Marital Rape

About a week ago an article written by a good friend of mine that condemned deadly and immoral and quite frankly disgusting invalidation of the seriousness of rape in certain situations sparked a discussion when linked by another good friend. The discussion was nothing short of alarming. Considering that the article itself denounced the intolerable actions of a justice who dismissed the case of the rape of a 7 year old girl on the grounds that there was “no serious injury” as a result, the case of a husband strangling his wife into submission so that he could rape her because he was aroused by her nightgown, and the proposal of clauses that would protect rights regardless of sexual preferences, it was greatly disturbing that after reading such a piece the ruling on marital rape was quickly defended as though the highly patriarchal definition of marriage in which the wife is basically a sex slave to her husband (and not in a consensual kinky way) in order to keep him from abusing her is not only threatened but valid and correct and something to be protected. Though those who were expressing such views claimed that they did not condone violence (though “she should be wise enough to know the consequences of her action!” sure as hell sounds like it) the fact that these points were made in the context of the discussion–such a horrific case of domestic abuse and marital rape–was more than pathetic and insecure.

I never imagined I would write this entry, because I thought for certain that everyone knew marital rape is real, that without question it is as serious as non-marital rape, and that it is wrong that this is unrecognized. I could only take relief that no one was defending the ruling on the case of the 7 year old girl. Hardly encouraging, but these were the depressing standards.

That such defensive, inane points of “What is a man supposed to do if he asks his wife and she says no?” (how about not rape her?) and “But he can’t just not have sex when he wants it!” (oh I’m sorry, I didn’t understand this before! well yes in that case he should obviously just choke her into submission then, by all means) were brought forward in the face of a woman being violently assaulted is only part of a larger pattern of inane defenses when it comes to not only rape but more minuscule and deeply ingrained patterns of thought, including but not limited to “No means no but women should lower the risk by not dressing seductively” and “What’s wrong with pointing out men and women are different?” during very serious discussions of rape cases and responsibility. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it: respectively, it does not lower the risk and that is not her problem and, you’re inadequately dodging the argument to defend a privileged position because losing power that you stole and to which you never had any right makes you panic. You pathetic, insecure dumbass. This slew of idiotic “but sex is part of marriage!” and “he’s her husband not her enemy!” (then he ought to stop being her enemy) type drivel are the same frantic grab for power.

Much of this is a deeply rooted misogynistic mistrust of women: that women must be vengeful or scheming or straight-out inconsiderate (you know, because our sole purpose of existence is to sexually satisfy men and having our own rights is just plain inconsiderate) that if a woman turns down her husband for no reason that is clear to him she is neglecting him. Because he is a child. Or an animal, like her pet. Except that her pet gets to make all the decisions. She is always deceitful and ill-intended, and so even when she is harassed and raped it needs to be idiotically stated, “but men get erections!” and when she is not hired for a job because of sex discrimination some vapid “intellectual” egotist is going to frivolously point out, “well men and women are different!” Notably, the person who was asserting that she is inconsiderate to not have sex with a husband who is good to her was assuming good faith on the part of the husband but not on the part of the wife. (“Why are you taking this specific case?? I am talking in general and not in exceptions…the general rule is that the man is good to her!!”)

Such is the effect of patriarchy. The general rule is that the man is good to her, but that she is inconsiderate. It must then follow that any woman who expects that her own husband not rape her is unthreading the fabrics of marriage.

A woman does not need reason to turn down her husband. If he doesn’t like that she has this right, the civil and human and Islamic thing to do is get a divorce. Such a man is not fit for marriage, Islamically or otherwise. Any man–ANY MAN, who is OKAY with having sex with a woman who DOES NOT WANT IT is a sick and terrible person. How can a man see that his wife does not want to have sex, and see that he is pressuring her, and continue to be aroused enough to have sex with her?! Disgusting. And one of the most disturbing aspects during the discussion was the refusal to view rape as it really is: sex without consent. Force is not always physical; a woman having sex with her husband to prevent him from (physically or otherwise) forcing her or going totally apeshit is, in fact, forcing her. But I suppose it is only she who has the duty to be considerate–it’s totally fine if he rapes her, because she exists to revolve around him, and his desires override hers. Incredibly but predictably, all of this required repeating because of the deplorable mentality of rape apologists who pretend to be adherents of Islam, marriage, and morality.