India: Impregnate your wife or face the music

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Fair enough. I think it qualifies as rape if he's forced to perform. If it's a medical proceedure, it's something else.

[Gravlen]

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.

That is not a given. "If you don't sleep with me I'll sue you for the $5 you owe me" really has no coercive elements.

[Eastfield Lodge]

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

Fair enough. I think it qualifies as rape if he's forced to perform. If it's a medical proceedure, it's something else.

I just set the bar for rape as higher. I'd call this sexual assault, definitely, but not rape, if he was forced to perform.

[Ostroeuropa]

"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.

That is not a given. "If you don't sleep with me I'll sue you for the $5 you owe me" really has no coercive elements.

Blackmail is blackmail and can be used to coerce and rape someone and her case is a criminal cruelty one (Good evidence of feminism rotting institutions with its gynocentrism again).
If it's a civil procedure, that may well be different to some degree legally, but i'm not convinced that is the case ethically.

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

The judge doesn't say "dire". Regardless, the question remains, what are the consequences?

That's literally still rape.

Depends on what "he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow" means in this case.

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

If you think the judge threatened to execute him you've misread the article. Mind you, it was a poorly written article.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fair enough. I think it qualifies as rape if he's forced to perform. If it's a medical proceedure, it's something else.

I just set the bar for rape as higher. I'd call this sexual assault, definitely, but not rape, if he was forced to perform.

Which elements do you think are missing to qualify as rape in this circumstance, out of interest.

[Andsed]

That is some a grade bullshit. The very idea that someone can be forced to violate their bodily autonomy on the threat of legal punishment is disgusting.

[Eastfield Lodge]

I just set the bar for rape as higher. I'd call this sexual assault, definitely, but not rape, if he was forced to perform.

Which elements do you think are missing to qualify as rape in this circumstance, out of interest.

I'd call it rape if he was forced to penetrate her directly.

[Gravlen]

That is not a given. "If you don't sleep with me I'll sue you for the $5 you owe me" really has no coercive elements.

Blackmail is blackmail ...

...except when it's not blackmail.

[Costa Fierro]

Cue the outrage of several countries.

Or silence. Because it's a man.

[Andsed]

Blackmail is blackmail ...

...except when it's not blackmail.

You did read the article right? Getting someone to violate their bodily autonomy under the threat of legal punishment whatever it may be is blackmail.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

There is no penetration, there is cup and Turkey baster.

[Ostroeuropa]

Blackmail is blackmail ...

...except when it's not blackmail.

Threatening someone with reporting a crime of theirs if they fail to go through with an act is blackmail.

[Ostroeuropa]

Cue the outrage of several countries.

Or silence. Because it's a man.

Not only that, but because it's a man and the ruling is explicitly based on feminist theory of patriarchy to justify it.

[Gravlen]

...except when it's not blackmail.

You did read the article right? Forcing someone to violate their bodily autonomy under the threat of legal punishment whatever it may be is blackmail.

What's the threat? I keep asking that.

The judge cannot punish him. The matter in her court is a civil matter. So what's the threat?

[Ostroeuropa]

You did read the article right? Forcing someone to violate their bodily autonomy under the threat of legal punishment whatever it may be is blackmail.

What's the threat? I keep asking that.

The judge cannot punish him. The matter in her court is a civil matter. So what's the threat?

The question is not whether the judge can carry out the threat. An empty gun is still a threat and can still be used to coerce. Moreover her case is criminal against him.

[Rojava Free State]

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

The judge doesn't say "dire". Regardless, the question remains, what are the consequences?

That's literally still rape.

Depends on what "he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow" means in this case.

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

If you think the judge threatened to execute him you've misread the article. Mind you, it was a poorly written article.

It is only consensual if the judge says "you may refuse" with no strings attatched. My thing about execution was a bad example but still, this is so horrible

[Ethel mermania]

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.

No. Neither are rape.

[Andsed]

You did read the article right? Forcing someone to violate their bodily autonomy under the threat of legal punishment whatever it may be is blackmail.

What's the threat? I keep asking that.

The judge cannot punish him. The matter in her court is a civil matter. So what's the threat?

The judge literally fucking said¨ But by unreasonable refusal he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow¨ That is a pretty blatant threat.

[Ethel mermania]

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.”

The judge saying you are exposing yourself to legal and logical consequences by refusal, is coercion.

[Gravlen]

...except when it's not blackmail.

Threatening someone with reporting a crime of theirs if they fail to go through with an act is blackmail.

It's turned on its head, however. She has already pressed charges, apparently. She's offering to drop the charges in exchange for his participation.

Does that make a difference? Yes.

That said, you're still wrong. I can demand my tenants move out from my flat ASAP, or I'll report them for setting my couch on fire. My demand does not constitute an illegal act of blackmail.

[Gravlen]

The judge doesn't say "dire". Regardless, the question remains, what are the consequences?


Depends on what "he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow" means in this case.


If you think the judge threatened to execute him you've misread the article. Mind you, it was a poorly written article.

It is only consensual if the judge says "you may refuse" with no strings attatched. My thing about execution was a bad example but still, this is so horrible

You may refuse to pay your rent, though you may expose yourself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.

Are you being forced by me to pay your rent?

[Andsed]

It is only consensual if the judge says "you may refuse" with no strings attatched. My thing about execution was a bad example but still, this is so horrible

You may refuse to pay your rent, though you may expose yourself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow.

Are you being forced by me to pay your rent?

There is a major fucking difference in a landlord demanding rent which they have the right to do and threatening punishment if you don´t comply. And a women demanding your sperm which she has no right to do and threatening punishment.

[Gravlen]

What's the threat? I keep asking that.

The judge cannot punish him. The matter in her court is a civil matter. So what's the threat?

The question is not whether the judge can carry out the threat. An empty gun is still a threat and can still be used to coerce. Moreover her case is criminal against him.

What gun does the judge have?

Her case is not criminal against him. Her case is a civil case in family court, not a case in criminal court.

[Ostroeuropa]

Threatening someone with reporting a crime of theirs if they fail to go through with an act is blackmail.

It's turned on its head, however. She has already pressed charges, apparently. She's offering to drop the charges in exchange for his participation.

Does that make a difference? Yes.

That said, you're still wrong. I can demand my tenants move out from my flat ASAP, or I'll report them for setting my couch on fire. My demand does not constitute an illegal act of blackmail.

Just so we're clear, you're of the opinion that no criminal act is occurring if someone coerces someone into sleeping with them using criminal charges as leverage.

Does that extend to the police to?