Marital Rape - What a "Can of Worms"!

Many states, Virginia included, are hurriedly passing marital rape laws. Major societal policy positions such as this inevitably open a “can of worms”--which is defined by Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition, as “a situation that presents difficulty, uncertainty, or perplexity” and lists “hornets’ nest” as a synonym.

Fast, angry, biting, stinging insects seems to more accurately describe the issue of marital rape than does a “can of worms,” although there is no doubt that the entire concept of marital rape does present difficult and perplexing implications.

Marriage already belongs on the endangered species list and deserves our urgent protection. Moreover, the institution of marriage deserves society’s encouragement, especially given that women are safer, men are healthier3 and all reputable psychological data reveal that children fare best in two-parent, married, intact families.

However, common sense fails to expose how the possibility of being charged with marital rape is likely to help encourage men to get married. It would seem that it would have the opposite effect.

But the gloomy impact on marriage derived from marital rape laws is premised on the proposition that men possess common sense. I proffer they do not and are simple, hopeless romantics.

Contrary to popular propaganda, we do not live in a patriarchal society. Rather, we live in a paternalistic society where we bend over backwards to protect women and children to such an extent that it overshadows our own common sense.

As a result, most of the hysterical, overreacting legislation designed to protect women is championed by men. This is not to say that the legislation was not suggested by angry, stinging, biting radical feminists. It usually is. But the measures are carried by well-intentioned men who lack common sense and sincerely believe they are “loving women” and in return “loved by women.”

This romanticism and lack of common sense is why men will probably continue to marry, in spite of the data and the very real possible consequences of such a risky proposition.

In one of the largest studies of its kind, the American Law and Economics Review4 reported that at least two-thirds of divorce suits are filed by women. In cases where divorce is not mutually desired, women are more than twice as likely to be the ones who want out of the marriage. The study, from 1995, also revealed that less than six percent of divorces contained allegations of violence and that women are much more willing to split up because--unlike men--they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead, a divorce often enables them to gain full legal control over the children.

When women are afraid of having to share custody or of losing custody of the children, they frequently resort to claims of domestic violence to gain legal advantage. In Massachusetts, a survey of lawyers revealed that 70 percent of divorces contained allegations of domestic violence. Attorney Sheara Friend, of the Wellesley firm Kahalas, Warshaw & Friend, estimates that about half of all restraining orders are merely legal maneuvers, where there is no real fear of injury on anyone's part.

Most restraining orders expel the husband from his home, award sole custody of his children to the mother, award child support to the mother and are accompanied or immediately followed by property and alimony claims--all with nothing more than her assertion that she was “intimidated by him or his presence.”

One might think that someone who wants out of a marriage would be satisfied with a practically guaranteed windfall profit of half the house, ownership of the children, child support payments and possibly alimony to boot. But due to human nature, some people are more selfish and try to hurt or even imprison their former partner.

Heretofore, false allegations of child sex abuse served as the nuclear bomb in acrimonious divorce proceedings. However, medical examiners and child psychologists have become increasingly more sophisticated. Medical evidence showing no sexual activity on the part of the children, either consensual or coerced, combined with truth revealing psychological inquiry makes false allegations of child sex abuse very risky, as they could backfire and cause the “false allegator” (as they are referred to by police) to lose custody and all the associated benefits and claims.

However, there is little risk associated with marital rape allegations. All a selfish or vindictive woman has to do is have sex with her husband and then claim marital rape. According to the Maryland Department of Fiscal Services, the average sentence for rape in that state is 29 years.

Without trying to sound like Homo Habilis7, many judges will be reluctant to hand down such stiff sentences, in spite of their paternalistic nature--much for the same reason they don’t like charging tenants who are current on rent, with trespassing in their own apartments. Nonetheless, they will likely hand down severe enough sentences to guarantee that a selfish woman wins everything in a divorce. After all, it is a crime for which the man cannot prove his innocence.

This is disconcerting, especially given that in 1983, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations found that 27 percent of the rape accusers admitted, either just before taking a polygraph test or after failing one, that they had lied.8 In 1994, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported, that in a survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities, 50 percent of the accusations were false. Fifty-three percent of the false accusations were motivated by a need for an alibi; revenge was the motive for 44 percent.

The potential for mischief is so great with the proposition of marital rape laws that the such laws are more likely to do more harm than good. While there may be legitimate cases of marital rape, such acts of violence are already covered by statutes and it is unlikely that benefits from marital rape statutes will outweigh the harm done to innocent men and their children through false allegations of the same.

We once lived in a society where we held dear that it is better that nine guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.10 Now, we seem to hold dear the exact opposite--that nine innocent men hang to make sure that one “possibly” guilty man doesn’t escape his “just rewards.”

Let us hope and pray that men never wake up to the stinging hornets and snapping alligators that are stealing his love, his life, his children, his happiness and even his freedom--or else marriage will cease to exist--as did many of the principles of justice that we also once held dear, that now exist as Poe’s Raven said, “Nevermore.”

Video evidence of the woman screaming, or witnesses who saw the rape (which isn't likely in a marital situation) is about all I can think of. It's really a shame how quickly we toss out evidentiary standards when it comes to crimes like rape, anyone can claim anything.

So if a guy robs me on a street, and no one else sees him but me, and I get a good look at him, and am quite confident I know who it is and I identify him at the stationhouse, that's not good enough evidence for a conviction because no one else saw the guy rob me?

Sure, but I don't remember it. My grandmother showed it to me once when I was a kid. The point I was trying to make is that this was considered common knowledge back in their day and all knew and respected it and lived by it. Now people react to it with astonishment and contempt and outrage when they hear of it. Funny how fast people forget the basics. The liberals have profoundly changed the way people, even conservatives, think.

The point I was trying to make is that this was considered common knowledge back in their day and all knew and respected it and lived by it.

I don't consider it "common knowledge" that a woman should always, regardless of the circumstances, be ready to "service" her husband and I can't respect that kind of thinking (sorry, I guess I'm not "tolerant" of other cultures).

"Who's trying to pass these commie "marital rape" laws, anyway?"

I have a clue: The Russian effort to abolish marriage in 1920

**If a woman is severely beaten, the man can be charged with the beating. But blood, semen, and testimony from a man's wife can hardly be considered convincing evidence. **

Many times a rape will leave a woman with vaginal tearing and abrasions. In addition, welts and bruises from force can appear. When a woman is raped, her emotions will back up her physical wounds.

I have a loving husband so please don't think I'm some feminist and support the Marital Rape law. But I have been raped and know the result of that.

I'll have to go look for the specific passage but the Bible does say that in marriage our bodies belong to each other..and not to withhold intimacy from each other. It's important to note that in a healthy marriage there is a respect that needs to be evident..not forcing one spouse into intimacy but to respect their occasional need for not becoming intimate. This respect goes both ways. It's far better to enjoy sex mutually rather than one person enjoying it solely. :o)

You are basically ignoring my post. I am telling you that only 70 years ago it was universally accepted by church going bible thumpers (male AND female) that wives were not to refuse sex as per commanded in the bible. I find it odd how people are so determined not to aknowledge this fact. What are you afraid of? Why the stubborness on this issue?

Many times a rape will leave a woman with vaginal tearing and abrasions. In addition, welts and bruises from force can appear. When a woman is raped, her emotions will back up her physical wounds.

That's why women have to call an ambulance immediately, so the authorities can get this evidence. In those cases, it's much easier to prosecute.

I'll have to go look for the specific passage but the Bible does say that in marriage our bodies belong to each other..and not to withhold intimacy from each other.

Its Psalms or Proverbs - I was just reading it a few months ago. I believe that most Biblical theologists understand that the reason for this "commandment" by God is to stop adultery, because our creator understands our sinful nature, and that a husband or wife will seek intimacy elsewhere if their spouse does not provide it. I think sociteies warped view of sex these days makes it impossible for many to understand the proper role of sex and why God may say such things as He does in the passages we are refering to.

That's pretty much the way I understood it too.

I can tell you that both my grandmothers beleived that any woman that refuses sex is committing a sin and is to be held responsible WHEN her husband later commits adultery. (not "if") Their beleif was that if a woman refuses sex, she is giving her husband a "free pass" to go find a mistress.

Today, women would say that any woman that believes this is ignorant and "controlled" by an overbearing, sexist, abusive, husband and that social services should intervene to protect her from her ignorance.

Guys, this just proves the necessity of taking your time before getting married. I would advocate at least several years of dating and/or cohabitation before you even consider it. Know your partner before you go down that road.

Their beleif was that if a woman refuses sex, she is giving her husband a "free pass" to go find a mistress.

Actually, I agree with that notion, unless the wife has some kind of debilitating injury or medical condition which predludes her from doing it. If she's merely "holding out", all bets are off.

You can't be seriously suggesting that force is justified if the wife is "holding out". You must not have expressed what you really meant to say.

If the husband is in the mood and the wife isn't, a lot of times it has nothing at all to do with the husband's behavior, either in bed or out of bed, but...sometimes it does.

In the bible it says it is a sin for a woman to refuse to have sex with her husband, therefore is it impossible for a husband to rape his wife

Proof please.

Your post gives the impression that the "implied 24/7 consent" is a technicality and that it is actually not very moral or christian-like for a husband to "hold his wife to it". I will tell you that if my grandmothers were alive today, they would inform you that for a woman to have your attitude is also sinfull. The term used was "begrudging". That means that not only should a wife never refuse, but she should also not express any UNWILLINGNESS. They made this point very clear to me more than once. Your opinion on the matter seems to endorse "begrudging".

You can't be seriously suggesting that force is justified if the wife is "holding out". You must not have expressed what you really meant to say.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. No, I'm saying that sustained refusal of sex gives him a pretty good reason to get a mistress. I would never advocate forcible rape under any circumstances.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.