I have written on this topic before in multiple places. Now, I've done more research on it and it calls into question the idea that you could legally rape your wife even when the marital rape exemption was in place. Raping your spouse was not recognised as a rape because spouses were presumed to be automatically consenting to any sex that occurred, but it was still recognised as an assault.

This is shown in the case of R v Miller [1954]. This is a case in the UK, decades before the marital rape exemption was abolished in 1991. Miller is the first recorded case we know of a husband managing to escape conviction for rape because of the marital rape exemption.

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-miller-1954.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20210417021920/https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-miller-1954.php

"The defendant, Mr Miller, had been the husband of the victim who, at the time of the alleged offence, had left the respondent and filed a petition for divorce on grounds of adultery. During this period, the defendant met with the victim and had intercourse with her against her will. This caused the victim to suffer significant mental distress."

It was held "That the appellant could not be guilty of rape, as the implied consent of a wife to have intercourse with her husband could only be revoked by court order or a binding separation agreement. In the circumstances, this consent had not been revoked. Nevertheless, a husband was not entitled to use force or violence for the purposes of exercising his right to intercourse; to do so would amount to an assault. Moreover, as a ‘hysterical and nervous condition’ ([1954] 2 Q.B. 282, 292 per Lynskey J) is a recognised form of bodily harm, such an assault would constitute an offence under s.47 OAPA."

Here's another source talking about that case.

https://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Miller-[1954].php

https://web.archive.org/web/20210816041859/https://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Miller-[1954].php

"The petition for divorce did not revoke the marital consent to sexual intercourse thus no charge for rape could result. (The marital consent defence was overruled in R v R). There was nothing to prevent the defendant from being liable for any other offence against the person for actions in committing rape. The defendant was thus liable for ABH." (ABH = Actual Bodily Harm)

So while he could not be charged with rape, he could still be held liable for committing an assault upon his wife, at least decades before the marital rape exemption was overturned.

According to this Wikipedia page, there were only four recorded cases in which a husband had relied on the exemption to escape convictions for rape, and in three of these four cases (including R v Miller) the husbands were instead convicted of assault or indecent assault.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_R

https://web.archive.org/web/20210620225114/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_R

Should marital rape have been recognised as rape? Perhaps. Was holding down your wife and fucking her legal before marital rape was recognised as rape? No, it was still seen as an assault. This is yet another example of feminist history dabbling in half-truths, omitting information in order to create a misleading picture.

And remember that men did not have more protections than women in the past. Actually, in many times and places, they had less. If one thinks that women got a bad deal, well, men got a really goddamn shitty deal.