CDZ Should forced sex within marriage declared rape and illegal?

Should forced sex within marriage be illegal?

  • Yes it's forced. Hence, it's rape.

    Votes: 10 83.3%
  • No. The girl has consented to be a life time sex slave when she agree to get married.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Why not let the couple decides that before marriage?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Why not let the state decides that, and let couples move to the state that they like?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Split sex contract into smaller pieces. Instead of marrying, just pay her weekly, or monthly

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12

grbb

VIP Member
Oct 15, 2016
840
61
80
There is a debate in my country where forced sex within marriage is rape or not.

In one hand it's forced, so it's rape so it should be illegal. That's the logic. The muslim conservatives don't like this though. They said religions say it's okay.

On the other hand, people can legitimately wonder. If she doesn't want to have sex why is she marrying?

There is a well understood understanding that marriage agreement include "unlimited sex buffet".

Let's look at similar problems.

Or what about if you hire an employee that doesn't want to work? What about if you loan money to someone that doesn't want feel like paying latter.

Think about it. Imagine you buy a bread from McDonald. However, McDonald doesn't have to give you any bread.

It may sound like it's a good deal for McDonald. Is it? No. McDonald can ask for more money from you if it can show that it have to give you the burger.

That is why many libertarians think that one of the main purpose of government is to enforce contract. Enforcing contract allow people to make win win deals that require enforcement.

A woman that commit to have sex to a man for a long time can get richer smarter males. That's win win. That's reasonable contract.

Marriage is very expensive for rich smart males in democratic countries. Alimony and child support is pretty much proportional to earning potential. Marriage means a lot of commitment from the men. What about from the women?

If after that you may not even get sex, if your wive can have sex with the milk men and told you to just watch and you can't divorce her because that means you lost your house, you should ask an important question. Why would you want to get married?

And the simple rational answer is you don't. Most kids nowadays are born outside marriage. And that's fine for me.


I don't know if libertarians would agree with me on this or not. However, I do not see any benefit of marriage that I cannot get from normal sugar relationship? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Some people, the social conservative, have this fetish that government and religions must be some of the "fuck buddy". Then they complain latter when governments policies or religious interpretation is not like what they think it should.

I still have a hard time understanding social conservatives. They're often crazier than libtards.

Me, I have a different fetish. When I see governments, I run away. When I see religions, I stay away as far as I can. I don't know. I don't really want to know. I just wanna run. I ignored all reasoning that involve religions

A woman can make more money from men if she commits to have sex with him.

How do you address this need?

Just like employee can make more money from employer if he commit to work.

Of course, we don't always need governments to enforce our contract.

We can split contract into smaller pieces.

Instead of, Jane, let me marry you, I can say, Jane, here is $100 if you have sex with me tonight. If you don't run away, there will be another $100 the next day. Let's make our own arrangements.

That would be a good deal too.

But that's illegal. That's prostitution.

So what?

Western civilizations are losing children. Their best and brightest aren't breeding. You better figure something out that will work.


Many think that sex is part of a deal. So it shouldn't be called rape.

Is sex really part of the deal? People promise to live together, "till death due us part", "for better or worse" bla bla bla. They never explicitly promise they agree to have sex with one another. Why not? That's just what's so puzzling for me. I like my contract to be clear and explicit, especially for "material terms".

Hell, I don't care about better or worse till death due us part. Too touchy feely for me. Nothing in the bible says explicitly that anyway. I am not religious. However, even if I am religious I see absolutely nothing in the bible that says we got to do it till one of us die or something along that.

I read the bible. I think torah society is closer to muslim or arab society to be frank.

Another arrangements should be why not let the girl decides before marriage. Will she always agree to have sex or not? And then we have the usual governments' role in allowing contract and enforcing reasonable, non fraudulent, non coercive contract?

This can lead to another big problem. Imagine if the girl agree to "marry" by mistake? Imagine buying software and one of the term and condition is agree to have sex?

The idea that you can make any contract you want can lead to problems where some people will make deceptive contracts. It doesn't protect you from your own mistake.

I don't know what libertarian positions here. Should people make any contract they want and how does libertarians deal with deceptive contracts?

Another solution is for the state to create many "standard contracts". Because the state specify this is the kind of contracts I will enforce, deceptive contracts can be eliminated. The state simply make some contracts illegal.

This will lead to another problem. The state can prevent people making reasonable contracts that are not deceptive in anyway.

Anti prostitution laws are one such laws. The state can declare any contract where sex is one of the consideration illegal.

So I like the final way. Let the state decides what sort of contract you can make, and then you move to such states.

To be frank.

Out of 5 choices, I do not know the right answer. I like the split contract into smaller pieces kind of thing. No body goes to jail for being a sugar daddy yet. Legal enough. It's the most practical ones now.

We have normal contracts when buying bread, when loaning money, when hiring employee. Why when something involve sex it has to be this complicated?

Just vote. I want to know your opinion.
 
Last edited:
There is a debate in my country where forced sex within marriage is rape or not.

In one hand it's forced, so it's rape so it should be illegal. That's the logic. The muslim conservatives don't like this though. They said religions say it's okay.

On the other hand, people can legitimately wonder. If she doesn't want to have sex why is she marrying?

There is a well understood understanding that marriage agreement include "unlimited sex buffet".

Let's look at similar problems.

Or what about if you hire an employee that doesn't want to work? What about if you loan money to someone that doesn't want feel like paying latter.

Think about it. Imagine you buy a bread from McDonald. However, McDonald doesn't have to give you any bread.

It may sound like it's a good deal for McDonald. Is it? No. McDonald can ask for more money from you if it can show that it have to give you the burger.

That is why many libertarians think that one of the main purpose of government is to enforce contract. Enforcing contract allow people to make win win deals that require enforcement.

A woman that commit to have sex to a man for a long time can get richer smarter males. That's win win. That's reasonable contract.

Marriage is very expensive for rich smart males in democratic countries. Alimony and child support is pretty much proportional to earning potential. Marriage means a lot of commitment from the men. What about from the women?

If after that you may not even get sex, if your wive can have sex with the milk men and told you to just watch and you can't divorce her because that means you lost your house, you should ask an important question. Why would you want to get married?

And the simple rational answer is you don't. Most kids nowadays are born outside marriage. And that's fine for me.


I don't know if libertarians would agree with me on this or not. However, I do not see any benefit of marriage that I cannot get from normal sugar relationship? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Some people, the social conservative, have this fetish that government and religions must be some of the "fuck buddy". Then they complain latter when governments policies or religious interpretation is not like what they think it should.

I still have a hard time understanding social conservatives. They're often crazier than libtards.

Me, I have a different fetish. When I see governments, I run away. When I see religions, I stay away as far as I can. I don't know. I don't really want to know. I just wanna run. I ignored all reasoning that involve religions.

Many think that sex is part of a deal. So it shouldn't be called rape.

Is sex really part of the deal? People promise to live together, "till death due us part", "for better or worse" bla bla bla. They never explicitly promise they agree to have sex with one another. Why not? That's just what's so puzzling for me. I like my contract to be clear and explicit, especially for "material terms".

Hell, I don't care about better or worse till death due us part. Too touchy feely for me. Nothing in the bible says explicitly that anyway. I am not religious. However, even if I am religious I see absolutely nothing in the bible that says we got to do it till one of us die or something along that.

I read the bible. I think torah society is closer to muslim or arab society to be frank.

Another arrangements should be why not let the girl decides before marriage. Will she always agree to have sex or not? And then we have the usual governments' role in allowing contract and enforcing reasonable, non fraudulent, non coercive contract?

This can lead to another big problem. Imagine if the girl agree to "marry" by mistake? Imagine buying software and one of the term and condition is agree to have sex?

The idea that you can make any contract you want can lead to problems where some people will make deceptive contracts. It doesn't protect you from your own mistake.

I don't know what libertarian positions here. Should people make any contract they want and how does libertarians deal with deceptive contracts?

Another solution is for the state to create many "standard contracts". Because the state specify this is the kind of contracts I will enforce, deceptive contracts can be eliminated. The state simply make some contracts illegal.

This will lead to another problem. The state can prevent people making reasonable contracts that are not deceptive in anyway.

Anti prostitution laws are one such laws. The state can declare any contract where sex is one of the consideration illegal.

So I like the final way. Let the state decides what sort of contract you can make, and then you move to such states.

To be frank.

Out of 4 choices, I do not know the right answer.

We have normal contracts when buying bread, when loaning money, when hiring employee. Why when something involve sex it has to be this complicated?

Just vote. I want to know your opinion.
a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of even a really really serious, Religious marriage.
 
a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of even a really really serious, Religious marriage.

Ah yea but that means you need to be a legal expert. And you can still lost your house. And your spouse can pick the state to file for divorce just like what happens to Tiger Wood.

Getting married is still a very risky legal move that should only be done by very smart lawyers.

H. Beatty Chadwick - Wikipedia
 
It's simple sex. Something that's win win. Yet marriage and divorce laws are so complicated it turns the most basic relationship into hell.

Marriage sucks. I am telling you.

And prostitution is illegal.

Sugar relationship? I don't know.
 
You don’t own another persons body
If you can legislate it, you can own it.
It's simple deal. The man give money, and women like money, if and only if the girl agree to have sex.

But that's illegal due to prostitution.

Another deal is the man marry a girl and the women get taken care off if she agree to have sex. Well, that's called marriage and it's regulated so complicatedly I would avoid that like plague.

I don't know what to do. You just have to do grey area think.

Buy dinners?
 
You don’t own another persons body
If you can legislate it, you can own it.
It's simple deal. The man give money, and women like money, if and only if the girl agree to have sex.

But that's illegal due to prostitution.

Another deal is the man marry a girl and the women get taken care off if she agree to have sex. Well, that's called marriage and it's regulated so complicatedly I would avoid that like plague.

I don't know what to do. You just have to do grey area think.

Buy dinners?
Why is prostitution illegal?
 
The larger question is whether rape should be classified differently from other forms of aggravated assault.
 
Why is prostitution illegal?

If I do not own someone else' body, how can my vote decides whether prostitution is illegal or not or whether someone else can use drugs or not?

Well.

May be because they do it in my territory? Each nation state can only prohibit prostitution and drug in their territory. Not on another territory.

Another question will be why it's so hard to move to a state that allow it? What can we do so that prostitution and drug is legal but the rulers of the state are profited too?

In democracy, this is tough. The rulers are voters and the voters are stupid. You can argue about profit and they will say religions say this religions say that.....

In democracy you lobby governments to keep things illegal so you can sell more expensive product.

Voters in democracy have little interests to make their regions prosper. They can always emigrate to another state.

We need experimental privatized states.
 
I don't know in which country this debate is going on, but some marriages are forced in the first place. The BBC has been doing a lot of work on this problem. There are girls, British citizens, being shipped back to their parents' countries of origin and forced to marry older men whom they don't know.

The BBC has posted several interviews with wives who ran away and with girls who have run away from home to avoid forced marriages, one at the age of 13, and one who said that her father told her that he would kill her if he found her. So "marriage" cannot be the deciding factor.

Here in the U.S., while forced marriage is illegal, many states have very lax laws regarding child marriage.

There is also the problem of the Jekyl-and-Hyde husband, who is all very sweet and lovey until the wedding ceremony is over. No woman would ever marry a rapist who thinks he owns her body.

All of these arguments about who owns a woman's body, husband, government, etc. are just creepy. The correct answer is that she does.
 
There is a debate in my country where forced sex within marriage is rape or not.

In one hand it's forced, so it's rape so it should be illegal. That's the logic. The muslim conservatives don't like this though. They said religions say it's okay.

On the other hand, people can legitimately wonder. If she doesn't want to have sex why is she marrying?

There is a well understood understanding that marriage agreement include "unlimited sex buffet".

Let's look at similar problems.

Or what about if you hire an employee that doesn't want to work? What about if you loan money to someone that doesn't want feel like paying latter.

Think about it. Imagine you buy a bread from McDonald. However, McDonald doesn't have to give you any bread.

It may sound like it's a good deal for McDonald. Is it? No. McDonald can ask for more money from you if it can show that it have to give you the burger.

That is why many libertarians think that one of the main purpose of government is to enforce contract. Enforcing contract allow people to make win win deals that require enforcement.

A woman that commit to have sex to a man for a long time can get richer smarter males. That's win win. That's reasonable contract.

Marriage is very expensive for rich smart males in democratic countries. Alimony and child support is pretty much proportional to earning potential. Marriage means a lot of commitment from the men. What about from the women?

If after that you may not even get sex, if your wive can have sex with the milk men and told you to just watch and you can't divorce her because that means you lost your house, you should ask an important question. Why would you want to get married?

And the simple rational answer is you don't. Most kids nowadays are born outside marriage. And that's fine for me.


I don't know if libertarians would agree with me on this or not. However, I do not see any benefit of marriage that I cannot get from normal sugar relationship? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Some people, the social conservative, have this fetish that government and religions must be some of the "fuck buddy". Then they complain latter when governments policies or religious interpretation is not like what they think it should.

I still have a hard time understanding social conservatives. They're often crazier than libtards.

Me, I have a different fetish. When I see governments, I run away. When I see religions, I stay away as far as I can. I don't know. I don't really want to know. I just wanna run. I ignored all reasoning that involve religions

A woman can make more money from men if she commits to have sex with him.

How do you address this need?

Just like employee can make more money from employer if he commit to work.

Of course, we don't always need governments to enforce our contract.

We can split contract into smaller pieces.

Instead of, Jane, let me marry you, I can say, Jane, here is $100 if you have sex with me tonight. If you don't run away, there will be another $100 the next day. Let's make our own arrangements.

That would be a good deal too.

But that's illegal. That's prostitution.

So what?

Western civilizations are losing children. Their best and brightest aren't breeding. You better figure something out that will work.


Many think that sex is part of a deal. So it shouldn't be called rape.

Is sex really part of the deal? People promise to live together, "till death due us part", "for better or worse" bla bla bla. They never explicitly promise they agree to have sex with one another. Why not? That's just what's so puzzling for me. I like my contract to be clear and explicit, especially for "material terms".

Hell, I don't care about better or worse till death due us part. Too touchy feely for me. Nothing in the bible says explicitly that anyway. I am not religious. However, even if I am religious I see absolutely nothing in the bible that says we got to do it till one of us die or something along that.

I read the bible. I think torah society is closer to muslim or arab society to be frank.

Another arrangements should be why not let the girl decides before marriage. Will she always agree to have sex or not? And then we have the usual governments' role in allowing contract and enforcing reasonable, non fraudulent, non coercive contract?

This can lead to another big problem. Imagine if the girl agree to "marry" by mistake? Imagine buying software and one of the term and condition is agree to have sex?

The idea that you can make any contract you want can lead to problems where some people will make deceptive contracts. It doesn't protect you from your own mistake.

I don't know what libertarian positions here. Should people make any contract they want and how does libertarians deal with deceptive contracts?

Another solution is for the state to create many "standard contracts". Because the state specify this is the kind of contracts I will enforce, deceptive contracts can be eliminated. The state simply make some contracts illegal.

This will lead to another problem. The state can prevent people making reasonable contracts that are not deceptive in anyway.

Anti prostitution laws are one such laws. The state can declare any contract where sex is one of the consideration illegal.

So I like the final way. Let the state decides what sort of contract you can make, and then you move to such states.

To be frank.

Out of 5 choices, I do not know the right answer. I like the split contract into smaller pieces kind of thing. No body goes to jail for being a sugar daddy yet. Legal enough. It's the most practical ones now.

We have normal contracts when buying bread, when loaning money, when hiring employee. Why when something involve sex it has to be this complicated?

Just vote. I want to know your opinion.
What country is 'your country', because in the U.S., outside of the most misogynistic cretins, there is nobody claiming it is anything but rape.
 
Indonesia.

I agree it can be called rape.

However, if it's called rape, then why would any men get married? If you don't have right to have sex with your wife and marriage can be financially devastating, why would you want to get married?

My take is just don't get married EVER.
 
Indonesia.

I agree it can be called rape.

However, if it's called rape, then why would any men get married? If you don't have right to have sex with your wife and marriage can be financially devastating, why would you want to get married?

My take is just don't get married EVER.

If you get married for sex, you are a fool.

If you want sex with someone who doesn't want sex, you are twisted.

The point of a married is to commit to share your life with another person. Sometimes you want sex when she doesn't. Later on, there will be times she wants sex when you don't. To expect to be able to have sex on demand just because you got married is childish and petty.
 
It is NEVER, under any circumstance proper to force sex on another person. Rape is NEVER acceptable.

Now thst I’ve gotten thst out of the way... Neither should it be acceptable for a wife to deny her Husband sex without good cause. The words Serve and Obey have been part of a woman’s standard wedding vows for hundreds of years. The idea that her sexual services are part of the marriage contract goes back even further. As someone mentioned above, lack of sex can be a grounds for divorce or annulment of a marriage.

In closing, rape is never acceptable (my wife is a rape survivor); but denial of basic marital activities without good cause shouldn't be acceptable either.
 
It is NEVER, under any circumstance proper to force sex on another person. Rape is NEVER acceptable.

Now thst I’ve gotten thst out of the way... Neither should it be acceptable for a wife to deny her Husband sex without good cause. The words Serve and Obey have been part of a woman’s standard wedding vows for hundreds of years. The idea that her sexual services are part of the marriage contract goes back even further. As someone mentioned above, lack of sex can be a grounds for divorce or annulment of a marriage.

In closing, rape is never acceptable (my wife is a rape survivor); but denial of basic marital activities without good cause shouldn't be acceptable either.
You see. We have differing few points here.

So let me try to look at this from another angle.

Why should you, I, or the state decide what should or shouldn't be part of a deal in sex?

Why can't the girls decide?

Western civilization is losing babies. You can have all the money in the world but if you don't produce children you're death.

Having babies need partnership. Usually money from the man and womb from the women. Being a single mom is tough.

Yet I see we have too many contract restrictions on women wanting to make some deals with guys.

For example, imagine if some girls want to share a richer guys. That richer guys will be bankrupted by child support laws. There are no way around it.

I agree that marital rape should be called rape. However, I also agree that if a girl refuse sex for no good reason, the guy can just walk off out of marriage scratch free. No play no pay. no pay no play. Marriage, after all, is about paying for sex.

Any other meaning of marriage, like sanctity, till death due us part, romantic love, can all be obtained outside marriage.

Actually, besides ending up in lower tax bracket, are there any purpose of marriage? That's actually useful for atheists?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top