Consent based rape. Why I will never, ever, under any conditions, support the current definition.
What is a wedding?
A wedding is an official, public, indisputable, declaration of intent to have sex with the counter-party. It's revocable, of course, but still, that's what it is. It goes far far beyond "Can I kiss you", or "can I take off your top", and goes ALL the way to "Will you have my children?", it's signed, sealed, witnessed, and recorded.
So, by "consent based rape" definitions, it's the "gold standard". There is no realistic possibility of a stronger form of affirmative consent.
And yet, "marital rape" is still a morally, and legally, unacceptable action.
So, what's the important variable there?
Force.
Not consent, consent is shockingly clearly expressed in a marriage ceremony. Force. Because consent is a very very slippery concept. Even active participation is not considered "consent" under the definitions that the "consent based rape" proponents would have us use. There is no way, in that paradigm, to actually know whether you have "consent". Even going so far as "she tied me up and had her way with me", fails that standard, because many of the "consent based rape" proponents will hold that there is still the possibility of "social pressure". "Consent" can be retroactively withdrawn (I wouldn't have agreed if I had known/been sober, been thinking more clearly). "Consent" can even be withdrawn months after the fact (mattress girl). There is no usable test, or objective metric to establish whether or not it existed at the time.
Burdens that have no objective means of determination are not legally or morally viable. They can only, therefore, be tools of oppression.
Essentially, there are 2 options. There can be "consent based rape", which means that any and all sex can retroactively be declared rape at the whim of either party (if we're practicing equal treatment under the law), or just the woman (if the third wave feminists have their way, resulting in hordes of immorally incarcerated guys), OR, there can be "force based rape", which means that, at some point during the proceedings, the victim needs to express, in some way, that there is an affirmative *lack* of consent, and have such refusal over-ridden.
P.S. I find it absolutely comical that the people accused of propagating "rape culture" are, in general, those same people that would see rape prosecuted as a capital crime.
A wedding is an official, public, indisputable, declaration of intent to have sex with the counter-party. It's revocable, of course, but still, that's what it is. It goes far far beyond "Can I kiss you", or "can I take off your top", and goes ALL the way to "Will you have my children?", it's signed, sealed, witnessed, and recorded.
So, by "consent based rape" definitions, it's the "gold standard". There is no realistic possibility of a stronger form of affirmative consent.
And yet, "marital rape" is still a morally, and legally, unacceptable action.
So, what's the important variable there?
Force.
Not consent, consent is shockingly clearly expressed in a marriage ceremony. Force. Because consent is a very very slippery concept. Even active participation is not considered "consent" under the definitions that the "consent based rape" proponents would have us use. There is no way, in that paradigm, to actually know whether you have "consent". Even going so far as "she tied me up and had her way with me", fails that standard, because many of the "consent based rape" proponents will hold that there is still the possibility of "social pressure". "Consent" can be retroactively withdrawn (I wouldn't have agreed if I had known/been sober, been thinking more clearly). "Consent" can even be withdrawn months after the fact (mattress girl). There is no usable test, or objective metric to establish whether or not it existed at the time.
Burdens that have no objective means of determination are not legally or morally viable. They can only, therefore, be tools of oppression.
Essentially, there are 2 options. There can be "consent based rape", which means that any and all sex can retroactively be declared rape at the whim of either party (if we're practicing equal treatment under the law), or just the woman (if the third wave feminists have their way, resulting in hordes of immorally incarcerated guys), OR, there can be "force based rape", which means that, at some point during the proceedings, the victim needs to express, in some way, that there is an affirmative *lack* of consent, and have such refusal over-ridden.
P.S. I find it absolutely comical that the people accused of propagating "rape culture" are, in general, those same people that would see rape prosecuted as a capital crime.