<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Who has the most sense?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2021 10:34:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: hrugaar		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22302</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hrugaar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22302</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m no laywer, jo, so I don&#039;t know for certain.  I imagine that if she had enjoyed it for twenty-odd years but then wanted out it might weaken her case a little.  But then the Court might take a view similar to its stance on sex with a minor - i.e. that whether she consented or not, the Court doesn&#039;t condone his doing it anyway. (Redneck?  Who said that? heh)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m no laywer, jo, so I don&#8217;t know for certain.  I imagine that if she had enjoyed it for twenty-odd years but then wanted out it might weaken her case a little.  But then the Court might take a view similar to its stance on sex with a minor &#8211; i.e. that whether she consented or not, the Court doesn&#8217;t condone his doing it anyway. (Redneck?  Who said that? heh)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Glenda Larke		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22301</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Glenda Larke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22301</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Not certain, but suspect she would have grounds here, yes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not certain, but suspect she would have grounds here, yes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jo		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22300</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What ru, even if she consents? I have no idea what the laws are here?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What ru, even if she consents? I have no idea what the laws are here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: hrugaar		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22299</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hrugaar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22299</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Not wanting to turn the subject gross, but ... as far as I can recall, if a man performs buggery on his wife here she can use that as lawful grounds for divorce (if she wants to).  Any similar provision where you are?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not wanting to turn the subject gross, but &#8230; as far as I can recall, if a man performs buggery on his wife here she can use that as lawful grounds for divorce (if she wants to).  Any similar provision where you are?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Glenda Larke		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22298</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Glenda Larke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22298</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ah - there you have fingered another facet entirely. The religious court would instantly claim jurisdiction as far as Muslims are concerned.&lt;BR/&gt;&lt;BR/&gt;Any kind of sex for a Muslim outside of man-woman (or man-two-three-or-four women) marriage is subject to religious court charges. And punishment.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah &#8211; there you have fingered another facet entirely. The religious court would instantly claim jurisdiction as far as Muslims are concerned.</p>
<p>Any kind of sex for a Muslim outside of man-woman (or man-two-three-or-four women) marriage is subject to religious court charges. And punishment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: hrugaar		</title>
		<link>https://glendalarke.com/2008/07/who-has-most-sense/#comment-22297</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hrugaar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-22297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ig the govt. decriminalises it, I hope they have the sense to do it in such a way as to prevent the religious courts from claiming jurisdiction.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ig the govt. decriminalises it, I hope they have the sense to do it in such a way as to prevent the religious courts from claiming jurisdiction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
