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

Jerry said:

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.

Click to expand...

This thread was started because of that. However, that really wasn't what was asked. The question itself is still valid and there are obviously people who still believe that there should be an exemption, people like that politician. Granted, it isn't a popular belief at all, but it obviously still exists. Plus, there are still differences in the laws regarding rape and marriage status in how they are dealt with (earlier links already show this).

Mr.Nick said:

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."

Click to expand...

Rape is if a person says no, and the other continues anyway, despite no actual consenting, then it is rape. Plus, it can also be rape if the person is unable to say no or has something being held over them to get them to have sex with that other person, something serious, such as job, threat of harm to them or someone else, or blackmail. If the woman or man is too drugged or drunk to move or talk coherently or think really coherently, then it is rape if you have sex with them. It may be that the person decides to say basically afterward that they would have given consent anyway so they don't pursue it, but it is rape if they weren't able to give consent.

I have had some guys I was dating work to get me in the mood. However, there are also obvious things that say no as well, especially after she/he has said no already. If they aren't in the mood by the time you are undressed or after "heavy petting", and you keep going, then you really need to pay attention to the body language of the person. I've never had any guy misunderstand my body language after some trying for the mood on his part either way. If there was any doubt, I would reiterate I wasn't in the mood. There are certainly some grey areas here. Some things are misunderstandings, which is where there should be something else to deal with such. But other times it is pretty obvious that there wasn't consent but the person did it anyway.

Actually one movie that comes to mind is 40 Days and 40 Nights. That was rape. The guy was asleep and the girl raped him, taking advantage of him being "hard up" due to the bet. He could have absolutely brought her up on charges (depending on the state though, since some states actually say that men cannot be raped by women). It would have been his call though. And pretty much that is what it comes down to, how the person "raped" feels about it and whether a reasonable person could consider it rape given the evidence.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. There should be some communication (time frame would depend on past levels of intimacy and situation though). If you are cutting them off completely without valid justification, then there is likely a problem with the marriage that needs to be dealt with. If the person cutting off the intimacy isn't willing to address the issue, then that could be alienation of intimacy. But it would depend on several factors. And just because they do that doesn't mean that the person automatically would gain a faulted divorce over the alienation of intimacy if the one accused is able to come up with a valid reason for doing it, even if not presented to the accuser.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

How utterly insane. A marriage license does not negate a woman's right to control her own body. Husbands are not entitled to sex against their spouse's wishes.

Click to expand...

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

lizzie said:

I actually suspect it's the case more than most of us realize. I've had more than one man friend who has told me pretty personal stuff about their marriages. I'm frankly shocked at how many women decide they don't like sex anymore, once they are married. It's really kind of sad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that man-friend must be a really credible source about his wife being a "cold bitch". But if she willingly marry a man who goes around bitching about her to other women, she shares some responsibility, at least she lives in a century where she can divorce the asshole.

Graffias said:

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

Click to expand...

Law enforcement shouldn't intervene in the event of rape?

Graffias said:

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

Click to expand...

I completely agree they should divorce if there is no intimacy, the refusing spouse won't compromise, and he (reasonably) desires to be intimate with his partner. I am not saying he has to live with it if his spouse refuses to be intimate with him. I'm saying it doesn't give him license to rape her.

Graffias said:

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

Click to expand...

How often you've had sex doesn't matter. Just like: how often you walk into the gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes does not make it okay to walk in one time and steal a pack. 100 rights don't permit 1 wrong.

Where *do* you draw the line?

1) There's: Not being in the mood but going 'okay, I guess' and being willing-reluctant.

2) There's: When you're pinned down and forced into it spite what you say or what you want?

3) There are other mean of coercion and there's guilt.

4) It could become violent (if you don't consider the act of forcing yourself into someone to be violent). Smacking - punching - or hitting with objects - or threatening to hurt the children or pets if she doesn't give in, etc.

You know - when does it become acceptable for someone to seek outside help? What are the guidelines, here, since you think everything private and neither person has the right to seek out help.

What is it about the act of marriage that removes you from the basic concept of seeking outside help? Divorce is a final end to an established lifestyle and it has wide reaching effects. In order to divorce you have to be able to support yourself.

On the other hand: law enforcement is a quick end or response to an immediate situation. Further: going to LEO can substantiate things and help you put that distance needed between you and the person your with in order to get separation and a divorce. Example: LEO's can take you to a safe house where your partner will not be able to contact you and through that you can start a new life.

If a married person is willing to rape their partner then "please leave me alone, we're getting a divorce" probably isn't going to end the situation. I don't know where your head is - but your view is not grounded in reality.

Domestic violence isn't a private issue. - That belief is exactly how so many people are trapped in a situation where it keeps happening, and it keeps happening, and it happens again and again - because they believe it's a private matter and they shouldn't tell others or seek REAL help.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I completely agree they should divorce if there is no intimacy, the refusing spouse won't compromise, and he (reasonably) desires to be intimate with his partner. I am not saying he has to live with it if his spouse refuses to be intimate with him. I'm saying it doesn't give him license to rape her.

Click to expand...

Granted, however, the rape charge is useless at that point. Better to go with assailt charges, there no debate in anyone's mind then.

clownboy said:

Once again there is a legal obligation to have sex with your spouse. The license can be withdrawn if you don't and you would be at fault. It's part of deal, don't like it, don't get married. Now, does this mean you can't rape your spouse? That's still a debatable legal point and in effect the law is all over the map and unevenly applied because it's a rock and/or hard place question.

However, assault is clearly illegal and carries the same potential for penalty without the rape question even being necessary.

Click to expand...

Sex is NOT a legal obligation in a marriage. That is absolutely ridiculous. Showing your divorce grounds does not prove an obligation. Sorry.

joko104 said:

The only people I know who have a signed marriage contract is my wife and I. It is long and sex is one of the topics. There are people who sign pre-marriage contracts called "pre-nuptial agreements" generally only concerning economic matters.

We did our own marriage vows, which were unusual. Mine was all but exclusively about sex and her's much longer on the topic. Some jaws probably fell at the church. However, I could be argued that the stated contract of "to have and to hold" for as long as we both shall live" or "forevermore" could constitute consent. With saying "no" then break that marriage contract?

Click to expand...

To have and to hold is a metaphore for togetherness and love. Not about sex. Your spouse also has the right to not help you if you are sick. The idea that sex is an obligation in average marriage contracts is silly...

reinoe said:

If it's written in the contract then there it is. Are you going to go around and witness every marriage and listen to the vows? Are you going to scrutinize every pre-nup? Are you going to eavesdrop on every conversation? If a man or woman promises to rape their spouse then it's in the contract.

Click to expand...

Something illegal in a contract is illegal. You are seriously confused.

Graffias said:

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

Click to expand...

He is just as free to leave/divorce her if he isn't satisfied with how much sex he is getting. If he can't take no for an answer that often, then leave. You don't rape her/keep going for it after she says no (or the other way around either if it is the guy saying no and the wife continuing). If he does, the cops should be called in.

clownboy said:

Granted, however, the rape charge is useless at that point. Better to go with assailt charges, there no debate in anyone's mind then.

Click to expand...

If there is little evidence of a rape, then there would be little evidence of an assault as well. Either charge would still be one word against another. What evidence would there be for assault rather than rape? Unless the sex was rough, there wouldn't likely be any marks. Not all rapes leave marks or physical evidence either.

Graffias said:

If it gets to that point, then she needs to get a divorce. I mean these two people have probably had sex who knows how many times, and suddenly the cops need to get called in because he wouldn't stop when she told him she has a headache? Don't drag law enforcement into a situation that should be a private matter between a husband and wife.

Click to expand...

Bullsh*t. A coward who attacks someone weaker than him needs to be dealt with, now and with great, uh, firmness. In places where law enforcement it lacking, guys like that are lynched by the woman's family.

Phys251 said:

Any sort of grey area MUST err on the side of caution. If we consider set A to be the set of sexual acts that are clearly consensual, C to be the ones that are clearly nonconsensual, and B to be the ones where it's not clear what the status is, then we must treat the set of acts in set B with the same scorn as those in set C. Trivializing set B is a key component of rape culture.

Click to expand...

I have a hard time seeing how it can be proven. An "I do" and marriage license sort of means a standing consent understanding to some people. If I were on a jury being asked to convict or acquit spousal rape case I'd expect other evidence of abuse and/or efforts to separate prior to the event in question.

nonpareil said:

Yeah, that man-friend must be a really credible source about his wife being a "cold bitch". But if she willingly marry a man who goes around bitching about her to other women, she shares some responsibility, at least she lives in a century where she can divorce the asshole.

Click to expand...

No, you've misunderstood what I was saying. I've never had one tell me she's a cold bitch. That is my own interpretation, based on what I've been told.

Smeagol said:

I have a hard time seeing how it can be proven. An "I do" and marriage license sort of means a standing consent understanding to some people. If I were on a jury being asked to convict or acquit spousal rape case I'd expect other evidence of abuse and/or efforts to separate prior to the event in question.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about what passes the threshold of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I was talking about what kind of behavior society should expect from men. There are all kinds of behaviors that caretakers of children must not do in order to avoid even an appearance of pedophilia. It is my firm believe that men should act just as cautiously when it comes to rape. The potential for a little lost pleasure pales in comparison to a lifetime of shame and self-worthlessness.

Grand Mal said:

Bullsh*t. A coward who attacks someone weaker than him needs to be dealt with, now and with great, uh, firmness. In places where law enforcement it lacking, guys like that are lynched by the woman's family.

Click to expand...

And that is why that should not happen... or at least you would find a lot of dead members of her family. My ex falsely accused me of getting rough with her. Many men are victims of domestic violence and accused falsely of crimes by women. The statistics are quite clear about this and now that the Courts and Cops are slightly less sexist than they used to be men are getting some... some, justice.

Aunt Spiker said:

If a married person is willing to rape their partner then "please leave me alone, we're getting a divorce" probably isn't going to end the situation. I don't know where your head is - but your view is not grounded in reality.

Click to expand...

It will end it. If she moves out and severs all ties with him, there will be no opportunity for him to rape her. Unless he's stalking her, of course, then she can report it to the police and get a restraining order. It's the same with domestic violence. The surest way to end it is to simply leave.

Smeagol said:

I have a hard time seeing how it can be proven. An "I do" and marriage license sort of means a standing consent understanding to some people. If I were on a jury being asked to convict or acquit spousal rape case I'd expect other evidence of abuse and/or efforts to separate prior to the event in question.

Click to expand...

But that is just it, as long as there is/was exemptions in place, any evidence of rape where the perpetrator was the husband of the victim cannot/could not be charged as rape because the law exempts/exempted such charges. It doesn't matter if in most cases there would not likely be a conviction. In many rape cases, there isn't enough evidence truly for a conviction because it is still one word against another. In those cases where there is evidence, then there needs to be an opportunity for the charge to be brought against the person.

Graffias said:

It will end it. If she moves out and severs all ties with him, there will be no opportunity for him to rape her. Unless he's stalking her, of course, then she can report it to the police and get a restraining order. It's the same with domestic violence. The surest way to end it is to simply leave.

Click to expand...

Considering a major case involving this issue (listed earlier in this thread), involved a husband who could not be charged with raping his wife because they were separated and not yet divorced, it is wrong to believe that simply leaving will end the issue.

Plus, not all spousal rapes happen in violent relationships. And even those that do, the belief that a woman in such a situation could simply leave in all cases of abuse is wrong. Many women stay with abusive spouses because they feel they have no other choice, for many reasons. Maybe she has no other relatives and no way to support herself. If she also has trust issues or isn't very educated and/or knowledgeable about the world, then she may not know about any options such as safe houses or support programs for her. (And this really goes for men in this situation as well, since men can be abused. In fact, I personally consider it worse that so many laws regarding rape only account for women, and in many states, legally speaking, men cannot be raped, only sexually assaulted because of the language of laws regarding rape. At least in the case of marital rape, all 50 states now have removed the marital exemption from rape laws, even if they still limit when charges can be brought against husbands for rape of their wives.)

roguenuke said:

But that is just it, as long as there is/was exemptions in place, any evidence of rape where the perpetrator was the husband of the victim cannot/could not be charged as rape because the law exempts/exempted such charges. It doesn't matter if in most cases there would not likely be a conviction. In many rape cases, there isn't enough evidence truly for a conviction because it is still one word against another. In those cases where there is evidence, then there needs to be an opportunity for the charge to be brought against the person.

Click to expand...

Exemption, I disagree with. The burden of proof higher, yes. I'd hate to see it but I'd more likely believe the accusation if domestic violence also occurred, there was a history of domestic violence or the couple was separated. Then even if there was crazy stuff going on, today a lot people engage in consensual crazy stuff that could include violence and what would seem like imprisonment but voluntary so who do you believe?

The unanswered question: why to people marry jerks? Another thread one day.

Smeagol said:

Exemption, I disagree with. The burden of proof higher, yes. I'd hate to see it but I'd more likely believe the accusation if domestic violence also occurred, there was a history of domestic violence or the couple was separated. Then even if there was crazy stuff going on, today a lot people engage in consensual crazy stuff that could include violence and what would seem like imprisonment but voluntary so who do you believe?

The unanswered question: why to people marry jerks? Another thread one day.

Click to expand...

Please tell me what is normally required to get a person convicted of rape when the victim is not their spouse.

It is just as likely that a non-spouse will make a false accusation of rape as it is a spouse. And there is already the problem of a jury who is going to be more biased against a spouse who claims rape (particularly when it comes to a single accusation and if their is no evidence of physical abuse) then a non-spouse. No one should be convicted of rape, spouse or non-spouse based on a single claim, basically anything that would come down to a he said/she said situation alone. But that doesn't mean that there should be any stipulations in the laws to treat a married person differently than a non-married person when it comes to rape because each situation should be based on the evidence for that situation and whether it shows that the accused raped the person or not. Their marital status should not affect that determination anymore than their relationship status should.

Smeagol said:

I have a hard time seeing how it can be proven. An "I do" and marriage license sort of means a standing consent understanding to some people. If I were on a jury being asked to convict or acquit spousal rape case I'd expect other evidence of abuse and/or efforts to separate prior to the event in question.

Click to expand...

Why would there need to be efforts to separate prior to the event in question?