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.”

marital rape

I suspect one reason it profits a society to invest in sanctioning marriage is to free society from involvement in such he said, she said conflicts as marital rape.

I remember one African tribe that considered any woman who spent the night in a man's hut as automatically being married to that man.

So any woman who disappears into a man's private hut would have placed herself beyond the responsibility of the tribe. No endless debate over what happened in the hut would have ensued to tax the resources of the tribe and sow endless discord among its members who might favor one side or the other.

There are echos of this in our own Western culture: When that woman went to Mike's motel room and afterward screamed rape, I would have liked to ask her if her mother told her never to go to motel rooms with men to whom you are not married.

Marital rape laws--like same sex marriage laws--will result in the further destruction of marriage by helping to render marriage meaningless.

Laws like this, when coupled with other anti-male laws, are causing fewer and fewer men to get married.

Men are simply saying "to hell with marriage".

What's the point anymore? If she changes her mind one day and decides to leave, she'll probably get the kids, the house, and a sizeable portion of his paycheck. If she gets a restraining order, he can have his guns confiscated.

No kids + no house + no guns + 50% additional tax = raw deal

A man's reasonable response would be to simply not get married and "play the field" as he pleases.

Women may think they're winning the "game", but the end result will be a generation of old women spending the last 20 years of their lives sitting in nursing homes, all alone.

...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.

Actually, being simple and hopeless helps keep me single. :^)

BTTT

I can see it now.....

Him: "Honey that was greeeaaaat, how was it for you?"
Her: "It was okay, and what about cleaning the basement tomorrow?"
Him: "I can't I have a golf game that we planned a few weeks ago, you know that."
Her: "But I really want it cleaned, the girls are coming over on Sunday and I want it all to be nice." (starting to sob)
Him: "But these guys are clients from out of town, I really can't but I will get it next week."
Her: (Crying) "Oh but Sue's home always looks great and I want mine to look great too."
Him: "Sorry sweet pea, I just can't, you know that."
Her: (sobbing) (gets up an leaves the room while he falls asleep)
One half hour later.....
"Come out of the bedroom with your hand's up, this is the police!"
Him: (Sleepily) "What, uh, huh?" (As he is harshly jerked on the floor and cuffed") Police: "Mr. Normal, you are under arrest for the rape of Mrs. Normal. You have the right to remain silent, anything you......."

Just another day in ever more liberal, pc, and DEMOCRATIC America.

Let's put it this way...Rape can happen anytime a woman says no, however, when you're talking about a married couple it is nothing more than a he said/she said (kind of like date rape but even more difficult). In this case, it would have to be one convincing story for me to convict a man for this...

This wasn't in a discussion about proving the matter in court -- he stated flatly that the marriage itself was implied consent, and as such it was physically impossible for a husband to rape his wife.

Which newsgroup is this moron posting in? Sounds like an opportunity to have a little fun.

He posts frequently in alt.atheism, and he goes by the name Doug . The "marital rape" issue isn't as hot as it used to be, but it's been brought up a few times recently.

When a legal system gives a psychotic, violent or vengeful man the ability to exert complete control over a woman's life, we call it repressive and refer in negative terms to Islam and the Taliban.

When a legal system gives a psychotic, violent or vengeful woman the ability to exert complete control over a man's life, we call it progressive and refer in positive terms to feminism and equality.

It doesn't matter what the liberals and femanists do, my wife loves me and I love her. If she really really doesn't want it, I'll go without but she almost never makes me go without. There is no way that she would ever in a million years try to have me arrested unless I killed our kids or something.

So The State cannot compel a wife to testify against her husband. So this is an area where The State is powerless. Let's see, how can we make The State break through this obstacle? Hmm.....

(Sound of light bulb going on)I know, we entice her with dreams of riches which The State will bestow.

All-too-likely scenario:

In midst of divorce/custody procedings, wife visits husband, says "Lets talk this out without the lawyers". One thing leads to another and she seduces him. She then leaves, has an accomplice punch her in the face a couple of times, and arrives at the police station with bruises and his semen in her. He goes to jail, she wins everything in the settlement

These tough men will not stand up for fear of being ruined, beaten or killed by LEOs controlled by Government controlled by the nasty biting stinging insects.

In my experience, Police Officers take real pleasure in playing Chivalrous Knight in Shining Armor whenever any semi-attractive woman decides she wants everything in the relationship except for the husband. There are volumes of cases in which husbands are accused of unproven and unprovable "crimes", or of making the wife "uncomfortable" with his presence. The Police go into "felony takedown/ possible suicide by cop" mode the instant a wife complains, without trying to corroborate any of the allegations or even question the husband. They come, they remove Hubby, or kill him if he resists. The Courts take virtually the same approach. The children see it and internalize the lesson for future use.

Individual men cannot fight odds such as these. The ones who try, die.

And what he is saying is "psychotic" because....? Maybe you could list the specifics of your Biblical training background as well, since you evidently are specifically judging his position as a Christian.

Dan

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Straight Americans Speaking up (SASU™), click below:
	click here >>>	SASU^™	<<< click here
Master Bump List (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Marriage is Consent.

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.