India: Impregnate your wife or face the music

[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 judge literally fucking said¨ in his unreasonable he may expose himself to the legal and logical consequences which may follow¨ That is a pretty blatant threat.

And what is that threat, exactly? What are the legal and logical consequences?

[Gravlen]

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.

If it's not a legal demand, what would the legal consequence of not complying be?

What punishment is being threatened?

[Ostroeuropa]

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

And what is that threat, exactly? What are the legal and logical consequences?

This is the empty gun thing which you're focusing on in order to obfuscate a violations of a mans rights by feminism, as usual, and which ultimately doesn't matter. The ambiguity of the threat can serve as the mechanism by which it becomes abhorrent and unacceptable.

[Andsed]

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

And what is that threat, exactly? What are the legal and logical consequences?

Does not really matter. it is still a legal authority telling someone that they can be punished for not going through with something.

[Ostroeuropa]

And what is that threat, exactly? What are the legal and logical consequences?

Does not really matter. it is still a legal authority telling someone that they can be punished for not going through with something.

"If you don't X, i'll use the weapon in my pocket on you."

But what's the weapon, that's what really matters here if we're going to determine is this is a threat, how much would it hurt? Says Gravlen, feminist lawyer.

Maybe he doesn't have a weapon, maybe it's only a toy hammer so the threat isn't bad.

I wonder if you tried defending a bank robber with that idea if you'd get anywhere, Gravlen seems to think defending a rapist with it is okay.

[Gravlen]

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.

That is not what I said, but asking you to reread my post would be futile, so:

It may be a criminal act to threaten to file charges in order to get someone to sleep with you. However, it's not necessarily a clear-cut case, because it all depends on the circumstances - what type of charges, will it be a threat to your reputation, will it be a threat to your life, what's your age, how credible is the threat etc.

Does that extend to the police to?

As above, so below.

[Gravlen]

And what is that threat, exactly? What are the legal and logical consequences?

Does not really matter. it is still a legal authority telling someone that they can be punished for not going through with something.

It does matter, because it could be a threat or it could be a statement of fact.

A court is absolutely free to state facts. That would never be a threat.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

That is not what I said, but asking you to reread my post would be futile, so:

It may be a criminal act to threaten to file charges in order to get someone to sleep with you. However, it's not necessarily a clear-cut case, because it all depends on the circumstances - what type of charges, will it be a threat to your reputation, will it be a threat to your life, what's your age, how credible is the threat etc.

Does that extend to the police to?

As above, so below.

Can you imagine a circumstance where a police officer doing this with someone in their official capacity isn't rape?

I can't.

So why can you somehow manage it for a judge?

[Gravlen]

Does not really matter. it is still a legal authority telling someone that they can be punished for not going through with something.

"If you don't X, i'll use the weapon in my pocket on you."

"What pocket? You're running around in your underwear with your ass hanging out"

[The Japanese Americans]

"If you don't X, i'll use the weapon in my pocket on you."

"What pocket? You're running around in your underwear with your ass hanging out"

That's not even close to funny. Assuming that is a joke.

[Gravlen]

That is not what I said, but asking you to reread my post would be futile, so:

It may be a criminal act to threaten to file charges in order to get someone to sleep with you. However, it's not necessarily a clear-cut case, because it all depends on the circumstances - what type of charges, will it be a threat to your reputation, will it be a threat to your life, what's your age, how credible is the threat etc.


As above, so below.

Can you imagine a circumstance where a police officer doing this with someone in their official capacity isn't rape?

Sure. Sexual crimes committed while abusing power and authority are often not classified as rape. (Probably most of the time)

I can't.

Because you have a one-track mind, lacking imagination?

So why can you somehow manage it for a judge?

Easily, since you've changed the scenario.

[Ostroeuropa]

"If you don't X, i'll use the weapon in my pocket on you."

"What pocket? You're running around in your underwear with your ass hanging out"

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw given that you're the only person here behaving this way and everyone else interprets this as a threat. I've also seen this story elsewhere and the same conclusions are drawn.

A Judge has considerably authority over people, moreover, the Judge could be implying that the criminal case is likely to go well for the woman if he refuses, and so on.

I note with interest that when it came to legally mandated pregnancy ultrasounds you did your usual sophistry to try and make sure the issue was seen as as important as possible, and here you're doing the opposite and trying to derail discussion.

That's a bit of a pattern for you isn't it.

[Gravlen]

"What pocket? You're running around in your underwear with your ass hanging out"

That's not even close to funny. Assuming that is a joke.

Of course it isn't a joke.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can you imagine a circumstance where a police officer doing this with someone in their official capacity isn't rape?

Sure. Sexual crimes committed while abusing power and authority are often not classified as rape. (Probably most of the time)

I can't.

Because you have a one-track mind, lacking imagination?

So why can you somehow manage it for a judge?

Easily, since you've changed the scenario.

1. I'd say where that is the case that is a legal oversight and that people would rightly regard it as rape.

2. Not particularly, more that it's like trying to ask when a color isn't a color. If we compare the ultrasounds example you can see that I opposed that law at the time and so did you, and I oppose this now, while you are obfuscating, as you usually do on mens issues. Almost like you have a one track mind where men have to lose out for women to gain, and lack the imagination to comprehend a more complex dynamic.

3. Do you think marital rape used to be a thing even before the law banned it? Ah. You do. That's interesting.
What's the difference here exactly? other than the sex of the victims ofcourse.

[Gravlen]

"What pocket? You're running around in your underwear with your ass hanging out"

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw given that you're the only person here behaving this way and everyone else interprets this as a threat.

Oh I see, you're usually swayed by five-six people holding the same opinion. That explains a lot about you.

I've also seen this story elsewhere and the same conclusions are drawn.

You say that, yet you provide no link. I've only seen stories based on this Times of India-article, and that doesn't explain sufficiently.

A Judge has considerably authority over people, moreover, the Judge could be implying that the criminal case is likely to go well for the woman if he refuses, and so on.

Yes. She could be saying and implying a lot, hence why I want more information.

And even if she is implying that a different case in a different court could go well for one of the parties... how is that a threat?

I note with interest that when it came to legally mandated pregnancy ultrasounds you did your usual sophistry to try and make sure the issue was seen as as important as possible, and here you're doing the opposite and trying to derail discussion.

That's a bit of a pattern for you isn't it.

Yes, I admit, I'm a stickler for important details which makes all of the difference. I know you can't relate, since you're more of a half-the-headline-is-enough kind of guy who don't do your own research, but here we are.

[Rojava Free State]

Does not really matter. it is still a legal authority telling someone that they can be punished for not going through with something.

"If you don't X, i'll use the weapon in my pocket on you."

But what's the weapon, that's what really matters here if we're going to determine is this is a threat, how much would it hurt? Says Gravlen, feminist lawyer.

Maybe he doesn't have a weapon, maybe it's only a toy hammer so the threat isn't bad.

I wonder if you tried defending a bank robber with that idea if you'd get anywhere, Gravlen seems to think defending a rapist with it is okay.

Under that logic, if you say to a girl "have sex with me or else," it isn't rape because it's ambiguous and maybe you had no weapon. As long as the threat isn't specific, it's somehow consensual

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw given that you're the only person here behaving this way and everyone else interprets this as a threat.

Oh I see, you're usually swayed by five-six people holding the same opinion. That explains a lot about you.

I've also seen this story elsewhere and the same conclusions are drawn.

You say that, yet you provide no link. I've only seen stories based on this Times of India-article, and that doesn't explain sufficiently.

A Judge has considerably authority over people, moreover, the Judge could be implying that the criminal case is likely to go well for the woman if he refuses, and so on.

Yes. She could be saying and implying a lot, hence why I want more information.

And even if she is implying that a different case in a different court could go well for one of the parties... how is that a threat?

I note with interest that when it came to legally mandated pregnancy ultrasounds you did your usual sophistry to try and make sure the issue was seen as as important as possible, and here you're doing the opposite and trying to derail discussion.

That's a bit of a pattern for you isn't it.

Yes, I admit, I'm a stickler for important details which makes all of the difference. I know you can't relate, since you're more of a half-the-headline-is-enough kind of guy who don't do your own research, but here we are.

1. More than that. It's been posted to multiple sites.

2. Well, we travel in different circles.

3. It's a threat from the legal system from one of its representatives.

4. You seem to think that the details that make the difference are the sex of the people involved.

You used marital rape previously as an example of oppression against women.
Yet the law was the law so what's the problem Gravlen?

It's not a threat, it's just the law.

[Upper Secundus]

Without a doubt the stupidest country in the world at present.

[Ostroeuropa]

Without a doubt the stupidest country in the world at present.

Myanmar forced men into marriages a while back on threat of prison, the policy is still in place to the best of my knowledge.

The entire globe has had its judiciaries broken by feminists writing international laws.

[Rojava Free State]

Without a doubt the stupidest country in the world at present.

Myanmar forced men into marriages a while back on threat of prison, the policy is still in place to the best of my knowledge.

The entire globe has had its judiciaries broken by feminists writing international laws.

I mean there are countries that are still very sexist against women, although I'm surprised more and more at the amount of societies including nonwestern societies that are actually experiencing mysandry

[Rojava Free State]

Without a doubt the stupidest country in the world at present.

I was gonna mention something about human excrement and public thoroughfares but it may trigger someone a little too hard

[Gravlen]

Sure. Sexual crimes committed while abusing power and authority are often not classified as rape. (Probably most of the time)


Because you have a one-track mind, lacking imagination?


Easily, since you've changed the scenario.

1. I'd say where that is the case that is a legal oversight and that people would rightly regard it as rape.

2. Not particularly, more that it's like trying to ask when a color isn't a color. If we compare the ultrasounds example you can see that I opposed that law at the time and so did you, and I oppose this now, while you are obfuscating, as you usually do on mens issues. Almost like you have a one track mind where men have to lose out for women to gain, and lack the imagination to comprehend a more complex dynamic.

I wrote a response, but it got eaten.

I'll say the most important thing:

If thie judge is threatening him with prison time for non-compliance, she is abusing her authority, causing a miscarriage of justice, and violating his rights. If that is what she means by her statement, this verdict is abhorrent.

Yeah, I know; nuance, your greatest weaknes and eternal nemesis.

(Also infrared and ultraviolet)

3. Do you think marital rape used to be a thing even before the law banned it? Ah. You do. That's interesting.
What's the difference here exactly? other than the sex of the victims ofcourse.

The difference here may be that the coercive element is lacking.

[Upper Secundus]

I was gonna mention something about human excrement and public thoroughfares but it may trigger someone a little too hard

I can't speak for other Indians, but as one myself I don't take offence to flaws being pointed out in my country.

[Galloism]

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?

This I looked for extensively last night and I'm not sure - but it's clearly more than having to face her criminal complaint (as you referenced later in the thread), or the word "unreasonable" makes no sense. After all, no matter how reasonable his refusal, she's not going to drop the complaint unless he gives her the blood money sperm.

Regarding the complaint, would it be more or less of a problem if someone promised to drop a criminal case in exchange for a bribe?

[Gravlen]

4. You seem to think that the details that make the difference are the sex of the people involved.

Nope. Change the sex and/or gender and it all stays the same.

The details that make the difference is what the judge means by "legal and logical consequences".

You used marital rape previously as an example of oppression against women.
Yet the law was the law so what's the problem Gravlen?

Sometimes the law is unjust. But before you can say that - like, when you claim that Sweden has criminalized paternity testing - you should know what the law actually is.

It's not a threat, it's just the law.

Is it, though?