this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
216 points (100.0% liked)

World News

41224 readers
4796 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

An Indian court acquitted a man convicted of raping his wife, who later died, citing that marital rape is not a crime in India.

The ruling has sparked outrage, renewing calls to criminalize marital rape. Activists argue the decision is legally valid but morally unacceptable.

India’s outdated laws do not recognize non-consensual sex within marriage as rape.

Despite widespread domestic violence, resistance from the government and conservative groups has stalled reform efforts.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

And india is going after youtuber Comedians for dark comedy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Cool. Maybe women should band together and perform vasectomies on any man they choose.

Quid pro quo.

[–] cheese_greater 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What does that have to do with altering their sexual drive (are you meaning just preventing pregnancy or using it as a shorthand for libido)?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I was gonna say "castrate" but men get all riled over that.

But if you prefer castrate over vasectomy go right ahead.

[–] cheese_greater 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I feel like they are very different terms and also I think most people are sympathetic to the idea of castrating rapists

[–] the_tab_key 6 points 1 week ago

Not just feel like, they are extremely different terms, to the point where I'd barely call a vasectomy a punishment (it is a punishment only in the sense that they are prevented producing offspring and their junk will hurt for a few days), considering many men (including myself) voluntarily have the operation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm sympathetic to the idea of castrating rapists (well except for that I'm still against it for the same reason as the death penalty, wrongful convictions happen just a little too often for such permanence), but that's not what they said. They said..

Cool. Maybe women should band together and perform ~~vasectomies~~ castrations on any man they choose.

Quid pro quo.

..without regard for conviction or even accusation of rape, just "hey look balls, lemme cut these off." Why would I be sympathetic to that? It's just gender based wanton violence and that person is a danger to others and should be involuntarily commited.

[–] Professorozone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yup, man here and I have no problem with that.

[–] cheese_greater 1 points 1 week ago

I dont get what they were on about. Probably virtue signalling or something silky

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ofc they are different terms. As I said men get upset when women say they should be castrated for raping women, which is why I said vasectomy instead. Some days I just don't wanna battle over dumb shit like that.

[–] cheese_greater 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Vasectomy comes off as way dumber, rapists wanna fucks but not necessarily inseminate. They are hardly interchangeable;

Nobody gives a fuck about rapists fertiliity. Maybe you mean chemical castration and you're conflating those. Dunno and im out so whatevs

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Men with vasectomies can still inseminate - it's just that the semen doesn't contain any sperm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Actually you said "any man they choose" not "for raping people." That's quite a difference, unless you're operating under the assumption that all men have raped people and so "any man you choose" and "rapists" are synonymous to you, but you wouldn't mean that, right?

That's good to see you only mean rapists though, because I've been raped twice by two different women, and the law in my area requires penetration so by law they cannot be convicted of rape (at most "Sexual Assault" charges), so you support me mutilating their genitals extra judiciously so they don't do it again too, because the government makes raping me legal, right? Why not?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I'm a man and fully support castration of convicted rapists. Cut the whole thing off for all I care.

[–] Professorozone 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wish the media would be more specific. He raped his wife who later died. In other words he raped her to death right? I mean it's not the same thing but given no further clarification, that's my interpretation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

given no further clarification

It’s in the article

the post-mortem report, which stated "the cause of death was peritonitis and rectal perforation" - simply put, severe injuries to her abdomen and rectum.

[–] Sarmyth 2 points 6 days ago

I'm kinda baffled by the ruling being about the rape then. If it's legal there it didn't need to even be stated. Instead it should be about the murder of his wife. I wonder what their laws around manslaughter are like. I'm sure the judge would call it an accident (because they're awful) but it's still an action that directly led to her death and that seems like something that should be punished.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Superpower 2020