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.
What a fucking shock.
@Confused, if you’re talking BDSM then consent is involved, at least if you’re doing it right. While it’s likely there are genuinely sadistic abusers masquerading as dominant partners, you shouldn’t confuse the whole BDSM community with them (or with submissive partners who aren’t actually consenting).
@marie – “I’d have prefered that over the church vows my dad + stepmom took. they were misogynistic enough and it pissed me off enough I would have walked out if it weren’t, you know, my dad’s fucking wedding.”
The old-fashioned vows are, ummmm, yeah. I can see how that would be upsetting to you.
My beef isn’t so much people writing the vows themselves as the fact that they almost never write actual, real, here-is-what-I-truly-promise VOWS.
Maybe it’s just me being a stickler for language, but I have taken vows that really mean something, and it bothers me to hear other people call something a vow, when it isn’t an actual vow.
Even if it’s just “I promise to love you for the rest of my life,” that is a VOW. Whereas, “Oh, darling, you’re the most wonderful person I’ve ever met. I love you so much, and I can’t imagine living without you,” is not a vow. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but if you’re making a commitment, please actually commit to something.
Of course, as I said, when they sign that marriage certificate/register, they are committing. Unfortunately, without spelling it out, it leaves it open to so much argument that people like Vox Day and his followers think they have an actual leg or three to stand on, because they are reading into it, based on their own warped beliefs. “My Bible says this!”
Yeah, well, my Bible says something else, buster!
The older I get, the more I believe in pre-nups. It’s not just about the money. It’s about knowing what you’re really getting into, and that you’re both on the same page, as it were.
My ideal wedding is something along these lines:
“Do you, A, take B, to be your lawful wedded spouse, according to the agreement you signed, and the laws of this land?”
“Yes.”
“Do you, B, take A, to be your lawful wedded spouse, according to the agreement you signed, and the laws of this land?”
“Yes.”
“You may now exchange your declarations.”
Much mushy romantic stuff and weepy eyes.
“I hereby pronounce you legally wed.”
See? Best of both worlds, including an affirmative commitment.
is this a bdsm thing? b/c i am not very knowledgeable about bdsm so…
there’s a difference between
“Do you wanna have chocolate icecream for dinner”
“Yeah”
and
“Do you wanna have chocolate icecream for dinner?”
“no”
“R u sure”
“yes”
“But we alwaaaaaaaaaaays get what you want for dinner and we never get what i want”
“So eat chocolate icecream yourself”
“no we are both eating it b/c we are going out to dinner for chocolate icecream”
“i don’t wanna”
“ugh you don’t love me”
“fine we can go”
in one someone suggested chocolate icecream for dinner and the other person agreed. in the other, they cajoled and whined until they got their way.
You know, this reminds me. I read once that most BDSM partnerships have an actual, written contract stipulating the acts to which the sub or bottom will or will not consent, along with when/where, and any applicable exceptions AND a safe word/signal, that must ALWAYS be respected.
Trust is a huge thing in such a relationship, and enthusiastic consent is vital.
Kinksters can understand this. Why can’t Vox Day?
Man, Confused keeps sending off more and more troll vibes to me. :/ Really wondering who they are (since they mentioned using a different name for
their trollingtheir totally innocent question.Okay, so Confused, I”m going to try to answer your questions, but I absolutely cannot, will not, guarantee being nice about it.
Did you even read anything anyone said earlier, about why some people feel the need to add ‘enthusiastic consent’, or how I thought the term was coercion?
Because it’s not actually consent if you can’t say no, because the other person ignore the no until they get a yes. FFS.
Okay, can we hang onto the ‘evil bdsm’ stuff.* Because this is just a total derail. Yes, and when people consent to bdsm, it should be willingly and enthusastically, not because they’ve been worn down by their partner who refused to take no.
*and, not that you can’t be kink critical, but I’m getting much more of an ‘evil bdsm-ers’ vibe from this.
@michelle
well, I”m not a good judge of vows vs love declarations, seeing as how I’ve only been to one wedding, and it had the aforementioned clusterfuck vows.
@Lea – WOW! That’s awful! And unfortunately common. Sociopaths are often very good at hiding their true nature, at least in the beginning.
One question, though, to help me fully understand. You said, “He was a PK and always so quiet.”
What is PK?
@confused – “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. ”
Some people actually enjoy being struck with whips and canes, as well as the insults and humiliation. They get off on it.
If they actually enjoy it, then they have the right to choose that kind of relationship. But even in that kind of relationship, they have the right to use a safe word and stop the action, any time they need to.
That is different than someone who does NOT like what is happening to them, but isn’t strong enough to stop it, for whatever reason. Submitting because you simply can’t stop it, anyway, so you might as well stop struggling and just get it over with, is WAY different! And it’s NOT right.
If you were coerced, then you were forced, not seduced, not “played,” and most certainly not loved.
@marie – “well, I”m not a good judge of vows vs love declarations, seeing as how I’ve only been to one wedding, and it had the aforementioned clusterfuck vows.”
Maybe it’s because I didn’t get a lick of sleep last night, but that “clusterfuck vows” just struck me as soooooooo funny!
“I vow to clusterfuck with you, until the stars turn cold.”
I really need to get some sleep. This is what happens when I drink a Coke at night. Good grief! It’s lunchtime!
Meh…vows.
We weren’t Christian, but the judge who married us used the Bible vows everyone knows to wed us.
He mispronounced my name.
I didn’t care. For us it was about making the commitment we already had official so that our families would take our relationship seriously. We were young an pregnant and knew that they’d say we were only “playing house” if we didn’t make it official. We would have been just as happy to have signed the forms and left. Life continued on just the same afterward. The only thing that changed was my name.
That was 18 yrs ago.
Personally, I think marriage licences should be renewable, like driver’s licences. Divorce attorneys would go broke and I think people would appreciate commitment more. Also, maybe there would be renewal parties! “Hey y’all, Come on over, we’re celebrating staying married!’ is a thing I’d like to hear people say.
Michele,
preacher’s kid.
@michelle
Well, I got plenty of sleep, and still find that hilarious XD
@Lea
Aww :3 that staying married celebration thing sounds cute.
@Emcube
One thing that if often brought up when it comes to discussing rape and understanding of rape is belief in a nebulous “bad man” that does “bad things”. I think, for sake of ego, they tend to clutch to the idea that a rapist must act in accordance to the cultural perception: the back-alley Count Dracula – a creature that comes out at night and lurks in the shadows for prey. Sorta like the killer in a horror movie: overtly obvious to everybody except those dumb sluts in the dark alley.
I sometimes wonder if they’re – and this goes for men beyond the Manosphere circles – simply disturbed by that fact that they may have a potential rapist in their social circle, and would rather not think about that.
It’s a lot easier to “hate” a monster than it is to accept that a brother, a friend, a classmate or a co-worker did something monstrous. I’m not a rapist and no one I know is, so shut up, bad people rape and that’s that!
On the other hand, I wonder if it might also come from general insecurity towards women. As with how slut-shaming is often a way to deride women who are more sexually experienced, and may be able to “sense” their lack of ability, I wonder if this is creepy related in a different way. Schrodinger’s Rapist, as a concept, elicits confusion and hostility, despite simply being a term for women being on the look out for potential rapists, and not taking someone at face-value, and actually studying how they behave and present themselves. And yet, mention it, and experience a tsunami of rage from them. They’re insecure about being judged as “creepy” or “rapey”. I judge potential women in case they might be dangerous, manipulative, using. Shouldn’t we all be on the look out for dangerous individuals? I really doubt they’d have a hard time comprehending Schrodinger’s Gold-digger.
Of course I may just be giving them too much credit.
I’m honestly baffled when they try to argue the “complexity” of consent. People either consent or they don’t. If the person is wasted drunk, don’t fuck them. If the person is ambivalent, unsure, or you’re having trouble (for whatever reason) deciphering their desires – treat it as “no” until further confirmation. The extrapolation for rapists within the movement is bizarre, and it’s almost funny to watch them try to “argue” that sometimes you just can’t be sure with her “non-verbal” signals. If you’re unsure, ask. Fact is: a potential rapist doesn’t care about her verbal/non-verbal signals. He’s only their to have his victim. Sure he might use pressure, cajoling etc at first, but it’s just a way for him to justify later using force – “she left me not options, she was unclear, her non-verbal signals were clashing” madness.
I’ve seen a lot of this in the gun control debate, too. People will claim that only Criminals use guns to hurt people, so if we can just keep Criminals from getting guns then everything will be OK. Regular people, your friends and family and neighbors, don’t use guns to hurt people, so gun control is a waste of time.
By complexity I think they mean, “But I want to fuck her anyway”. It’s “complex” because they like the idea of being owed sex.
As to not wanting to see male friends and brothers as rapists, that’s still misogyny. Because they have no trouble calling female friends and sisters liars.
Gary T. does indeed seem to be the Gary T. from AVFM. I’m putting him on moderation. He hasn’t done anything bannable here, but his posting his young daughter’s medical/psychiatric info online is troubling to say the least.
I mean, personally, I’d rather hear the latter than the former, but that’s because I don’t think it’s reasonable to promise to love someone for the rest of one’s life. That’s just not something one can guarantee, you know? That’s not to say that everyone’s not allowed their preferences on the matter, but that’s just how I see it. I do not make promises I don’t know that I can keep, and I don’t see what’s wrong with having an affirmation of love or whatever in the place of traditional vows.
My husband and I did use the standard (secular, gender neutral) wedding vows for our area, but we went over them first to make sure we found nothing objectionable or that we didn’t feel we could promise, but happily, the standard marriage vows in BC consist of promising to “afford to [spouse] the love of your person, the comfort of your companionship, the patience of your understanding; and to share equally of the necessities of life as they may be earned or enjoyed by you; to respect the dignity of their person, their own inalienable personal rights, and to recognize the right of counsel and consultation upon all matters relating to the present or the future of the household established by this marriage.”
We chose, very specifically and against the wishes and comfort of our families, to eschew traditional Catholic vows, as, despite our both counting technically as Catholics (no way out of it without trying really hard to be excommunicated, as it were) and the discomfort of our relatives with a secular ceremony, we felt that making those vows would be promising things we could not, in good faith, promise, such as the implicit promises to not use birth control, to raise any children in the faith, and to not divorce.
I can understand the desire to break with that kind of tradition, and to forgo vows, per se, especially when the traditional script is the only kind one is presented with.
And at the end of the day, all that one is legally required to promise in order to get married -at least in BC – is that there is no legal impediment to the marriage, and that you want to be married. The only other requirement is that these things be said in the presence of a marriage commissioner.
@Lea – renewable marriage licenses – that is an AWESOME idea!
Toolbox, I think you hit the nail on the head.
@david
Oh blah 🙁
I like the idea of renewing marriage vows, but as someone who once forgot to renew her driver’s license and had to pay a lot of money to fix that, I don’t want to saddle anyone with that kind of hassle for their marriage. I mean, what if, oops, forgot to renew, now I can’t visit husband in hospital?
Not that I don’t intend on a renewal of vows. I’m tentatively planning a Vegas wedding for our fifth anniversary or something. I’m thinking I want a Marilyn Monroe impersonator to officiate. BECAUSE YES. Outrageous sparkly clothes required.
That’s alright, I’ve been a compliant person for most of my life.
So I need to ask this: what about when “what others say” or more precisely “what others do” is somehting you don’t like, or you don’t want to be involved in?
How often do people get you to do things you don’t like/want/intended to?
Woha, you’re making a lot of assumptions and mixing a lot of different things in there.
1. There are people who practice dominant/submissive roles without claiming “it’s in their nature”. They just like it.
Also, many of those who do claim it’s in their nature, don’t actually go dominating/submitting to anyone who happens to walk by them. So the “nature” thing is quite an arguable one.
2. There is a difference between “telling yourself you like” something and, you know, actually liking it. I don’t tell myself I like walking, I get up and go for a walk. If I need to reassure myself that I like walking, it might be for a number of different reasons: from people trying to discourage me, to a conscious decision of going out for a walk lest I make no exercise in the whole fucking year.
Bottom line: if someone is “telling xself xe likes it”, there is a more complex situation involved and a deeper analysis is required. It does not settle the matter.
3. Consent: it is not just saying “yes” or agreeing for being worn out. Especially when there is a number of disregarding “no”s before agreeing. Consent in BDSM relationships requires explicitly consenting to what the conditions of the relationship will be.
Some people write an actual contract and sign it, which is usually done because it adds to the fantasy and horniness of kinkn.
Some people only talk about it.
Some people agree to a “no rules” relationship (and even then, the rule remains that they can get the fuck out of the relationship if they’re not happy with it). This last one is not recommendable unless you really know and trust the person you’re with, and it’s usually the evolution of some of the 2 previous type of consent.
That said, a woman “telling herself she likes” being abused because she became dependant of her abuser, is NOT consent. Unless the abuser previously and clearly stated he would beat, humiliate and rape her, and she willingly entered the relationship, it is not consent.
And as you might have guessed, abusers don’t warn their victims. They just start acting, and the very first impression they give is that of a gentle, caring person. They know how to play that role. It’s their bait.
They also target women who are already insecure/compliant/vulnerable, because they are easier to manipulate, less likely to realize what’s going on before it’s too late (abusers are masters ate making their victims believe they are the problem), and much less likely to seek help or even to obtain it if they do seek it.
A submissive nature, even if the person xself is claiming to have it, is NOT consent.
Only consent is consent.
Did I really need to write that down?
Hey, late reply to Ken, since I had to go do stuff and didn’t get to reply:
Right, America hasn’t thrown anybody in jail recently for being gay. However…
(NYTimes link discussing how American evangelists had a big role in pushing the ‘death penalty for gay people’ law in Uganda)
And why do I distinguish between Putin’s government having an anti-gay agenda and Russia being anti-gay in general?
Because goddammit if this is not the most beautiful thing a protestor could ever say on the subject.
Because there are Russians marching in the streets protesting these laws, actually.
@dustedeste – Those are really good vows! I especially like “to respect the dignity of their person, their own inalienable personal rights.” Vox Day would say that is anti-marriage, I suppose.
You know, in the olden days, marriage ceremonies with all the vows, bells, and whistles, were only for the rich and nobility. The commoners just lived together, and called each other husband/wife, and were recognized as being married.
I rather like that kind of simplicity, too. Common law has something going for it.
I heard that they changed the laws here in Texas, for common law marriage, and you have to actually DO stuff to be common law married, which begs the question, is it still a “common law” marriage, if you have to do legal stuff?
Of course, if you’re trying to get your spouse covered for insurance, common law usually won’t cut it.
Well, I guess it could also be optional.