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.
@cassandra
Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
I’m sorry if I”m being really weird today, just like everything is setting alarm bells off. Like I can’t calm down and focus.
@anand
oh. oh wow. wow.
trolly just lost all semblance of credit
You mean the war between people who want women to have rights and people who don’t want women to have rights. (;) <- still judging you.) Cuz it's so reasonable to phrase it as a war.
I mean, on one hand you've got a group of raging misogynists who women can't do right by, and a group who's been trying to fight for the rights of women*. Yeah, I can totally see how you're neutral. 😉 😉 😉 😉
*I mean, mainstream feminism has had loads of failings, but trolls never actually talk about those.
Wow. I just realized.
I don’t care.
Im not an MRA nor a feminist. The articles that i quote may or may not be offensive and to varying degrees to different people based on their defenition of misogyny. Lets not go there. (hint:a lot of feminists deny misandry while some accept its existance and that too varies with different defenitions of misandry from different people.)
@anand
Yeah, different definitions my ass.
I can define a bumble bee as a kind of anachrid, but that doesn’t make me right. It just means I don’t know much about bugs.
Anand, I’m a womanist trans lesbian, and most of the time I prefer to play nice when arguing with people I disagree with. The reasons as to why I’m like that are complicated, but one reason is that it helps me cope with anxiety.
But the thing is, it’s also entirely acceptable to respond harshly. Do you have any clue how fucking tiring it is to argue with people who are apologetic about spousal rape? It’s upsetting, tedious, and largely a waste of time. Swearing is almost a natural reaction to such bullshit.
That you view anger directed at a rape apologist as equally appalling as someone okaying the rape of women by their husbands says a lot about you. Get off your damn high horse. And while you’re at it, stop being a misogynistic shithead in your “concern” about women cheating on their husbands as a result of empowerment from marital rape laws. Even better, GTFO and tale your tone policing to your beloved men’s rights “activists”.
I feel like that needs a citation. It seems to me you’re being either wilfully ignorant or disingenuous. It’s more likely those instances of feminists denying the existence of misandry are probably disagreeing with the use of the word in a particular case since MRA types love to shout about various forms of misandry like having to pay child support (hint: that’s not misandry). (Although it is funny that misandry keeps coming up as a misspelled word)
@cupisnique
Well, I deny that misandry is a systematic thing, if that’s what trollboy means when he says ‘denying misandry’.
A lot of the stuff that AVFM publishes is considered offensive even by people who aren’t feminists and who probably wouldn’t think to define it as “misogynistic”. “Hateful” tends to be the alternative that people like that come up with to describe it.
This is how MRAs view insults:
MRA: I think you’re still a biological
male even though you identify as a she.
Trans woman: Fuck you.
MRA: How dare you say such a thing. Whatever happened to rational, objective discourse?
Ally s, i agree with what you say but would have believed your first paragraph if you didnt insult me in the third. But i can see where you’re coming from. Mistaking me for a misogynist is not cool though, i dislike anyone who breeds hatred.
Cupisnique,
I cant seem to post links but do google it sometime. As you’ve said, feminists are not a monolith and are normal people which also means that different feminists have different defenitions of misandry and likewise different MRA’s have different views about misandry(ie not all of them are trolls, some of them have lives.)
Some feminists deny misandry, some say it exists with no real world effects on the lives of men and some say it does effect lives of men. Everone has their own opinions and it differs with their perception of the world. Some MRAs believe women are evil while some feminists think men are evil whereas most of them are rational people with different opinions. There are crazy people on both sides.
That being said, i have no wish to make this a debate as i have no illusions of turning feminists into mra’s or vice versa with my posts.
I’d say that it ought to be forbidden to publicly reveal this sort of personal information about a child, period. There’s a reason children can’t legally consent: They simply don’t have the understanding to grasp the repercussions of what they’re doing. And the fact that she can’t understand doesn’t mean that someone else should be able to decide for her. After all, we don’t say “children can’t meaningfully consent to sex, so their parents get to decide who has sex with them.”
Huh, so if people say things that you find insulting then you don’t believe other things that they say. Logic clearly isn’t a strong point for you.
Ally s, im not an MRA and i hve no idea where transphobia came into the picture. Anyone who says such things are awful people, feminist or mra.
So I get the feeling troll is doubling down on the tone-policing.
@Anand
Cassandrakitty, she mentioned in the first paragraph that she ‘plays nice’ with people she argues with. 😛
everyone thank me for my sacrifice to the blockquote mammoth XD
@anand
she was giving an example of someone saying something truly atrocious and a ‘fuck you’ response, where the first person acts like that’s an insult to them.
So, kinda an example of the shit you’re defending.
@anand
And you still manage to take offense?? I mean, maybe I missed it but what did she say that offended you?
Or you are just objecting to anything she says cuz you have no real points?
Anand, honey, considering how condescending you’re being to everyone here Ally’s comment was about as nice as you can reasonably expect.
Marie, im not defending anyone. I just dont like people it when people use offensive language. But forget it.
Read my response to cassandrakitty.
@ Marie
He was actually referring to this comment.
Which, yeah, about as nice as he can reasonably expect in the circumstances. Though if for some reason he wants to see mean and Ally’s not up for it I can certainly fill in that gap.
Believe whatever you want about me, Anand. I don’t respond contemptuously for no reason. I responded that way to you because I know plenty of folks behaving like you and also being jerks. You have shown yourself to be one as well due to being so damn self-centered. Had you not behaved that way, I’d respond more nicely – like countless others.
@cassandra
oh, sorry, I knew the comment, I just didn’t see the insult. I guess she called him a misogynistic shithead once, upon re-read. But still, it was a mostly cuss free response, and way nicer than he deserved.
Also confused since I’ve been cussing him out non-stop since he showed up, but he nitpicks Ally calling him a shithead once. ^-^
I love how Anand has just noticed that there is swearing on the internet. Bless his delicate little heart, we all better be careful what we say from now on.
(I’m British, I don’t have to swear to be nasty to you. But hey, I’m also Scottish so I’m happy to oblige if it will help!)
All i want to say is:
I agree with the entire article about consent and why its nessasary. I explicitly said that im not defending that guy with his daughter at the beginning. I just wanted to drop in a small suggestion that the language is a bit offensive and it would be cool if it were toned down. But that’s just my opinion. Different people have different opinions and i respect your’s when it comes to feminism. Its a basic human right to agree and disagree with different things on an individual level. People have a right to be or not be feminists and have personal opinions about different things including feminism. I just think that a little less aggression would be cool and even that’s just a personal opinion.
-ordinary person who reads different perspectives.
And I didn’t say I always play nice when arguing – I said I prefer to do so. Big difference.