Is this rape?

mahtahild · 2015-04-22T02:50:34+00:00

No.

I've had this discussion on here before, I could find it in my history if anyone wants.

It could be considered threatening/manipulation, but the thing that matters is whether it is justified or not. I am not obligated to spend the rest of my life with you if you refuse to have sex with me, just like you are not obligated to have sex with me just because we are married.

Context is key, people.

ThirdUnderstudy · 2015-04-22T06:25:46+00:00

Am I being kidnapped if she will only fuck me when I stay the night?

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2015-04-22T05:25:04+00:00

In other news, sales pressure is Now "theft"

exit_sandman · 2015-04-22T08:44:07+00:00

First, let's get something out of the way: how serious are the consequences of divorce? In cultures where divorce is practically a social death sentence for women, the concept of spousal rape usually doesn't exist and therefore this discussion would be null and void for them. However, we're living in a culture where both the concept of spousal rape exists as well as consequences of divorce are, while quite substantial (especially if you are the earning party), certainly not something that is to be feared like the Spanish Inquisition.

Besides, since when is threatening divorce as a consequence for perceived misbehavior a crime? Is a woman who threatens divorce because I am an alcoholic blackmailing me? Or does it exclusively apply to "coercively" obtained sex sex because that way, it would overwhelmingly apply to men (how convenient!)? Guys - divorce is the freedom to walk out of a relationship that isn't working. Announcing that you intend to make use of that freedom of yours, even if it takes the form of an ultimatum, is entirely legitimate. Especially if the thing you want to enforce that way (a sex life deserving of that term) should be part of a marriage anyway. In fact, according to the legislation in my country, notoriously withholding sex actually is considered grounds for divorce and considerably improves the other party's position when it comes to a divorce settlment. One can argue about the quality of such a relationship, about whether it's really a productive way to tackle that problem, about it being a red flag and indicator of a shitty personality - but one can't argue that it's fucking legal.

Besides, how is this supposed to come down? I can heardly imagine it to be like that: husband tries to have sex with wife, wife refuses, husband says "do it or I'll divorce you", wife relents, sex ensues; rinse repeat the next night, the night after that, and so on. Odds are that husband will rather announce to his wife that unless she starts having sex with him again, he'll divorce her. Is he now raping her whenever they do the deed because of the imminent threat hanging over her head? Even though she could walk out at any moment's notice if she wanted to? I don't want to beat a dead horse, but don't you think that women should have sufficient agency to make that decision if that situation is intolerable for them?

Additional scenario: let's assume the woman is entirely dependent on the husband for her survival because she for all intents and purposes can't provide for herself (even with alimony payments). Let's also assume that she can have sex (i.e. she isn't disabled, isn't in chronic pain etc.), she just doesn't want to. Now what kind of relationship is it where the woman is a complete drag on the guy? Is it rape if he obtains sex under the threat of ending that one-sided arrangement? Or is the guy still obligated to continue carrying her through life instead without anything real in return, or at the very least it's illegal for him to announce that he intends to end that arrangement (presumably to get a better one with someone else)? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Well, that's basically what some are saying here.

So no, it isn't rape, I already feel my brain cells dying by merely reading that asinine claim. In fact, when reading the original post I thought "well, that's the most stupid thing I've heard today", only to someone else almost immediately one-up that moronic claim with an even sillier one. So, my dear SJW bluepillers - no matter how happy you are that redpillers aren't in charge of the law, always keep in mind that we're infinitely more happy that you aren't either.

Bakerofpie · 2015-04-22T12:51:20+00:00

It's not rape. I don't even really necessarily consider it coercion, unless you think that expressing your needs within a relationship, including your absolute deal breakers, is coercion. If my Husband or I started engaging in a serious negative behavior I think we both deserve to know explicitly how seriously the other takes the issue.

There seems to be this weird assumption from most of the commenters that expressing your willingness to leave if your wife doesn't meet your sexual needs is going to lead to begrudged sex for the rest of their lives. If she actually loves her partner and wants the marriage to work she shouldn't be thinking "this asshole thinks he deserves sex within his marriage. He should be willing to stay married to me no matter how seldom I want to have sex, but I don't want the hassle of divorce so fine I'll just do it, but he sucks for asking." She should be thinking "wow, I didn't realize how seriously this was hurting my partner and our marriage. I want this marriage to be a happy one for both of us so I'm going to start looking into methods of increasing my libido." Of course if the guy really has been an asshole throughout the marriage and he pulls that stunt she should probably go ahead and choose the divorce option. But if you married a man who isn't a piece of shit and that you view as someone worthy of happiness and a fulfilling relationship you should be fully willing to try to meet their needs, because that's what love and commitment are about.

MorePancakes · 2015-04-22T03:47:47+00:00

No, not rape.

Whisper · 2015-04-22T18:25:02+00:00

Of course it's rape. Everything that involves a penis is rape. Didn't you get the memo?

InformalCriticism · 2015-04-22T02:59:13+00:00

I just have to disagree, because in my mind rape has to be physically forced and this just doesn't qualify. Giving rape a broad definition is a terrible idea, and if people want to make something like this criminal, fuckit, I'll just toss that on top of the tall stack of reasons by people are stupid.

To be clear, I'm not condoning a situation like that. It's a pretty fucked up hypothetical. I just can't care about people who voluntarily give up their freedom, if that's the right word, in the face of potential consequences.

Aerobus · 2015-04-22T03:12:15+00:00

I disagree. The woman still ended up consenting to the interaction. She feel pressured yes, but she did end up ultimately consenting.

Unless there is forceful penetration with a lack of consent, it's not rape. Period.

DoctorFeel69 · 2015-04-22T04:00:37+00:00

Everything is rape according to SJWs, therefore nothing is rape. Congratulations SJWs, you have rendered your greatest weapon valueless.

andrewisgood · 2015-04-23T02:59:55+00:00

So, against my better judgement, I'm going to try this. Some people had somewhat reasonable responses, and some people are just terrible people, but that's red pill for you. I'm also, whenever I"m talking about stuff, I'm talking about this particular example, I don't care about random scenarios, it's just this one for now as it's the topic at hand. And knowing a lot of Red pillers are here and have a hard time with the concept of consent, here's the legal definition of consent from the Criminal Code of Canada:

273.1. Meaning of “consent”

273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Where no consent obtained

(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

Subsection (2) not limiting

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which no consent is obtained.

2 (c) is what we're looking at here. The abuse of the trust comes from the threat of divorce, and again, I'm not a lawyer so I will admit I may not be perfect on this and a red piller's definition of consent may likely vary differently from the law and common decency, so that makes things tough too. And again, once again, this doesn't mean the man should be stuck in a marriage he doesn't want. Just divorce your wife.

Again, some situations are going to be different. In one instance, the woman could say, ok, fuck off, and they get a divorce. Another could be he says this, and she doesn't want to, but they end up going to therapy, talk to each other, communicate and then the woman is like, yeah, let's have sex because I want to. But in an instance where she ends up having sex with him even though she has stated she doesn't want to, then, well, what else can I say? She didn't want to do it, but depending on the situation, she felt she was forced to do so. And forcing someone to have sex with you is what?

This is the last and most important thing I will say, as honestly, I can't reply to everything, I'm at work on a job site, but this topic is important to me. The woman in the case isn't entitled to stay with the man and keep him in a sexless marriage. But the man isn't entitled to her body.

THeShinyHObbiest · 2015-04-22T02:10:36+00:00

It's not rape, neccisarily (if "divorce" is sufficiently threatening and/or enough emotional grooming is present it could be.)

But if you have to fucking threaten divorce to have sex with your wife, you're in a pretty broken relationship. Or you're hideous. Or really bad at sex.

Even worse, if your wife has a legitimate reason not to have sex and you can't accept that, going so far as threatening to end the relationship immediately, you probably don't even give a little bit of a shit about your wife.

Saying that phrase doesn't necessarily make you a rapist, but it almost certainly makes you a shitty person.

[deleted] · 2015-04-22T02:32:00+00:00

[permanently deleted]

HappilySingleWoman · 2015-04-22T08:29:06+00:00

It's not rape.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2015-04-23T00:48:33+00:00

No. Setting conditions (that don't involve real threats of violence) on your relationship and sex life does not constitute rape.

Level100ProtWarrior · 2015-04-22T01:56:17+00:00

Not to hijack your post, but so you're aware, each person that says it's not rape just reinforces the concept of rape culture and rape apologism.

SkinnySweaty · 2015-04-22T03:57:38+00:00

More important question: Why doesn't your wife want to fuck you?

GridReXX · 2015-04-22T10:39:39+00:00

It's coercion. It's abusive behavior. It's manipulative.

It will be used against him in the case of an actual divorce.

It is not rape.

Will_Im_Not · 2015-04-22T01:50:36+00:00

Disagree.

rulenumber303 · 2015-04-22T03:52:00+00:00

I suppose it depends what the consequences of divorce are for her, if she's going to be left without coverage for expensive life-saving medication, then possibly under that circumstance it is rape.

Douche move anyway, whatever, and a massive red flag if you find out a guy did that in a previous relationship. I mean seriously, if we're going to judge people on their previous relationships then that right there is some shit.

andrewisgood · 2015-04-22T02:51:05+00:00

Well, what is rape? Let's consult the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

noun "1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."

So this is the primary issue we're looking for is with or without force without the consent of the victim. So consent is the major issue here. Another talking point from RAINN:

Did both participants agree to take part? Did someone use physical force to make you have sexual contact with him/her? Has someone threatened you to make you have intercourse with them? If so, it is rape. It doesn’t matter if you think your partner means yes, or if you’ve already started having sex — “No” also means “Stop.” If you proceed despite your partner’s expressed instruction to stop, you have not only violated basic codes of morality and decency, you may have also committed a crime under the laws of your state (check your state’s laws for specifics).

So, if the woman doesn't want a divorce, for any number of reasons, be it staying together for the kids, financial situation and not having worked in years, whatever the fuck, she's being coerced into having sex. So, it's rape. Pretty cut and dry, I'm not quite sure where the debate comes in.

EDIT:

I'm seeing more conversation and instead of going all over the place I'll address a few things. The threatening of it seems to be psychological coercion, which I'm pretty sure is illegal. The fact that it's the threat of it is the issue, because it's violating her free will. Honestly, the guy in the scenario should just flat out divorce his wife if that's the case, no threats, no nothing, just divorce, because then you don't have the threat of staying together being used as manipulation.

wombatinaburrow · 2015-04-22T05:20:52+00:00

I would guess blackmail is easier to prove than rape for this scenario.

dallasdarling · 2015-04-22T05:53:57+00:00

It's definitely emotional manipulation. Not rape. Rape by coercion would need to include a threat to life and limb.

nemma88 · 2015-04-22T09:19:52+00:00

UK consent definition.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

The complainant's assertion of force or threats;

Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or

Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

Statutory definition of consent

Section 74 defines consent as 'if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:

Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.

Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.

I expect the context of the discussion will be considered, a long with individual circumstances. If, for instance, divorce would be very detrimental to the defendant (I imagine there are still things like religious reasons to why divorce may 'not be a option' for some men or women) it is more likely to interfere with having the 'freedom' to make that choice. If it wasn't, then it would suggest the decision was made within a reasonable amount of 'freedom'.

All in all, these cases are very individual.

Title	Is this rape?
Author	SirNemesis
Upvotes	10
Comments	191
Date	April 22, 2015 1:43 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/33fcf2/is_this_rape/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-this-rape.282546 https://theredarchive.com/post/282546

Comments