A Voice for Men seems to joining the ranks of the marital rape deniers. In a post on the site today (archived here), AVFM contributor Amartya Talukdar attacks proposed laws to criminalize marital rape in India as part of an evil feminist plot to “criminalize marriage” itself. Because, in his mind, there is no such thing as marital rape.
In the post, he offers a muddled assortment of “arguments” against the very idea of marital rape. Echoing the, er, logic of sci-fi author and far-right crank Vox Day, Talukdar explains that once a woman marries a man she gives up her right to say “no” to sex with her husband.
The concept of marital rape is an oxymoron. Marriage is a licence for sex. A woman who does not want to have sex with her husband should separate from him and file for divorce.
Indeed, as he sees it, saying “no” to a spouse’s demands for sex is the real crime.
[M]arriage is where both partners should seek sexual fulfillment. Denying each other sex is a crime except in exceptional circumstances. This applies to both man and woman. In respecting mutual duties and responsibilities lies the successful marital relationship.
As long as a husband isn’t literally beating his wife, Talukdar suggests, she should simply submit to his demands — and shouldn’t even think about calling the cops on him.
Marriage is a partnership of trust. If a man should not subject his wife to physical pain, the wife should not subject him to the rigors of the criminal justice system.
Denying a husband sex is an evil act, because it might force the poor fellow to resort to masturbation — or worse!
What should a man do if he is regularly denied sex by his wife? Should he masturbate, visit brothels or should be commit adultery?
I’m going to take door number one here, and say, yes, it would be better for a man to masturbate than for him to RAPE HIS WIFE. (Having an affair or going to a brothel are also much better options than RAPING SOMEONE.)
But as Talukdar sees it, married men are essentially paying for a lifetime of sex-on-demand, and it’s a woman’s duty to live up to her side of this supposed bargain.
Rights come with duties. A woman in India has a right to maintenance even when husband is sick, and incapable of earning or is unemployed. He is duty bound to pay his wife alimony even after divorce. The Indian Courts have held that a man must “beg, borrow or steal” but he must maintain his wife. Then why shouldn’t a man have right to have coitus with his wife if he is duty bound to maintain her?
By this logic, divorced men paying alimony to their ex-wives should also have the right to demand sex from them, but never mind.
Since marital rape, in his mind, doesn’t exist, Talukdar resorts to conspiracy theory to explain why anyone would want to pass laws criminalizing marital rape in India. In his mind, it’s part of a longstanding plot by feminists to “criminalize” marriage and thus destroy it once and for all.
In India marriage is a sacrament. However, feminists have always viewed marriage as an institution that enslaves women. Hence they want this institution to be destroyed. …
Laws like no fault divorce, domestic violence, marital rape, alimony and child support have already made marriage an extinct institution in many countries. Hence caution must be exercised before Indian Law makers copy such laws.
In the world you and I live in, marriage is “extinct” in precisely zero countries. Talukdar, like most AVFMers, seems to live in a world of his own imagining.
Talukdar’s post is another new low in a long history of new lows from AVFM.
AVFM will post stuff like this, call women who dress revealingly “kiniving bitches” who are “begging” to be raped, talk about how they would vote “not guilty” in a jury for a rape trial even when faced with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the man on trial was guilty….
And then they’ll go off and deny that rape culture is a thing.
If a marriage licence does not specify, in writing, a right to sex on demand by either spouse, then no, it is NOT a legal licence for sex.
See how that works?
“Then why shouldn’t a man have right to have coitus with his wife if he is duty bound to maintain her?”
Isn’t he duty bound to provide for his children too? I guess he gets to rape them aswell?
Don’t give them ideas!!
The really shocking thing about marital rape is that it wasn’t recognised as a crime in the UK even as recently as 24 years ago, and I don’t think we were extreme outliers in this.
“However, feminists have always viewed marriage as an institution that enslaves women.”
Gee, I wonder how they ever got an idea like that?
What about when the wife wants sex but the husband doesn’t? Is it still not rape then?
“However, feminists have always viewed marriage as an institution that enslaves women. Hence they want this institution to be destroyed. …”
If feminists didn’t like marriage, wouldn’t they just…not get married?
Now I understand why these guys started picking on Jews. According to Judaism sex is a woman’s right and a man’s duty. If a man doesn’t provide it, she can divorce him….
Beliefs like this one are a reason, among so many, why feminism is necessary.
I do agree with the writer of this post on one thing, though: that women whose husbands harbor such vile notions about marriage should divorce them. That would include a good portion of the American Christian fundamentalists (among others), whose obsession with the wifely submission is rooted in the same mindset which makes marriage no different than sexual slavery for the woman.
I like (not really) how the marital rape apologists throw the “equality clause” (“This applies to both man and woman.”) into their arguments, trying to make their true message more palatable somehow. That always reminds me of Anatole France famous quote:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
“If a marriage licence does not specify, in writing, a right to sex on demand by either spouse, then no, it is NOT a legal licence for sex. ”
Even then, you can’t sign away your right to bodily autonomy just like you can’t sign yourself into slavery. There are some human rights that you simply cannot sign away.
Just because I’m in the mood to be pedantic – SACRAMENT is a christian thing. So no, it’s doubtful that “marriage is a sacrament in India”.
That’s true, too. As I recall, wasn’t there a case a few years ago where a control freak drew up an incredibly detailed (to the point of inanity) “slave contract” for a woman he wanted to dominate, and wasn’t it brought up in court when she sued him, and proven to be not legally binding? I seem to recall that there was…
Wetherby: The last US states to finally criminalize marital rape did so in 1993, so no, you’re hardly alone. In fact, South Carolina *still* has a law on the books specifying higher standards of evidence in prosecuting marital rape than other forms.
Also, let’s keep in mind this India. Arranged marriages are still very much a thing in much of the country. In modernized urban areas, this has become an odder process with at least something that almost kinda-sorta resembles consent (basically, when they come of age, the families push them to marry someone, but there’s some degree of choice in whom they marry), but in the rural regions, it’s still more of the old-school variety.
Talakdur writes that husbands are also obligated to provide sex for their wives. The logical conclusion of this is that it’s okay for a wife to rape her husband.
I thought the MRM was supposed to be concerned about male rape and domestic violence victims? I guess in the mind of Paul Elam it’s okay to promote rape and violence against violence against men as long as you promote rape and violence against women harder?
Any lurking MRA want to explain to me how this represents human rights activism in any way?
And the modern equivalent I often hear from Republicans: “Marriage is already equal because straight people and [homophobic slurs] can both marry somebody of the opposite gender!”
If its an aspect of someone’s marriage (or whatever relationship they have) that the two parties have sex with one another, virtually everyone would be understanding if someone became hurt and dissatisfied, maybe ending the relationship, when that aspect of it was revoked by the other party.
What people tend not to be understanding of is the notion, if one party stops willingly engaging in sex with the other, just fuck them anyways.
“I want a sexual relationship with my partner” is a perfectly good reason to change partners. Its not a good reason to fuck an unwilling partner.
OMG:
http://youtu.be/4FFG1NqKzCg
Familiar. Have sex with him or he cheats. Sex becomes a duty, not a pleasure until eventually she won’t feel any sexual desire at all. She’ll withhold just to try to save herself then beat herself up for being a failure as a wife.
No, each person’s body belongs to them and them only. You’ve no idea how long it’s taken me to finally learn that.
Marital rape exists.
I know that if I had the option to get married and leave myself without any legal recourse for rape, versus not getting married and retaining that recourse, I might want to choose not to get married. It seems like legal marital rape is a bigger threat to marriage than illegal marital rape.
Of course, India is going through cultural changes right now that are eroding male privilege, and shit like this should not be read as an attempt to advance a logical and reasoned argument in support of a particular position. This is the normal railing and screaming that can always be heard when male privilege is reduced, because some men just can’t handle it when that happens. If men can’t go out and sexually harass women at will and then go home and rape their wives, what will the world come to??? It will come to a less convenient world for terrible men, that’s what, and terrible men will always complain about that.
@POM
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Hey David, the #howtospotafeminist hashtag is ripe grounds for mockery right now. Confused Cats Against Feminism would be proud.
Big bag of “Nope” on this front.
My wife in no way owes me a damn thing when it comes to intimacy and sex. We both do it because we both enjoy it with each other. When she says “no” that is it. The conversation is done, I move on and we discuss other things.
I fear for the future wives and husbands of people who believe like the OP. The person you marry should be your best friend first, not your sex doll.
Honestly, do these people see woman as human? Or just as vaginas with women attached to them? I just can’t fathom they way they think.