India: Impregnate your wife or face the music

[Ethel mermania]

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

The kid can sue, and is entitled to support.

[Ostroeuropa]

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

"You can consent but if you don't i'm going to steal all your money" isn't consent. Consent cannot be freely given under threat of coercion. It's either rape or attempted rape.

The legal and logical consequences could be prison or a fine/damages owed followed by prison for refusing to pay.

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

The kid can sue, and is entitled to support.

The Judge said the child would be entitled to maintainence (Another example of anti-male legislation), but the Judge said there would be consequences for the Husband if he refused to have the child.

[Gravlen]

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

The kid can sue, and is entitled to support.

What kid?

[Ethel mermania]

The kid can sue, and is entitled to support.

What kid?

The one from the union of a man, a cup, a Turkey baster, and a woman.

[Gravlen]

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

"You can consent but if you don't i'm going to steal all your money" isn't consent. Consent cannot be freely given under threat of coercion. It's either rape or attempted rape.

That's why it matters what the "legal and logical consequences" he may expose himself to are. Not everything is coercion.

The legal and logical consequences could be prison or a fine/damages owed followed by prison for refusing to pay.

I'm not interested in your speculation of what it could be. I want to know what the judge means.

[Gravlen]

What kid?

The one from the union of a man, a cup, a Turkey baster, and a woman.

There will be no kid if he doesn't consent to ART, and thus no kid to sue him.

[Ostroeuropa]

"You can consent but if you don't i'm going to steal all your money" isn't consent. Consent cannot be freely given under threat of coercion. It's either rape or attempted rape.

That's why it matters what the "legal and logical consequences" he may expose himself to are. Not everything is coercion.

The legal and logical consequences could be prison or a fine/damages owed followed by prison for refusing to pay.

I'm not interested in your speculation of what it could be. I want to know what the judge means.

What other legal consequences could befall someone? As far as i'm aware basically none.

[Ethel mermania]

The one from the union of a man, a cup, a Turkey baster, and a woman.

There will be no kid if he doesn't consent to ART, and thus no kid to sue him.

The article implied he didnt have a lot of choice in the matter.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Oh, I know this is terrible and all, don't mistake me. I'm just in the camp that this isn't "rape", as some people are calling it.

Why don't you think this is rape?

I just don't think compelled sperm donation should be classed as rape. Sexual assault or something similar, but not rape.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why don't you think this is rape?

I just don't think compelled sperm donation should be classed as rape. Sexual assault or something similar, but not rape.

How do you imagine he's going to get the sperm out of him and why wouldn't that be rape if it's coerced?

[Nogodia]

India has officially joined the list of nations the mere mention of which gives me a headache.

[Ethel mermania]

I just don't think compelled sperm donation should be classed as rape. Sexual assault or something similar, but not rape.

How do you imagine he's going to get the sperm out of him and why wouldn't that be rape if it's coerced?

No one else is touching his pee pee. No one is watching.

I wonder if he could claim performance anxiety.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I just don't think compelled sperm donation should be classed as rape. Sexual assault or something similar, but not rape.

How do you imagine he's going to get the sperm out of him and why wouldn't that be rape if it's coerced?

Because it's still his choice whether to produce the sperm or not. From what I read, they're not strapping him to a table and taking it from him. They're just ordering him to produce the sperm with legal threats if he doesn't follow through.

[Ostroeuropa]

How do you imagine he's going to get the sperm out of him and why wouldn't that be rape if it's coerced?

No one else is touching his pee pee. No one is watching.

If you force someone to penetrate or be penetrated or enveloped against their will, that's rape as far as i'm concerned. The act goes beyond the person doing it, for instance, if this were the state threatening two people to fuck or else, the state would be raping them both.
That doesn't change merely because the state is threatening someone to fuck themselves or else.

[Ostroeuropa]

How do you imagine he's going to get the sperm out of him and why wouldn't that be rape if it's coerced?

Because it's still his choice whether to produce the sperm or not. From what I read, they're not strapping him to a table and taking it from him. They're just ordering him to produce the sperm with legal threats if he doesn't follow through.

The threats part is the key here that makes it rape.

[Eastfield Lodge]

No one else is touching his pee pee. No one is watching.

If you force someone to penetrate or be penetrated or enveloped against their will, that's rape as far as i'm concerned. The act goes beyond the person doing it, for instance, if this were the state threatening two people to fuck or else, the state would be raping them both.
That doesn't change merely because the state is threatening someone to fuck themselves or else.

Except no penetration or enveloping is occurring here?

[Ostroeuropa]

If you force someone to penetrate or be penetrated or enveloped against their will, that's rape as far as i'm concerned. The act goes beyond the person doing it, for instance, if this were the state threatening two people to fuck or else, the state would be raping them both.
That doesn't change merely because the state is threatening someone to fuck themselves or else.

Except no penetration or enveloping is occurring here?

It is, envelopment will occur when he masturbates to donate the sperm. Forcing a woman to penetrate herself is rape for the same reasons forcing a woman to penetrate another woman against both of their wills is rape.

So it goes for men too.

[Gravlen]

That's why it matters what the "legal and logical consequences" he may expose himself to are. Not everything is coercion.


I'm not interested in your speculation of what it could be. I want to know what the judge means.

What other legal consequences could befall someone? As far as i'm aware basically none.

It could be none, just empty words, which means it wouldn't be coercion.
It could be that she wouldn't withdraw a criminal case of cruelty which she's filed, which would not necessarily be coercion. Threatening to go to the courts to adjudicate a criminal complaint would usually not be seen as a coercive act which would nullify consent.
It could be something else (It could somehow make his legal position weaker going forward in the divorce, be grounds for claims for compensation, be grounds for criminal charges somehow) - which, again, makes it important to know what the judge actually means before a conclusion can be drawn.

[Rojava Free State]

Reproductive rights? Reproductive autonomy? What about the dudes reproductive autonomy? He doesn't like you anymore you damn spinster, he has a right to say no.

We are at a point where modern pseudofeminist mysandry is basically using the excuse of reproductive rights to take away a man's reproductive rights. This is literally rape, someone fire and replace this judge and tell this 30 year old boomer female to go try her luck elsewhere

[Eastfield Lodge]

Except no penetration or enveloping is occurring here?

It is, envelopment will occur when he masturbates to donate the sperm. Forcing a woman to penetrate herself is rape for the same reasons forcing a woman to penetrate another woman against both of their wills is rape.

So it goes for men too.

You know, there are surgical options to remove a bit of the testis as part of ART? So, depending on the method, no sexual act may have occurred at all.

[Ostroeuropa]

What other legal consequences could befall someone? As far as i'm aware basically none.

It could be none, just empty words, which means it wouldn't be coercion.
It could be that she wouldn't withdraw a criminal case of cruelty which she's filed, which would not necessarily be coercion. Threatening to go to the courts to adjudicate a criminal complaint would usually not be seen as a coercive act which would nullify consent.
It could be something else (It could somehow make his legal position weaker going forward in the divorce, be grounds for claims for compensation, be grounds for criminal charges somehow) - which, again, makes it important to know what the judge actually means before a conclusion can be drawn.

"If you don't sleep with me i'll press my case against you in court" usually would be seen as rape as far as i'm aware.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is, envelopment will occur when he masturbates to donate the sperm. Forcing a woman to penetrate herself is rape for the same reasons forcing a woman to penetrate another woman against both of their wills is rape.

So it goes for men too.

You know, there are surgical options to remove a bit of the testis as part of ART? So, depending on the method, no sexual act may have occurred at all.

Maybe, but at that point you're veering into involuntary medical proceedures and genital mutilation. Hardly better.

[Gravlen]

There will be no kid if he doesn't consent to ART, and thus no kid to sue him.

The article implied he didnt have a lot of choice in the matter.

The article repeatedly mentions consent:

The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.

The court, though, added it can only hold that the woman has a right to reproduce and is entitled to exercise it but acknowledged that law has limitations. The husband’s consent for ART is crucial.

The woman cannot be faulted for her request, said the court. The husband’s consent is crucial though. The court observed that since both petitions are pending, her plea to have a second child through restoration of conjugal rights cannot be considered.

The order said, “The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

[Eastfield Lodge]

You know, there are surgical options to remove a bit of the testis as part of ART? So, depending on the method, no sexual act may have occurred at all.

Maybe, but at that point you're veering into involuntary medical proceedures and genital mutilation. Hardly better.

Hey, I never said this was all rosy and kosher.

[Rojava Free State]

Before even starting to call it 'rape', especially since the judge repeatedly says the husband has to consent, can someone please clarify what "face the music" means in this regard?

“The respondent may refuse ART by not giving his consent. But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.”

What are the legal and logical consequences mentioned here?

The judge: you may say no but if you don't comply you will face dire consequences

That's literally still rape. It's like saying "you may say no to having sex with me but I'll kill you."