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.”

There are also physical signs that rape has occurred. Severe bruising of the inner thighs and upper arms and tearing of the vaginal wall are the most common. Bruising may be the result of consensual rough sex. Vaginal injuries almost always indicate something else.

To name a few.

I've spoken with an individual via USENET who honestly thinks that it is impossible for a husband to rape his wife, because the marriage itself implies consent at all times. His bases this assertion on the Bible

This is a very interesting topic. I think I know what Bible passages the poster refers to, and I can partly understand why one may formulate that opinion. Im not saying I agree with it(that the act of forcing one to have sex can not be done in marriage), but I understand why one would see it this way, and would personally be against any person being charged with "raping" a spouse.

There is either a marriage with consent or a divorce is necessary.

So the wife actually having a headache (and not just using that as an excuse) or being sore from physical exertion still isn't an excuse? She should drop her pants and spread her legs at her husband's command?

When posed with such questions, "Doug" never answered. I'd like to see how you respond.

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.

Actually my analysis of his psychosis (which is, admittedly an unprofessional opinion) is based on his general behaviour on the newsgroup. He has a clear persecution complex, and he feeds it constantly with his activities. One of his favourite things to do is accuse atheists of ignoring the "compelling evidence" for the existence of the Christian God. When asked to present this "compelling evidence", he darts around the issue -- his most amusing response was when someone asked specifically for him to present his evidence. He gave a one word answer: "Sure".

That was the extent of his "evidence" apparently, yet he continued to banter on as though we'd been rejecting every argument that he'd presented -- even when he'd never presented anything.

The "marital rape" issue was just one of many. He would state authoratitively that it is physically impossible for a person to rape their spouse. He was asked repeatedlywhat it would be considered if a woman was not "in the mood" (ie, sore or tired for heavy exertion during the day) on one night and her husband forced himself on her against her wishes, even though there was no evidence that she had refused him at any time in the past. He never answered.

Are thre any gradations between being ugly, brutish, selfish, insensitive, inconsiderate... and committing rape?

And for clarity's sake: physical brutality is, in my questioning, a distinct issue. I'm not asking about that.

Dan

Are thre any gradations between being ugly, brutish, selfish, insensitive, inconsiderate... and committing rape?

And for clarity's sake: physical brutality is, in my questioning, a distinct issue. I'm not asking about that.

Being ugly, brutish, selfish, insensitive and/or inconsiderate isn't an issue. A person can engage in sexual activity and show all of the above mannerisms, but if the sex is consentual and not coerced, it isn't rape.

The poster in question insisted that it is not possible for a spouse to refuse consent for sex for any reason.

Re #34

I was suggesting more in the line of standing up against them before these laws and regulations are enacted. But, once they are enacted, you should still loudly complain not to cops but to legislaters. After all, men have 50% of votes. But they are effectively cowed.

" The study, from 1995, also revealed that less than six percent of divorces contained allegations of violence..."

"In Massachusetts, a survey of lawyers revealed that 70 percent of divorces contained allegations of domestic violence. "

"According to the Maryland Department of Fiscal Services, the average sentence for rape in that state is 29 years."

The statistics cited in this article are either contradictory or unbelievable.

Surprisingly, the rape need not be overly brutal. Lacerations and tearing frequently occur when a woman who is not sexually aroused has sex. That in itself is not evidence of a rape, since post-menopausal women who aren't on any kind of hormonal supplements may have such lacerations. They probably wouldn't have external bruising, however, if they had engaged in consensual sex. Similarly, a woman who has engaged in consensual "rough sex" may have external bruising but suffer no internal injuries whatsoever. (Without being too graphic, its all a matter of lubrication.) The degree of the internal damage, coupled with external bruising (especially in specific areas--inner thighs, upper arms) will indicate more accurately exactly what took place.

I would agree with this person. There is either a marriage with consent or a divorce is necessary.

I assume you are

a) single

b) married, but your wife has no idea that you think this way

c) married, with a wife who is petrified of you

What you are asserting is that a wife must always be willing to have sex with her spouse. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is this: if my husband (and I'll bet I speak for a lot of women on this forum) tried to force himself on me when I was, say, a week or two post-partum I would have kicked the living $hit out of him. Excuse my language, please. And that is just one example.

Tears, bruising, etc., will not be necessary for a successful prosecution for marital rape. All the woman has to do is say that a few months ago, her husband forced her to have sex against her will, and she just lay back and let him for, fear that he might get violent (despite having no history of same). The same is true with "date rape" cases and even allegations of sexual assault which are being brought forward 20 yrs after the supposed event.

The current view from the bench, engendered by radical feminism, is that women do not lie about such things. When it comes to a case of he said/she said, the male is most often convicted. Afterall, why would a tender, innocent, subjugated, paragon of virtue lie?

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?

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.

This would contradict common accepted Christian doctrine. Even if saying no is a sin, she still has the free will to say no. As such, rape can occur if the wife says no; she would just be committing a sin when refusing.

Did your grandparents specify where in the Bible that clause is written?

As I suggested someone else do, look up the statistics for your area. Find out how many rapists are actually convicted of the crime they are charged with. The notion that a man is likely to be found guilty--successfully prosecuted--whether he is married or not--just by having been accused is ludicrous. It simply is not true. Very, very few ADAs out there are willing to risk charging a man with rape without, at the very least, some physical evidence. I am not saying it never happens, but it seldom does, and when it does, the likelihood of the accused walking away is damn near 100%. Ask any prosecuting attorney. Even with physical evidence--in many cases, overwhelming physical evidence--a lot of ADAs would rather plea the charge down than go to trial on a rape charge.

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.