• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Spousal Rape - Crime of Rape, or Not ?????

Can a man be criminally/legally charged with raping his wife?

  • Yes. Absolutely.

    Votes: 57 71.3%

  • No. Definitely not.

    Votes: 4 5.0%

  • Case-by-case basis. Not that black & white.

    Votes: 17 21.3%

  • Other- please explain

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Total voters
    80
roguenuke said:
Then you are not looking well enough. There have been many posted in this very thread and in fact, there have been court cases that struck down some of those laws in various states. The link you posted is current laws, not past laws. But right from that site:
Click to expand...
Those exemptions regard, for example, when a man is legally married to someone below the age of consent. Normally this would be statutory rape, but their marriage protects him from that charge.

The Senator opposed the law because he didn't see how it could be enforced. Neither do you. Neither do I. And that's my point. When there's no evidence of a rape, the wife shouldn't have a card to play to ruin her husband's reputation. The law should be struck down, but here's the thing...the law is not in jeopardy. There is no pending legal action taking place here. No pending legislation, no pending court opinion. Nothing.

Add to that the fact that this is all 12 years old.

This is why I have no reservation necro'ing a year-old thread, because here we have someone necro'ing a 12-year-old quote.
 
clownboy said:
When sex is part of legal marital duty that means to get to spousal rape at least one of the spouses has already violated the contract, yes? Want to have sex only when YOU want to, don't get married.

That said, if force is applied, again there are other charges available without the need for the whole rape question.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the part of the marriage vows or marriage laws that says that spouses must provide sexual services to each other at any time on demand. I hope that he men who think that will cooperate when their wife wants to do them with a strap-on during the superbowl.
 
Hard Truth said:
I don't recall the part of the marriage vows or marriage laws that says that spouses must provide sexual services to each other at any time on demand. I hope that he men who think that will cooperate when their wife wants to do them with a strap-on during the superbowl.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking it's the "to have and to hold" part of the vow. Sex is what "have" means. They're old vows, not modern English. To lay with her, to have her, to take her, etc.
 
Goshin said:
Some of that would be hard to prove, some of it would be hard to prove wasn't consensual, in an atmosphere of assumption-to-consent.

Coercion? As in, "Mow the grass or you don't get any this weekend?" :lamo
Click to expand...

As in, the woman is already within a situation where she is being abused, doesn't work, doesn't own anything or have anything in her name, very little education, if any, and/or she is facing many other forms of abuse and she is basically being paid for sex by her husband with basic necessities. Anything that could be used to convince a jury that a rape victim was coerced when the accused isn't married to the accuser should also be applicable when it comes to the accused being married to the accuser.

It doesn't matter how hard to prove it would be. It would honestly be just as hard to prove if it were date-rape. That doesn't mean the laws should not reflect the possibility of conviction should the evidence/proof be available. I've never argued that the evidence should be lessened for conviction, only that the laws should reflect a ability to press charges against a spouse in the case of rape, something that is unavailable when it comes to how the laws used to be, when exemptions were made for someone they are married to in rape laws.
 
Jerry said:
Generally speaking it's the "to have and to hold" part of the vow. Sex is what "have" means. They're old vows, not modern English. To lay with her, to have her, to take her, etc.
Click to expand...

No one is required to make those vows. My vows did not include that. Plus, many may consider different meanings for those words. It would still be up to the couple, not you, nor society, nor old English meanings of words within generic vows as to what they are agreeing to as intimacy or affection within their marriage.
 
Jerry said:
Those exemptions regard, for example, when a man is legally married to someone below the age of consent. Normally this would be statutory rape, but their marriage protects him from that charge.

The Senator opposed the law because he didn't see how it could be enforced. Neither do you. Neither do I. And that's my point. When there's no evidence of a rape, the wife shouldn't have a card to play to ruin her husband's reputation. The law should be struck down, but here's the thing...the law is not in jeopardy. There is no pending legal action taking place here. No pending legislation, no pending court opinion. Nothing.

Add to that the fact that this is all 12 years old.

This is why I have no reservation necro'ing a year-old thread, because here we have someone necro'ing a 12-year-old quote.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They were in place because of old school beliefs that sex was an obligation of marriage. Those cases that were being brought to court involved adults, not children or underage brides. The prosecution could not convict a spouse (particularly a husband) of rape of his wife because of such exemptions. This did not have to just do with underage brides. I can remember the UCMJ law dealing with this. It was blatant that there was exemption for marital rape under the rape article.

And I believe that most rapes are and should be difficult to prosecute, but that doesn't mean I believe we should prevent the possibility of prosecution by having exemptions within the laws.

But this was a poll, to judge others' beliefs about this, based on this being brought up in the news. It doesn't really matter to most since most on here won't be voting for or against this guy anyway. But it still is a political matter, that obviously there are still some who believe exemptions for such situations should exist that prevent husbands from being charged with rape of their spouse/wife.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that from what I see most people still use traditional vows: "I _____ TAKE you ______ to be my wife/husband. To HAVE and to HOLD, for BETTER OR FOR WORSE, For RiCHER or POORER, In sickness and in health, for long as we both shall live (or forevermore or until death do us part).

Really most should just add "NOT!" at the end of that.
 
Meh. Any woman I married who declined intimacy for more than a week or two, without a pretty damn good reason, would get her walking papers anyway. Grounds for divorce in many states, as it should be.


There's more fish in the ocean.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. They were in place because of old school beliefs that sex was an obligation of marriage. Those cases that were being brought to court involved adults, not children or underage brides. The prosecution could not convict a spouse (particularly a husband) of rape of his wife because of such exemptions. This did not have to just do with underage brides. I can remember the UCMJ law dealing with this. It was blatant that there was exemption for marital rape under the rape article.
Click to expand...
If you remember it then I'm sure you can quote it, with a working link to your source. And then there's the Senator's question of how do you prove it when there's no injury, no separation, and they share a bed anyway?
 
Jerry said:
If you remember it then I'm sure you can quote it, with a working link to your source. And then there's the Senator's question of how do you prove it when there's no injury, no separation, and they share a bed anyway?
Click to expand...

As I said, there are confessions, witnesses, and other things. How do you prove that a person was raped by a date or a roommate that they go home with? It is difficult but that doesn't mean it should be exempt from prosecution.

As for cases that dealt with this, here you go:

People v. Liberta | Casebriefs

The other two dealt with the exemptions being found unconstitutional when it comes to rape or forcible sodomy based on appeals against the laws by two different men who were convicted because they weren't married to the victim. Merton v State and Williams v State (both in Alabama).
 
roguenuke said:
Why does there have to be physical force? What if the wife is passed out drunk? What if the husband/wife is slipped a date rape drug? What if they are physically incapable of fighting back? What if the husband or wife controls the money and basically uses that control to get the sex? "If you want to sleep in the bed tonight, you have to have sex with me." Would that be merely abuse or abuse and rape? Afterall, if someone were using some other form of coercion, it can be considered rape. Basically, if it is rape between non-married people, it should also count as rape between married people. It wouldn't change the evidence or requirements to convict, "beyond a reasonable doubt", but it would allow for conviction when the evidence is there without having laws preventing that.
Click to expand...

What type of husband would slip his wife a date rape drug??

As far as money??? Do you have any idea how many woman just marry and screw men for their money?

Also, who the hell would rape their wife when shes a sleep?

That would be one dysfunctional marriage.

"I'm not ****ing you unless you give me money" sounds more like a hooker/john scenario rather than a marriage. If a woman played that **** with me she would be sleeping in the car and not my bed.
 
Goshin said:
Meh. Any woman I married who declined intimacy for more than a week or two, without a pretty damn good reason, would get her walking papers anyway. Grounds for divorce in many states, as it should be.


There's more fish in the ocean.
Click to expand...

Not after just a week, not if you expect to find her at fault for the divorce. That is way to short of time.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What type of husband would slip his wife a date rape drug??

As far as money??? Do you have any idea how many woman just marry and screw men for their money?

Also, who the hell would rape their wife when shes a sleep?

That would be one dysfunctional marriage.

"I'm not ****ing you unless you give me money" sounds more like a hooker/john scenario rather than a marriage. If a woman played that **** with me she would be sleeping in the car and not my bed.
Click to expand...

What kind of man would rape his wife forcibly? In fact, what kind of a man would slip any woman a date rape drug or get her passed out drunk to have sex with her? What kind of a man would coerce any woman to have sex with him? The same goes for women.

There are plenty of dysfunctional, and more appropriate to this conversation, abusive, marriages out there. It is sad, but true. The fact that most aren't should not be a reason to exempt spouses from rape charges for any reason that I can think of.
 
roguenuke said:
As I said, there are confessions, witnesses, and other things. How do you prove that a person was raped by a date or a roommate that they go home with? It is difficult but that doesn't mean it should be exempt from prosecution.

As for cases that dealt with this, here you go:

People v. Liberta | Casebriefs

The other two dealt with the exemptions being found unconstitutional when it comes to rape or forcible sodomy based on appeals against the laws by two different men who were convicted because they weren't married to the victim. Merton v State and Williams v State (both in Alabama).
Click to expand...
So you can't quote the UCMJ law you referred to. Got it.

Maybe if this thread were about something recent and relevant to today's laws, then I would bother looking at case law. That just takes to much time when there's nothing actually pending. So thanks for the Google search, but I just don't care this much.
 
roguenuke said:
What kind of man would rape his wife forcibly? In fact, what kind of a man would slip any woman a date rape drug or get her passed out drunk to have sex with her? What kind of a man would coerce any woman to have sex with him? The same goes for women.

There are plenty of dysfunctional, and more appropriate to this conversation, abusive, marriages out there. It is sad, but true. The fact that most aren't should not be a reason to exempt spouses from rape charges for any reason that I can think of.
Click to expand...

But you're supposed to love your wife, and you don't hurt people you love.

I'm sure there are plenty of sociopaths out there who just don't give a **** tho.

Sorry I just cant conceive of anyone doing anything like that, although I sadly know it happens.

Is causing pain and suffering worth it to just "get off."

At the same time there are plenty of woman out there who love kinky sex (and have whacked fantasies) which blurs the line even more. I've had experiences with chicks like that before and it made me highly uncomfortable....
 
Jerry said:
So you can't quote the UCMJ law you referred to. Got it.

Maybe if this thread were about something recent and relevant to today's laws, then I would bother looking at case law. That just takes to much time when there's nothing actually pending. So thanks for the Google search, but I just don't care this much.
Click to expand...

The law was changed sometime after 1985, but before 2002. I can link evidence that it was changed.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Force.html

"The most recent amendment to Article 120 made the offense of rape gender neutral and removed the spousal exception."

This thread is about whether or not there should be an exemption for spouses, something that in some cases still does exist in some states, considering that some states still have laws that treat married and non-married accused/accuser situations differently in what is required in the crime to bring charges.
 
Mr.Nick said:
But you're supposed to love your wife, and you don't hurt people you love.

I'm sure there are plenty of sociopaths out there who just don't give a **** tho.

Sorry I just cant conceive of anyone doing anything like that, although I sadly know it happens.

Is causing pain and suffering worth it to just "get off."

At the same time there are plenty of woman out there who love kinky sex (and have whacked fantasies) which blurs the line even more. I've had experiences with chicks like that before and it made me highly uncomfortable....
Click to expand...

And there are still husbands and wives who abuse their spouses. There are still husbands and wives who married for the money or some form of power. There are still husbands and wives who kill their spouses. Just because there is an expectation that you love your wife (husband) doesn't mean everyone does or that it is necessary to prove love exists either before or during the marriage.

For some people, causing pain and sadness is part of who they are. It is horrible and we need to ensure we try to protect people when we see/know about such things, but it is still part of reality.
 
roguenuke said:
And there are still husbands and wives who abuse their spouses. There are still husbands and wives who married for the money or some form of power. There are still husbands and wives who kill their spouses. Just because there is an expectation that you love your wife (husband) doesn't mean everyone does or that it is necessary to prove love exists either before or during the marriage.

For some people, causing pain and sadness is part of who they are. It is horrible and we need to ensure we try to protect people when we see/know about such things, but it is still part of reality.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is the exception not the rule..

I don't think its usual that men rape their wives.

And I don't think its "usual" that men rape anyone.

Believe it or not, woman can rape men too you know....
 
Mr.Nick said:
What you're saying is the exception not the rule..

I don't think its usual that men rape their wives.

And I don't think its "usual" that men rape anyone.

Believe it or not, woman can rape men too you know....
Click to expand...

It's really not usual for a man to rape any woman. It is highly unusual in fact. In fact, crimes in general are not done by most people, especially major crimes. Most laws cover the exception to the rule. It isn't usual really for a person to go on a shooting spree at their job, killing multiple people, but we still ensure such incidents are covered within our laws. It isn't usual for people to sexually abuse their own children, but we still ensure that our laws cover such incidents.

I advocate for laws to be changed to ensure that women can be charged with rape against men. I have said as much earlier in this thread. The only reason that sometimes I will refer to husbands raping wives more often is because a) that is more likely and b) that is the main contention being made by the representative mentioned in the OP, plus c) there are currently states that don't consider it rape if it happens to a man, particularly by a woman. Many of the laws in fact are written from the position that it will only apply to a man who rapes a woman, wife or not.
 
roguenuke said:
The law was changed sometime after 1985, but before 2002. I can link evidence that it was changed.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Force.html

"The most recent amendment to Article 120 made the offense of rape gender neutral and removed the spousal exception."

This thread is about whether or not there should be an exemption for spouses, something that in some cases still does exist in some states, considering that some states still have laws that treat married and non-married accused/accuser situations differently in what is required in the crime to bring charges.
Click to expand...
This thread is about something a politician said 12 years ago, because he's up for re-election. There is no pending legislation on this issue, no ballot initiative, nothing.
 
roguenuke said:
It's really not usual for a man to rape any woman. It is highly unusual in fact. In fact, crimes in general are not done by most people, especially major crimes. Most laws cover the exception to the rule. It isn't usual really for a person to go on a shooting spree at their job, killing multiple people, but we still ensure such incidents are covered within our laws. It isn't usual for people to sexually abuse their own children, but we still ensure that our laws cover such incidents.

I advocate for laws to be changed to ensure that women can be charged with rape against men. I have said as much earlier in this thread. The only reason that sometimes I will refer to husbands raping wives more often is because a) that is more likely and b) that is the main contention being made by the representative mentioned in the OP, plus c) there are currently states that don't consider it rape if it happens to a man, particularly by a woman. Many of the laws in fact are written from the position that it will only apply to a man who rapes a woman, wife or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we burn the criminal code because some crimes are unusual...

However, how do you define rape anyways?

Like I have previously said I have been in relationships were sometimes my girl didn't want to "have fun" but I "aggressively" got her in the mood...... Thats not rape. She just didn't want to have sex then but I did and then she did because I "put the moves on :mrgreen: and we both had a good time.. This is all before she said "no, not now don't feel like it" - but hey, the same **** happened to me before too after a hard days work where I'm just too tired.

That's not rape - that is "sacrifice" (if you want to call it that) for someone you love to make them happy.

When I think rape I think about a man beating a woman and forcing himself on her and in her and disregarding any emotion, control or feeling that woman has under the situation..... And I just cant see a husband doing that (maybe some drunk loser husband that has been abusive to others his entire life and only gives a **** about himself)... What type of woman would marry or let alone date a dick like that anyways? I understand some woman love badboys but that goes way beyond being a "badboy."
 
Mr.Nick said:
What you're saying is the exception not the rule..

I don't think its usual that men rape their wives.

And I don't think its "usual" that men rape anyone.

Believe it or not, woman can rape men too you know....
Click to expand...

All types of men will commit rape in certain situations, war is the most common one. History shows that soldiers raping the conquered enemy women has been pretty common.

That is why we need rape laws that don't exclude anyone.

That is why we should think about the reality of what we are really getting into when we are being urged to go to war.

"..As Allied troops entered and occupied German territory during the later stages of World War II, mass rapes took place, both in connection with combat operations and during the subsequent occupation that was to last many years. Most published and most numerous are the rapes committed by Soviet servicemen, for which estimates range from hundreds of thousands to two million.....

[edit]In Taken by Force, J. Robert Lilly estimates the number of rapes committed by U.S. servicemen in Germany to be 11,040.[53] As in the case of the American occupation of France after the D-Day invasion, many of the American rapes in Germany in 1945 were gang rapes committed by armed soldiers at gunpoint.[54]

Although non-fraternization policies were instituted for the Americans in Germany, the phrase "copulation without conversation is not fraternization" was used as a motto by United States Army troops...."
Rape during the occupation of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Where in the marriage contract did it say you weren't allowed to rape your wife?
Click to expand...

Right, that's why this law is needed, so some men understand that forcing their wives to have sex with them is rape and criminally chargeable. In past centuries, you can do almost anything to your wife short of*killing her and not be criminally liable, it's not a wonder to me that those men who are nostalgic about that era tend to be the same ones who want to get rid of the laws that curtail their abuses.
 
Hard Truth said:
All types of men will commit rape in certain situations, war is the most common one. History shows that soldiers raping the conquered enemy women has been pretty common.

That is why we need rape laws that don't exclude anyone.

That is why we should think about the reality of what we are really getting into when we are being urged to go to war.

"..As Allied troops entered and occupied German territory during the later stages of World War II, mass rapes took place, both in connection with combat operations and during the subsequent occupation that was to last many years. Most published and most numerous are the rapes committed by Soviet servicemen, for which estimates range from hundreds of thousands to two million.....

[edit]In Taken by Force, J. Robert Lilly estimates the number of rapes committed by U.S. servicemen in Germany to be 11,040.[53] As in the case of the American occupation of France after the D-Day invasion, many of the American rapes in Germany in 1945 were gang rapes committed by armed soldiers at gunpoint.[54]

Although non-fraternization policies were instituted for the Americans in Germany, the phrase "copulation without conversation is not fraternization" was used as a motto by United States Army troops...."
Rape during the occupation of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't rape anyone, and maybe the military should allow its servicemen and woman to have relations, just as long as it doesn't cause a conflict of interest.

Also, I think the cases of rape in Germany are a bit high....

You think the German public would be grateful for a gang of rapists. Now the Russians on the other hand are a completely different story when they marched down and basically took Berlin..... Remember US soldiers are held to the highest scrutiny imaginable....

I'm sure the Nazi's had their way with the woman tho - look at what they did when they were done with them.

I think most "violent political revolutions" or coups have a lot of rape because it's basically anarchy and everyone turns into an animal (at least most).
 
roguenuke said:
Not after just a week, not if you expect to find her at fault for the divorce. That is way to short of time.
Click to expand...


I overstated that a bit, sorry. What I mean is, if intimacy is declined for more than a week or two without a good explanation, there's a problem and there's going to be a discussion... and some kind of resolution within a reasonable period of time. Cutting off your partner without a damn good reason, whether done by the man or the woman, is a major breach of the marital relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom