[rcoreyus]

I think Stillness is right here, though I don't know the legal technicalities. Jen is right that marriage does not in any way allow a spouse to do something sexually to you that you do not want - that is still assault / rape. The difference though is that in marriage there is an implied consent IF IT IS NOT REVOKED. If that consent is revoked, and the spouse continues, it becomes assault.

For relationships, its complicated and I don't know the rules. If your long term boyfriend suddenly grabs you and starts kissing you - is it assault? I think it depends on whether this consistent with activities you have agreed to in the past. Of course relationships change, so a past approval doesn't give him the right to grab you after you've broken up.

The whole consent in relationships thing is complicated - maybe it should have its own thread to avoid de-railing this one.

She'd have to revoke consent. Marriage is unique in that it's inherently sexual. She's not resisting or protesting and even enjoys the probing. The rape/legal card shouldn't be brought anywhere near her situation. There's no indication that her husband is even slightly aggressive, let alone forceful.

[jen1447]

She'd have to revoke consent. Marriage is unique in that it's inherently sexual. She's not resisting or protesting and even enjoys the probing. The rape/legal card shouldn't be brought anywhere near her situation. There's no indication that her husband is even slightly aggressive, let alone forceful.

Ouch. I couldn't disagree more. First of all, marriage is not inherently sexual - see the many sexless marriages we hear about here. Even if it were, it in no way states or implies unlimited access or contact with your spouse. She at any and all times has the right to deny him access to her body, for any reason. That's a basic human dignity and I find any hint of thinking otherwise fundamentally objectionable at its core. That's the mentality of a rapist. And the fact that her husband would 'check' her vagina delicately instead of forcefully in no way changes the nature of the action if it's non-consensual. And her natural recourse as a citizen with rights lies wholly within the realm of the courts.

This all assumes she doesn't want to be 'examined' in this way of course. If she does, that's fine, but it's fundamentally dehumanizing and implies a shameful and outrageous sense of ownership on the part of the husband. Marriage isn't a license to treat a spouse like property. Shame-shame.

Do you really think there's any law out there that states anything to the contrary? If so, I'd be fascinated to see it.

[Stillness]

A bird with his feathers plucked is still a bird. That doesn't mean that birds aren't inherently feathered. Marriage is the same way. A marriage with no sex has to be qualified as a "sexless marriage" exactly for that reason. The arrangement is typically not considered consummated until there is a sexual connection. No other relationship is exactly that way.

I don't know the legality if it even exists anymore since so many definitions are changing. I know for a while it was impossible to get a rape conviction even when there was an actual violation because of the sexual nature of marriage.

Of course I'm not saying that mates can't rape each other. The difficulties surrounding any kind of rape and consent are why I think it's so dangerous to throw around the term lightly.

[rcoreyus]

I started a thread on consent in the lounge to avoid derailing this further .

[Pollon]

This has Troll written all over it.

[CHANDLERS WISH]

This has Troll written all over it.

Really?

Corey if you have started another thread, I'll close this one.

Investigations show this person certainly is trolling.

CW