I understand that rape within marriage was not made illegal until 1991

"Are they entitled to those visits regardless of whether the wife wants to visit or no?"

The woman would technically have to be an enthusiastic consenting partner but if a woman is the victim of domestic abuse it stands to reason that she may go along with it to 'keep him sweet'. Women aren't safe from their abusers just because they're in prison

I was just trying to understand what the reaction of the police would be if someone did try and report it.

There was a case of a teenage girl who was raped coming home from school - this was late 1980s. She might have been just 16, but I think it was younger.

The police came to her house and told her she had a dirty mind and to not make up things.

They did nothing until they heard she had given birth 9 months later when they wanted a statement, her father told them where to go.

It wasn't common knowledge because people did not think of it as rape. I remember an episode of casualty where a man takes his wife to A and E and tells the staff he knows the law so not to bother with the police because it isn't rape.

I also remember a court case, think it was the Arthur Hutchinson case. A family was murdered but the teenage daughter survived but was raped several times. The defence seemed to spend days questioning the daughter about whether she had actually enjoyed the sex.

Because a teenage girl who's parents and brother have just been murdered is obviously gagging for sex with the murderer.

And a man in Germany murdered his wife during their conjugal visit

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

"In Saudi Arabia, male inmates can have one conjugal visit each month. But that rule applies to each spouse, so men with multiple wives can have multiple visits each month"

I think she has to want to - I mean she isn't a prisoner so they can't exactly force her to come! But yeah I find the whole concept of conjugal visits weird.

Are they entitled to those visits regardless of whether the wife wants to visit or no?

There are some countries where prisoners are still entitled to 'conjugal visits'. Because, he may be a criminal, but to restrict his access to sex would just be inhumane

That's grim and bizarre about ukip. I knew they were a bunch of tways but I seriously never thought I'd see people argue against that.

Yes. Rape was seen as a crume against property for a long time. In Ancient Greece the law was tougher on adulterers than on rapists because they stole minds as well as bodies. The past - grim as fuck.

Is that a current UKIP position? I have no problem believing it of them, but I can see that the most recent stories are of a donor who said "once a woman accepts, she accepts and especially when she makes a vow on her wedding day.". I was unaware of the vow 'I will have sex with you against my will', I must say.

In 2006 UKIP MEPs broke their usual ban on voting in the European Parliament to oppose a motion urging member states to make rape within marriage a criminal offence. The result was 545:14, with UKIP making up 12 of the 14 votes.

Yup, which is just one of the myriad reasons that UKIP are utter shite.

Ukip want marriage rape to be decriminalised

It's still legal in Jersey actually!

It comes from the time when the wife was the husbands 'property'
Legally the husband couldn't be prosecuted for taking something that was already his
Wasn't that long ago that domestic violence was seen as a minor crime and the police wouldn't get involved at all

I can remember as a student I was staying at my then BF's parents and one day his dad (who was the local GP) got called to a neighbour's house. BF's mum said it was a domestic and the police 'couldn't do anything'. I was when I heard this. It was the late 1980s. Things have improved since then. Not enough, but they have improved.

Thanks Bertie that is interesting- I find 14 to be mind-boggling, to be honest, never mind anything else.

WilLiAm that must be hard to get your head round

It is sobering how recent moves to equality and protection from rape are.

My mum conceived as a result of marital rape. One day it dawned on me that due to the year it would not have actually have been classed as rape. I found that harder to deal with than the idea that I was the product of rape. The idea that my mum got raped and the entire legal system would tell her this was not the case, yet just four years later it would be.

Women really should not get complacent. We need to protect our rights.

ToadsJustFellFromTheSky You do not sound stupid at all. If you go back through history you can find all sorts of laws that used to be the case and no longer are and some pretty dubious current legislation. I find it bananas that my mother's name and occupation and those of my mother in law are not on my marriage certificate and my fathers' and father in law's are. I find this difficult to get my head around. Just...eh?

I think I was mistaken about them being improved recently; I was thinking of the 1994 changes, but this isn't recent at all.

I also made a slight mistake - the under 16/over 21 rule was brought in to replace the "virgin clause" in 1973 but in West Germany only, and the complaint could be made by the teenager's parents but not them themselves (? - it's a bit unclear). In 1994 it was extended to all of Germany. Between reunification and 1994 each territory kept their previous laws - the East had some kind of socialist ruleset up until this point.

They are pretty complicated but to sum up:

The "basic" age of consent is 14, which is the lowest AOC in Europe. Some other countries have 14 as well. This is for anyone. So a 14 year old can have a sexual relationship with a 30 year old and the 30 year old is not breaking the law. There is something wishy-washy about whether or not a person over 21 has exploited a 14 or 15yo's lack of capacity to understand and decide about consent, (this was only added in 1994) but in practice this is moot because it relies upon an actual complaint from the 14-15yo themselves, which first off is extremely rare/unlikely, and given their general crapness at sexual assault convictions, I highly suspect any sign of the 14/15yo "wanting it" would invalidate this kind of complaint anyway.

The maximum sentence for anyone sexually abusing a person under 14 (aka paedophilia) is just 10 years :(

The sentencing for a person over 21 who abuses a person under 16 (but over 14) is an absolute joke, a slap on the wrist. It ranges from nothing to a maximum of three years. And a person under 21 is apparently incapable of exploiting a younger person's lack of capacity to consent, meaning a 20 year old can freely have a sexual relationship with a just-14 year old with no legal question.

They do have a clause which prevents things like student/teacher sexual relationships when one or both participants are under 18, but I think this is fairly standard. This was also only added in 1994. Perfectly legal if the student was over 14 before then.

Lastly, a fun fact. Until 1973 they had a "virgin clause" which meant it was worse if an older person had sex with a teenage virgin (the direct translation is "unblemished girl under the age of 16", which is just VOM) than a teenager who had had sex before. I find this highly WTF.

Bertie please can you point me in the direction of age of consent laws in Germany? Why are they specifically crap ? Not doubting you, but curious.

Germany's sexual assault laws are really crap in general. The age of consent laws are awful. They've been slightly improved recently but not greatly. And don't get me started on the legalised prostitution which is supposed to protect sex workers but fails on every single count.

If we're talking about Germany, did you know that it has only just - i.e. this year - passed a "no means no" law? - under previous legislation, a woman had to prove that she had defended herself for an act to constitute rape: simply having said "No" was not enough to find a defendant guilty.

Here