Some States Want to Prevent Husbands From Having Sex by Closing Loopholes in “Marital Rape” Laws

Pomidor Quixote
Daily Stormer
May 5, 2019

Study their faces. Do they say “justice” or “lol girl power!”?

You can’t really genocide whites if they’re having successful marriages and lots of kids. Having sex is needed in order to have kids, so making having sex harder for husbands is a critical part of the destruction of the family and the lowering of white birthrates.

AP:

Witches were still being burned at the stake when Sir Matthew Hale came up with his legal theory that rape could not happen within marriage. The 17th century English jurist declared it legally impossible because wedding vows implied a wife’s ongoing consent to sex.

Three and a half centuries later, vestiges of the so-called “marital rape exemption” or “spousal defense” still exist in most states — remnants of the English common law that helped inform American legal traditions. Legislative attempts to end or modify those exemptions have a mixed record but have received renewed attention in the #MeToo era.

Witchcraft is real and demons are real.

Burning witches was necessary to prevent society from degenerating into something like what we have today, where witches are allowed to hold positions of power, to pervert society and to do all kinds of evil.

The most recent efforts to roll back protections for spouses focus on rapes that happen when a partner is drugged, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated. Minnesota is the latest to take action. The state Legislature this week voted to eliminate the exemption, which had prevented prosecutions in those cases.

“No longer will this antiquated and shameful law be on our books,” Gov. Tim Walz said as he signed the bill into law on Thursday. “The concept of a pre-existing relationship defense should have never been part of our criminal statutes.”

In Ohio, determined opponents plan to re-introduce a marital rape bill this month, after two earlier attempts failed.

Former lawmaker and prosecutor Greta Johnson was the first to introduce the Ohio legislation in 2015. She said having to address whether a woman was married to her attacker as part of sexual assault prosecutions struck her as “appalling and archaic.”

Saying that “marital rape” is a thing is like saying that you can rape a prostitute after paying for her services.

“Certainly, there was a marital exemption lifted years ago, but it was just for what in the prosecutorial world we call the force element — by force or threat of force,” she said. “You could still drug your spouse and have sex with them, and it’s not rape. You could commit sexual imposition against your spouse, and it’s not a crime. It was really troubling.”

Still, many states’ marital rape laws have loopholes — not only involving the victim’s capacity to consent, but related to age, relationship, use of force or the nature of the penetration. Some impose short timeframes for victims to report spousal rape.

A recent Maryland bill sought to erase the marital exemption for all sex crimes.

Professor D. Kelly Weisberg of the University of California Hastings College of the Law said the Maryland debate touched on some of the common rationales for the marital rape exemption over the centuries.

One is Hale’s premise from the 1670s that marriage implies irrevocable consent and even property rights by the husband over his wife and her body. Those ideas have never truly disappeared, said Weisberg, author of a new reference book on domestic violence law.

In Ohio, state Rep. Kristin Boggs, a Democrat, said she’s not optimistic the upcoming version of the marital rape bill will be any more successful in the Republican-controlled Legislature than it has been in the past.

Boggs’ bill would again call for removing references to the marital exemption throughout Ohio’s criminal code. Her argument in favor of it is straightforward.

Our rationale for introducing this legislation is simply that your legal relationship to another human being shouldn’t give you permission to rape them,” she said.

The idea that a husband can rape a wife is preposterous. “Marital rape” is only a thing because of this stupid Talmudic “consent” gibberish that managed to confuse people about the basic nature of human mating.

What is even the point of marriage if your wife can just refuse sex as if she were not your wife and divorce you whenever she feels like it?

Women are property. Rape is bad because it lowers the value of another man’s property. It turns good quality womb-golem virgins into loose-lipped STD-infected used items, and used items are worth less than brand new items. If she’s your wife, the whole point of marriage is that her uterus is yours, and you don’t damage your tools by using them for their intended purpose.

Rape is supposed to be about property, not about women’s feelings.

A law stating that a man cannot have sex with his wife is a law stating that marriage does not exist and that the woman is not his, which goes back to “what is even the point of marriage nowadays?”

A wife denying sex to her husband is literally stealing from him.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS