Reply to Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As a young woman, I don't get it.  Like did you get married solely thinking you would get laid regularly?  Cause that just seems so... dumb.  Messed up.  Awful.

Then they put pressure on their wives, who dont feel like having sex, and try to coerce or pressure them into it.  Why?  Because the dude wants to have sex.

I see so much outrage about Brock Turner and no one seems to be talking about this different aspect of rape culture which is that husbands are entitled to their wives bodies?  When they want it?

And it's so bizarre to me.  Like.... how is this a thing?  In today's modern world?

Women are still expected to lie back and think of England?  For reals? [/quote]

It's a result of a thousand years of patriarchy.  Men until VERY recently have been conditioned to think that - and just think - many states don't consider rape with the context of marriage, rape - so if that's the culture you are living in, then that's how it's "a thing"  - don't buy into it, make sure you date and perhaps marry a man who consistently gets consent and is concerned about YOUR feelings, orgasm, etc. and you likely will not be in the same position.  Date a guy who expects you to give him a BJ so he doesn't get blue balls, pressures you for "one more kiss" or one more step forward on the bases, or otherwise denies your feelings, then you might end up in that kind of marriage.  [/quote]

+1 to the PP and OP.  I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736).  For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape.  Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s.  North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993.  Think about that.  As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape.  For example,  in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners.  This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape.  Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape.  In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur.  So, the Brock Turner example is very apt.  If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants.  That cultural milieu still exists today.  That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/  -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html    -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions. [/quote]

+1000000000000000000000 & infinity
to this comment.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics