• 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
Yup, you are correct.

It may have already been mentioned somewhere, but back when marital rape wasn't a crime, an estranged husband could rape the wife he was legally separated from and not sharing the same residence. In Canada, the events that led to criminalizing rape...even within marriage, occurred because of a court case of a woman who had been separated from her husband, who barged in one day and raped and physically assaulted her. He was charged with aggravated assault, but the court ruled that since they were still legally married, he couldn't be charged with rape. And that's why the law was eventually changed in...I think it was 1978 off hand.

Nice to know that conservatives want to turn back the clock on this reform as well! How long will it be before we have burning witches and adulteresses being forced to wear a scarlet letter?
 
It may have already been mentioned somewhere, but back when marital rape wasn't a crime, an estranged husband could rape the wife he was legally separated from and not sharing the same residence. In Canada, the events that led to criminalizing rape...even within marriage, occurred because of a court case of a woman who had been separated from her husband, who barged in one day and raped and physically assaulted her. He was charged with aggravated assault, but the court ruled that since they were still legally married, he couldn't be charged with rape. And that's why the law was eventually changed in...I think it was 1978 off hand.

Nice to know that conservatives want to turn back the clock on this reform as well! How long will it be before we have burning witches and adulteresses being forced to wear a scarlet letter?

That's terrible and should definitely be a crime.
 
Yes, you could certainly rape your spouse. However I think the standards of what is rape and what isn't are a little more lax in a marriage. Behaviors which might be considered rape outside of a marriage might not with a married couple.
 
Yes, you could certainly rape your spouse. However I think the standards of what is rape and what isn't are a little more lax in a marriage. Behaviors which might be considered rape outside of a marriage might not with a married couple.

I think that most spouses would be aware of when they are crossing a line with the other, and that is when it would be considered rape IMO.
 
I think that most spouses would be aware of when they are crossing a line with the other, and that is when it would be considered rape IMO.

Oh definitely. If one partner doesn't give consent, it's rape. However I think in a marriage it's a lot more valid to assume consent in certain circumstances. If I had sex with a stranger while she was extremely drunk, that's probably rape. If I have sex with my wife while she's extremely drunk, it's probably not.
 
Entirely circumstantial - if I'm not in the mood I'm not putting out. Simple. I'm not obligated no matter what and neither is he. Who wants to even have sex with their partner if their partner isn't in the mood? The idea is a turn off (and I'm a sex addict in therapy for chrsit's sake) I don't care what the reason is. Now if it goes on for years and years and it's not for an understandable reason - and the marriage just erodes - then you have affection withholding.
The whole topic of 'is there an obligation' does not advance the thread. We disagree. I got that. So what. Time to let the dead horse lay and move on.
 
No, it wasn't. Before 1993, if a woman told her husband "no", yet he continued to have sex with her anyway, then there was nothing she could do with it. He could not be charged with rape of his wife. Even the military had an explicit exception for the UCMJ rape article that protected a man from getting charged under that article if the two were married.
No links.
 
No he isn't. He is trying to get rid of being able to charge spouses for rape at all, essentially reinstating the old exceptions that prevented spouses from being charged with rape. There is not really separate laws for charging married and non-married people with rape. They are the same laws. The change that was made in the past simply removed the exemption of spouses from being charged (or at least husbands).

In fact, if anything, I think people should be complaining that some laws still exempt women from being charged with rape at all. Husbands can be raped by their wives.
So how do you prove spousal rape?
 
So how do you prove spousal rape?

How do you prove most rapes? It is based on who is more believable? Perhaps the idiot actually admits to it. Perhaps the raped spouse has it happen enough that they try to trap the other. Perhaps they have children who testify or house guests. It could simply be an additional charge to go into the pattern of abusive behavior. It doesn't have to be proven in every case or really in even most cases for it to still be considered a criminal offense. It should remain illegal no matter how difficult it may be to prove. As long as one person can prove they were raped by their spouse, then the spouse should be able to be charged with rape.
 
How do you prove most rapes? It is based on who is more believable? Perhaps the idiot actually admits to it. Perhaps the raped spouse has it happen enough that they try to trap the other. Perhaps they have children who testify or house guests. It could simply be an additional charge to go into the pattern of abusive behavior. It doesn't have to be proven in every case or really in even most cases for it to still be considered a criminal offense. It should remain illegal no matter how difficult it may be to prove. As long as one person can prove they were raped by their spouse, then the spouse should be able to be charged with rape.
So you don't know how to prove a rape. You want to keep a law you have no idea how to enforce.
 
So how do you prove spousal rape?


Absent physical evidence (of physical coercion), it would be difficult.


Certain types of bruising could be an indicator... but then again, some like it rough, so... :shrug:
 
No links.

At least one was provided by another poster, but here are some more.

Is marital rape a crime?

Marital rape (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marital Rape | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

Even now, marital rape is still treated differently than regular rape in that either the laws concerning it require different standards to be met during the commission of the crime (such as only certain circumstances are considered rape when it comes to spouses) or the rapist is treated less harshly than other rapists (we are talking those already found guilty, so there would be no need to prove their guilty after that since it was already done). So if there is a separate law for marital/spousal rape, it would in fact not cause extra charges but rather be closer to a lesser crime being charged due solely to the marriage itself.

Unless you can show where someone can be or has been charged with marital rape, and that led to the person receiving more punishment than had they not been married, then you don't have anything to go on here. It should all be rape, and those states that make a distinction are wrong in doing so, but not in the way you are contending. In fact, it is the opposite of what you are contending because those laws basically limit a spouse more harshly for what is considered rape. In some states, a husband or wife (and in fact I believe a wife would be more likely to do this one) could drug their spouse, have sex with them against their will, and not be charged with rape due to the way the laws are written. In fact, I could tell my husband "no" after drinking a little too much or being sick one night but if I don't fight back, there are states with laws that say this is not rape, even if my husband flat out admitted to doing this and that I said "no". If we weren't married, the above would be rape (remember, he confessed) in every state.
 
So you don't know how to prove a rape. You want to keep a law you have no idea how to enforce.

There are plenty of ways to prove it, including pattern of past behavior (particularly abusive), witnesses (some people have children, even teenage children, who could hear their parents in the bedroom), or confession (either recorded, to a friend/acquaintance, or even authorities, heck, I'm willing to bet there are men who would take the stand and say right to the court, judge, and anyone else that he felt that it was his marital right to have sex with his wife no matter if she agreed to it). If there are exemptions though within laws that keep the crimes from being charged though, then there is no way to charge them with those crimes. It doesn't have to be proven in every case or even most cases for us to have the ability to ensure that when there is proof available that it is actually considered a crime.
 
At least one was provided by another poster, but here are some more.

Is marital rape a crime?

Marital rape (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marital Rape | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

Even now, marital rape is still treated differently than regular rape in that either the laws concerning it require different standards to be met during the commission of the crime (such as only certain circumstances are considered rape when it comes to spouses) or the rapist is treated less harshly than other rapists (we are talking those already found guilty, so there would be no need to prove their guilty after that since it was already done). So if there is a separate law for marital/spousal rape, it would in fact not cause extra charges but rather be closer to a lesser crime being charged due solely to the marriage itself.

Unless you can show where someone can be or has been charged with marital rape, and that led to the person receiving more punishment than had they not been married, then you don't have anything to go on here. It should all be rape, and those states that make a distinction are wrong in doing so, but not in the way you are contending. In fact, it is the opposite of what you are contending because those laws basically limit a spouse more harshly for what is considered rape. In some states, a husband or wife (and in fact I believe a wife would be more likely to do this one) could drug their spouse, have sex with them against their will, and not be charged with rape due to the way the laws are written. In fact, I could tell my husband "no" after drinking a little too much or being sick one night but if I don't fight back, there are states with laws that say this is not rape, even if my husband flat out admitted to doing this and that I said "no". If we weren't married, the above would be rape (remember, he confessed) in every state.
That's what I think. Rape is rape. Why should husbands get a lesser sentence?
 
There are plenty of ways to prove it, including pattern of past behavior (particularly abusive), witnesses (some people have children, even teenage children, who could hear their parents in the bedroom), or confession (either recorded, to a friend/acquaintance, or even authorities, heck, I'm willing to bet there are men who would take the stand and say right to the court, judge, and anyone else that he felt that it was his marital right to have sex with his wife no matter if she agreed to it). If there are exemptions though within laws that keep the crimes from being charged though, then there is no way to charge them with those crimes. It doesn't have to be proven in every case or even most cases for us to have the ability to ensure that when there is proof available that it is actually considered a crime.
And why would you want a rapist to have a lighter punishment just because he's married to his victim? Is this one of the 'legal benefits' gays are asking for with marriage? Claim your spouse on taxes, get a slightly cheaper healthcare package, and oh yeah a lighter sentence for rape. Really?
 
That's what I think. Rape is rape. Why should husbands get a lesser sentence?

And the only time that they generally do when comparing marital to non-marital rape is when there are special laws covering spouses (instead of just charging them like any other rape), and it leads to a lesser sentence for husbands. There shouldn't be a lesser sentence just because a person is another's spouse. Circumstances in general might be grounds for a lesser sentence, but not merely the relationship itself.

And Virginia actually has the laws right now. In fact, it is pretty cool that they offer marital counseling for couples where this happens as an alternative, because although there certainly are cases where it is rape, in others it is merely a misunderstanding between the two. Those people should seek help, even if the marriage doesn't survive the event, at least the people are not harmed by criminal charges, a trial, and/or possible conviction.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/virginia-marital-rape-statutes.htm
 
And why would you want a rapist to have a lighter punishment just because he's married to his victim? Is this one of the 'legal benefits' gays are asking for with marriage? Claim your spouse on taxes, get a slightly cheaper healthcare package, and oh yeah a lighter sentence for rape. Really?

Where did I say anything about wanting the rapist to get a lighter conviction for being married? Please show me, because I think you are seriously reading things wrong here, either that, or you are trying to simply tick people off.
 
And the only time that they generally do when comparing marital to non-marital rape is when there are special laws covering spouses (instead of just charging them like any other rape), and it leads to a lesser sentence for husbands. There shouldn't be a lesser sentence just because a person is another's spouse. Circumstances in general might be grounds for a lesser sentence, but not merely the relationship itself.

And Virginia actually has the laws right now. In fact, it is pretty cool that they offer marital counseling for couples where this happens as an alternative, because although there certainly are cases where it is rape, in others it is merely a misunderstanding between the two. Those people should seek help, even if the marriage doesn't survive the event, at least the people are not harmed by criminal charges, a trial, and/or possible conviction.

Virginia Marital Rape Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law
It's just so odd....so many people coming to this thread to hate the idea of removing this spousal-rape law, when in fact the law is in the rapist's favor. I just don't understand people, they see the 'D' or the 'R' and don't read beyond that.
 
It's just so odd....so many people coming to this thread to hate the idea of removing this spousal-rape law, when in fact the law is in the rapist's favor. I just don't understand people, they see the 'D' or the 'R' and don't read beyond that.

But it is because this man, this politician is not suggesting that there should be no distinction. He is in fact suggesting that there should be an exemption again that basically allows for men to rape their wives. His words on the matter show that he believes that it is wrong to charge husbands with any sort of rape when it is their wife bringing the charges. If he were merely suggesting no distinction, it wouldn't be an issue. Most would agree with him. But that isn't the case.
 
But it is because this man, this politician is not suggesting that there should be no distinction. He is in fact suggesting that there should be an exemption again that basically allows for men to rape their wives. His words on the matter show that he believes that it is wrong to charge husbands with any sort of rape when it is their wife bringing the charges. If he were merely suggesting no distinction, it wouldn't be an issue. Most would agree with him. But that isn't the case.
Where did he say that? Remember that OP's story comes from The Daily Beast, not exactly known for it's objective reporting.
 
Where did he say that? Remember that OP's story comes from The Daily Beast, not exactly known for it's objective reporting.

He said that there was no way to get a conviction when it came to spouses living together. Granted, he said this in 2002, so it is outdated. However, he never retracted it, and says now simply that he has no stand on the issue. He was however debating, at the time, whether the rape laws should include spousal rape, him saying that they shouldn't, that the laws should not hold spouses able to be charged for rape.

GOP Congressional Candidate: Spousal Rape Shouldn't Be a Crime | Mother Jones

Although this isn't really a current issue, he at least did hold the position that spouses (or at least husbands, because I believe VA could be one of those places that refuses to recognize that men can get raped too) should be exempt from rape prosecution.

In 2002, as the Virginia general assembly repealed a ban on spousal rape prosecution, Black wondered if it was really possible for a husband to rape his wife. He said changing the law could cause a man "enormous fear of the damage to his reputation" if his wife ever filed a false rape claim. Last month, after the Weekly Standard highlighted Black's remarks on spousal rape, a member of Black's congressional campaign staff emailed the Loudoun Progress to say, "Black was not taking a position for or against marital rape."*
 
Last edited:
Yahoo!



So there it is.

Man and woman are married.

Can a man rape his wife? Can he be charged with the crime of rape? Sentenced and sent to jail?
That kind of rape.

Is there such a thing as spousal rape?

Does no mean no in a marriage?

Or is DICK Black's view reasonable and valid?
Rape is rape. Marriage is not consent to have sex whenever one person feels like it. Yes there's spousal rape, though I'd still simply call it rape
 
Absent physical evidence (of physical coercion), it would be difficult.


Certain types of bruising could be an indicator... but then again, some like it rough, so... :shrug:
My buddy is a JPO with the state, one of his colleagues used to date a woman who had a very odd fetish, a very concerning fetish, and a very dangerous fetish. The woman insisted he have his loaded(had to be loaded) firearm in her mouth with his hand on the trigger. For some reason she had to be on the razor's edge to be able to climax but that is about as dangerous as it gets IMO, needless to say the guy was getting worried about an accidental trigger pull because of the nature of what they were doing and left her, but damn, I don't think I could ever grant that request.
 
My buddy is a JPO with the state, one of his colleagues used to date a woman who had a very odd fetish, a very concerning fetish, and a very dangerous fetish. The woman insisted he have his loaded(had to be loaded) firearm in her mouth with his hand on the trigger. For some reason she had to be on the razor's edge to be able to climax but that is about as dangerous as it gets IMO, needless to say the guy was getting worried about an accidental trigger pull because of the nature of what they were doing and left her, but damn, I don't think I could ever grant that request.



Dayum.


:damn
 
Dayum.


:damn
Yep, from what I understand she is a little hottie too, but I don't care how pretty a lady is, that's just too messed up for my tastes.
 
Back
Top Bottom