Am I the only one that’s in utter disbelief about some historical laws / or the lack of?

[AnotherNC12345]

Every now and again I see headlines like these and think… well DUHH!!?

www.theguardian.com/law/2025/oct/22/sex-offenders-to-be-denied-parental-responsibility-for-children-born-of?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social_img&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwdGRjcANlhD9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsMhJx_P0BaacA4TFlZxe4rJ6waEgRrnGzM2Ne6KfCTJEpeG2RpknrlHpxRt_aem_ASRcytsePRU-XB3j3Q9IFQ#Echobox=1761116719

Appalling. Have you read this before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franca_Viola

Can you believe at the time rapists could marry their victims?

Rape was always the woman's fault one way or another so the man agreeing to marry her was quite magnanimous of him. And solved her problem of being a fallen woman. It was also a way of forcing a reluctant woman to marry you, they had little choice after the rape.

I saw the bit about rapist's parental rights and paedophiles parental rights too, absolutely horrific that men like that can then control their children's lives and by proxy the lives of the mother's, hard to believe it's the law. Can you imagine having to give your child to your paedophile husband or your rapist for the day.

It was only decided that a woman could be raped by her husband in 1991. And that was a court precedent, it wasn't written into law until 2003.

This family have fought an amazing campaign following their daughters murder... "Jade's Law"...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66988835

This happened to grooming gang victims like Sammy Woodhouse - her rapist attacked her in the street when she had her child with her in a buggy, and the police told her 'what do you expect? He's got a right to see his child '. After he was imprisoned for multiple child rapes, including against her, the local authority made him a party to care proceedings about the child she had aged 15 from his raping her, when she was struggling to parent. It's utterly shameful.

This is crazy. I literally don’t understand how some laws have not been put in to place just by using common sense.

I get that things may have looked different in a world where women’s rights were still limited. But in the modern world?

Utterly ridiculous.

Absolutely. Where is the common sense in that?
The article talks to perpetrators dragging victims through family courts. I wonder what the outcomes of those cases have been despite there not being a law.

It should be shocking but when you realise what many men think they are allowed to do to women, and how many of those men are powerful its not surprising.

Well, consider Afghanistan - in 2009, “Afghanistan … quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.
The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.
"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.” (Guardian, 14th August 2009)

Since then, in 2024, a “new law seeks to completely silence women in public. They are prohibited from speaking, singing or praying aloud. The law also attempts to literally erase them from view, ordering women to cover every part of their body and face in public.
The edict suppresses most of women’s political, civil and human rights guaranteed under international law. And if women resist, it orders the use of violence to repress them.” (The Conversation, Sept 30th 2024)