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.
For brain bleach, here’s my Darrow. Hopefully this will post as a link not a giant embed.
https://twitter.com/weirwoodtreehug/status/468236743703932928/photo/1
Damnit. I hope no trolls twitter stalk me. This will be the last time I try to link something from twitter!
Darrow is adorable!
OT: Anyone know where auggziliary went? I haven’t seen her around here for like a month so far.
Darrow’s got pwetty paws!
Emily:
I do not assert that figuratively. In my conversations with treating professionals, that was confirmed most recently, addicted and unneeded.
It should have never happened in the first place. It was an unnecessary torture, so as just to assuage other people’s overreaction and misunderstanding.
David, you misquote me.
I NEVER said that a spouse has the right to rape. I emphasized that point over and over, but to no avail.
What I said, for the nth time, was that the threshold level of credibility is different for such an accusation, because of the rebuttable presumption that sex is consensual.
A married man going into a police station, and trying to file a criminal complaint accusing his wife of raping him, is going to be looked at with a lot of skepticism and probably with demands of some more physical evidence than just his word.
Yes, I know they are like schoolhouse bullies, but I kinda expected that kind of treatment here, so I am not too shocked, just hoping for a little civility.
I am guessing my presence here is very disturbing, as I am strongly affiliated with their arch enemies at AVFM, and it must be like a cobra in the lemur preserve.
Our differences notwithstanding, I still would like to say ‘cant we just all get along’?
Everything I have ever said is provable and true about what has happened to my daughter.
Having chosen to publicize her plight may be rightly criticized by some, but is equally lauded by others.
I choose the light of day for those events. This way there will never be a revisionist history of what transpired, and of my tireless efforts to save her.
What is happening now is more important to act upon, than to hide it under the propositional prediction that maybe sometime in the future, these facts made public might or could be embarrassing.
Such concern subsumes the life-threatening seriousness of the situation, and presumes a future that may not come unless something is done about it now.
Yep, and that’s why you’re a total shithead.
Because there actually are men who have been raped by their wives and you’re the asshole who would make it impossible for them to get justice.
And this dudebro’s part of AVfM. “Compassion for Men and Boys.”
w u t
I know, I know, deck chairs on the Titanic, but there are no cobras in Madagascar.
Gary, you seem to have a tendency to see what you expect to see rather than what is actually there. My comment was not referring to you. I was talking about Vox Day, the subject of the OP. I referred to him in my comment by name.
But you’re not wrong to detect hostility here. You are wrong to attribute it (mostly?) to your connection to AVFM, though certainly that doesn’t help. People are reacting to what you are saying here, and some people are reacting to what you have written on AVRM and to your videos.
People are legitimately concerned about you exposing information about your daughter when you could have easily kept her name and other personal info out of it.
And they are concerned, as am I, that what you are doing may be more motivated by your animosity towards your ex than it is by reasonable concerns about your daughter. For one thing the specific claims you’ve made here and on AVFM about the dangers of the drugs in question aren’t true.
The meds you mentioned aren’t addictive according to any source I can find; one of them I know has significant withdrawal symptoms but that isn’t the same as being addictive. Hell, I take several meds that have serious withdrawal symptoms. And your claim about “permanent parkensonism” seems to be pulled from thin air; the only reference I found to that online was your own article.
Also, didn’t you serve time in prison on charges related to manufacturing ecstasy, a drug that can have seriously dangerous side effects and that is often abused? And you’re worried about the alleged addictive properties of a psych med that doesn’t have any addictive properties and that unlike ecstasy has been tested by the FDA?
Look at Darrow’s little shooooooooooooes!
Pffft. Gary thinks he’s a cobra who’s magically gone to Madagascar.
Cobra in the mongoose reserve would be more like it. He’s poisonous, but that’s not going to stop him getting ripped to shreds.
Feminists are Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.
Gary has a serious martyr complex.
@weirdwoodtreehugger
thanks for your advice :3 Though, I’ve already told this to him and nothing happened, so…
I live with my mom and my sister, and my mom has some problems but is in general more willing to listen and actually learn, tho sometimes she still can make me face palm.
aww, you have a cute kitty.
@ally
Sorry, I don’t know 🙁
@Gary
suuurrrreee it was. I totally believe you.
/sarcasm.
No. You really did not.
Don’t worry, we heard you. We just don’t agree with you. Because you’re a creepy rape apologist.
I am not civil towards rape apologists. you want me to be civil, change your views. Or at least shut up.
A common phrase privileged people who aren’t getting their rights taken away like to mutter. I don’t get along with rape apologists.
It’s not publicizing her plight getting you criticized, it’s publicizing her plight under her real name when she doesn’t know the consequences it could have for her future.
Stop being intentionally obtuse.
Sounds pretty accurate.
I hate reading shit from people trying to hide their bigotry behind intentionally obtuse and convoluted wording/phrasing. You are not fooling anyone, Gary.
looks like I should have cited Marie~
Hey, maybe I am fooling myself?
That would be someone.
I keep telling Gary that he’s not fooling anyone here, but I guess that he’s really playing to any lurking MRA readers.
Lets see if this works
I’ve got an uncivil gif for Gary
OH, SNAP.
In musical form. Sing along now, everyone!
I love Millie Jackson.