Re: When is rape not rape?
Before the act - There needs to be consent
During the act - There needs to be consent
After the act - No feeling of exploitation
These are considered the required elements of moral sexual conduct, but since a general agreement such as marriage certificate might not be in place then distinguishing between illegal sex and legal sex is difficult so this alone is not enough to be fair to both parties.
In marriage all of the above apply plus:
Before the act - both partners have a moral responsibility to try and please their spouses so if they do not have consent they should try to encourage themselves to turn their mood around. (It is an injustice on either partner if one gets pleasure and stops before the other gets their pleasure, so the idea of no longer having consent during the act is morally wrong when in marriage).
During the act: Both have a moral responsibility in making their partners pleasured
After the act: Both have a moral responsibility in catering for the emotional needs of the spouse.
Breach of moral responsibility (rape) when in marriage - the punishment should be filing for divorce. (Nothing more than this because the general consent of sex was given in the form of marriage certificate)
Rape without marriage - the punishment should be the penalty of zina only for the rapist.
In the case of unmarried partners being given the same status as married partners then no rape case is valid against the partner, even if a moral injustice had taken place. The penalty for a person who rapes whilst in marriage (a general consent for sex) is divorce, since those who have given general consent for sex without marriage feel hard done then they cannot file for divorce, but they can "break up". If sex occurs after they have broken up then they are analysed for consents again in accordance to the above.
**This is another reason why marriage is important ... Answering this question in a moral way without resort to legal language and in the framework of unmarried couples is indeed impossible. There are too many loose ends in such situations and by holding a person responsible for rape when the scenario is muddy can be a bigger moral injustice than what happened to the victim.
In these sorts of cases the victims start off the string of injustices on themselves first for allowing themselves to get that close to who they feel are rapists.**
Absolutely.
I know you have said that in last sentence of earlier post as well.
Just to go with same line of thought, Where is morality when there is someone who could be charged with false allegation for any ulterior motive??
With two persons involved in an alleged crime, there has to be benefit of doubt given to the alleged criminal and burden of proof is on the accuser. Unfortunately people get away with such crimes even in some very good justice system.
