- Jan
24
2013
Rape is rape. But illegal sexual contact is another issue.
Under current South Dakota law, sexual contact—any touching of naughty parts not amounting to rape—with someone who is physically or mentally incapacitated and cannot consent is a Class 4 felony. Sexual contact with someone who can consent but does not is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, both clauses include spousal exceptions. You can't rape your wife, but if you're just groping, even though your wife tells you to knock it off, the police aren't getting involved.
Senator Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford) wants to change that. Her Senate Bill 120 would erase the spousal exceptions to the sexual contact statutes. Sen. Peters has newly married Senator Angie Buhl (D-15/Sioux Falls) on her side, along with a mix of Democrats and Republicans from both chambers... including the unfortunately named House Majority Leader David Lust.
The bill seems perfectly reasonable. Even in marriage, our right to bodily autonomy remains inviolate. If your wife doesn't want your hands on her, get your darn hands off.
67 Responses to “SB 120 Removes Spousal Exception for Unconsenting Sexual Contact”
Peters and Buhl? Good example of how politics makes strange bedfellows.
I don't know what you mean Fred. A liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican ought to be able to find some common ground.
"Peters and Buhl? Good example of how politics makes strange bedfellows.'
Not really, Peters is a hardcore RINO. Cory, try and convince her to change parties.
So whatever happened to the pro-abortion's and pro-gay's position that the government should not get involved with what goes on in one's bedroom?
"Hardcore" and "RINO" are two words you don't see used together everyday. I wonder what the conventional definition of "hardcore RINO" is?
The 10:00 am post does not deserve a response. In the name of civility and common sense, please ignore.
"In the name of civility and common sense, please ignore."
I agree, so when will we have government installed camaras in our homes to make sure the while male Christian heteros are behaving themselves, while black female lesbian New Agers can do whatever the hell they want?
Are you an imbecile, Mr. Sibson? Consenting adults don't need or want government in their bedrooms. This bill says government gets involved if one of the parties in the bedroom is non-consenting, and that non-consenting party invites the government to bring criminal charges.
"This bill says government gets involved if one of the parties in the bedroom is non-consenting, and that non-consenting party invites the government to bring criminal charges."
And based on what evidence? Do us white male Christians heteros have to now get written contracts obtaining consent from our wifes before we can give them a hug? Otherwise we could be automatically found guilty of a crime up to a felony?
Are you ignorant, Mr. Sibson? Nobody in any criminal case is "automatically found guilty." Here's how it works. An allegation is made. Police investigate. If there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and a specific person committed it, that person is arrested and charged. The prosecution must then prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"The prosecution must then prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
And how does a wife prove that her husband touched her? Camaras? If so then my point about the government in the bedroom is not out of line and does deserve a response.
Are you disingenuous, Mr. Sibson? Proof in any criminal case is based upon testimony, or physical evidence, or a combination thereof. This is the same whether or not the accuser is a spouse. Usually there's not a camaro in the room.
Although it is fun to give someone a hug when there is a camero in the room, I've noticed. Or even an Impala.
Mr. Sibson keeps referring to himself as hetero. How's he gonna prove that without a camaro in the bedroom? That's a tough sell to a jury. Asexual - maybe. Autosexual - definitely. Heterosexual? Maybe he could invite the government to install a camara in his bedroom to help him out with that implausible story.
My opinion is that any time a woman says no, it is rape. If politicians say there isn't marital rape, shouldn't that include date rape? I know a woman that was date raped by her fiancee', back in the day when there wasn't anything like date rape. By the time this happened she was beginning to have second thoughts about marriage, because she realized he was a control freak. Any way this incident resulted in a pregnancy and there again, back in the day, nice, single women didn't have babies, so there was a good, old fashioned shot gun wedding, that lasted for 20 years.
R. good point on the Camero, bro.
Now, on the other hand, if Sibby has a Miata in his bedroom, I'm thinkin' he's maybe AC/DC, you know?
Not really sayin'... I'm just sayin'.
Joan, yup, that's what I think too. Rape is rape. Period. End of story.
Steve, chill out. This is not an attack on white men. This is a protection for all spouses from unwanted advances. This bill makes clear that no person is another person's property, even in marriage.
A couple of thoughts ...
(1) This law might just as well apply in the case of a man who wants to be left alone by his wife, no? If groping alone can constitute rape, then men can be raped just as easily as woman can.
(2) I find great comfort in the fact that I am not the only person to have ever used the words "asexual" and "autosexual." Now what about "heterophobic"?
(3) The American obsession with sex puzzles and offends more than a few people in other cultures.
(4) As for false allegations or spurious allegations, we have a braking mechanism tailor made for that sort of thing: jury nullification.
"Steve, chill out. This is not an attack on white men."
Back to my point, I thought you liberals expected government to stay out of the bedroom. I point out your hyprocrisy and you radicals come unglued. How about amending the bill to include females who demonstrate unwanted sexual advances by showing too much skin? Shall we ban bicinis?(SIC?)
And now you're proposing that women wear burkas, Mr. Sibson? More proof that fanatics are fanatics regardless of which religion they claim to follow.
Rorschach, there is no between for bicinis and burkas? It is one or the other? That would be an attitude of true fanatics regardless of which religion. Why do you far-left liberals think women can have it both ways, and men are always wrong and evil?
Stan, indeed, this bill extends equal protection to men and women. However, to be clear, this bill deals with sexual contact, which falls short of rape. By SDCL 22-22-1, rape involves sexual penetration. So SB 120 isn't calling sexual contact rape; it's just removing the spousal exception from the sexual contact statutes, just as we have removed it from the rape statutes.
So what status will a marriage reach if this bill passes and is used? The obvious answer points us to the true intend of those pushing this bill...the further deconstruction of the family by governmental authority. Again, so much for the liberals argument that the government should stay out of the bedroom when it comes to enforcing laws involving homosexual activity.
Is that what happened when we removed the spousal exception from rape laws?
As others have noted, there is no liberal contradiction here. If it's consensual, no problem. If a homosexual spouse imposes unwanted sexual contact on his or her partner, there's a problem.
This is about equal protection, freedom from fear, and personal safety. Something liberals and conservatives in 2013 certainly should be able to agree on.
Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if this bill covers locker room grab-ass and towel snaps, etc. to the um... nether reaches. I'm just sayin'.
"As others have noted, there is no liberal contradiction here. "
Denial does not stop it from being true. New Age Theocrats laws are based on their religious views. You don't want government to enforce laws agains sexual immortality in regard to gays, but it is OK for government to pick on married heteros.
What is ambiguous about the terms "physically or mentally incapacitated and cannot consent" and "sexual contact with someone who can consent but does not"? It's very simple: if both parties are capable of consent and do consent, no harm, no foul. If someone feels like his/her rights are being threatened by such a law, well, that makes me really leery of his/her definition of his/her rights over whatever significant other is in his/her life. It is no one's right to have physical access to anyone against their consent. Period. Good spouses are totally aware of this and do not, I repeat DO NOT grope, paw, prod, insert, or otherwise place their body upon/around/within the body of their spouse when their spouse is unconscious or objecting. Nor do they want to.
So Eve, does the govenment belong in your bedroom?
I answered that question about 20 comments back, Sibson. Your act is wearing thin.
Steve, when it comes to rape and assault in the bedroom, your damn straight we want the government involved.
Or are you arguing that it's okay for you to kick the living hell out of somebody as long as it happens in your bedroom?
Give us a break. Seriously.
The idea that this bill introduces the government into our bedrooms anymore that any domestic violence bill is ludicrous. It is about a spouse not having free reign over the other's body. There is no way this is a contradiction of liberal views of pro-choice, gay rights, contraceptive freedom, etc. It is an extension of my body, my choice. Just because we are married does NOT give you the right to use it as you see fit.
Now proving this is another issue not at the heart of the bill and should be discussed in another forum.
Mr. Fleming, as you probably know I mentioned at the breakfast discussion the other day that I like this bill. I know you like it too and I think you still have a big crush on that young Ms. Peter.
"Or are you arguing that it's okay for you to kick the living hell out of somebody as long as it happens in your bedroom? "
Not at all, but as long as you liberals are allowing the government into the bedrooms, perhaps they can be on the lookout for sodomy and underage sex, fornication and other sex acts outside of marriage.
"Even in marriage, our right to bodily autonomy remains inviolate."
So Cory, does your New Age Theology trump the Bible:
1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
@Steve Yes. I said it.
My body does not belong to my husband nor does his belong to me. It goes back to our choice to share it with one another.
You want to start pulling out Biblical references out if context to support yours views?
So Alison, are you going to trump Mark Chapter 10 too:
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
OK Alison, shall we look at 2 Corinthians 7 in context:
Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about.
Some of you say, “It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman.” 2 But since there is so much sexual sin, each man should have his own wife. And each woman should have her own husband. 3 A husband should satisfy his wife’s sexual needs. And a wife should satisfy her husband’s sexual needs.
4 The wife’s body does not belong only to her. It also belongs to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong only to him. It also belongs to his wife. 5 You shouldn’t stop giving yourselves to each other except when you both agree to do so. And that should be only to give yourselves time to pray for a while. Then you should come together again. In that way, Satan will not tempt you when you can’t control yourselves.
Sorry, the last comment was 1 Corinthians 7.
Mr. Sibby, I had no idea you were such a sexual beast.
Yeah I am. Thank goodness you don't worship at my alter.
Just because souls and bodies merge does not allow the other to take advantage and use as s/he sees fit.
My God, may not be the same as your God, would not want one or the other to be a slave to the person that I chose to spend my life with.
Galatians 3:8
"There is neither Jew not Greek, space nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Steve, you answered the question. "When you can't control yourself." The heart of the bill is when one is not in control and the other takes advantage.
I will share my body, soul, heart, and spirit with my spouse when I am in control. Not of my spouse, but my body, and Satan wont control us.
Galatians 3:8
"There is neither Jew not Greek, space nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
So again we learn Cory's New Age statement does not meet Biblical principles.
No where I have said what I am being falsely accused of. If you folks don't like what the Bible says, don't take it out on the messenger.
"Thank goodness you don't worship at my alter."
I agree, I do not worship goddesses.
Mr. Sibby, I don't much care for that book "Bambi's Life In The Wood" but I don't let it drive me insaner. It also is fiction.
Steve, may I call you Steve, more quotes out of context? In no way do I imply that I am a goddess.
"In no way do I imply that I am a goddess."
Good, then we are making progress. Now we need to understand the Biblical principles of marriage. Does it mean autonomous or one?
It means equals.
So you mean equal and autonomous? Or equal as being one?
Alison keep reading Ephesians, when you get to Chapter 5 you wil find this:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Steve did it ever occur to you that the apostle Paul might have been a sexist misogynist bastard?
Bill, locker-room grab-ass is already illegal sexual contact... but currently if a husband and wife are in the same locker room, and if one wants to play grab-ass and the other does not, the law leaves the unwilling partner unprotected.
"Submit to their husbands in everything:... including sexual contact? Including sex? Let me verify, Steve Sibson: are you saying that men should be able to force themselves upon their wives whenever they want, regardless of their wives' consent?
Hmm... assuming I accept this scary Biblical interpretation that our bodies become joint property in marriage... when property is held jointly, don't all owners have to consent to using that property?
Using that property: oh goody, now we've just used the Bible to reduce all human beings to instruments of sexual pleasure. Immanuel Kant, LK, my wife, and most other decent human beings will not be amused.
And Bill, if Paul meant what Steve is saying he meant, then I'm going to have to agree with you on Pauls' misogyny.
22 Husbands, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the staff is the head of the husband as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also husbands should submit to their husbands in everything.
"Steve Sibson: are you saying that men should be able to force themselves upon their wives whenever they want, regardless of their wives' consent?"
No I am not, and neither did the Apostle Paul. Here is Ephesians 5 in context:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
No Biblical Christian husband would force himself onto to his wife because "husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies". For true Christians, there is no need for this legislation.
Second point is your New Age theology that a married couple is separate. [You said, Even in marriage, our right to bodily autonomy remains inviolate.] I and Alison have provided Biblical principles that says otherwise. So again, should your New Age Theology trump the Bible?
Third point, since you New Agers now believe the government should regulate sex with this legislation, then you have opened the door for Christians to urge the government to regulate all forms of sexual immorality, including homosexual, fornication, and other sex acts outside of marriage between a man and a woman. I have no problem wiht passing this legislation unless the only intent is to interfere with marriages in such a way that the woman is given power over her husband. We should not accept the New Age Theocrat's goddess worship. Our society has suffered enough from actions taken by the feminists. Sad that so many children grow up in a home without their fathers. It has caused crime rates, suicides, and drug abuse to increase to the point where now we need more prisons in South Dakota. SB70 is a bandaid to slow down the bleeding, not cure the patient.
Last point, this lesson should teach you and others not to trust Bill Fleming and his deceptive practices.
As so many men have done throughout the centuries, Mr. Sibson only cites Ephesians 5:22-24, to reference his own power as husband over his wife. He never goes on to Ephesians 5:25-29, in which the husband's responsibilities are outlined: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church."
From a Nigerian bishop's wedding sermon upon his daughter's wedding:
"Your job is to be Christ to my daughter. From this day forward, you must be worthy of her obedience as Christ was worthy: express your authority in humility and self-sacrifice; do not demand esteem, but earn it. When you are Christ to my daughter, she will joyfully submit to you. If you cease to be Christ to her, the conditions calling for her to obey you will no longer pertain. I shall pray for you both." (Forward Day by Day, a Christian devotional, Thursday, January 24th)
In other words, quit shouting and demanding, and start earning the respect, esteem and submission you claim to be your right. In other words, if you are going to quote the Bible against someone, then you had better be prepared to do what it says about your own role. And for men, it says be Christ. Christ said of Himself, that he was "meek and lowly in heart." Try it.
Mr. Sibson says, No Biblical Christian husband would force himself onto to his wife because "husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies". For true Christians, there is no need for this legislation. True. Trouble is, Mr. Sibson also says that most people in this country are by New Age Goddess worshiping sex-crazed atheists. So, obviously we desperately need this legislation. We don't legislate anything because people are nice. As the Bible says, people are full of evil as the sparks fly upwards, and need rules and regulations to make society and civilization possible. Since humans are what they are, we need this legislation.
Finally, Mr. Sibson, this legislation is not about sex - it is about violence. (I'm sorry that you cannot and seemingly will not recognize that.) And again, humans being what they are, society needs rules and regulations against violence because people will do terrible things to each other. Even in families. Sometimes especially in families. I would think, what with your eternal railing against the ruined country you appear to inhabit, you would entirely agree that we need all the laws we can get to put barriers between people and their urge to violence.
Paul just made crap up. He was addicted to opium, women, and sin typical of his gender.
Tim Johns is schooling the legislative coffee on its own laws: wish he would leave the earth hater party.
Larry, were you sitting behind me? Rep. Tim Johns does come across as a remarkably intelligent legislator.
"Rep. Tim Johns does come across as a remarkably intelligent legislator."
He attacked the Second Amendment yesterday and threrby violated his oath of office. He is a hardcore RINO.
Earth and God calling Mr. Sibson. It is about violence, within and without of a marital relationship. Not my problem if you insist on your interpretation.
Yes, you get credit for posting the rest of Ephesians 5.
No, I'm not in favor of government intervention in people's sexuality. Fornication, homosexuality, and extra-marital sexual contact have been around since the dawn of time (nor do they have anything to do with abusive violent relationships, per se) - Judah and Tamar, Boaz and Ruth, David and Bathsheba are all Biblical examples of people who indulged in one or another variety of sexual immorality. Apparently, God is not nearly as worried or judgmental about sexual misbehavior as you are, because each of these had children who became part of the lineage of Jesus.
"It is about violence, within and without of a marital relationship."
It is about sexual contact, not rape which is rigthfully considered violence. You do support, "government intervention in people's sexuality".
The prosecution has the burden in pre-trial of establishing probable cause in sexual contact situations. That will be a very high bar for spousal contact, particularly given that the definition of sexual contact puts the behavior into the sexual, not the violence, realm. Sexual contact is behavior that is normal, indeed, expected in a spousal relationship. So, a prosecutor is not going to pursue charges unless there is a serious and/or repeated pattern of sexaul behavior involving sexual contact that is repeatedly rejected by a spouse.
I can't imagine why good Christian husbands would want to subject their wives to unwanted sado-masochism. Is there a Bible verse that we should contemplate, or can it be left up to common sense that a wife may not want her clitoris pinched, and may want to pursue charges for repeated attempts to ignore her wishes.
Good point, Donald: evidence is going to be hard to come by. But from what little sense I can divine from Sibby's imaginings, even Christians will agree that sexual contact between spouses shouldn't happen without consent.
Leave a Reply