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.”

Whoops, you weren't talking about rape, you were talking about mistresses. Still, I don't think "holding out" is much of an excuse for cheating. Actually, I'd be more forgiving of my husband for cheating if I had a debilitating illness or medical condition that prohibited sex.

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.

Repeating a lie does not make it a fact.

Repeating a lie does not make it a fact.

~~~~~~~~~~`

What part of my post are you calling a lie?!?!

I think you have some explaining to do Mr. If you are going to call someone a liar you'd better * well have all your * ducks in a row.

NOW LETS HAVE IT! either a retraction or a clarification, I mean it.

I agree, and I think that was one of the main reasons for passing a law like this. Too often, estranged husbands would rape their wives, but...since they were married, the idea was that a wife couldn't be "raped" by her husband.

Luckily, it would take a lot of extenuating circumstances (i.e. history of domestic violence, witness testimony, etc.) to convince a jury (especially if I was on the jury) of rape of a woman by her husband.

So, using your logic, it is OK for a wife to sell herself as a prostitute if her husband won't give her money.

Good comeback! If the husband's not "getting any" at home, he should look to himself and his wife to find out why, instead of just "getting any" outside the marriage. If serious contemplation and marriage counseling doesn't work, maybe they should get divorced instead of cheating on each other.

Although I don't think the Bible ever justified that way of thinking, I think Mamelukesabre has a point. It doesn't matter if it was in the Bible or not, really. The fact is that certain groups of people, both so-called "Bible-thumpers" and non-bible thumpers as well, have throughout history believed that women should always submit to their husbands' sexual whims whether they felt like it or not. They didn't call it a "wifely duty" for nothing. During the Victorian era, all the fashionable experts believed that decent women weren't supposed to enjoy sex anyway. I don't think the people at large believed it for a second, but "Close your eyes and think of England" was the fashionable advice to give to a young woman on her wedding night.

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.

He (the defendant) is still ruined financially and has a public image as an accused sex offender. Unless he moves far, far away, he might as well have gone to jail...

The fact you think "bible thumpers" believed women cannot refuse their husbands.

~~~~~~~

Let me reiterate your statement. You are saying that I am LYING if I say: "I think that bible thumpers beleive that women cannot refuse their husbands".

Would you like another shot at that? Because that statement is absolutely nonsense. In the first place, the above statement is impossible, and in the second place, I never said "I think that...". I stated it as a fact with first hand experiences, not as my opinion. And finally, I was stating what was beleived SEVENTY YEARS AGO, not the present. (or at least by those that were married 70 years or more in the past)

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.

Didn't help me with wife number two, she was a convincing and unprincipled liar. And yes, she does vote 'rat.

So, using your logic, it is OK for a wife to sell herself as a prostitute if her husband won't give her money.

Not at all.

I think the logic is that husbands and wives both have obligations to satisfy each other to the best of their ability sexually, and to be monogamous, if they want their spouse to be monogamous. If they're not monogamous or trying to satisfy each other there's something seriously wrong with the marriage anyway.

Similarly, they both have a responsibility to support each other and their children.

A woman whose husband gave her no money would have a good case for what used to be called "non-support". I can't see any moral case for prostitution. Dancing at a topless bar, maybe, but not actual sex for money.

WOW!

Are you my grandmothers back from the grave?

Maybe you noticed I did not indicate my grandfathers' beleifs, only my grandmothers'. It is interesting that my grandfathers both held a slightly less strict interpretation of this than my grandmothers did. Both grandmothers held extremely strict and rigid interpretations of this particular bible passage. I think it is accurate to say that women of that day considered their individual responsibilities and obligations to the marriage of utmost importance and took pride in the success of their marriage. And the men felt the same way about the "man's" responsibilities as well. It was almost like there was a contest between the sexes as to whose role was the most critical and who lived up to their obligations more perfectly.

When it became publicly known that someones marriage was a "little rocky", the women typically blamed the wife and the men typically blamed the husband. Today it seems this is reversed. Men generally will fault the wife and the women will generally fault the husband of a failed marriage.

skipping straight past the obvious ass-headedness of this post and going for the less obvious...

You said, "Times like when the wife is hell bent on some destructive behavior that will hurt the relationship or kids. He has the right to veto her."

If the man is the ultimate boss, what happens if it is the husband is hellbent on some destructive behavior that will hurt the relationship or kids? Is it just "too bad" for the family if the "boss" is an A-1 jerk?

You've confused "authority" with tyranny, I'm afraid, in sexual matters. According to the Bible, man is the head of the wife just as God is head of the Church. (It's funny how men seem to skip over that second part, isn't it?) Just as God never forces man to do anything against his will, so does a good husband never force his wife to do anything against her will. He can persuade, nag, cajole, but never, ever force. Any husband who forces sex on his wife is not only a jerk, but he commits rape and thereby loses his authority. A cruel, tyrannical husband has no authority over his wife in any Christian sense of the word. So the authority you speak of is NOT absolute.

Here's what you said:

. 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.

Now, prove it was universally accepted among the people you slur as "bible-thumpers".

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.