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.