Wednesday, August 26, 2009

I don't think Vox understands marital rape ... or marriage, or rape

| »

This post from Vox Day in which he refutes the concept of "marital rape" is one that perpetuates my hypothesis that he really just doesn't have the slightest clue of what he's talking about. See for yourselves:

The Bahamas consider a legal oxymoron:

"I think the bill is a very good thing because I believe that a husband can rape his wife. No is no. I don’t care if you’re married or if you’re not married. No is no, and once you force yourself on someone, whoever it is, it is rape. I agree with the bill 100 percent," she said.

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

Um – no, Vox. This "consent" you talk about is the one where the woman agrees to marry the man. She consents to the legal union. It is not the same as consenting/agreeing to have sex with him every single time he has a fancy for some screwing. If the girl says "no" but the guy makes her have sex with him anyway, against her will, then this is called "rape", regardless of their legal relationship. And, seeing as it's rape between a married couple, it's thus "marital" rape. See the distinction?

It just gets worse:

If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse's body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended.

If a woman wishes to preserve her right to sexually reject a man at will, she has a perfectly viable means of doing so. Don't get married. It's really not that hard. But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other's marital claims.

As is evident in reading these disgusting writings, Vox is the kind who believes that a woman who agrees to marry a man has basically signed herself over in her entirety, in heart, mind and body. I don't see how that's any different from her being a mere possession, or even a slave – but then, claiming that Vox is one for women's rights is, to put it mildly ... far-fetched.