.
Strange to see people here take an almost Taliban-like view to rape and marriage. Bizarre.
Sixteen happy years so far, and a number of adorable children, thanks. And you?
I am assuming, notice, that marriage has a nature ---that it is a something, and a something definite --- and is not simply an arbitrary or malleable creation of positive law.
My own Natural Law take on this (colored by Catholicism) is that sex is a Big Thing and (literally) embodies two Big Powers: the power to unite the sexes by means of certaiin affinities or attachments created by physical pair-bonding, and the power to procreate offspring and thereby extend human society into another generation.
Both of these powers are essential to society (that is, their significance, while intimately important to individuals and couples, goes beyond couples to society's physical and cultural survival itself) --- and are quite vulnerable to being weakened, subverted, or perverted. Therefore society has a legitimate interest in strengthening and supporting these powers in their most constructive form.
Catholicism also sees marriage as the "sincere gift of self" of the husband to the wife, and of the wife to the husband. This is another way of saying that reciprocal rights and duties exist; based, however, on "gift" and not primarily on barter or exchange. (Marriage is a contract, it is never less than a contract; but it is also more than a contract.)
Th gift of the bodies of the married to one another is rightly assumed to be irrevocable, but it is not unlimited.
The Catholic Church, for instance, says that the marriage partners, being rational persons, have a right to intercourse within reason.
Most moralists, traditionally, would say that a spouse has a right to refuse a sexual advance which is patently irrational. Examples would be: irrational by reason of perversion, drunkenness, profound mental incompetence, insanity, threat or likelihood of bodily harm. The list is illustrative, but not necessarily comprehensive.
Most moralists, traditionally, would also say that either spouse has a reasonable right to expect sexual intercourse, and offspring.
I would say that an irrational imposition of intercourse, even in marriage, constitutes rape morally. Legally, it would have to be an objective and provable irrationality. IMHO.
Like, America in the 1950s?
To put it another way, I pity any wife who can't get her husband to do, or not do, anything she wants without calling the cops.
*************
Quite right.
I reiterate, don’t repeat what you said here, or you’ll encounter frequent headaches, if you know what I mean.
IOW the wife must march in lock-step.
This is, in essence, what you are saying.
If an act involves sexual intercourse within marriage, it can be a lot of things I wouldn't endorse, some of which may be illegal, such as mean, sinful, spiteful, violent, dangerous, crazy, and so on. But it's not rape. Below is a quote on the definition of rape on Lectric Law. The understanding they cite is ancient. The re-invention of the term to include husbands is indeed of leftist, anti-marriage origin.
"The matrimonial consent of the wife cannot be retracted, and, therefore, her hushand cannot be guilty of a rape on her as his act is not unlawful." (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q097.htm)
If sex is such an unimportant act that it should be legally bought and sold as easily as milk, then why should we be any more concerned when it is “taken” without consent than any other product?
LOL. For once, colorcountry, I’m in full agreement with you. In fact, I have said exactly what the judge said on FR threads.
Per Merriam-Webster rape is:
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will
If a spouse is forced against her will to have sex, this certainly qualifies by definition as rape.
No other way of looking at it.
This thread is so full of fail it boggles the mind.
I pray Bill ORLY doesn’t get a hold of it.
“No, this is rape.”
Yes, it is. It doesn’t matter how many times and/or ways she’s been around the block, forcing her to have sex against her will is rape.
I’ve gotten a lot of flack on this thread. I’m starting to grow a thick skin. LOL
If “fail” is crap I agree with you.
People here want the law enforced, unless of course it applies to people who have made mistakes in their lives.
The question is: are you getting any smarter?
Another person of common sense!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.