Marital Rape

[Ext User(BlurSotongz)]

Have you ever wondered if a women can sue her husband for rape?
The answer to this question is yes.
The australian law has recognised this as a crime.
Although many suggested that a women who is lawfully married to a man
should not sue her husband for rape, the definition of rape in the
constitution has given a new meaning to this relationship.

Rape;
(1) A person (A) commits this offence if
i) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
person(B) with part of his body or anything else
ii) B does not consent to the penetration, and
iii) A does not reasonably believe that B consents

Therefore, this applies to a husband who penetrates the vagina, anus or
mouth of his wife who does not consent to the penetration.

On your opinion,
Should rape in marriage be considered as a crime by the Australian law?


--
BlurSotongz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlurSotongz's Profile: http://www.slashlegal.com/member.php?userid=187
View this thread: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=89093

[Ext User(Carebear)]

BlurSotongz Wrote:
>
> On your opinion,
> Should rape in marriage be considered as a crime by the Australian law?
Basically, any unwillingly sex can be consider as rape. Regardless if
they are related in anyway. In order to protect the rights of a human,
I will appreciate if the Australian law would pass this legis.


--
Carebear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carebear's Profile: http://www.slashlegal.com/member.php?userid=190
View this thread: http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=89093

[Ext User(Little Johnny Howard)]

BlurSotongz wrote:
> Have you ever wondered if a women can sue her husband for rape?
> The answer to this question is yes.
> The australian law has recognised this as a crime.
> Although many suggested that a women who is lawfully married to a man
> should not sue her husband for rape, the definition of rape in the
> constitution has given a new meaning to this relationship.
>
> Rape;
> (1) A person (A) commits this offence if
> i) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
> person(B) with part of his body or anything else

Is this going to be an issue for dentists, proctologists or nurses with
thermometers?

And why does it say "he intentionally" and "his body"? Why the sexist
language? Does it imply that wimin can't rape men? What about the case
that was on the news the other night?

> ii) B does not consent to the penetration, and
> iii) A does not reasonably believe that B consents
>
> Therefore, this applies to a husband who penetrates the vagina, anus or
> mouth of his wife who does not consent to the penetration.
>
> On your opinion,
> Should rape in marriage be considered as a crime by the Australian law?

What about de-facto or common law relationships?

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"BlurSotongz" <serenejc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BlurSotongz.29hr1z@no-mx.slashlegal.com
> the definition of rape in the
> constitution

Since when has rape been defined in the constitution?

Admittedly, it provides governments with the power to fuck us against our
will, but it doesn't actually go so far as to define 'rape'.

--
Kwyj

[RE_fuse]

What about when


A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
person(B) with part of his body or anything else
B does consent to the penetration, and
A reasonably believe that B consents

and Latter B tells the police the B did not consent and A is charged with attempted rape and rape.

A is found not guilty

B takes everything of A's and gains permanent residence visa from Federal Government.

A is left to pay bills.

b gets off scott free

???

[Ext User()]

"BlurSotongz" <serenejc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:BlurSotongz.29hr1z@no-mx.slashlegal.com...

> Rape;
> (1) A person (A) commits this offence if
> i) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
> person(B) with part of his body or anything else

What about her ear?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

BlurSotongz <serenejc@gmail.com> wrote

> Have you ever wondered if a women can sue her husband for rape?
> The answer to this question is yes.
> The australian law has recognised this as a crime.
> Although many suggested that a women who is lawfully married to a man
> should not sue her husband for rape, the definition of rape in the constitution

There is no 'definition of rape in the constitution'

> has given a new meaning to this relationship.

We'll see...

> Rape;
> (1) A person (A) commits this offence if
> i) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
> person(B) with part of his body or anything else
> ii) B does not consent to the penetration, and
> iii) A does not reasonably believe that B consents

> Therefore, this applies to a husband who penetrates the vagina,
> anus or mouth of his wife who does not consent to the penetration.

Pity about when the authoritys put something in the mouth
of an individual without its consent. Doesnt make it rape, stupid.

> On your opinion,
> Should rape in marriage be considered
> as a crime by the Australian law?

[Ext User(Zapkvr)]

Little Johnny Howard wrote:
> BlurSotongz wrote:
> > Have you ever wondered if a women can sue her husband for rape?

Why would she do that?

> > The answer to this question is yes.

When was the last time this happened?

> > The australian law has recognised this as a crime.

State law, not commonwealth. There is a difference.

> > Although many suggested that a women who is lawfully married to a man
> > should not sue her husband for rape, the definition of rape in the
> > constitution has given a new meaning to this relationship.

"Rape" is not defined in the Constitution.

> >
> > Rape;
> > (1) A person (A) commits this offence if
> > i) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another
> > person(B) with part of his body or anything else

?????????

Not the crimes act??????

>
> Is this going to be an issue for dentists, proctologists or nurses with
> thermometers?


There is a question of consent here I beleive. If you attend at the
dentist, I can guarantee your consent would be implied.
>
> And why does it say "he intentionally" and "his body"? Why the sexist
> language? Does it imply that wimin can't rape men? What about the case
> that was on the news the other night?

Women can defintely rape men, but only anally.

>
> > ii) B does not consent to the penetration, and
> > iii) A does not reasonably believe that B consents
> >
> > Therefore, this applies to a husband who penetrates the vagina, anus or
> > mouth of his wife who does not consent to the penetration.
> >
> > On your opinion,
> > Should rape in marriage be considered as a crime by the Australian law?
>
> What about de-facto or common law relationships?

Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because prior
to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she gave up
her personhood upon marraige.

[Ext User(Darkfalz)]

> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because prior
> to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she gave up
> her personhood upon marraige.

It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for example.
If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have married you
(and vice versa).

[Ext User(ant)]

Darkfalz wrote:
>> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
>> prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she
>> gave up her personhood upon marraige.
>
> It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
> example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
> married you (and vice versa).

So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
prosecution?

--
ant

[Ext User(alphakitten)]

Zapkvr wrote:
> Little Johnny Howard wrote:
>
>>BlurSotongz wrote:
>>
>>>Have you ever wondered if a women can sue her husband for rape?
>>
>
> Why would she do that?
>
>





Probably if he raped her. You can refuse to have sex with your spouse,
you know.



~Angel

[Ext User(Wolfgang Wildeblood)]

Darkfalz wrote:

>> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because prior
>> to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she gave up
>> her personhood upon marraige.
>
> It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for example.

Of course you can. Get a grown-up to explain it to you sometime.


> If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have married you
> (and vice versa).

Since your typical modern person thinks nothing of pre-marital sex,
obviously whether they want to fuck each other is *not* a consideration
in choosing to marry. Unlike previous generations, who were motivated
by love or at least lust, the Nintendo generation marry only for
financial benefit or for egotistical reasons. Modern marriages, entered
into by people without strong religious convictions concerning
marriage, are as close to simple prostitution as marriage has ever been
at any time in history.

All these New Australians, from cultures with no tradition of romantic
love, but wacky traditions like dowries, bride prices, or arranged
marriages aren't helping the situation either.

[Ext User(The k00k Wrangler)]

Zapkvr wrote:

> > Is this going to be an issue for dentists, proctologists or nurses
> > with thermometers?
>
>
> There is a question of consent here I beleive. If you attend at the
> dentist, I can guarantee your consent would be implied.


Not so.
Medical treatment and certain other prodecures performed by authorised
persons (eg Police body cavity searches) are specifically exempted in
most jurisdicitons from comprising Rape. In the (mainly common law)
where it isn't, reliance is made on the lack of the necessary mental
state.

> >
> > And why does it say "he intentionally" and "his body"? Why the
> > sexist language? Does it imply that wimin can't rape men? What
> > about the case that was on the news the other night?
>
> Women can defintely rape men, but only anally.
>

Not about to look it up for every State And territory, but the Code
States define it (roughly) as anthing used to penetrate any part of the
body. No difficulty in a woman raping a man at all, and not just anally.

> >
> > > ii) B does not consent to the penetration, and
> > > iii) A does not reasonably believe that B consents
> > >
> > > Therefore, this applies to a husband who penetrates the vagina,
> > > anus or mouth of his wife who does not consent to the penetration.
> > >
> > > On your opinion,
> > > Should rape in marriage be considered as a crime by the
> > > Australian law?
> >
> > What about de-facto or common law relationships?
>
> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because prior
> to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she gave up
> her personhood upon marraige.

Wrong! The concept of a woman forming part of a man's chattels
disappeared a lot longer ago than "several years ago". The actual line
of reasoning was that the act of marriage constituted irrevocable
consent on the part of the woman, and that disappeared a fair while ago
too.

--

[Ext User(Darkfalz)]

ant wrote:
> Darkfalz wrote:
> >> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
> >> prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she
> >> gave up her personhood upon marraige.
> >
> > It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
> > example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
> > married you (and vice versa).
>
> So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
> prosecution?

Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
Having sex with them is.

[Ext User(ant)]

Darkfalz wrote:
> ant wrote:
>> Darkfalz wrote:
>>>> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
>>>> prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she
>>>> gave up her personhood upon marraige.
>>>
>>> It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
>>> example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
>>> married you (and vice versa).
>>
>> So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
>> prosecution?
>
> Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
> Having sex with them is.

But the argument is, he owns her. So by that reasoning, he can kill her if
he owns her.

--
ant

[Ext User(Darkfalz)]

ant wrote:
> Darkfalz wrote:
> > ant wrote:
> >> Darkfalz wrote:
> >>>> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
> >>>> prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since she
> >>>> gave up her personhood upon marraige.
> >>>
> >>> It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
> >>> example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
> >>> married you (and vice versa).
> >>
> >> So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
> >> prosecution?
> >
> > Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
> > Having sex with them is.
>
> But the argument is, he owns her. So by that reasoning, he can kill her if
> he owns her.

This must be why so many women feel no guilt about killing their own
children. After all, they "own" the innocent life growing inside them,
right?

[Ext User(ant)]

Darkfalz wrote:
> ant wrote:
>> Darkfalz wrote:
>>> ant wrote:
>>>> Darkfalz wrote:
>>>>>> Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
>>>>>> prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since
>>>>>> she gave up her personhood upon marraige.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
>>>>> example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
>>>>> married you (and vice versa).
>>>>
>>>> So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
>>>> prosecution?
>>>
>>> Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
>>> Having sex with them is.
>>
>> But the argument is, he owns her. So by that reasoning, he can kill
>> her if he owns her.
>
> This must be why so many women feel no guilt about killing their own
> children. After all, they "own" the innocent life growing inside them,
> right?

You could also argue that it is parasitic, as it cannot live without the
host.

--
ant

[Ext User(alphakitten)]

ant wrote:
> Darkfalz wrote:
>
>>ant wrote:
>>
>>>Darkfalz wrote:
>>>
>>>>ant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Darkfalz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
>>>>>>>prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since
>>>>>>>she gave up her personhood upon marraige.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
>>>>>>example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
>>>>>>married you (and vice versa).
>>>>>
>>>>>So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
>>>>>prosecution?
>>>>
>>>>Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
>>>>Having sex with them is.
>>>
>>>But the argument is, he owns her. So by that reasoning, he can kill
>>>her if he owns her.
>>
>>This must be why so many women feel no guilt about killing their own
>>children. After all, they "own" the innocent life growing inside them,
>>right?
>
>
> You could also argue that it is parasitic, as it cannot live without the
> host.
>




True.

And it's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus, it's a matter of
the woman owning her own body, and thus getting to decide if she wants
to be pregnant or not.



~Angel

[Ext User(Darkfalz)]

alphakitten wrote:
> ant wrote:
> > Darkfalz wrote:
> >
> >>ant wrote:
> >>
> >>>Darkfalz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>ant wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Darkfalz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Rape in marriage was not a crime until several years ago because
> >>>>>>>prior to that common law hel;d that a man OWNED the wife since
> >>>>>>>she gave up her personhood upon marraige.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's also just common sense. You can't steal your own car, for
> >>>>>>example. If your wife doesn't want to fuck you, she shouldn't have
> >>>>>>married you (and vice versa).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So, if that's the case, why couldn't a man kill his wife without
> >>>>>prosecution?
> >>>>
> >>>>Killing your partner is not a normal and expected part of marriage.
> >>>>Having sex with them is.
> >>>
> >>>But the argument is, he owns her. So by that reasoning, he can kill
> >>>her if he owns her.
> >>
> >>This must be why so many women feel no guilt about killing their own
> >>children. After all, they "own" the innocent life growing inside them,
> >>right?
> >
> >
> > You could also argue that it is parasitic, as it cannot live without the
> > host.
>
> True.
>
> And it's not a matter of the woman owning the fetus, it's a matter of
> the woman owning her own body, and thus getting to decide if she wants
> to be pregnant or not.

A decision the slutty, selfish CUNT whore should make BEFORE a baby
starts growing inside her.

[Ext User(K00k Wrangler)]

Darkfalz wrote:

>
> A decision the slutty, selfish CUNT whore should make BEFORE a baby
> starts growing inside her.

Of course you should not have first considered where you were waving
your little dick in all of this...Or should you?


The reason I ask is that at least the last time I checked, it takes 2
to make a fetus

--