That's not a very high standard. I'd say you have to prove that an actual rape took place. Barring video evidence or extreme circumstantial evidence, I would say don't convict. Just because you can't think of a reason she might lie doesn't mean she isn't lying. Evidence that sex took place and one person saying it wasn't consensual just isn't enough for me, relationship or no relationship.
I don't worry about protecting myself in intercourse with my wife because we're both confident that the other is monogamous. The party who violates that agreement and risks bringing a disease home to the other has done more than damage an emotional bond, they've potentially created actual harm.
True regardless of marriage. But unless any tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsense.
For that matter, damaging the emotional bond -- even if it was apparently somewhat one-sided -- is also a harm.
Subjective nonsense.
If you choose to contract with someone for sexual exclusivity, and then violate that contract, why should you not be penalized?
Again, because you shouldn't be trying to control others to that degree. I don't think marriage is specifically for that purpose, regardless of what religious nutters try to make it out to be. And again, unless tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsensical.
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
I'm not really informed about how often men go to prison based on accusations alone, but that definitely shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen in cases where the two people are married, and it shouldn't happen when they're not married. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that.
I bet you are one of those guys that makes jokes about how little sex he gets once you put a ring on her finger.
I'd never get married to begin with, because I think it's garbage.
Why on earth would you take on the costs and responsibilities of marriage if you aren't at least getting sexual satisfaction out of the deal?
There is a difference between "I can have sex with this person if they consent." and "I can have sex with this person whenever I want." Some entitled people feel that being married to someone means you can do as you please to them. That is not so.
Maybe not but it's assumed that if you're married that you have sex with your spouse. If you don't want to and he forces you it should take more than just going to the police and saying he raped you to convict him of rape.
That applies to any rape case. People are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Marriage is not a special case.
I do. I don't appreciate it when idiots assume that anyone who disagrees with them don't have kids.
I also remember being a kid, and I had a lot more freedom than most kids today do. Everyone is paranoid about terrorists/child molesters/some other such bogeyman, when in reality, we're safer than ever. No need for all this garbage.
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are.
All I said was, "I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too." I take it that, in your imagination, you saw my comment as, "Parents should never have any idea where their kids are ever and should pretend they don't exist."
Tracking your kids through their phones all the time is quite different from occasionally checking up on them at reasonable times. No one's talking about your rights or anything else, but about morality.
I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.
Since I don't care for all the preemptive warfare our worthless government gets us into, I think I'd pass regardless.
Nothing. It's a simple question. What's with you overreacting to it? Why does stalking seem to far-fetched?
How do you reconcile this with the implication there are legal ways to use these tools?
I already know there are legal ways to use these tools, and nothing I said contradicts that. However, you can also use them to stalk people, even if that includes stalking the person you're married to. Not that hard to understand.
My entire point is not to get into the specifics of what exactly constitutes as stalking, but being married to someone does not mean you can't stalk them.
This was perfectly predictable when those who said "adultery is a private, consensual matter" won the argument and adultery effectively became a dead letter crime and tort.
It is a private, consensual matter. Don't like it? Get a divorce. You don't own that person.
it would create a much greater argument for regulating these apps.
I don't want government thugs regulating such software. Why would anyone, except perhaps for mindless authoritarians? There is no good argument for the government regulating what features you put into your software, or whatever nonsense you're planning.
But if you're not talking about the government, then who else would do it?
The post I replied to asked: "How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???" That looks to me like he's saying it isn't possible to stalk your spouse at all, which is what I found objectionable.
So, when did you stop beating your wife?
I didn't imply anything about him, and nor was it that sort of question. I just find it absurd that people think you can't stalk/rape someone just because you happened to be married to them.
I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable for spouses to keep up with each other, that way for years...just that tech is putting a new spin on it.
Following someone around like that is stalking. It doesn't matter what technology you use, or whether or not you're married. Stop being creepy.
As for marital rape, I think there is so much implied consent
What implied consent? Get actual consent first. There are numerous ways to consent, but it's absolutely required. Not just, "We're married, so they consent!"
After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.
No, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't mean, "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???
Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse? Following someone around all the time or tracking them without their consent seems like a pretty clear-cut case of stalking to me, regardless of whether you're married or not.
I'm also thinking Facebook might be interested in this for general advertising tracking like the above. They do offer voice calls now. If these companies all share voiceprints it would largely be game over from being tracked.
Except if you're not dumb enough to use any of this stupid garbage, which is useless in the first place.
Examples, citations, personal experience. What's special about open source that prevents its maintainers from doing the same thing?
It's technically possible, but another advantage for free software is that you can fix the problems yourself or hire others to do it, and even fork the project if necessary. You don't have to wait for some company to do it.
Yes, a company producing closed-source software can do this behind hidden doors, but doesn't mean they fall into this paradigm of laziness.
No, but the secrecy certainly helps keep things out of the spotlight.
When commercial sex is legalized, demand increases and girls get trafficked in to increase supply.
"It could be abused, so ban it entirely." is a disgusting viewpoint that is sadly not too surprising to find. I'd rather have freedom than safety. Deal with the criminals as they come.
Commercial sex is already possible, anyway. It's called pornography. I think you've been reading too much puritan nutjob propaganda lately.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a very high standard. I'd say you have to prove that an actual rape took place. Barring video evidence or extreme circumstantial evidence, I would say don't convict. Just because you can't think of a reason she might lie doesn't mean she isn't lying. Evidence that sex took place and one person saying it wasn't consensual just isn't enough for me, relationship or no relationship.
I bet your kid is the 'special' kind that you call precocious and adventurous and everyone else calls a fucking monster.
Wow, yeah, that's what happens when you don't track your kids 24/7. Everyone born before all this great tracking technology was a monster.
Are you that dumb?
I don't worry about protecting myself in intercourse with my wife because we're both confident that the other is monogamous. The party who violates that agreement and risks bringing a disease home to the other has done more than damage an emotional bond, they've potentially created actual harm.
True regardless of marriage. But unless any tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsense.
For that matter, damaging the emotional bond -- even if it was apparently somewhat one-sided -- is also a harm.
Subjective nonsense.
If you choose to contract with someone for sexual exclusivity, and then violate that contract, why should you not be penalized?
Again, because you shouldn't be trying to control others to that degree. I don't think marriage is specifically for that purpose, regardless of what religious nutters try to make it out to be. And again, unless tangible harm has befallen you, this is just nonsensical.
This is a private matter, and you don't own the other person. A contract which controls someone else's sexuality is just silly.
Yes, and if you don't like what the person is doing, the answer is divorce, not severe government intervention.
Marriage does not mean that you own the other person. Where do these misconceptions even come from?
i don't want governments telling whomever what is and isn't adultery
Neither do I.
(or what is or isn't a "private matter").
All that means to me is that the government should stay out of it. Isn't that what we want?
The difference being that when I married her, I essentially consented generally, switching it from "default no-consent" to "default consent", meaning she's free to touch me until I indicate that I don't want her to.
I'm pretty sure that not everyone agrees to such a thing. And you don't really need marriage to agree to something like that. Marriage itself doesn't really imply that at all; the details have to be worked out between the individuals.
I'm not really informed about how often men go to prison based on accusations alone, but that definitely shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen in cases where the two people are married, and it shouldn't happen when they're not married. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that.
I bet you are one of those guys that makes jokes about how little sex he gets once you put a ring on her finger.
I'd never get married to begin with, because I think it's garbage.
Why on earth would you take on the costs and responsibilities of marriage if you aren't at least getting sexual satisfaction out of the deal?
There is a difference between "I can have sex with this person if they consent." and "I can have sex with this person whenever I want." Some entitled people feel that being married to someone means you can do as you please to them. That is not so.
Maybe not but it's assumed that if you're married that you have sex with your spouse. If you don't want to and he forces you it should take more than just going to the police and saying he raped you to convict him of rape.
That applies to any rape case. People are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Marriage is not a special case.
Ah... You DON'T have kids eh?
I do. I don't appreciate it when idiots assume that anyone who disagrees with them don't have kids.
I also remember being a kid, and I had a lot more freedom than most kids today do. Everyone is paranoid about terrorists/child molesters/some other such bogeyman, when in reality, we're safer than ever. No need for all this garbage.
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are.
All I said was, "I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too." I take it that, in your imagination, you saw my comment as, "Parents should never have any idea where their kids are ever and should pretend they don't exist."
Tracking your kids through their phones all the time is quite different from occasionally checking up on them at reasonable times. No one's talking about your rights or anything else, but about morality.
I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.
Since I don't care for all the preemptive warfare our worthless government gets us into, I think I'd pass regardless.
WTF is your problem?
Nothing. It's a simple question. What's with you overreacting to it? Why does stalking seem to far-fetched?
How do you reconcile this with the implication there are legal ways to use these tools?
I already know there are legal ways to use these tools, and nothing I said contradicts that. However, you can also use them to stalk people, even if that includes stalking the person you're married to. Not that hard to understand.
My entire point is not to get into the specifics of what exactly constitutes as stalking, but being married to someone does not mean you can't stalk them.
This was perfectly predictable when those who said "adultery is a private, consensual matter" won the argument and adultery effectively became a dead letter crime and tort.
It is a private, consensual matter. Don't like it? Get a divorce. You don't own that person.
it would create a much greater argument for regulating these apps.
I don't want government thugs regulating such software. Why would anyone, except perhaps for mindless authoritarians? There is no good argument for the government regulating what features you put into your software, or whatever nonsense you're planning.
But if you're not talking about the government, then who else would do it?
The post I replied to asked: "How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???" That looks to me like he's saying it isn't possible to stalk your spouse at all, which is what I found objectionable.
So, when did you stop beating your wife?
I didn't imply anything about him, and nor was it that sort of question. I just find it absurd that people think you can't stalk/rape someone just because you happened to be married to them.
I think it is perfectly normal and acceptable for spouses to keep up with each other, that way for years...just that tech is putting a new spin on it.
Following someone around like that is stalking. It doesn't matter what technology you use, or whether or not you're married. Stop being creepy.
As for marital rape, I think there is so much implied consent
What implied consent? Get actual consent first. There are numerous ways to consent, but it's absolutely required. Not just, "We're married, so they consent!"
After all, marriage implies consent to sexual relations.
No, it doesn't. Marriage doesn't mean, "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."
That's a reason to change US laws.
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
But how about a person who's suffered years of emotional abuse "knowing" their spouse is cheating without being able to prove it?
That's their own damn problem. None of it justifies spying on someone like that without their consent.
How in the world is it even possible to "stalk" your spouse???
Do you also think it's not possible to rape your spouse? Following someone around all the time or tracking them without their consent seems like a pretty clear-cut case of stalking to me, regardless of whether you're married or not.
I'm also thinking Facebook might be interested in this for general advertising tracking like the above. They do offer voice calls now. If these companies all share voiceprints it would largely be game over from being tracked.
Except if you're not dumb enough to use any of this stupid garbage, which is useless in the first place.
Yeah, get rid of every feature so the willfully ignorant don't misuse them. Then you're left with garbage.
Anyway, can you ever judge music in an objective, scientific way?
Nope, and that's precisely the problem.
Examples, citations, personal experience. What's special about open source that prevents its maintainers from doing the same thing?
It's technically possible, but another advantage for free software is that you can fix the problems yourself or hire others to do it, and even fork the project if necessary. You don't have to wait for some company to do it.
Yes, a company producing closed-source software can do this behind hidden doors, but doesn't mean they fall into this paradigm of laziness.
No, but the secrecy certainly helps keep things out of the spotlight.
When commercial sex is legalized, demand increases and girls get trafficked in to increase supply.
"It could be abused, so ban it entirely." is a disgusting viewpoint that is sadly not too surprising to find. I'd rather have freedom than safety. Deal with the criminals as they come.
Commercial sex is already possible, anyway. It's called pornography. I think you've been reading too much puritan nutjob propaganda lately.