Posted on 03/04/2002 6:41:04 PM PST by softengine
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.”
You're either single or divorced, aren't you.
Very true, xm. Unfortunately, rape can (but not always) leave a woman w/o the necessary thought process for such a decision...out of fear or plain shock.
I'm not ignoring your post, M. I'm not afraid or stubborn. I don't know where you're coming from on those comments, but they're rather rude. Let's go back and take a look at our posts, shall we? :o)
M said: I'm gonna repeat something I once heard some old-timers say long ago. (those old timers were my grandparents) 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. In otherwords, A wife does not have the right to say no in the first place so there is no such thing as rape between a husband and wife. Any comments?***
HM said: 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)***
As you can plainly see, I was offering my personal comments, just as you requested on the thread. I was not being stubborn nor acting fearful.
Actually, according to my understanding of the scriptures, no he wouldn’t. He is COMMANDED to “Agape” his wife, which is sacrificial love. He is to sacrifice for her and love her as Christ loved the church. He has no “right” to pressure her. She has a responsibility not to deny him frequently, but assuming she loves him and is sincere with her “headache” he should be loving and understanding and ask if there is anything he can do for her. “Can I rub your neck honey? Do you need an Advil? Go lay down and I’ll take care of the kids”. THAT’S LOVE!! And when she is feeling better, she can come around and say, “Hubba, hubba, I’m feeling better”. :) But he has no “Godly” right to pressure. Wrong! He has a “Godly” command to “agape”, to sacrifice, to put off pleasure for the time being because he loves his wife sooooooooo much, it wouldn’t even cross his mind to hurt her.
"If she is a good wife she wouldn't refuse him, even though she had a bad day."
If she is a good wife she wouldn’t refuse him????? If he was a good husband, he wouldn’t be so selfish! Actually, it is scriptural to refuse sex for a time, but it needs to be by mutual consent. If a husband loves his wife, he will understand for a little while. The Bible says not to let this time be for too long, otherwise someone might give in to temptation with someone else. See 1 Corinthians 7.
”God gave us power over our spouses. God gave that power to man.”
I disagree with you. God gave no such “power” to a man. He gave him “authority” with specific instructions to “agape” at all times. The man is repeatedly commanded to “agape” his wife, where as the wife is only told one time to “phileo” (affectionate love Titus 2:4) her husband. He told the woman repeatedly to respect her husband, but he told the husband repeatedly to LOVE his wife.
God told men to LOVE because he knew they could be selfish, thoughtless cads and have a problem with agape love. God told women to be respectful of their husbands because he knew they could be bitter, stubborn and self-willed.
Shocking I tell ya! The one with the rolling pin in her hand has the final say!
That's where it is!!! Thanks.
The sooner you make up your mind to the fact that it is ultimately the woman's prerogative, the better off you'll be in any relationship. I don't advocate women using sex as a weapon or a form of blackmail, but, being a man, you don't know what a big difference there is between a woman having sex when she feels like it and when she doesn't feel like it. I'm not saying that to be mean or to brag or anything, but if a woman's not ready to do it, she's not going to do it, and that's pretty much the bottom line on the subject. It's a matter of fact. Have you ever seen those nature films? Have you seen what happens when a lion approaches a lioness who's not quite ready? He gets smacked right in the face with her paw. Even the King of the Beasts has to wait until the female is ready for him. Thank God on behalf of men everywhere that human females don't have a heat period.
MUCH better to wait and enjoy sex mutually than to just use your wife as a receptacle for your sperm.
How would You Feel without FR??? Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?
Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?
How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?
Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.
How would you keep on top of things without FR?
How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?
How would you be part of a Freep?
What would you do without FR????
Freedom isn’t free.
If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together,
to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference, PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW! Jim can’t do this alone.
The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers.
Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic.
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.