Feminist Lies That Are Making Women Miserable

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
3,951
Yes. British law is complex and old.

This article in wiki is about the case that changed the law, but the history is in there too, and lots of further links etc.

Thanks. While I realise these conjugal rights would’ve disproportionately benefited the physically dominant partner, ie. men, I do seem to read that access to sex was in fact a spousal right, not exclusively for the husband?


Sir Matthew Hale's statement in History of the Pleas of the Crown did not cite a legal precedent for it, though it relied on earlier standards. In a case of Lord Audley's (1488–1544), for instance, Hale cite's the jurist Bracton (c. 1210 – c. 1268) support of this rule, said to have derived from laws of King Æthelstan (r. 927–939) where upon the law holds that even "were the party of no chaste life, but a whore, yet there may be ravishment: but it is a good plea to say she was his concubine".[11] A lawful marriage legitimizes the conjugal act itself, so "marital r*pe" is a contradiction in terms. While a physical assault against a spouse may be charged, such is distinct from the delegitimization of conjugal union itself as r*pe. Marriage then should not be defined as an "exemption" to r*pe but as "contradictory" to it. Marriage created conjugal rights between spouses, and marriage could not be annulled except by a private Act of Parliament—it therefore follows that a spouse could not revoke conjugal rights from the marriage, and therefore there could be no r*pe between spouses. The principle was repeated in East's Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown in 1803 and in Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases in 1822. The principle was framed as an exemption to the law of r*pe in an English courtroom in R v Clarence,[12] but it was not overturned until 1991 by the House of Lords in the case of R. v. R in 1991,[13] where it was described as an anachronistic and offensive legal fiction.​
 






Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
2,415
Thanks. While I realise these conjugal rights would’ve disproportionately benefited the physically dominant partner, ie. men, I do seem to read that access to sex was in fact a spousal right, not exclusively for the husband?


Sir Matthew Hale's statement in History of the Pleas of the Crown did not cite a legal precedent for it, though it relied on earlier standards. In a case of Lord Audley's (1488–1544), for instance, Hale cite's the jurist Bracton (c. 1210 – c. 1268) support of this rule, said to have derived from laws of King Æthelstan (r. 927–939) where upon the law holds that even "were the party of no chaste life, but a whore, yet there may be ravishment: but it is a good plea to say she was his concubine".[11] A lawful marriage legitimizes the conjugal act itself, so "marital r*pe" is a contradiction in terms. While a physical assault against a spouse may be charged, such is distinct from the delegitimization of conjugal union itself as r*pe. Marriage then should not be defined as an "exemption" to r*pe but as "contradictory" to it. Marriage created conjugal rights between spouses, and marriage could not be annulled except by a private Act of Parliament—it therefore follows that a spouse could not revoke conjugal rights from the marriage, and therefore there could be no r*pe between spouses. The principle was repeated in East's Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown in 1803 and in Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases in 1822. The principle was framed as an exemption to the law of r*pe in an English courtroom in R v Clarence,[12] but it was not overturned until 1991 by the House of Lords in the case of R. v. R in 1991,[13] where it was described as an anachronistic and offensive legal fiction.​
That's a very good question.
I don't know the answer.

I am not any kind of lawyer, but i will have a look, see if i can find something on it.
 






Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
2,415
If the marriage was unconsumated the woman could get an annulment.

A woman raping a man is not recognised under english law, as only a male can commit r*pe, by definition (ralp is defined as a man penetrating a woman's body with his penis).
I expect they will have to revisit this one soon.

Wether a woman in a consumated marriage could legally force her husband to give her sex on demand, or even just require that she get more sex in general, I really don't know and I am having problems finding the right search.

Very interesting question, though.

I am guessing the answer is no, and that apart from the consumation there was no legal way for a woman to make her husband have sex with her. Or (until the mid 20th century) to divorce him on account of this behaviour.

There has always been an assumption (unfair and untrue) that if a man is aroused, he wants sex.
This is the argument against women raping men. It is not said to be possible because the erection, by its very existence confirms the man's willingness.

The idea that an unwilling woman can be made to spread her legs is self evident, the idea that a man can be made to have an erection when he is unaroused is harder to grasp, but nevertheless true.

If anyone knows the proper answers to these questions, please speak up. I am trying to look it up in wikipedia!
 






Last edited:

Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
2,415
There was a famous case where an american woman kidnapped an american mormon man in britain in the 70s

She held him prisoner and forced him into sexual acts.
She was tried in britain, and while she could not be done for r*pe, she was done for sexual assault.

It was a huge tabloid story at the time.

 






kerrichinchilla

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
506
You really believe that people in this country are just as happy and content as they were 20 to 30 years ago?
i believe in nostalgic fallacy.

Everyone looks back at the past with rose tinited glasses, 'back in my day'', everyone even me, but i dont let it cloud my judgement.

20/30 years ago ( 19 we had two major recessions, 9/11, several wars due to 9/11, AIDs epidemic, severe job loses, a few genocides, a nuclear disaster, failing industries ect. in fact looking just 20 years ago the fall out from 9/11 alone which is on the cusp on 20 years ago had a major effect on mental health that we are only just understanding. the lose of jobs from the 1980s industrial decline also had a severe impact on mental health, just look at the music scene, the introduction of grunge.

20/30 years ago (1990- 2001) was when mental health was just starting to be made less of a taboo, it however was still an issue its just now its more in the lime light
 






kerrichinchilla

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
506
Or, maybe I should rephrase that... That society isnt sicker as a whole than it was 20 to 30 years ago?
20/30 years ago we had the AIDS epidemic, illegal raves with copious amounts of illegal drugs, people still did not understand unprotected sex was bad the 1990s and 2000s were pretty bad compared to now, now is actually more conservative than the 2000s and the 1990s when we had the likes of Paris hiton wearing very revealing clothes, celebs were releasing sex tapes, little girls were encouraged to be slutty. watch old episodes of south park they go into detail.
 






kerrichinchilla

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
506
Even if I believed that the majority of women were walking around with their nipples out, it’s hardly comparable to what we see today. Look at how women dressed from the 1900s onwards then look at how they dress after feminism was introduced. My point remains...



No. But just like children you’re not here to go back and forth with men. You’re the help meet. Sure in this society you can shirk your position just as men can, but if you can’t tell,this society won’t be around forever...
clothing today is a hell of a lot more conservative than in past decades, especially when you compare social norms. the only era where conservative values were at the for front were the Victorian and Edwardian era, and that was just for show, both eras were quite sexually devient ( Victorian men would sleep with very young virgins to cure syphis, and King Edward had a special chair made so he could have sex with his mistress)

take clothing from the 1920s. flappers wore very revealing clothing.

1607973483462.png
Nipples have only recently been deemed as offensive or sexual. even up to the 1940s no one batted an eye at a brest feeding woman, now people pearl clutch.

every generation thinks todays fashion is more devient than the last, the Victorans thought Edwardian clothing was to revealing, seeing the s shaped corset as obscene

the below image was scene as scandalous in its era

1607973621897.png

When Marie Antoinette commissioned a painting of herself wearing a Gaulle, there was controversy, people deemed it obscene, today we see conservative and religious women wearing less

1607973784952.png

The Victorian corset was seen as scandalous at one point yet by the 1920s women saw it as a cage, and it was scandelous for flappers not to wear one

Victorians positively fainted when they witnessed women daring to wear the latest fashion called the bloomer, a baggy trouser type clothing, people thought it was sexually alluring and almost pornographic. look at it!!

1607973980365.png

older generations will always look at current fashions and deem them rude and disgusting. times change but older generations scoffing at younger generations will never change
 






kerrichinchilla

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
506
What country is that? Also Ill let you ponder on why there were no specific laws needed addressing the matter of a husband rsping their wife.

Whqt were the laws in regards to men raping women who werent their wife?

...and your seriously asking me if i think r*pe is ok?
America, most of Europe. in fact America only outlawed marital r*pe in the 1990s, yes men could legally r*pe their wives in america just under 30 years ago
 






Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,094
clothing today is a hell of a lot more conservative than in past decades, especially when you compare social norms.
I don’t understand how it’s more conservative when the all the examples of extremes you have would be considered extremely tame today.. I don’t want to go back and forth about clothing let alone women’s clothing but my main point was that once feminism was introduced more skin more clothes came off. And all feminism is is a Trojan horse to luciferianism. Just as the LGBT movement is and nowadays the BLM movement who are admitted marxists and ancestor worshippers. All these movements get publicity in the mainstream because they lead to the same endgame. No matter how “righteous” they try to make it appear. You can be who you want, love who/whatever you want, be whoever/whatever you want, do whatever you want etc... Everyone isnt meant to get the bigger picture though
 






kerrichinchilla

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
506
I don’t understand how it’s more conservative when the all the examples of extremes you have would be considered extremely tame today.. I don’t want to go back and forth about clothing let alone women’s clothing but my main point was that once feminism was introduced more skin more clothes came off. And all feminism is is a Trojan horse to luciferianism. Just as the LGBT movement is and nowadays the BLM movement who are admitted marxists and ancestor worshippers. All these movements get publicity in the mainstream because they lead to the same endgame. No matter how “righteous” they try to make it appear. You can be who you want, love who/whatever you want, be whoever/whatever you want, do whatever you want etc... Everyone isnt meant to get the bigger picture though
what im saying is what was seen extreme in one era is conservative another, sometimes fashions which were scandalous when first introduced are tame to day however some times fashions can revert just look at fashions 10 years ago compared to today

each generation wants to be the opposite of the last
the early 2000s, an era of exposed midrifs and lowriding jeans
1608002010598.png1608002087257.png
both these images are from film premiers and celeb parties

same ages for the women but different decade, below are from 2020 look at the difference, more conservative, more covered, same sort of events
1608002319009.png1608002400274.png


its not just 21st century thing, the 19th century went from this
1608009835423.png
to this
1608009887429.png
 






Last edited:
Top