Husbands rights over women. not the othe way round!Was it mutual or an exclusively male privilege?
Husbands rights over women. not the othe way round!Was it mutual or an exclusively male privilege?
Maybe I missed it, but do you have a name or a link of that law so I can look it up?Husbands rights over women. not the othe way round!
Yes. British law is complex and old.Maybe I missed it, but do you have a name or a link of that law so I can look it up?
So in other words.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.
R v R - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
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?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.
R v R - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Are you a US citizen?No I do not. I don't pay attention to any of that nonsense, it's way too boring and I could care less. I personally believe it's a sham and a distraction
That's a very good question.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?
Marital rape - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
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.
i believe in nostalgic fallacy.You really believe that people in this country are just as happy and content as they were 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.Or, maybe I should rephrase that... That society isnt sicker as a whole than it was 20 to 30 years ago?
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)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...
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 agoWhat 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?
You don't know?I don't know, are you?
Such as...?You raise some interesting points... but you also seem to rely on a lot of convenient opinions.
You keep ignoring the luciferian aspect of feminism
Oh ok then it’s no wonder we were starting to go in circles.I fail to see whats wrong with that.
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 thoughclothing today is a hell of a lot more conservative than in past decades, especially when you compare social norms.
the whole world is so full of so much bullshit that I want off the earth.
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 todayI 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