No Such Thing As Marital Rape

[Will Torbald]

"In fact, the concept of marital rape is created by the cultural Marxists in an attempt to destroy the family and to destroy the institution of marriage." - According to our friend the Supreme Dark Lord, Vox Day.

 

Source: http://heatst.com/world/feminism-debates-vox-day-vs-louise-mensch-on-marital-rape/

 

But if this sounds worrisome to you, don't fret. He doesn't mean that you can physically assault her, just that you can get her drunk or drugged, or rape her while she sleeps. That's totally ok.

 

"Well, I think if you’re talking about a woman being inebriated or asleep you could imagine those situations where you would view it as rape and I would not."

 

What do you think? Is Vox right that a woman has an obligation to have sex with her husband even if she's ill or incapacitated, but not to the point of bruises, but ok with intoxicants or if she's unconscious?

[aviet]

This goes a long way from anarcho or libertarian thought and into the world of laws created 100s or 1000s of years ago, that according to Vox, are seemingly immutable. This sounds something that would be much more at home in Islam. For example, the Shia Family Law (2009) in Afghanistan, which requires a wife to submit to her husband's carnal desires once every for days, if he so chooses.

This puts Vox on a par with the following countries, where forced congress is not recognised as a crime in marriage.
 

Afghanistan - Islam

Algeria - Islam

Bahrain - Islam

Bangladesh - Islam

Botswana

Brunei Darussalam - Islam

Central African Republic 

China

Chad - Islam

Democratic Republic of Congo

Egypt - Islam

Eritrea - Islam

Ethiopia - Islam

Haiti

India

Indonesia  - Islam

Iran - Islam

Iraq - Islam

Ivory Coast

Jordan - Islam

Kuwait - Islam

Laos

Lebanon - 60% Islam

Libya - Islam

Malawi

Mali - Islam

Malaysia - Islam

Mongolia

Morocco - Islam

Myanmar

Nigeria - 50% Islam

Oman - Islam

Palestinian territories - Islam

Saudi Arabia - Islam

Senegal - Islam

Singapore - 15% Islam

South Sudan

Sri Lanka

Sudan - Islam

Syria - Islam

Tajikistan - Islam

Tanzania - 35% Islam

Tunisia - Islam

United Arab Emirates - Islam

Uganda

Vietnam

Yemen - Islam

Zambia

[Wuzzums]

Dunno about the asleep part but yes, if there is consent then it's not rape. And if there is no consent and the husband sleeps with another woman then it is not cheating. But most importantly, why is someone else's marriage intricacies any of my business?

[neeeel]

And if there is no consent and the husband sleeps with another woman then it is not cheating.

 

What definition of cheating are you using? I dont get this. 

[Rachelle]

Most people who get married are not consciously consenting to having sex whenever their partner wants it and agreeing that it's okay for either the man or woman to use physical force to achieve it. Because that is not clear and therefore isn't consciously consented to then it would be rape to physically force yourself on your partner because there's no consent. This should be clear and discussed before getting married but usually isn't.

 

I don't believe it's right to ever initiate physical force against someone who is clearly telling you it's unwanted. Whether this be using physical force to get a man's money or physical force to get sex from a woman. Do they have obligation in marriage to give sex and financial support? Yes, but no one should physically force them to uphold their obligation when both people involved are adults able to give consent or not.

 

For this situation to even happen you have to have a bad marriage where likely both man and women are disrespectful towards each other, trust has been broken, and a serious lack of empathy shown to each other. Forcing someone do to something they don't want to do only creates obedience or rebellion which leads to resentment or hate. But if you're at the point where you'll physically force sex from your spouse when they don't want it, I can only assume you've lost all respect for them and don't care if they resent or hate you.

 

From what I understand Vox says that the man has no right to be violent with the women when he's trying to have sex that she doesn't want. So he has no right to grab, push, and then penetrate her but he does believe it's within his right if she's unconscious or intoxicated. So it's not okay to force her to have sex if she's able to defend herself because that would mean having to use violence but it is okay to force her to have sex if she's unconscious/unable to defend herself. That sounds very strange to me but in the situation where she's unconscious or intoxicated, unless she's said no then I don't think one can consider that rape or her not consenting, because she's married and consenting until she says no.

[Wuzzums]

What definition of cheating are you using? I dont get this. 

I was referring to the fact that if a wife denies sex completely then it's a breach of contract, therefore it's not a breach of contract to sleep with another woman i.e. cheating.

[Will Torbald]

Dunno about the asleep part but yes, if there is consent then it's not rape. And if there is no consent and the husband sleeps with another woman then it is not cheating. But most importantly, why is someone else's marriage intricacies any of my business?

 

Because policy is made based on these views, because religions teach this to children (possibly yours hypothetically through media and propaganda) and because you might find your spouse disagreeing with you on this.

 

 

Most people who get married are not consciously consenting to having sex whenever their partner wants it and agreeing that it's okay for either the man or woman to use physical force to achieve it. Because that is not clear and therefore isn't consciously consented to then it would be rape to physically force yourself on your partner because there's no consent. This should be clear and discussed before getting married but usually isn't.

 

I don't believe it's right to ever initiate physical force against someone who is clearly telling you it's unwanted. Whether this be using physical force to get a man's money or physical force to get sex from a woman. Do they have obligation in marriage to give sex and financial support? Yes, but no one should physically force them to uphold their obligation when both people involved are adults able to give consent or not.

 

For this situation to even happen you have to have a bad marriage where likely both man and women are disrespectful towards each other, trust has been broken, and a serious lack of empathy shown to each other. Forcing someone do to something they don't want to do only creates obedience or rebellion which leads to resentment or hate. But if you're at the point where you'll physically force sex from your spouse when they don't want it, I can only assume you've lost all respect for them and don't care if they resent or hate you.

 

From what I understand Vox says that the man has no right to be violent with the women when he's trying to have sex that she doesn't want. So he has no right to grab, push, and then penetrate her but he does believe it's within his right if she's unconscious or intoxicated. So it's not okay to force her to have sex if she's able to defend herself because that would mean having to use violence but it is okay to force her to have sex if she's unconscious/unable to defend herself. That sounds very strange to me but in the situation where she's unconscious or intoxicated, unless she's said no then I don't think one can consider that rape or her not consenting, because she's married and consenting until she says no.

 

With you on the first three paragraphs. On the last one is where I digress. Noting the fact that Vox is also saying that it applies to men as well, I would also put myself in that position where my (hypothetical) spouse would initiate contact during my sleep or illness. If I were to find out that she had been doing things to me while unconscious I would be pissed. Being awake, and being asleep are very different. I am trusting my unconscious and vulnerable body to the custody of this person, and she uses that position to gratify herself selfishly with me. If she were to tell me "I will violate you while you sleep, is that ok with you?" I could have the chance to reject her before getting married. The issue is that, if you say that by being married you are positively consenting all the time by default, I would contest that it doesn't apply to an unconscious person. He says that imposing himself on a woman that is defensive would be assault, but that imposing himself on a woman incapable of defending herself is ok. I think that is even worse because the person can't even decide to say no. Personally, I don't agree that marriage is a presumption of consent at all times. If your spouse is sick or upset at you, just wait it off (or jerk it off). It's creepy to have sex with unconsious people, sick people, and if you're so horny you have to get inside somebody even when they're in that state, you have way bigger issues.

[Rachelle]

Because policy is made based on these views, because religions teach this to children (possibly yours hypothetically through media and propaganda) and because you might find your spouse disagreeing with you on this.

 

 

 

With you on the first three paragraphs. On the last one is where I digress. Noting the fact that Vox is also saying that it applies to men as well, I would also put myself in that position where my (hypothetical) spouse would initiate contact during my sleep or illness. If I were to find out that she had been doing things to me while unconscious I would be pissed. Being awake, and being asleep are very different. I am trusting my unconscious and vulnerable body to the custody of this person, and she uses that position to gratify herself selfishly with me. If she were to tell me "I will violate you while you sleep, is that ok with you?" I could have the chance to reject her before getting married. The issue is that, if you say that by being married you are positively consenting all the time by default, I would contest that it doesn't apply to an unconscious person. He says that imposing himself on a woman that is defensive would be assault, but that imposing himself on a woman incapable of defending herself is ok. I think that is even worse because the person can't even decide to say no. Personally, I don't agree that marriage is a presumption of consent at all times. If your spouse is sick or upset at you, just wait it off (or jerk it off). It's creepy to have sex with unconsious people, sick people, and if you're so horny you have to get inside somebody even when they're in that state, you have way bigger issues.

 

I think it would be disgusting to have sex with your unconscious spouse who's unable to say yes or no and I agree that it would be an indicator of bigger issues. I would be very angry and feel violated as well. I was just hesitant to call that action rape, but perhaps I'm wrong. I certainly don't agree with that action and wouldn't want to be with someone who did that.. In the case where the spouse is sick or upset then they still have the capability to say no and I think that should be respected.

[EclecticIdealist]

"Well, I think if you’re talking about a woman being inebriated or asleep you could imagine those situations where you would view it as rape and I would not."  What do you think? Is Vox right that a woman has an obligation to have sex with her husband even if she's ill or incapacitated, but not to the point of bruises, but ok with intoxicants or if she's unconscious?

Unless it has previously been established that sex with one's partner while they are intoxicated or unconscious is permissible, it should be presumed to be impermissible. Generally, i agree with LM and Vox that there is a general presumption of consent; however, along with such a presumption of consent is a presumption of consideration. If the consideration is lacking, the marriage will be in trouble every bit as much, if not more so than if the consent is lacking. It's not a difficult conversation to have. It might even be a conversation to have before marriage, especially if the idea of having sex with someone who is drunk or sleeping is appealing to you.

[Will Torbald]

 

This goes a long way from anarcho or libertarian thought and into the world of laws created 100s or 1000s of years ago, that according to Vox, are seemingly immutable. This sounds something that would be much more at home in Islam. For example, the Shia Family Law (2009) in Afghanistan, which requires a wife to submit to her husband's carnal desires once every for days, if he so chooses.

 

This puts Vox on a par with the following countries, where forced congress is not recognised as a crime in marriage.

 

I don't think Vox considers himself a libertarian. He's much more in tune with the good old days of monarchy and union of church and state. It worries me when someone considered to be so intellectual quotes the Bible and Ye Old Laws as his authority in this argument. In his view, what is being argued is totally ok because the Bible says it is ok. The Bible also condones a lot of other things like slavery.

 

 

I think it would be disgusting to have sex with your unconscious spouse who's unable to say yes or no and I agree that it would be an indicator of bigger issues. I would be very angry and feel violated as well. I was just hesitant to call that action rape, but perhaps I'm wrong. I certainly don't agree with that action and wouldn't want to be with someone who did that.. In the case where the spouse is sick or upset then they still have the capability to say no and I think that should be respected.

 

Whether it is called rape or not isn't as important as relegating it as a morally condemnable action in the area of sexual assault. The "nothing wrong with it" attitude is the criteria of contempt.

 

 

Unless it has previously been established that sex with one's partner while they are intoxicated or unconscious is permissible, it should be presumed to be impermissible. Generally, i agree with LM and Vox that there is a general presumption of consent; however, along with such a presumption of consent is a presumption of consideration. If the consideration is lacking, the marriage will be in trouble every bit as much, if not more so than if the consent is lacking. It's not a difficult conversation to have. It might even be a conversation to have before marriage, especially if the idea of having sex with someone who is drunk or sleeping is appealing to you.

 

Before this I had never thought of asking a fiancé of mine if she's cool with asleep sex. I do think it's difficult since, if she's against it, and I just bring it out then she will think I was thinking about doing it, and now she thinks I'm a pervert. Tch tch.

[A4E]

Since the conversation moved on to the unconscious category. It is pretty obvious to me, that if not agreed beforehand that it is ok, then its not. Such an agreement made beforehand when conscious, should not have anything to do with a marriage agreement.

 

Is there such a thing as "Have to let wife/husband have sex with me" in a marriage contract?? I know that there is "Exclusive right to sex with partner", but I do not regard that as a right to sex. Just thinking aloud here.

[Wuzzums]

Because policy is made based on these views, because religions teach this to children (possibly yours hypothetically through media and propaganda) and because you might find your spouse disagreeing with you on this.

 

Buy what business is the government's what my wife and I disagree on? If you have to bring a 3rd party each time you don'y agree on something then the answer is evident: divorce.

[Troubador]

Sex without consent is rape, it's pretty simple. Marriage doesn't alter that definition. In addition talking in terms of obligation we need to unpack what marriage has meant historically. Which essentially has viewed women (and children for that matter) as chattel and part of the man's household.

[Mister Mister]

  Marriage can be thought of as a contract.  I think it's actually healthy to think of it this way, and be more explicit than the cliched vows of "Love, Honor, and Obey", for women, and "Love, Honor, and Cherish" for men.  I've played several weddings professionally, and I don't believe I've ever heard of any vows that include "I vow to have sex with you when ever you ask".  I doubt that many, if any women would accept such a contract.  Or if they did, what would they ask for in return - total control of your bank account?

 It's true, the power in relationships has swung way too far on the woman's side, but this is taking it way too far the other way I think.  The answer of course is as much voluntarism as possible.  As men we should strive to be someone that women want to have sex with, just as women should strive to be someone that men want to protect and provide for.  Calling on the State to guarantee you sex from a woman would be just as corrupting as using the State to guarantee resources has been for women.

[The Underthinker]

Here's a topic that I often heard vox shamed for pre-emptily. And for the longest time I had a negative opinion of Vox Day as a result of this.

There is no marital rape? I found the idea ludicrous and distasteful.

However, now reading his arguments, I find the real meat of the argument isn't about whether marital rape is rape or not. 

Rather his arguments seem to be this:

 

1. What value is offered to a man as a result of marriage if not the right to sex? Why enter a marriage contract as a male if this reward is not offered?

2. Marital rape law is practically never used to prosecute. That's how we know it's a bad law.
3. Forcing someone to have sex while married is not rape, it's assault and battery, because consent is presumed.

I think a compelling case is made. I'm going to think about this for a while.

[A4E]

3. Forcing someone to have sex while married is not rape, it's assault and battery, because consent is presumed.

 

 

 

I think I understand what you mean. But could you try to elaborate on this point from him?

 

As a counter test, does a wife have the 'consent' to take as much money from her husband as she wants, and use it on whatever she likes? (assuming she has 100% ability to do so, or can just force the husband to give her)

[EclecticIdealist]

1. What value is offered to a man as a result of marriage if not the right to sex? Why enter a marriage contract as a male if this reward is not offered?

2. Marital rape law is practically never used to prosecute. That's how we know it's a bad law.

3. Forcing someone to have sex while married is not rape, it's assault and battery, because consent is presumed.

 

1 - Companionship, Cohabitation, possibly a cook, a housekeeper, personal assistant, someone to rear one's children (including those from a previous relationship), potentially a nurse, financial planner, etc.  It all depends on who one chooses to partner with. Of course sex would be an expectation in the vast majority (and a requirement in some) of marriage partnerships; however such a partnership agreement typically does not explicitly state or imply sex at any time, but rather, mutual genuine consideration and accommodation of one's partner's sexual needs and desires.

2 - That a law is practically never used to prosecute does not make it a bad law. Congress rarely engages in impeachment of Presidents, and even less frequently of Judges, but that does not make impeachment a bad law. It may simply be poorly prosecuted and enforced due to difficulties in obtaining a conviction, not because there isn't merit to the charges.

3 - Sexual intercourse that occurs as a result of assault and battery can be presumed to be non-consensual, and therefore, rape. If you can prove assault and battery and sex, you can presume, despite an existing marital relationship, the lack of consent to sex.

[dsayers]

Since the conversation moved on to the unconscious category. It is pretty obvious to me, that if not agreed beforehand that it is ok, then its not. Such an agreement made beforehand when conscious, should not have anything to do with a marriage agreement.

I agree with your last sentiment. However, there's one element of consent I don't think you took into consideration: reasonable expectation of consent. If you found somebody passed out on the street, you could pick them up and move them to safety. Because it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent they would. Whether this leads to okay sex between the conscious and unconscious is going to be different on a case by case basis.

 

However, I think there's a more important question to be asked. Why would somebody WANT to have sex with their not-present partner? I've never been one for one night stands and having tasted virtuous love-making, I could settle for no less. I would make love WITH my partner because it's a sharing and expression of our love. Something that cannot be had without my partner. To have sex with somebody who's not there, it's not about them at all. It only about getting off, which can be done by one's self, where no possibility of violation can be found.

 

In other words, its morality is variable based on the state of the relationship between the two people. However, I wouldn't want people in my support network that would want or submit to unconscious sex.

[Boohickey11]

I've never had half-asleep sex but I've had passionate kissing in the middle of the night with my fiance while half-asleep. Did I commit sexual assault?

 

BTW, passionate middle-of-the-night kissing is awesome. And it would never occur without someone you love/trust sleeping next to you.

[AccuTron]

I think I understand what you mean. But could you try to elaborate on this point from him?

 

As a counter test, does a wife have the 'consent' to take as much money from her husband as she wants, and use it on whatever she likes? (assuming she has 100% ability to do so, or can just force the husband to give her)

 

I notice a pet peeve.  Somehow money from a male and sex from a female are equivalent.  To get money the male has to struggle mightily against the world, with no guarantees.  The female simply has to show up.  Hardly equal.  Reeks of entitlement.

[A4E]

I notice a pet peeve.  Somehow money from a male and sex from a female are equivalent.  To get money the male has to struggle mightily against the world, with no guarantees.  The female simply has to show up.  Hardly equal.  Reeks of entitlement.

Yeah, but I thought it would make for a good example to present for most men.

 

"As a counter, does your sexy wonderful wife have consent to pressure you into passionate sex with her at any time?" does not feel as a very complicated premise. Even if it works both ways in that the man may not want to.

[David Ottinger]

Ok, that first statement in the OP is not a fact.  Principles do not cease to exist because two people entered into a contract.  For example, two UFC fighters walking into the Octagon do not violate the NAP because they explicitly agreed to the fight, thus they're not actually making unjustified claim of rights upon another individual.  The NAP still exists, but two people simply agreed not to hold one another accountable for any violation during that specific event.  Justification of a claim (i.e. the merits of a claim) ought not be confused with the forgiveness of an act*.  So, where in the marital contract is it explicitly agreed upon that sex is mandatory?

 

In other words, why does an individual need to surrender his/her sovereignty over the body in order to enter a marital contract?   That is a specious requisite.   

 

"Hey honey, I know you're angry with me right now, but I'm really horny and demand sex.  Oh, you won't give it to me?  Well here, drink this Cosby, and that'll resolve the issue."

 

Does that sound like marriage is being honored or destroyed?  That is clearly not a situation where consideration is being honored.  In the absence of consideration there is no contract.  Given that marriage contracts do not have expiration dates, consideration is an ongoing element of the spousal interaction.  In the event that conflict arises and those differences cannot be reconciled, then that serves as cause to end the marital contract. 

 

 

 

*Act being an exercise of a claim whether the claim is justified or not.

[thecurrentyear]

I don't get what kind of marriage y'all are imagining to enter into where sexual contact with ones partner is not the best part of every day, whether it was explicitly agreed upon beforehand or not (not being preferred, I would think, in general. Seeing as how women love "spontaneity").

[dsayers]

I don't get what kind of marriage y'all are imagining to enter into where sexual contact with ones partner is not the best part of every day, whether it was explicitly agreed upon beforehand or not (not being preferred, I would think, in general. Seeing as how women love "spontaneity").

Word.

 

Two of the most satisfying love-making sessions I've been in literally involved no negotiation. One of them followed a disagreement we were having. She was so grateful of the insight I provided (and that I wasn't trying to satisfy my preferences, push her out of the conversation, or inflict a conclusion) that she lunged at me and just took me. Greatest night of our lives. The other time, the only words spoken in advance were "Are we not going to shower now?" That time, I took her. I'll never forget that look on her face afterwards.

 

But like I said before, there was a reasonable expectation of consent. I'm sure if either of us had resisted, the other would've yielded.

[ValueOfBrevity]

I have an important question.

Does this include anal?

Since no one will bite, I will explain.

If anal is assured by marriage, why can't the woman sodomize the man at will?

[thecurrentyear]

I have an important question.

 

Does this include anal?

 

Since no one will bite, I will explain.

 

If anal is assured by marriage, why can't the woman sodomize the man at will?

 

If that was how the marriage were consummated and regular sexual relations included it, then why wouldn't she? But if that's not the kind of intimacy the relationship were built upon, then you're just trying to distract and inflame with this diversion.

[ValueOfBrevity]

If that was how the marriage were consummated and regular sexual relations included it, then why wouldn't she? But if that's not the kind of intimacy the relationship were built upon, then you're just trying to distract and inflame with this diversion.

 

Why does it matter whether they usually had anal sex? 

I doubt any real-time relationships were built on forcing your partner to have sex.

[thecurrentyear]

Why does it matter whether they usually had anal sex? 

I doubt any real-time relationships were built on forcing your partner to have sex.

 

Oh yes that's totally what I said.

[Lotus Flowery]

Isn't marriage a statist institution to begin with?

[EclecticIdealist]

Isn't marriage a statist institution to begin with?

Marriage in one form or another has been around for as long as there have been tribes of humans. Whether or not marriage is a statist institution or a religious one really depends on the degree to which one considers the supposed authority of the tribe or family to be statist, or religious. In many cases, there is no clear distinction between religion and the state, as religion lends itself well to decreasing the cost of "ownership and control" of the masses and astute political or state leaders throughout history have been aware of this and used it to their advantage wherever possible.

[RamynKing]

has there been more talk of withholding sex as breach-of-contract in other threads, or even presentations?

 

incredibly interesting stuff.

 

..and poignant.

[Zoopshab]

I was surprised to see this piece from The Rebel media, which is traditionally a little more libertarian/free-speech/alt-right. The same group that hosts Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern and Erza Levant.

http://www.therebel.media/fire_the_bigot

Seems to me all this muslim chaplain did was express the idea that there was no such thing as marital rape. Much as is being discussed here in this forum. But, considering how much The Rebel lobbies against SJWs, it looks like Faith Goldy has done some SJW-ing of her own.

 

[Caley McKibbin]

We probably wouldn't be dealing with SJW feminism now if it wasn't for struggling men grasping at excuses to rape women for ages.

 

Step 1: tell women that they will be refused heaven (or ruining civilization) if they fornicate outside of marriage.

Step 2: point at the contract when they say they aren't in the mood after they get married.  Claim that it is equal because both sides are bound by it despite the fact that one side has far higher libido.

Step 3: profit

 

It doesn't take an activist with a fine tooth comb to understand the dilemma above.  It has been a good lol of a scam, but now we are reaping the consequences of being on the political side associated with Abraham's and Muhammad's creepy crew.  If ever men were so desperate to get laid that they wove complex fairy tales to do it, the Bible is it.  Women reading these discussions will only be further creeped out and repelled by seeing continued support of this in addition to the miasma of the puahate/sluthate wing of MGTOW and MRA.  I read some Christian Q&A thread about this topic a while ago because I wanted to see how Christian women felt about what they were being told.  It was depressing.  The men were all hammer to the anvil for it.  The women were all trying to rationalize their way into the most nullifying interpretation.

[meetjoeblack]

Physically or financially, it is clearly wrong. Then again, tell that to the men who are on the hook for almony and child support for kids that are not their own.

[Archimedes]

I don't get what kind of marriage y'all are imagining to enter into where sexual contact with ones partner is not the best part of every day, whether it was explicitly agreed upon beforehand or not (not being preferred, I would think, in general. Seeing as how women love "spontaneity").

Personal boundaries don't cease to exist, just because you married someone.