ninaf,

It may be that no one is "entitled" to sex, even in marriage.

however, without it one is not "entitled" to be married at all.

non-consummation is not grounds for divorce, it is grounds to regard oneself as not having been married.

Rusty

Cherful, "I noted that there have been at least four different rape cases reported in my newspaper in my hometown here in Queensland this week and barely a week or a month goes by where there isn’t a rape case or an incest case"

There is no problem arriving at a short list of towns where sexual and domestic violence are common and of course other crime is high as well. However that doesn't say anything about the incidence of crime in the broader Australian community, or prove that police are 'soft' on rape, or infer that the effort put into investigation is any different relatively speaking, from comparable crimes. I'd guess that around 40% (most likely higher) of serious crime investigations do not result in a conviction (and the reasons can be various) and rape allegations are probably no different.

It seems very odd that some reports show such a high incidence of rape in countries where you would expect it to be low, examples being Australia and Canada,
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Rusty

It really doesn't matter whether you regard youself as married or not. The right to define marriage, and whether someone is or isn't married, resides in the state, the body politic, and not with the individual. Marriage is a legal institution, not one of the mind.

Non consummation is not considered by the state as a reason to consider that a couple are not legally married.

From a brochure on the a Family Law Courts website

"The Court will NOT declare a marriage invalid on the
following grounds:

Non-consummation of the marriage
Never having lived together
Family violence or
Other incompatibility situations."

It should be remembered that sex and marriage are no longer considered as being tied together. No one ever marries for sex more.

Apologies Doughbear,
I thought James H, was referring to the aggression of the female stripper in his post after yours, when he makes reference to female bullying and aggressiveness.

The case you describe is an excellent example because it portrays the dilemmas Juries face in trying to decide about consent when it is basically her word against his and why juries so often make the wrong decision .

I was actually pondering this stripper case you raised today. I, too, would have thought the jury would have found her guilty and I gained more insight into the fact that in the absence of any real evidence a jury must make a decision based on the perceived moral character of the accused perpetrator and the victim. The only thing concrete they can make a moral value judgement on is the presented situation in which the assault took place as they do not know the complaintant or the accused personally.
Witnesses can’t be relied upon because they lie to protect themselves or are just mistaken.

Therefore the only avenue left to the jury is to assess the assault situation for moral wrongdoings. Like the woman being alone in a man’s room after a couple of drinks. The situation puts the woman on the wrong moral foot with the jury. The same in the stripper case, the jury judged the man based on the morality of the situation. His morality appeared faulty to the jury because he placed himself in a morally compromising situation.

Yikes this is scary justice, but the system hasn’t got much else to work with when there is a lack of clear evidence. Let’s hope none of us man or woman ever finds ourselves as the chief stars in one of these courtroom dramas.

There is a gender sexual paradox.

When James Hewitt split the beans on his affair with Diana, he was condemmed.

Yet women regularly spill the beans on their affairs with rich and powerful men, and it is the men who are condemmed.

James was condemmed for revealing secrets, and women who reveal secrets, the men are condemmed for being sleaze bags, slime balls or what ever.

Women who cry WolF is not limited to sex, but to other areas as well.

For decades now we have been sold a furphy about the Glass Ceiling.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/men-not-to-blame-for-the-glass-ceiling/story-e6frg6nf-1226009085801

<THE glass ceiling may be all in the mind. According to research, a lack of ambition and self-confidence, not overt male sexism, is holding women back from senior management roles>

But what is more telling is the willingness of feminists to attack and blame men for the behaviour of their own gender. Take for example the claim that women are still unequal, because they do not have equal representation on boards, in politics, yadada yaadada.(because of sexism and discrmination)

All this shows an under lying hostility towards men.

Yet when men try to explore counter arguements or even try to examine underlying motives they get labelled.