Why “Marital Rape” is a Bogus Crime

More and more countries, including India, are being encouraged to criminalize “marital rape” by international organizations with feminist leanings, such as the UN “Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”:

In its focus on India, the OHCHR-supported Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) recommended in February 2007 that the country should “widen the definition of rape in its Penal Code to reflect the realities of sexual abuse experienced by women and to remove the exception for marital rape from the definition of rape.”

The Committee also recommended the Government “consult widely with women’s groups in its process of reform of laws and procedures relating to rape and sexual abuse.”

Sure, no need to consult men’s rights groups which are battling an epidemic of false accusations in India.

(Ironically, the current high commissioner of this organization, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, is a prince from Jordan, a constitutional monarchy.)

From A Voice for Men

The concept of marital rape is an oxymoron. Marriage is a licence for sex. A woman who does not want to have sex with her husband should separate from him and file for divorce.

Purushatma agrees.

Let us leave aside the obvious criticisms of gender bias (apparently, only men can maritally rape women), presumption of guilt (“prove you had her consent”), and biased judicial process (“if she says so, it must be so”).

Let us focus on the so-called “crime” itself.

There are only two possibilities in a supposed incident of “marital rape”:

  1. There was physical violence and injury.
  2. There was no physical violence, but one of the spouses was unwilling but went along.

The former (inflicting violence on another) is already a crime and must be treated as such.  But it is still not rape.  We will explain why.

The latter is not a crime at all, and we will explain why.

Entering a marriage is an agreement that one is open to sharing one’s life with one’s partner.  And notably, to having regular sex with one’s partner.  Now of course, in every marriage, there are joint activities about which one of the spouses is less than enthusiastic.  The husband wants to take his wife and go watch a sporting event; the wife is unwilling but goes along.  The wife wants to take her husband to her sister’s baby shower; the husband is unwilling but goes along.

Similarly, there might be times when one of the spouses wants to have sex, while the other one doesn’t.  The desirous spouse insists and engages in a one-sided intercourse, while the other just endures the brief inconvenience.

Almost all couples go through such times, and to criminalize this inconvenience is to open the floodgates of frivolous litigation.

For it to be called rape, it must be that the accused did not have the consent of the “victim”.  But in that case, why was the “victim” still living with the accused?  Did the “victim” not understand that marriage and cohabitation was an agreement to have regular sex with each other?  Even if one of the spouses is unusually demanding of very frequent sex, and if that is unacceptable to the other spouse, the only rational response is to end the relationship.  The “victim” must realize that continuing the relationship is an acceptance of this imbalance and its consequences.

If the “victim” is chronically unwilling to have sex with the accused (i.e. there is a lack of attraction), then either marital counseling or a separation is called for.

The advocates of “marital rape” claim that one can’t always leave the marital home.  We ask: Why?  Does one have no social circle, friends or family?  Does one have no independent means of income?  Is one unwilling to file for divorce?

It is possible.  In those cases, however, one is clearly a dependent.  The “victim” in this case is the economic beneficiary from the marital arrangement.  What the “marital rape” advocates are suggesting is: let the victim continue to enjoy the economic benefits from the relationship, but be free of any counter obligations.

And yes, it is “horrific” to imagine that in today’s world one is still asked to trade one’s sex for sustenance, but this “horror” was committed by two adults with full understanding of what their relationship was going to be.  The “victim”, we say again, is free to leave the arrangement.

But if the victim withdraws from the marital agreement, then all benefits which were contingent on the marital contract should stop forthwith.  One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.

Even if there is physical violence, though it must be treated as a crime, it is still not rape.  A rape is a violent robbery of a woman’s sexuality by someone.  By marrying a man, a woman is implicitly and explicitly giving him access to her sexuality.  Hence, though the man must be held guilty for assaulting her, he cannot be held guilty for robbing her sexually.  The husband has a claim to his wife’s sexuality by virtue of their marriage.  When someone has a claim to something, he cannot also then rob it.  Yes, the claim must be executed with decency and gentleness, but the fact of the claim is beyond doubt.

If you doubt that a man has a just claim to his wife’s sexuality, you have no understanding of what marriage is.  In that case, what’s the point of this institution, and of concepts like sexual fidelity, and of showing one’s unavailability by wearing wedding rings and suchlike?

We also would like to say that a person that chronically subjects one’s spouse to sexual unavailability is a bad spouse.  In fact, in India it is already a crime under the gender-biased laws (in particular, the PWDV Act) to chronically deprive your wife of sex.  But no such law exists favoring the husbands.

And now the husband are faced with a double whammy: to insist on sex is a crime (“Marital Rape”), to deny sex to the wife is a crime (“Sexual Cruelty”).

For the wives, nothing is a crime.  To insist on sex with their husbands is their right under the PWDV Act, and to deny sex is their right under the proposed “marital rape” law.

Understanding marital rape is simple if one realizes that the intent is to give more and more power to the dependent spouse (usually the wife) to legally intimidate the husband.

The intent is to make the man a toiling slave for the “free, strong and independent” wife.  She is not interesting in having sex with you, but you better provide her with a house or a monthly maintenance.

The intent is, as The Rational Male would say, to further incentivize hypergamy and AF/BB (Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks) behavior.  She is to be left free to not fuck you but fuck others, while you are left to masturbate and to give her an allowance for being a slut.

Such realizations, like the hidden intent of such laws, is what a red-pill awakening is made of.


9 thoughts on “Why “Marital Rape” is a Bogus Crime

  1. This is another attempt to making one more andocidal law. Marriage is a consent given by a woman with lifelong validity. Denial to sex by wife to the husband should be considered a crime and not otherwise as erection is not volitional. Because a man can have sex only when he is having erection and he can not be expected to have erection at his will when the women wants to give her consent. This is just an attempt by women to enjoy their illicit affairs at the cost of independence and emotional needs of the husband.

    If they are so concerned about the abuse part then husband duty to maintain should also be considered his physical, mental, emotional financial and social abuse as the man has toils day and night to earn his livelihood. He has also toiled very hard to make himself capable3 of earning. On what grounds women want mainteance from husband?

    They just want to reduce husbands to beggar” a mai consent de de, allah ke naam pe de de ………….”

    Why women are not punishable for having relation outside the marriage without the consent of the husband? When sex on promise of marriage but refusal late on is rape, then wif’s having relations with man/men other than husband should also be punished like the rapists.


    • With regards to “Why women are not punishable for having relation outside the marriage without the consent of the husband?” – If such a law is passed, I would also want adulterous males to be punishable by law as well. I detest both men and women who are adulterous.


  2. Agreed that marital rape can occur to either male or female. However, referring to “marital rape” as a bogus crime is not giving consideration to different situations or circumstances. Females or males who try to misuse the law through false claims of “rape” SHOULD BE punishable by law.

    “Entering a marriage is an agreement that one is open to sharing one’s life with one’s partner.” Do you not take into consideration of marriages that are forced and still exist widely in India? If the law is capable of preventing such marriages forced upon an individual by family, then marital rape may not be prevalent or even an issue.

    “Does one have no social circle, friends or family? Does one have no independent means of income? Is one unwilling to file for divorce?” You do realize there a countless cases in India where adult women (as well as underage girls) are forced to marry by their own family. Families who cut off these women from outside contact to friends. Families who will discontinue a women’s right to education once they pass their O/L or A/L. If and when the law provides women with a way of being independent as to make the choice of their partner in such cases, then only marital rape will not be such a major issue.

    Males can avoid such a partner by trying to be fully aware if their to-be partner is fully consensual or happy with the prospect of being married.

    For fully consensual marriages, a female or male who refuses occasionally for sex is pardonable. However, refusing sex weeks or even months is unpardonable and makes relationships unsalvageable. What a husband or wife can do in such a situation is to go to either counseling. If counseling does not work, in that case, either husband or wife should be granted a separation (without the court granting favoritism to any gender whatsoever and NO FINANCIAL MAINTENANCE be required to the one refusing to have sex). In this case, the law should protect that husband or wife as they made the effort.

    In conclusion, it is best to avoid forcing oneself on an unwilling partner, so that marital rape as an issue does not arise allowing that individual the possibility of misusing the law in their favor. However, do keep in mind there are legitimate cases of marital rape and if a law is passed, it should take into account all factors. Once again, any individual (regardless of gender) making false claims SHOULD BE punishable by law. This is so that “real” victims of marital rape get the justice that they deserve,

    @Amitabh Bhasin With regards to “Why women are not punishable for having relation outside the marriage without the consent of the husband?” – If such a law is passed, I would also want adulterous males to be punishable by law as well. I detest both men and women who are adulterous.


  3. This is an illustration of why women have been controlled as property of their men: father, husband, elder brother, other head of household.
    In the USA, since “No-Fault” mutual incompatibility divorce was introduced, 85+% of divorce filings are by wives.
    It’s somewhat like a revolver. Give one to your wife and sooner or later she will use it. On you. As soon as she has fired all the cartridges, she will burst into tears and be very sorry.
    No-Fault divorce is a legal “revolver” given to every wife by the government.
    Back when divorces required just cause, the cause had to be proven unless the other party would confess. Men filed most divorces. The number of divorces was but a fraction of what it is now.
    A friend’s wife was a legal secretary in a law office when No-Fault was passed. The lawyers threw parties to celebrate. What they would lose in expensive, drawn-out divorces would be made up for several times over in sheer volume.


  4. What if the husband mostly agrees to come along with the wife to the baby shower, but just a few times, he is completely tired or bored and objects to accompanying her (he is not just reluctantly adjusting but is vehemently protesting against attending the function) but the wife does not listen to him and takes him (read kidnaps) anyway? He is not physically harmed at all, but he ends up feeling really awful, violated and depressed as a result of the incident. According to your logic, it’s not a crime because marriage means partners should make adjustments for each other. This is not an adjustment, it’s a crime against the husband, the same goes for marital rape. I know that Indian laws can be very sexist and unfair to men (and women too in different ways) sometimes, and that should definitely change. I also agree that marital rape can happen to both men and women, but it is not a bogus crime. You can’t have sex with your partner all the time, you have to respect their wishes. It is only a problem if they over do it for a really long time, but if that happens you should separate, and not rape them. There is a huge difference between having sex reluctantly (adjusting to an inconvenience) and objecting vehemently while your partner rapes you.


    • Using force is already a crime, whether for sex or for making someone travel under duress. The point is, once you are married, sex itself is not the crime, but forcing the other to have sex is. If the husband/wife continues to resist, there won’t be any marital rape. If the husband/wife physically subdue the other, it is assault and should be treated as such.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s