Marital rape

[dazzleman]

Here's the problem with rape in a situation that is not black-and-white.  Rape is the only crime I can think of where the act itself is not a crime, but the determination of criminality rests totally on the consent of one of the parties to the act.

There is no such thing as consenting to being robbed, or shot.  So rape is a fundamentally different type of crime, unless there are signs of other physical violence.

The issue becomes even muddier when the two parties are in a relationship, such as marriage, that implies sexual availablility.  For the same reason, reported rapes in situations where the man and woman know each other well, or the woman voluntarily put herself in the man's private company in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude the sex is probable, are also problematic in terms of obtaining convictions.

I understand that marriage does not imply that a person wants sex at any given time, and that a person shouldn't be forced to have sex.  But I don't think there's a real viable legal solution to marital rape.  Unless there are other signs of physical violence, a jury is going to find it very difficult to convict a man of rape solely on the say-so of his wife claiming he raped her.  Practically speaking, it's a very difficult thing to sell. 

There is also the huge problem of false accusations, which the feminists refuse to acknowledge.  False accusations of rape and sexual harassment are very common, as some women figure out that they can manipulate the system to get something that they want, and effectively blackmail a man.  Being a man yourself, you ought to be wise to this danger.

I find it strange that a man is so committed to an anti-male feminist slant on things.  While I don't agree with rape, there are other ways to look at the problem than just the feminist angle.  Since the feminist angle has not proven to be particularly effective, maybe we should look at other alternatives.

[dazzleman]

I find it strange that a man is so committed to an anti-male feminist slant on things.  While I don't agree with rape, there are other ways to look at the problem than just the feminist angle.  Since the feminist angle has not proven to be particularly effective, maybe we should look at other alternatives.

I'm afraid I don't find this a feminist issue as you do - I find it an issue of someone's right to not be hurt.

Rape is not just a psychological thing - it is not about sex, it is about physical domination. It is vicious. It's not as if rapists generally are gentle about it. Rape is generally sexual assault - it hurts the person being raped, and is really the equivilant to assault, which is exactly why it's hard to consent to it.

Some people may find being hurt sexually exciting, but for the most part, it's as clear-cut: you can't consent to rape any more than assault in most cases.

I don't disagree with you on the evil of rape.  The issue itself is not a feminist issue, but there is a feminist way of looking at the issue that I don't always find totally satisfying.  I was raising practical concerns about having a legalistic focus on the issues that come up within a marriage.

Ours is an overly legalistic society in my opinion, and we think often that the law can somehow rescue us from the consequences of bad decisions we have made.  If rape is truly taking place within a marriage, then the real answer is to leave the marriage.  Prosecution may be part of that, but practically speaking, probably only in extreme cases.

Unless there is evidence of other physical abuse, it is going to be very had to get a conviction against a man for raping his wife.

It's true that you can't consent to rape, but you can consent to sex, and then claim it's rape.  It happens every day.  While rape is the most underreported crime, it's also the most overreported.  And it's not always black and white; sometimes, one party perceives rape and the other does not.

I have a problem with not having a clear, impartial standard rather than relying simply on female perceptions, as feminists propose.  As men, we should both be concerned about the possibility of being blackmailed by a woman who has consented to have sex with us, and then claimed rape.  This does happen, and I think that men need to be protected against this sort of thing.  Let's not forget innocent until proven guilty.  And "proven" doesn't just mean an unsubstantiated claim, as feminists would like it to be.

[dazzleman]

The issue becomes even muddier when the two parties are in a relationship, such as marriage, that implies sexual availablility.  For the same reason, reported rapes in situations where the man and woman know each other well, or the woman voluntarily put herself in the man's private company in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude the sex is probable, are also problematic in terms of obtaining convictions.

Then why should marital rape be legal, but rape in cohabitation be illegal?

I don't think either should be legal.  The issue is the practicality of getting a conviction in these circumstances.  Whether you like it or not, men deserve some protection against false accusations.

[dazzleman]

Of course, things get murkier where we have the case that it could be that the wife consented to sex and is now attempting to screw the man over for it, but I presumed that we weren't talking about that part of things.

Well, this is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about as a potential issue.  It happens all the time, especially if the relationship is not solid, and the woman is angling for a better divorce settlement.  Don't think this type of thing doesn't happen.

I've observed abusive relationships, and in most cases, the abuse is a two-way street.  And when it's not, it is not always the woman who is the victim.  The idea that every case of domestic abuse is a purely innocent woman being terrorized and raped by a cruel and violent man (do the feminists think there is any other kind?) is mostly a fantasy.  It's actually far more complicated than that.

[dazzleman]

Well, yes.  I'm not saying that anything you've said above isn't true, only that my post was talking about marital rape itself, not any of the issues surrounding the difficulty in proving that it occurred.

I'm just trying to point out the practical difficulties involved in suddenly starting a crusade against marital rape.  In concept of course rape is wrong, but the problem is how to define in a reasonable way, that protects men from false accusations, whether or not a rape actually takes place.

The difference I have with the feminists is that they're not too concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.  I am.

[dazzleman]

Are people with Washington avatars born this condescending, or do you all take classes?

Yeah, I have some idea about the technical details of how a rape is executed.  However, as I've said, the concept seems "foreign" and "strange", not impossible.  I've never heard of an actual case of marital rape, though they may well be fairly common.  Again, its seems a bit bizarre to me.  As dazzleman said, but you've all ignored, the dynamics of itneraction change when someone is in a relationship with you.

In case you were wondering, this is the conversation I was talking about people trying to avoid when subjects like this come up.

Yes, apparently these people would be perfectly happy with a system that allows women to make false accusations of rape in order to get a better financial settlement, or better child custody arrangement, in the divorce that she is secretly planning.

I really hate this constant harping on women as victims within marriage.  The implication that women are helpless, abused victims, even of the men they have chosen to spend their lives with, permeates the liberal side of this discussion.

And those on the left have resorted to their familiar tactics of condescension, and trying to paint anybody who doesn't accept their suppositions without reservation as morons.  I'm surprised by Gabu's attitude; he never really seemed that way to me in the past.

I don't think that rape can exist within a real marriage.  This is not a legal problem, but a relationship problem.  Certainly, if a woman is truly suffering from abuse at the hands of a husband, the law should protect her, provided that she exits the relationship.  But these types of cases are a small minority of "abuse" cases.  Most abuse cases are a two-way street, and the party complaining of abuse usually remains in the relationship voluntarily for quite some time after making claims of abuse.  One cannot claim her husband "raped" her, seek a legal solution to a personal problem, and then remain in the relationship.  The solution to this so-called problem is not really a legal one, though legal measures can apply in the most extreme cases.

[dazzleman]

No/Yes.

I believe it would be extremely hard to prove this sort of case.  In fact I'm amazed one can legitimately convict in most rape cases.  Certainly within marriage is seems like one where it would be difficult for the State to determine what happened.  I prefer a very high standard of proof for prosecutions..

I agree with you.

[dazzleman]

Here's the problem with rape in a situation that is not black-and-white.  Rape is the only crime I can think of where the act itself is not a crime, but the determination of criminality rests totally on the consent of one of the parties to the act.

I don't think that's true.  If I walk into your house and ask you if I can take your television, and you say "yes", and then I take it, that's perfectly legal. 

If I walk into your house and ask if I can take your television, and you say "no", (or I never ask), and then I take it, that's a crime.

This situation may odd, but something like this is very common in the case of white collar crime, isn't it?

What is the difference between this situation and the consent involved in rape?

Good point.  If the house has signs of forced entry, and the person breaking in doesn't know you, then it's fair to say that you didn't consent.

But if there is no sign of forced entry, and the person with the TV is your best friend, claims you gave it to him and that you have now reported it stolen because you're having a fight about something else that took place after you gave it to him, then the issue becomes a lot murkier.

A case like that belongs on Judge Judy, not in the legal system.

That's the way it is with marital rape in many ways.  The relationship of marriage implies sexual availability, and unless there are signs of physical abuse, I think a conviction would be very difficult in a case like this.

[dazzleman]

I'm just trying to point out the practical difficulties involved in suddenly starting a crusade against marital rape.  In concept of course rape is wrong, but the problem is how to define in a reasonable way, that protects men from false accusations, whether or not a rape actually takes place.

The difference I have with the feminists is that they're not too concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.  I am.

I'm a male feminist, and yes I am concerned if men have their lives ruined by false accusations.

However, just like any other crime, the first priority is to protect the victim.

One could also be falsely accused of robbery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go on a crusade against robbery.

You talk about protecting the "victim."  But in the case of false accusations, the person falsely accused is the victim.  I don't think there should be an automatic presumption that a woman claiming rape is telling the truth.  There has to be some corroborating proof.

It's a lot harder to make false accusations about robbery than rape.

[dazzleman]

Yes, dazzleman, there's always the chance of someone lying about it, but if you don't mind me asking, what alternatives do you believe in?

I'm not sure I ever answered your question.

The truth is, I don't have an answer.  I think one of our biggest problems as a society is that we look to the legal system to solve the problems of our personal lives.

I certainly don't think any type of rape should be legal; I was really talking about the practicality of proving rape by a husband under constitutional requirements of guilt beyond a reaosonable doubt.

Certainly, if the wife stays with her husband after claiming he raped her, the case is out the window.

My point is that we need to recognize that there are limits to what the legal system can achieve in disputes between people that we have chosen to make a part of our lives, especially if we continue to make them a part of our lives while at the same time asking the government to somehow regulate the relationship.

I think that if a rape takes place, then there isn't a real marriage.  But marital abuse is a complicated topic, and not the black/white, man-bad/woman-victim situation that is presented by the feminists.  Most, but not all, violent relationships have two-way violence, and in some cases the woman is the abuser.  Many times, the abusee, after initially notifying police, refuses to cooperate in any prosecution of the abuser.  There is not a simple legal remedy for people who have chronic self-esteem problems and involve themselves in abusive relationships.

I think in cases where there is strong evidence that a woman was raped by her husband, then there should be prosecution.  But the reality is that other violence would have to accompany it, and they would have to stop living together.

My view on this is based on practicality, not legality.  When it comes to marriage, let the buyer beware.  That is the best defense, not the legal system.

[dazzleman]

Everett, I agree with what you said, basically.