Apparently worried that the world might forget what a thoroughly reprehensible human being he is, fantasy author and freelance bigot Vox Day (Theodore Beale) has decided to bring up the issue of marital rape again – in order to assert, as he has many times in the past, that marital rape doesn’t actually exist.
In a post yesterday on his blog Vox Populi, Beale notes with obvious pleasure that an Indian judge recently ruled that marital sex, “even if forcible, is not rape,” thus upholding a section of the Indian Penal Code that refuses to acknowledge marital rape as rape.
Beale crows:
Some of my dimmer critics have attempted to make a meal out of my factual statement: a man cannot rape his wife. But that is not only a fact, it is the explicit law in the greater part of the world, just as it is part of the English Common Law. …
The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West presently call some forms of sex between a husband and wife “rape” does not transform marital sex into rape any more than a law that declared all vaginal intercourse to be rape would make it so.
Unfortunately for Beale, simply declaring that the world is on his side on this one does not make it so. It not simply a handful of “ lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West” that see marital rape for what it is. The United Nations has recognized marital rape as a human rights violation for more than two decades. And the world is coming around to this point of view.
While (as of 2011) only 52 countries had laws specifically criminalizing marital rape, many others don’t have a “marital rape” exemption to their rape laws, meaning that in more than 100 countries marital rape can be prosecuted. And that number will inevitably grow.
Here’s a map from Wikipedia showing the countries (in red) in which marital rape is illegal. The countries in black allow marital rape. In the other countries, it’s a bit more complicated. (See here for the details.)
But for now, at least, Beale is happy for another chance to explain the toxic “logic” behind his assertion that “marital rape” is impossible.
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of “marital rape” for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed.
Now, by Beale’s logic, a husband is entitled to force his wife to have sex over her screaming objections. Since “consent is ongoing,” in Beale’s version of marriage, a woman could say no or even fight back against her husband’s advances, but none of this would count as non-consent because once a woman is married there is no such thing.
But of course Beale doesn’t want to have to defend what is obviously – at least to anyone with any humanity – violent rape. So he tries instead to restrict the debate to the seemingly innocuous practice of “wake-up sex.” After all, what guy doesn’t want to be woken up with a blow job?
But even this example isn’t as persuasive as he thinks it is. Some people like to be woken up in an “intimate manner,” at least some of the time; some don’t, and you don’t get to override their desire not to be sexually manhandled in their sleep just because you’re married to them. And while drunk sex is not necessarily rape, marriage doesn’t give you the right to force sex on a partner who is intoxicated to the point of incapacity.
And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is “divorce”.
No, that word is “no.” There is no such thing as ongoing consent to sex. The fact that you are married to someone doesn’t give you the right to have sex with them whenever and wherever you want, whether they want to or not, any more than the fact that someone is a professional boxer gives you the right to punch them in the head any time you feel like it.
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
No, Mr. Beale, you having the right to do whatever you want to with your dick is not the basis of civilization itself. Civilization, in fact, is built in part on the repression of some of our darkest desires. Part of growing up is reconciling ourselves to the sad fact that we can’t just do whatever the hell we want to all the time; Freud described this as putting behind the “pleasure principle” of infancy and early childhood for the “reality principle” that governs the more mature mind.
Beale seems to be driven not only by a desire for instant sexual gratification, whenever and wherever he wants, but also by a certain degree of sexual insecurity. In a previous post on the subject, he wrote:
If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her! It would make no sense whatsoever to marry a woman who believes that being married to her grants her husband no more sexual privilege than the next unemployed musician who happens to catch her eye.
Beale seems to think that if married women are allowed to say no to their husbands, they’ll desert these poor beta schlubs en masse in favor of scruffy alphas with guitars. At the root of all his arguments against the idea of marital rape is an obvious terror of unrestricted female choice.
In a way Beale’s petulant, self-serving defenses of marital rape serve a positive function, in that they help to remind us how abhorrent the practice is and how nonsensical the “arguments” in favor of allowing it really are.
Every time he opens his mouth on the subject, he helps to strengthen the growing consensus against marital rape.
@Michelle – common law marriage, maybe that’s the word I’ve often found myself searching for in English…
In Sweden it’s really common for people to live together and have kids without being married. One of my sisters, for instance, lives with a man in a big house which they owe together, and they have a child. In Swedish, he’s her “sambo” (and she’s his, it’s a gender neutral term). “Sambo” simply means someone you’re having a serious romantic relationship with and also live with. But I never quite know what word to use in English… Partner? Sounds like, idk, a business partner or something. Boyfriend/girlfriend? Doesn’t convey the level of commitment and the fact that they’re actually living together. Maybe common law husband is the right word? Although it’s really long compared to “sambo”. I really wish there were a neat English translation for that!
Own. They own their house, they don’t owe it. English slip.
hugs for twincats
@ Confused
Have you been to the Pervocracy (link on the right under ‘Antidotes’)? It’s a good (mostly SFW) BDSM blog that talks a lot about consent. Much of what you can learn there can be applied in non-BDSM and even not sexual relationships. Also, read Captain Awkward. Excellent blog about relationships, consent, and enforcing your boundaries (and much, much more).
@leftwingfox – Yeah, denial is a big thing there.
See, if you’re a true ally, then when someone calls you out on your behavior, you apologize, and take it as a learning experience. I had that happen just a couple of days ago. We were discussing rap, and I learned about another aspect of my white privilege, and how the whole media portrayal of rap was focusing on blacks, and was racist.
If you’re sincere, then you say, “Thank you for teaching me/correcting me. I’ll try to do better in the future.” After all, that’s how we learn. None of us were born as fully aware social justice warriors, and we learn one step at a time.
But if you’re being called out, and all you can do is deny and defend, well, that’s a big red flag right there, pointing to the fact that you’re not really as “nice” as you claim to be.
Gary, I can’t let though any comments from you in which you make those sorts of allegations about your ex-wife. That’s a general policy here.
As for the medical information, you posted links on AVFM to testimony you put online giving details of your daughter’s therapy, her diagnoses, etc etc. To me that is troubling. I know that you feel she is being “drugged,” but I don’t understand why you would feel the need to post all these details, and to not only post her name but post it in the headlines of your AVFM posts.
In any event, this is not the place to publicize your case.
Totally unrelated but cool thing I just saw on my Facebook feed – single women should from now on be legally allowed to get inseminated by donated sperm in Sweden. It used to be the case that a woman was only allowed this if she had a husband/wife (or the common law equivalent – using a new term I just learnt! 😉 ). In Denmark, on the other hand, insemination of single women was always legal, meaning “a trip to Denmark” eventually became an established euphemism for getting donor sperm… But from now on, Swedish women will be allowed to inseminate in their own country.
Twincats, so sorry that happened to you! Thank you for sharing it.
Toolbox, I am sorry about your story. Hugs. You are right about abusers. And this “well the husband is the husband, so he is entitled to sex” thread is absolutely abuser talk.
@dustedeste – OMG! Your story just reminded me. I met a woman who actually got common-law married on accident! Fortunately, once she figured it out, she was able to get common-law divorced easily enough. Still, it made for a good story. I wish I could remember all the details. It was just fascinating, when she told it to me.
This woman was full of stories. She was one of those “extremely rare” cases, so rare law-makers barely even admit that they exist, of a woman who got pregnant by rape. I’m sorry. I mean “legitimate” “forcible” rape. By a stranger. All that jazz.
She couldn’t accept or bond with her baby, but for religious reasons could not abort it, so she gave it up for adoption. She chose a family that she liked very much, and with whom she was good friends. Unfortunately, seeing the baby with them was so triggering, that she eventually had to cut off the relationship with the family, for her own sanity. True, the adoption was her choice. She HAD the choice, though.
I shudder to think of how it would have been for her, if she’d been married to the man!
@Skye – Oh, the “good man” project! Oh, my gosh, yes, I remember that. It was horrible!
Shaking with rage when I read that, and now I’m trembling again, just thinking about it.
@Twincats – I had to remind myself to breathe, and pick up my jaw, after reading that. Oh, I am so sorry! That is just awful! You were violated in so many different ways.
All the Jedi hugs you want, coming your way!
@Toolbox – maybe you should change your name to Captain Hammer, because you keep nailing it.
To clarify: I meant Vox was absolutely talking like an abuser. Not that we commenters are doing abuser talk.
RE: The victim verbally abused, so I snapped and hit her – and people “making” you get violent.
I have often said that I feel like smacking people around. When I am angry at someone, I feel like smacking them. Sometimes I feel like punching them. Sometimes I rub my hands together, chuckling evilly, while muttering about cheese graters and lemons.
However, I have not raised my hand in anger at someone in over twenty years. In fact, the last time I raised my hand against someone it was literally in self defense.
It’s called self-control.
Apparently, I have loads of self-control. But instead of self-controlling myself away from baby-flavored donuts and bacon-wrapped puppies stuffed with bon-bons, I self-control away from purposely hurting other people. All this fat is evidence of how much self-control I have directed at my violent impulses, not leaving any left for the diet.
Clearly, my priorities are skewed.
Screw it. I’m not changing them. I’d rather be fat and kind than thin and mean.
@Dvärghundspossen – Back in the 80’s, they called it a POSSLQ (pronounced posselkew) – which stands for Person of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters. That was shortened to SO – Significant Other – although that does not necessarily denote someone who lives with you. Partner is also frequently used. Boyfriend/girlfriend/special friend/”boo,” and other terms abound. English really doesn’t have anything as precise as your language. Too bad.
Common law marriage, however, is different than just a romantic couple living together. Although common law marriage may not be recognized for insurance benefits, people have sued for alimony when they break up, on the basis of having been married under common law. It’s very sticky and confusing, and depending on your state, the outcome of such a suit can be very unclear. However, it does give you some legal standing. However, without the claim to common law marriage, if you split, you just split and work it out as best you can, without any legal entanglements.
Depending on your state, common law marriage has different requirements. 30 years ago, a person could common-law marry someone simply by saying “this is my husband/wife” to witnesses (in Texas). I know this, because someone actually tried to do that to my sister! She caught on in time, though and denied it, and crisis averted! The laws regarding common law marriage here, however, have changed since then, and people have to actually jump through a few hoops. No more accidental marriages. In Texas. I don’t know what it might be like in other states. I only know it can be very problematic.
For example, say you lived with someone for ten years, but you never got married. Then, you split up, amicably. All’s well, until you meet the person of your dreams, and you want to actually get married. Now, you find out that you can’t get married, because you are already common-law married to your previous SO. You now have to get a divorce, so that you are free to marry your new love.
Is that an issue with a sambo?
@Dvärghundspossen – Oh, that is fantastic news! Congratulations to Sweden!
That’s really gross. As she gets older and has a social media presence and applies for jobs, anyone can google her and see all these private psychiatric issues that she never consented to have publicized.
It seems Gary doesn’t understand consent in more ways than one. It also seems he cares more about himself than he does the well being of his child.
Hugs to anyone who needs them.
And brain bleach:
Cute puppies:
http://www.simpledeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/dog-sniffs-puppy.jpg
http://www.simpledeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/super-fluffy.jpg
And a kitten:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hj8t-TJyuXo/T6SEbqugoDI/AAAAAAAADYk/CE8ai0s0b40/s1600/cute-kitten.jpg
I want to put the idea that a kinky submissive partner is actually a wilting little flower who cannot say “no” to bed right now. I know too many kick ass subs and switches for that to be the case.
twincats,
I’m so sorry that he did that to you.
Hugs, if you want them.
I don’t have photo brain bleach, but one of my cats keeps trying to steel things in plastic bags. It started with a bag of craft sponges. Yesterday it was rolls of toilet paper. Today she found a Ziplock of hot glue gun glue sticks. I have to hide them or keep them out of her reach, or she drags them around the house. She’s a very silly cat.
weirwoodtreehugger:
This. This really seems to be the case with a lot of these father’s rights activists.
Lea:
Ramen! I don’t understand why people think that what someone prefers sexually has anything to do with their overall personality or any other aspect of their lives.
I mean, knowing what someone prefers in bed doesn’t tell me a whole lot about what kind of person they are.
And in almost all those cases it’s obvious that, if anything, the relationship makes the act more probable. Of course it’s more likely that your angry ex vandalized your car than a random stranger! Of course a non-custodial parent is more likely to kidnap your kids than someone you don’t know!
It’s really been heartbreaking to read the examples of sexual abuse and manipulation in this thread.
Maybe it’s me because I find people that are extreme, everything-is-black-or-white type thinkers repulsive, but the whole splitting hairs thing about what constitutes rape and consent is creepy as fuck. It’s not that complicated or hard, and it is really disturbing that some men are so obsessed about where the “mysterious” fine line is.
There is not one thing I would ever consent to do without question for the rest of my life other than to lay my life down for my kids. Period. The idea that I, or anyone else, should be required to agree to some edict of perpetual compliance to something as intimate and personal as sexual activity so selfish and sleazy abusers don’t have to face the fact that they are rapists/abusers is absurd.
I don’t believe for a minute that anyone is confused over what rape or consent is. What we’re talking about here is people that are so extreme in compartmentalizing their thinking that they want others to agree to their manipulation so they don’t have to feel bad about taking whatever they want from others without abiding by what they want for themselves.
As far as Vox Day and all the other “leaders” in the manosphere, it’s no surprise that they are a bunch of posing fakes. The men that hang on their every word would be smart to heed the old saying about how if they’ll do it with you, they’ll do it to you. In other words, for those that need it spelled out, you’re being conned.
Gary is a lovely little onion of awful, isn’t he? Anyway, moving on. I don’t love “partner” either, because it does sound a bit business-like, but I don’t think there is a good alternative in English. We could use one.