There is no such thing as marital rape.

vow

but what if she’s not in the mood that night …?

Vox Day has an excellent post today on the topic of marital rape. He links to a debate he had with a feminist on the topic which is worth reading. For the record, I completely agree with Vox. The term marital rape is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms. Vox uses an excellent analogy which I haven’t seen before to defend his position:

LM: Good. We go that far. Your argument then hinges on the statement that to get married is to give an all time consent forever to sex with your spouse?

Vox: Exactly. It’s no different than when you join the army.You only have to join the army once. You don’t get the choice to consent to obey orders every single time an order is given. In certain arrangements, and marriage is one of them, the agreement is a lasting one and that’s why it’s something that should not be entered into lightly.

She then goes into a long and drawn out attempt to depict an example of a woman saying no, and meaning it, and a husband continuing to force himself upon her. This does not make the man a rapist. It simply makes him an arsehole. Marital rape is completely unprovable. A wife accusing her husband of rape and pressing charges only demonstrates that the marriage is irrevocably over.

On colleges today in the USA it is a very risky proposition for a young man to bed a college woman of his own age. My advice for college age men would be to stay far away from women in that environment. Seek them out in other areas because any trust between men and women has been completely destroyed with the “no means no” rules and other legal and moral absurdities. The fact is that a young man cannot trust a young woman not to go back on her social commitment to have sex and instead accuse him of rape. It is at the point where a written contract is required not just for the act itself but for every step of the process. Want to touch a young woman on the arm? Well, you better get out that sheaf of forms and get her to initial here, here, here and over there. Very good. Oh, you want to try and kiss her now? There’s a separate form for that.

This has the effect of infantilizing the people concerned. They are no longer trusted with an adult social transaction. In this case the university takes the role of overseeing the decision. In the debate with Vox, Louise Mensch admits that to do this in marriage would be silly:

I can honestly say that nothing would kill the mood more than if we all had to sign a form in triplicate saying, “Yes, I am well up for it” and maybe get it notarized before we have sex.

No shit it kills the mood. Ask any college student about affirmative consent, (another stupid oxymoron).

But this is where the Marxist progressive idiots wish to take us. They want to infantilize adults in their own marriage. They want to destroy trust between husband and wife by the implication that they cannot be morally trusted to have intercourse with one another without government interference. Once upon a time you got married and went home and that was it. The two parties were trusted to get on with it on their own. This included the act of bringing up children.

Well, we all know how much trust parents have to bring up their own children now. It has almost been taken away. Social workers in Canada can enter your home at any time to inspect your kitchen to see whether you have enough food for your children. All they require is a suspicion that things are not as they should be.

Suspicion infers a lack of trust. See where this is going? The Marxists’ number one goal is to destroy the family unit. There are many methods of achieving this. Individually they do not have an effect, but cumulatively they add up. Marital rape is one of those elements. It implies that two adults who have made a formal commitment to live their lives together and make a family are not able to manage the issue of whether or not one of them feels like having sex on a particular night.

One more quote from the feminist:

The point there is, let’s say, you reach over to your spouse in the morning and you start fondling your spouse and your spouse … That’s not rape because you have a presumption that they’re going to enjoy it, that your marriage, et cetera. Your spouse wakes up and says, “Ugh, not today.” “Not tonight, Josephine”, to quote Napoleon Bonaparte. I have a hangover. I feel sick. Ugh, I have to go to work early. Not right now.

At that stage the spouse has said no. Not to sex ever but to sex in that situation. The spouse has said no. If I understand you correctly what you’re saying is the spouse can say, “No, I feel sick” and it does not constitute rape for, let’s say, the husband because that’s who it would need to be in a penetrative situation to climb on his wife who has said that she doesn’t want to have sex and that she feels ill, in that given situation, and force himself on her. That that is not rape. She has clearly withdrawn her consent. She’s done so verbally.

To repeat, that situation does not make a husband a rapist. It simply makes him an arsehole.

 

27 thoughts on “There is no such thing as marital rape.

  1. Allen

    Analogies are always suspect. There is an exception to following orders in the US Army. The specific case is when it is an illegal order. This usually occurs when the order is contrary to the Geneva Conventions. i.e., an order to shoot prisoners out of hand.

    So, could spousal rape occur? I suppose it might, but it would be highly dependent on the circumstances. Having said that, since the concept is very nebulous, it would require strict definitions, concrete examples, and a strong justification. Which I can be pretty certain no one supporting such laws would do.

    Why codify a thing for someone and afford them legal protections when you can just scream J’accuse! and have them strung up?

    Like

    1. J’accuse indeed. And only in the one direction. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that marital rape is designed to make men fearful and timid around their wives.

      Like

  2. Allen

    California (where I live) has a spousal rape law. it is identical to the law for rape, with one difference. The only difference being that the prosecution must prove the man and the woman were legally married at the time. I didn’t know that.

    Well, I suppose given that it’s California, the prosecution must prove that the aardvark was legally married to the sea lion at the time.

    Like

  3. Sorry, Adam, but I don’t agree.

    Firstly, marital rape would be extremely difficult to prove, but so are many forms of rape. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be criminalized, however.

    The main question I have for you is this: let’s say that I want to fuck my wife, but she says no and covers her vagina with her hand, and keeps doing it no matter how often I try to stop her, and keeps trying to run away. Can I assault her to stop her from doing it, and assert my right? If not, then isn’t it only a question of how motivated the wife is to fight back? And if yes, wouldn’t that mean that a guy can beat the shit out of his wife unless she assents to let him have sex with her at any time?

    Like

    1. You’re talking about assault and battery. You can’t conflate the two to make a point about the one. And your “example” is patently absurd. The wife running in a circle with her hands over her vagina? I mean, I know there are some kinky couples out there but come on.

      Like

      1. Well, yes I can.

        I have the right to property. If you try to take it away from me, I can assault you legally.

        I have the right to bodily integrity. If you try to take it away from me, I can assault you legally.

        I have the right to…marital sex? So if you try to take it away from me, why can’t I assault you legally? And if I can’t do that, can I call the law on you, like I could for any other violation of my contractual rights?

        I’m purposely conflating the two because I think it’s an important question: how can you have the right to something, but not the right to take it? How does that function? Vox speaks of the old days, where you could beat your wife for not having sex with you; whatever you think of that, it was logically consistent. (And the state could punish you for not financially supporting your wife).

        Understand, too, that I’m not a hysterical feminist or something. But the point still stands – can I try to stick my penis in my wife? What if she runs in a circle? Can I move her hand forcefully away if it’s blocking me? How does any of this work?

        Like

      2. I can answer your question very simply. Marriage is a bond between adults. To whit you’re expected to behave as such. All of the examples in your last paragraph do not work because they are the emotional equivalent of a five year old. Conflating childish behavior with an adult situation merely demonstrates that you need to go to outlandish absurdities to try and make a point.

        This proves the utter absurdity of the entire concept of marital rape. I will repeat once more, if your wife says no but you still force yourself upon her you are not a rapist. You are merely an arsehole.

        Like

      3. I don’t see how to reply to your bottom comment, so here it is:

        “I can answer your question very simply. Marriage is a bond between adults. To whit you’re expected to behave as such. All of the examples in your last paragraph do not work because they are the emotional equivalent of a five year old.”

        So let’s say your wife doesn’t run in a circle if you need a more “adult” scenario. Instead, in response to you attempting to have sex with her, she walks away from you, grabs her keys, goes to her car, and drives off. Adult, right? What do you do about that? Or are you arguing that not wanting to have sex with your partner at any time constitutes the behavior of a five-year-old in and of itself?

        “Conflating childish behavior with an adult situation merely demonstrates that you need to go to outlandish absurdities to try and make a point.”

        No, but failing to address my argument merely demonstrates that you can’t refute mine.

        Anyhow, this all goes back to the idea of marriage-as-agreement as opposed to marriage-as-contract. If you subscribe to marriage-as-agreement, whereupon anyone breaking the agreement is an asshole but not criminally liable, then by what right do you fornicate with your wife against her will? And if not, then how does this contract work?

        “This proves the utter absurdity of the entire concept of marital rape. I will repeat once more, if your wife says no but you still force yourself upon her you are not a rapist. You are merely an arsehole.”

        Couldn’t you say it in reverse, that the husband is a rapist but the wife is an asshole?

        Like

      4. The person I was referring to in your dumb example that needed to be more adult was the husband, not the wife.

        I have addressed your argument. You just don’t want to hear. But I will agree to disagree. I will leave it to other readers to make up their own minds on the subject.

        Like

      5. “The person I was referring to in your dumb example that needed to be more adult was the husband, not the wife.”

        And this is the primal flaw of you and Vox’s argument: basically, there is no such thing as marital rape, because the wife has signed a legal contract or entered into a legally binding agreement to fuck the husband whenever he so pleases. However, talking about this in terms of the legally binding agreement marriage, which he also references when discussing marital rape historically (for after all, that’s what marriage was historically), as opposed to the modern version of marriage as a mutually loving but not legally obligating agreement, is apparently dumb.

        If the husband isn’t allowed to behave in this way, then he doesn’t really have the right to do fuck his wife. And if he doesn’t have that right, then why isn’t it rape?

        I suppose, to be fair, you haven’t fully defined your argument, to the level that I’m looking for. So go ahead and explain what your argument is, if you think I’ve missed something. But I think I’ve nailed it, and it’s just flawed.

        “I have addressed your argument. You just don’t want to hear.”

        No, you’ve dismissed my argument as using childish and stupid examples, while refusing to substitute your own or clarify any of it.

        “But I will agree to disagree. I will leave it to other readers to make up their own minds on the subject.”

        …Well, I can’t really stop you from doing this. But to be clear, you have neither addressed my argument nor clarified yours. In fact, most of your arguments seem to be directed at my examples, and not at the core questions raised, such as:

        “Does a husband have a right to fuck his wife?”
        “Can he secure that right with his physical force, or the force of the state”?

        And the culminating question, which I hadn’t gotten to previously but planned to depending on your answers (and have in this post)

        “If a husband doesn’t have a right to fuck his wife, as Vox argues and you seem to agree, then why on earth isn’t it rape?”

        Like

  4. Allen

    BTW, I ordered your book. The excerpt had me laughing already. I was also thinking as I read it, “I can top that” but I realized that might not be such a great distinction. If I like it I’ll certainly let you know, if not do you want me to just lie to you? (Having a bit of a laugh.)

    Cheers

    Like

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.16.16 : The Other McCain

  6. Paul

    This is a fundamentally stupid and ignorant article. I suspect the author has had no training in the law. Let me see if I can clear the fog of ignorance.

    There is and had been for many years spousal rape under the law. If a spouse withhold s consent to a sexual act and the other spouse uses force or coercive means to engage in that act it is and should be rape and/or sexual assault under the law. This is perfectly consistent with the rights of all the parties under the law and Constitution and is consistent with principles of bodily autonomy the well predate the current Progressive madness.

    When you get married ( I am married BTW) the understanding is that you promise exclusive intimacy to your spouse. This is important for several reasons beyond the moral aspect. The intimacy foster s the emotional bonding that you need as couple and sharing it exclusively is essential to this. It also protects a man from the horror of rasing another man’s bastard and protects the woman from exposure to the STDs he might pick-up. This does NOT mean that either man or woman has a legal right to sex on demand or that either is protected from the legal consequences of criminal behavior against their spouse.

    What marriage does create is a rubuttable presumption of consent. That means that in situation where consent is murky is is presumed absent evidence to the contrary. Here are a few examples. Able and Betty ate married and engaged. In regular sexual intimacy after a night out when both are drinking moderately both engage in the consumption of wine knowingly and intentionally. They return home and have sex shortly thereafter Patty the progressive sees them arrive home and it appears thay Betty is more intoxicated than Able and she calls the police. as they are married consent is assumed and absent additional facts there is no rape.

    Let’s change the facts a little. Betty wants get pregnant buy Able wants to wait until he gets a new job to better bear to costs of a family. Betty, without Ables knowledge spikes his wine with a drug cocktail tay will render him pliant and erect. They arrive home and in his disabled stated she mounts he sans condom and completed the sexual act with full knowledge that h is emphatic that they must use a condom. She has also stopped her oral contraceptives while deceiving him into believing that she is using them. This IS rape.

    Or this scenario: Able and Betty both work long hours and due to their schedule they most often have sex late night or early in the morning as such one of them is normally asleep when the sex starts. Able begins to fondle Betty while she sleeps and digitally penetrats her and as she is roused (and aroused) they engage in sex or Betty fondles Able and caused him to become hard through oral or manual stimulation and then as he wakes they have sex. Absent marriage this is prima facie sexual assault. Within marriage it if mer foreplay.

    It does men no favors to advance the notion the spousal rape can’t exist as this obscures the main issue. The SJWs want to criminalize all sexual conduct between men and women by default. They want to impose absurd consent rules on every step of the intimate act and essentially eliminate the presumption of innocence in accusations of sexual assault while shifting the burden of proof to the accused. This radical assault the rule of law must be defeated and it’s advocates must be driven from the law and society. Advancing argument s that are equally absurd will NOT accomplish this task.

    Like

    1. Gee Paul, you’ve really opened my eyes here. That was a brilliant comment and I’ve totally changed my mind.

      Nah, just fucking with ya.

      If a spouse withhold s consent to a sexual act and the other spouse uses force or coercive means to engage in that act it is and should be rape and/or sexual assault under the law.

      The very act of marriage grants consent. You cannot grant consent in a general sense and then take it away whenever it suits you. While the application of the consent may be inappropriate at a certain time it shouldn’t make it a criminal offense. The argument here is one of morality versus legality.

      It does men no favors to advance the notion the spousal rape can’t exist as this obscures the main issue.

      No, this is the main issue. The passing of marital rape laws was one of the first steps in the progressive march. Their absurd consent rules are no more absurd than the concept of marital rape itself. Your defense of marital rape with your ridiculous examples, (as prosecutable as they may be), prove only that you are either an SJW yourself who is trying to make trouble or you are as dumb as a bag of rocks. And please don’t wave your law degree around as evidence of your brilliance. Most lawyers I know astound me with their ability to tie their shoelaces in the morning in the face of their outlandish stupidity. If you are on our side then it would be better if you left as you are obviously a complete liability.

      Like

  7. Hi, I was wondering if you could give any info on your personal view of why you feel strongly the way you do on this topic. I’m writing paper and I have to be fair to the other party as to if I’m going to put my personal story into this I have to let the other have their personal view about this. Thanks!

    Like

    1. I don’t understand. Are you saying that you are writing a paper on my own personal views against some other unknown individual to me? Why on earth would you do that?

      Like

      1. Well I have to write an argumentative essay and I was going to put my personal view on why I feel the way I do on this topic and to be fair to you, I would want you to have your own personal view as well. You make some good points but, I was just wondering if their was any more depth to why you feel the way you do on this topic. You don’t have to by any means but if you would like to, I can give you my email. I’m doing this for a paper not because I necessarily want to haha. You are the only legit article I could find that does not believe marital rape exists.

        Like

      2. My article is my personal view. Also, you have the link to Vox Day’s article that I quoted which then links to the article at Heat Street which gives you three articles on the same side of the topic.

        Like

      3. I understand your article is your personal view but, I was wondering if maybe you had a personal story behind it? How did you come up with the points you gave? Do you have a healthy marriage? Have you ever had a spouse saying they felt forced or pressured by you? Do you feel like the privacy of your marriage has ever been invaded when it shouldn’t have? Maybe you have a healthy marriage so you never have found a reason for there to be such a thing as marital rape and the idea just seems silly? If you want to keep your privacy to yourself that’s okay and I would be more than happy to share some of my personal stories as well if you would like. Thanks!

        Like

      4. My view points are not formed by any marital event, untoward or not, but merely by using facts and logic to come to a position on the matter.

        I find that people who base their viewpoints on emotional happenings tend to be enslaved to the subjugation of their feelings. This leads to unclear and tainted thinking.

        Like

    1. If you base your logical positions on random occurrences and experiences then you will be a slave to your circumstances. The evolved individual rises above the many events in his life and seeks out knowledge using facts and logic. He then compares these with his own experiences and seeks to understand where his emotions are getting in the way.

      Let me put it another way – if you base your logical position on personal experiences and emotion then it only makes sense that you cannot have any position on a subject of which you have no personal experience. This is the age-old attack on someone who is speaking on a topic such as the poor for example who is shouted down as his opinion is irrelevant because he has never been poor himself.

      This is flawed, however, with even a cursory examination. Based on this logic if you were diagnosed with cancer then would you only want a doctor to treat you who had suffered cancer themselves? Such a position would be foolishness in the extreme.

      Like

  8. Miles

    I agree with you Adam. People who think martial rape is a thing clearly doesn’t fully understand what it means to get married. A man being charged for raping his wife is like a man being charged for stealing his own car.

    Like

  9. Dan-0-Lee

    Rape is fundamentally an offence against one of two men not women. Namely, a woman’s father and her future or actual husband. Figure that out if you can.

    For a wife to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband is the equivalent of man having sex with hooker and failing to pay her afterwards.

    This feminist rape hysteria is just a psychological warfare tactic directed against dumb White men who take them seriously and cannot see through the ruse. The Gloria Steinmans, Susan Brownmillers and Betty Freidans regard White women as their racial enemies just as much as they do White men, so they more mayhem they can cause for them; the better their employers like it.

    Like

  10. Windy Wilson

    Sex within a marriage when one party isn’t in the mood is rape. It follows that making a sandwich or doing other household chores (or going to work) when you’re not in the mood is slavery.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s