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.
“pleasant feminists”
Because it’s important that dudes find you “pleasant” while you advocate for your rights.
HAHAHA! No it’s not.
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140201140839/sistersgrimm/images/b/bf/Sayeth_What.gif
Wait, our tone troll thinks women having a choice in who and when she has sex with = cheating? So, if my husband cannot force me to have sex with him, I must be cheating on him…or something?
I’m so glad Xe fucked off.
Are you even fooling yourself though? If so, I suggest you take the time to become a little more self-aware and actually analyse your motives and opinions (not that it’s likely to happen).
re “sambo”: I use partner (though I can use wife now, should I do desire). This has the interesting effect of people often presuming I am gay.
This bit of playing with people’s expectations pleases me mildly.
Confused§: I’m worried about the names people may call me, so I ask this under another screen name: If someone is pressed, cajoled and worn down until they say yes to something they do not want, is it rape? It is lousy, but does the word “rape” apply?
It can. Oftentimes it should. The idea that consent can be extracted, rather than the idea it needs to be given, is a huge factor in why rape is so prevalent. The secondary idea that extracting it from a man is fundamentally different from extracting it from a woman is another.
Rape is a complicated thing, because part of it is subjective. But at it’s root rape is sex the other person didn’t really want to have.
So yes, the word rape applies.
But (and I’ll find out soon enough) I suspect you aren’t asking in good faith. That you are going to argue that “yes” means yes, always and everywhere, and that only a “properly” delivered no counts as non-consent).
And here it is.
What is consent? Isn’t it saying yes to something, agreeing to it?
Saying yes to something isn’t always agreeing to it. Think of someone who doesn’t want to take out the trash, but is socially obliged to. Or of agreeing to appear in court to respond to a traffic citation.
Those are, “agreements” but they are constrained.
I guess someone with a submissive nature is the one kind of person who cannot say “no” strongly enough against a cruel person with a dominant nature – especially if the submissive is in love.
Bullshit.
One, “cruel” has nothing to do with dominant,and “submissive” doesn’t mean doormat. I’ve gone out with some submissive women. When they didn’t want to be submissive, they weren’t. They weren’t pushovers, they had some specific ideas about what made for sex they enjoyed. At least one of them and I broke up because she wanted things I didn’t, and insisted on them to to the point I said, “nope” (and no, since it’s likely to come up, that wasn’t about sex, it was about other aspects of our relationship).
And secondly because there are people who claim they are “naturally submissive” who are in relationships with dominant, sadistic people who punish them with whips and canes and insult and humiliate them – and they believe it is okay, because they said yes to it. It seems to me that is, like marital rape, something that they may tell themselves is okay because that is what the community tells them?
They believe it’s ok because it is… to them. It’s also the case that those are (in healthy relationships) negotiated behaviors. Even in “total submission” relationships there are boundaries. The submissive partner has spent time with the dominant partner, and they each know the others general kinks. Furthermore, if the dom abuses the privileges the sub has granted, the sub can (and will) leave.
Which is at odds with Teddy Beale’s worldview. He posits the woman is property, and the man can dispose of her as he sees fit.
§Yeah, it’s old, but it’s a reply to a comment of mine, and I feel strongly on it.
Gary T: BTW your language is atrocious.
Good parenting involves civil discussion, but then you should know that.
Oh For Fuck’s Sake.
Good parenting does require civil discussion, between parent and child.
Are you our child? No? Then we have no reason to be falsely polite to you, just because you are self-valorising an abuse you have perpetrated, are continuing to perpetrate, and are defending.
That’s a fuck-headed thing to do. That you chose to do it on AVfM, moves it from the realm of casual harm (i.e. you did it without thinking) to the (at best) apallingly negligent harm (a good parent would have exercised a bit of caution, and seen that AVfM was an arm of the Abusers’ Lobby), or a wilfully malignant act.
As such you don’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding we treat you as some sort of saintly dude, “just out to protect his daughter”.
You want to campaign against over-medication. Fine. I’m for it. That’s not what you are doing. 1: The programs which aired the details you are trying to make parallel to yourself, aren’t. The ability to anonymise the children was present. Such programs have protocols. The children took an active part (though it’s not clear they have the total understanding I’d like, they did actually interact with the interviewers; which can’t be said of your daughter’s presence on AVfM).
2: AVfM isn’t a place where one goes to find out about overmedication of children. It’s a place one goes to either laugh/cry at the misogyny in the world, or to hate on women.
3: They are the people whom you chose to give this to; so they could use it to hate on women; using your ex, and your daughter of their “perfidy”.
4: You defend this as, “in the best interests of your daughter”.
Ergo you are either a fool, a liar; both a fool and a liar, or a hateful piece of shit who doesn’t care what happens to his daughter so long as he can make his ex look bad. It’s also possible you just feel so badly as a result of the divorce that you don’t care who it is who tells you it wasn’t your fault.
None of those reflect well on you.
Given that we know about AVfM, and we have strong opinions about consent, care of children and AVfM; that more than a few of us have children (or younger siblings, or friends with children) you are being treated far more courteously than someone looking from the outside might have expected.
People should be judged by their attitude, motives and by their behavior, not by how they would assess themselves to others.
Which is what we have done for you. That you dislike our judgement isn’t our problem. You made a bed, you get to lie in it.
I can say, I do not believe I deserve the acrid vitriol that I am subject to here; I have only been polite and respectful.
Nope. You have chosen to not use “bad words” there is a decided difference between not saying, “you fuckers” and actually using politesse.
Oh Gary, you disingenuous twit:
Interesting how much importance you place on giving the child the right of consent.
Do you think she was given that option, or gave consent when they did what they did to her?
The answer is no. It was just done, and it was done against my consent as well for her.
I have no idea what her doctor told her. I have no idea if the doctor made the right call.
1: I am not a doctor (are you?). 2: Even if I were a doctor; with that specialisation, I’ve not observed the patient; don’t know the patient’s history, nor have I the ability to observe the results of treatment.
What I have is you; and you are an unreliable witness. You have several agendae, one of which is to demonise your ex-wife. Since I have no one’s testimony but yours. You have admitted to bias, used your daughter to further your ends, and given her story to misogynists; that they may use it as they see fit. Given that, I don’t really have any reason to give you the benefit of any doubt.
This, by the way, was done “politely”. Do you feel better because I didn’t use bad language?
Anand: Ally s, i agree with what you say but would have believed your first paragraph if you didnt insult me in the third.
Idiot.
If it’s true, it’s true, no matter what the subsequent paragraphs say/sound like.
I’m also amused (predictably) that when pressed you can’t actually find the better things in the “mixed bag” of AVfM.
In fact, when pressed you “can’t do links” (not even to the level of cut/paste), but assure us that if we google it, we will be persuaded to your line of thinking.
Nope. If you want to convince someone, you have to make an actual argument. Until you do, you will (and should be) dismissed out of hand.
Marie, im not defending anyone.
No, you aren’t defending anyone; you are specfically attacking someone.
I just dont like people it when people use offensive language.
Sucks to be you, asshole.
<its a basic human right to agree and disagree with different things on an individual level.
And we disagree with you; strongly, in our individual capacities, just like you wanted. Happy now?
LOL, me too. I say “partner” because after eight years, “boyfriend” doesn’t seem strong enough. People are often confused (and gay people are often a little disappointed, which I feel bad about).
Gary T: 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.
So… you think it ought to be harder for a woman who was raped to get justice, just because she’s married to the rapist.
Because making the presumption that rape is consensual sifts the burden of proof. The default state you endorse is that husbands can’t “really” rape their wives. What, one wonders, would count as rebuttal to the presumption you posit?
Oh look: 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.
And rather than make it more likely he will be treated fairly, you want to make it so that women are treated less fairly than the already unfair treatement they get now.
I kinda expected that kind of treatment here, so I am not too shocked, just hoping for a little civility.
All things considered, you got much more than a little.
Pecunium:
“Jane, you ignorant slut”
Ok, now that we have gotten the salutations out of the way . . .
It is hard to discuss anything if no matter what I say you are going to cast as ingenuous and nefarious.
The simple fact is, you don’t have the time or inclination to verify anything I say, although it is all provable by independent documentary evidence, you don’t have to take my word for it.
The drug my daughter was given, without either her or my consent, was later proven to be a bad, incorrect and contraindicated substance. This was verified to me directly.
As to agendas, obviously as a neutral term, we all have them. Whether they are bad faith agendas is really the question.
As to my agenda(s), you state that I am out to ‘demonize my ex-wife’. But just because you state it doesn’t make it true.
My ex-wife is who she is, she has made unilateral choices for herself and for our daughter, and seeks to shut me out of her life entirely. I don’t have to demonize anything, the simple facts are there on public record for anyone who is interested enough to see.
I will go so far as to say she isn’t a bad person, she does what she thinks is right and what she think is in the best interests of our child, whether or not it is I leave that up to others to make up their mind.
And yes, done ‘politely’ was nicer.
I let through that last comment by Gary reluctantly.
I am BANNING FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS TOPIC. That is, anything related to Gary’s situation re his daughter and ex-wife. Everyone has made their basic points and I don’t think there is any way to discuss this further that does not invade the privacy of said ex-wife and child. I certainly do not have all my questions answered by Gary, but I am going to drop it, and I want you all to drop it too. At least here.
Gary, you can continue to comment, but not on your case.
Good idea, David.
Thanks.
Gary: I see you have bupkis to say about the ways you want to make it easier for women to be raped by their husbands/intimate partners.
I’m so not surprised.
Why would you want to make it easier for women to be raped by their husbands?
Reblogged this on oogenhand.
@Gary T
That’s the question you should be asking yourself. Because Pecunium isn’t the one determined to make it impossible to prosecute husbands who rape their wives. Pecunium, like me, is wondering: why do you want a higher standard of proof if rapist and victim are married, Gary?
I don’t think it should ever be made easier for a spouse to be raped at all.
No, you just think it should be easier for the rapist spouse to get away with it.
Gary, you’re the one who said a rape victim was less believable if the rapist was the spouse. You said it in a tone that suggested you were OK with that. You didn’t say it in a way that would lead us to think this is appalling.
No, you just think that I think that it should be easier for a raping spouse to rape with impunity.
I said that and more, but in context I was making the general observation that some claims of rape are more believable than others.
I did not address whether there was a rape or not behind the claim(s), just that some circumstances are more indicative initially to an investigator than others.
I am not good or bad with that, it is an unremarkable observation that was much more germane in the original thread.
Why do you think a claim of rape made by a wife against her husband is less believable than another sort of claim, then?
You said the burden of proof should be higher for spouses. Excactly what effect do you think that will have, dumbass?
Oh no, there’s no way anyone could figure out what Gary is hoping the results of that would be. Much mystery, so confusion.
Beale is also deliberately non-responding to the point that a woman can have sex far more often than a man, and that by the standard he is supposedly making, a man who can’t get it up 20 times a day, if the woman wants sex that often, would be in violation of the marriage contract.