Wow, way to keep saying the same thing over and over again. GOOD JOB
A few notes: the 1950's weren't perfect, marital rape isn't an evil liberal plot (something which is pretty kooky to believe even for the internet, lol), and you're thinking of control-c. Control-z just suspends processes on most systems. Really, what a bloody weird thing to get tied up in knots over.
I'm experienced enough to recognize when I'm in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So here's cultural history in one easy lesson:
The concept of "marital rape" is the classic Critical Legal Studies gambit—a draconian solution to a non-problem in order to advance an ideological agenda. Sure, the idea of brutal husbands forcing sex on their wives would be horrible. That is, if it were a real, widespread phenomenon. But it's not, and it never was. It certainly wasn't in the 1970s, when feminists like Susan Brownmiller and Kate Millett were selling the concept to the academic set.
A small example: It's in unmarried couples (and same-sex couples), not to mention prostitution rings, where physical abuse of women typically occurs. But it was marriage that the Left targeted instead. The idea of state intervention within the "sick institution" of marriage was their key concept, for which "marital rape" theory was the foundation. Using their men-are-evil template, first codified into law in cities and states with large social-worker populations, interventions were used to encourage poor women to get their husbands arrested during domestic arguments. Unlike normal criminal investigations, there are no rules of evidence for "domestic-violence" complaints. The cops' orders in most jurisdictions now are: If she calls in a complaint that mentions touching her or scaring her, they must arrest him and put him in jail for the night. Even if the complaint appears fake; even if she recants it by the time they arrive.
This family palace coup was developing at the same time as welfare budgets were ballooning. For the first time, because of the Left's animus, marriage was no longer formally considered a positive factor in being considered fit to raise or adopt children. Aid for Dependent Children was used to subsidize the living expenses of unmarried women, making poor men's contribution to marriage redundant or irrelevant, which had the effect of postponing marriage indefinitely for some welfare mothers, and encouraging divorce for others. The net result was a lot of fatherless boys who became criminals, cutting the heart out of most of our major cities for decades.
The key to this social holocaust was the attack on the privacy and primacy of marriage by bureaucrats who made up problems within the institution. Surrounded by a genuine epidemic of stranger-rape, they invested untold millions addressing a non-existent crisis of marital "rape," destroying the morality of the lower classes while they were at it. Do today's conservatives remember all this, and understand the effect of the ideas they throw around? Perhaps not.