~ archived since 2018 ~

Flashback: First case of marital rape involving co-habitating spouses: she was treated as a pioneer even though he was acquitted

PierceHarlan

March 14, 2010

9 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/flashback-first-case-of-marital-rape.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Flashback: First case of marital rape involving co-habitating spouses: she was treated as a pioneer even though he was acquitted
Author	PierceHarlan
Upvotes	9
Comments	11
Date	March 14, 2010 12:04 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bd2pv/flashback_first_case_of_marital_rape_involving/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/flashback-first-case-of-marital-rape-involving-co.1050357 https://theredarchive.com/post/1050357

Comments

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that while we were enacting an avalanche of rape reforms that gave women unprecedented power to charge men with rape and to have men convicted of rape, we didn't bother consider what we should do if women abused that power. (For example, we didn't bother to stiffen the sentences for false reporting of rape, and most states still have a maximum of six months to two years -- the same maximums as existed before all the rape reforms that made is easy to convict innocent men. There is essentially no deterrent for false reporting of rape, and women know they can lie about rape with virtual impunity.) We have thus exposed innocent men to unnecessary enhanced risk of being wrongly charged with rape. The result has been a false rape epidemic.

It is also well to note that this law does pose problems that everyone (except the staunchest feminists) recognized and struggled with: consensual sex in marriage is the norm, and to say it is routine is a gross understatement. There are no witnesses to the marital sex act, but now, an act that has been performed every second of every day around the world -- the most routine act of love -- can be turned into "rape" merely by one party saying there was no consent. It is also important to add that contrary to popular belief, a husband never, ever had the right to assualt or batter (touching can be a battery) his wife.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan[S] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, we have no fault divorce laws, and no one is allowed to assault anyone else. I am not aware of any case where a wife raped a husband.

I suspect most men would be ashamed to make such an allegation -- women expect men to be macho and always ready to have sex.

In marriage, spouses routinely do things for the other that they'd probably rather not do at the time, out love. This includes doing something for her mother when it's the last thing you'd rather be doing. And when a woman is trying to get pregnant, men are often called into stud service when they might have other things they need to do. Rape? Marital abuse? Nope. And, yes, men have an enhanced sex drive and most wives understand that. Asking for your spouse to accomodate reasonable desires or needs is natural and perfectly fine; being demanding or unreasonable is a problem.

[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hold on just a second; while those are all valid issues, the change in the law didn't cause them. American criminal law operates still operates on the standard of reasonable doubt, and by all accounts that should not be possible to overcome in any trial exclusively involving contradicting testimonial evidence. The problem is that juries will convict on the basis of such purely contradicting testimonial evidence because of pre-conceived biases, or because one side seems to present themselves better, but that has nothing to do with expanding the scope of rape charges to situations where legal anachronisms previously made them inapplicable. If you want to complain about something, complain about judges allowing such cases to stand and not instructing juries that there isn't sufficient evidence to make a finding, don't complain about statutes allowing rape victims to find justice even when their attacker was family.

[–]PierceHarlan[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Read False Rape Society where we deal with every one of these issues in painstaking detail. All manner of claims are now allowed that weren't allowed in days long gone, making it much, much easier to charge men with rape. The real problem is the charge and the arrest more than than conviction.

The insistence that rape was underreported, and that women don't lie about rape, led to an avalanche of reforms in both law and public policy -- a cavalcade of changes applicable to no other alleged crime that made it much easier both to report the crime and to convict accused criminals. These included rape shield laws that forbid inquiring into the accuser's sexual past with persons other than the defendant; elimination of the requirement of corroboration, thus allowing a conviction for rape based on no evidence beyond the accuser's say so; the elimination of the requirements of force and resistance; the law allowing husbands to be convicted of raping their wives; the law eliminating use of polygraphs for sexual assault accusers but no other criminal complainant; lifetime anonymity for persons who make rape accusations; the law allowing admission in a rape trial of evidence that the defendant previously committed a rape (the prior rape is admitted if proven by just a preponderance of the evidence, and even if the defendant was previously acquitted of the charge); the trend to abolish and eliminate statutes of limitations for rape, thus allowing a purported victim to wait for an indefinite time to make a rape accusation; compensation for UK victims of even non-forcible rape, and "over the clothing" sex acts, no matter how slight their injuries, but not for men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm; all manner of counseling and assistance for rape accusers funded by tax and tuition dollars; and the rule on many college campuses that rape accusers can't be charged with underage drinking in connection with the accusation.

While these reforms made it easier to cry rape and to convict for rape, they also made it easier to falsely cry rape and to wrongly convict for rape. While these reforms were occurring, there were no reforms whatsoever to protect the presumed innocent who, too often, turn out to have been falsely accused. The typically minimal sentences for false rape reporting were not enlarged; no effort was made to insure that law enforcement charge false rape claims as crimes, and they rarely do; and no effort was made to protect men's reputations from false rape claims by maintaining their anonymity prior to conviction. Society handed women and girls unprecedented power not only to bring their rapists to justice, but to destroy the lives of innocent males merely by crying rape, but it didn't bother to consider what should be done if they abuse that power. The falsely accused were offered up on the altar of gender political correctness as a twisted sort of collateral damage in the war on rape.

[–]Rygarb 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link