To be completley flabbergasted that rape within marriage wasn't a crime for so long?

[user1483314270]

It was made illegal in 1991. I was born in 1988 so it was still legal in my lifetime.

I actually only found this out recently as I'm doing an access to law course at college and I'm still completely that it was legal for so long and within my lifetime.

I actually have an essay to write and I have to talk about the case which resulted in it becoming a criminal offence and it got me thinking about it again.

Seriously though, wtf! Why was it made illegal earlier? I think if someone had asked me prior to starting my college course when it was made a illegal I probably would have assumed the 1960's or the 70's at a push but the 1990's! Seriously!

Well you'd hope so Rebel but from what Misc has said it seems that for whatever reason there was a misinterpretation (or a terrible counsellor). I suppose also what i find worrying is that, yes it's clear that it doesn't mean you should be able to take it by force, but the emotional duress that could be put on someone to have sex because if not they are the ones accused of being the abuser (either by an abusive partner or a well meaning(?)/misguided councellor)

Trying to find the sign online but i can't seem to be able to. Only curious, as while withholding intimacy is a sign of domestic abuse,i can only see with holding sex as abuse on dumbass,misogynistic,religious type websites.
And in my eyes intimacy does not necessarily equal sex.

What was the general reaction like? I've heard that a lot of people disagreed with the change in the law and thought women were getting too uptight but surely that can't be true. Apparently the general consensus was that the only people who thought it should be illegal and that a husband could rape his wife were crazy sorry about the cut off it won't let me paste the last word

The run up to this was one of the first times I recieved death threats because of my work

I'm not sure I catch point EE

Rebel I will see if DH remembers in the morning. It may have been his interpretation of it as sex when actually it said intamacy. I'm totally ashamed to say this but the reason I remember it so well is because DH did then try to imply (the next time i didn't want sex) that it was domestic abuse. It was said in a half jokey way but he was told in no uncertain terms to fuck right off. Thankfully he didnt try that again

....while withholding intimacy is a sign of domestic abuse

I'm not sure I follow... why would withholding intimacy constitute abuse? There are many legitimate reasons to withhold intimacy in marriage. Yes, withholding intimacy means something isn't right with your marriage, and you should seek to resolve the underlying issues one way or another, but withholding intimacy isn't abusive, surely!

The concept of 'withholding' intimacy is a weird one - intimacy isn't something you bestow and withhold, it's created between two people. If it's lacking then that needs to be addressed by both partners.

Things like ignoring, cold shoulder, silent treatment etc can be abusive.

But wrt the thread topic I think it's worth emphasising how recently the law changed. On the 'I'm not a feminist's thread this is one of the few facts that the 'I'm alright Jack' brigade never address, because what can they say? They like to pretend everything's fine and the fact that they or their mothers could legally be raped makes it obvious it's not ok, not by a long shot.

....while withholding intimacy is a sign of domestic abuse

Withholding affection and sexual contact can figure in abusive dynamics as yet another form of emotional abuse and control. The quotation above is a very broad phrasing, though.

I think there are many women who will not admit to rape in marriage, they simply let it pass. There is still the necessity to get back onto the saddle post birth (but not too early and not too late). It's all about meeting the needs of the partner who has the biggest sexual appetite.

Withdrawal of intimacy can still be cited as grounds of divorce under unreasonable behaviour.

To answer your original question, OP, I don't remember discussing it with anybody apart from my male lodger. He commented that he didn't think it was right because it meant that women would be able to falsely accuse their husbands of rape 'to get back at them'. We were both about 20 - I wonder if his attitude has changed since then?

I think attitudes towards rape (or maybe just laws) have changed a lot, even in the last 10 years. I remember an Eminem video (so early 2000s?) where a man was tempted to have sex with an unconscious/extremely drunk 15yo at a party. It was posed as though it was a moral quandary for him, mainly because his potential victim was only 15, not because she wasn't in a position to give consent. I just don't think that sort of video would happen now because, at least in law, it's fairly cut and dried. Hope I explained that properly!

This came into law when I was at secondary and there was a huge debate about it at the time. I remember a female friend arguing vehemently against it, too.

YANBU. It still is in Islamic countries. This is what really should flabbergast us now.

I clearly remember this as I was in my mid 20s at the time. Most of the debate in the early 90s in my circles and on the radio/tv was around the difficulties of proof.Pretty much no one was saying that men had the right to have sex with their wives on demand - at least not in my earshot! And as this was a pretty weak argument to say the least I wasn't surprised when the law was changed.

But I do clearly remember the when I first heard than a man couldn't rape his wife.

Either way you ADNBU

Becuase we have this underlying belief that men have to have sex

And that was part of a wife's duty to provide this

We may have moved on from what a wife's duty is but we haven't from men have to have sex it's what the sex industry is built in this belief sex should be provided for men when they need it

men can't help acting on impulse - remember!

I was working with rape crisis in the late 80's early 90's and was part of the campaign to change the law - some of the attitudes I encountered where horrific

but those attitudes STILL exist - lots of people - even on MN - don't feel it's rape if the woman is a bit drunk, goes to a hotel room, agrees to sex initially etc - many people still only accept rape if it's the stranger stereotype and the woman is 'innocent'

What was the general reaction like? I've heard that a lot of people disagreed with the change in the law and thought women were getting too uptight but surely that can't be true.

That was the attitude. A wife's duties included sex and if she didn't offer them willingly then a man was quite within his rights to 'take' what was his.

Don't forget that at this time rape was only PIV, if you were raped with an object or sodomised it wasn't 'proper rape.

And the one I've said numerous times, if a woman was forcibly sodomised the perpetrator could go to prison for a maxium of 2 years, when it was a man as victim, the jail term could be 10 years.

I seem to remember there was a debate in the EU parliament in 2016 about this. I don't think it is law in all EU states and Nigel Farage was one who voted against the motion to end gender based violence.

It was a very different time and I wish some people would be kinder to older Women, when they seem concerned about Women going out on their own etc. If you were raped, the attitude was that you shouldn't have been out. Women couldn't move freely in Society and expect protection, in my lifetime, I'm 48

This sort of attitude was also upheld by the law too. I worked in a magistrates court in the late 80's early 90's and I can remember a rape case being discharged because the magistrate had the attitude that any woman walking alone at 1am was asking to be raped

It's worth remembering too that because women had to leave jobs once they were married or were expected to leave when they had children, there was also an attitude that women owed men sex in a sort of economic exchange - he'd support her and the children and she'd give him sex in return. There was, and still is IMO, the attitude that women had children and men kindly accommodated that, so women owed men a lot. No one seemed to stop and think about the fact that they were also the men's children and actually the sacrifices made by the woman were enormous. That's changed somewhat these days but even on MN you have women talking about men 'helping' and 'babysitting'.

I remember the first 'Reclaim The Night' marches in the 70s when the Yorkshire Ripper was murdering women and the official advice was that if we went out on our own at night we were 'asking for trouble'.

There have been so few prosecutions the rape in marriage law has been one of the most ineffective pieces of law ever.

Rape in marriage still happens every day. And in practice there is no legal protection for women.

Floisme I remember the advice to stay in if you were a woman at the time of the Ripper murders too. Not men. It didn't make sense to me and I remember that was the lightbulb moment for me of just how much women get blamed for the violence against them.

It may well be illegal but speaking from my own experience it is almost impossible to prove. I have just left a long sexually abusive marriage where I was raped and sexually assaulted over 7 years. I have reported some of the rapes and assaults to the police and whilst they have been sympathetic and took me seriously there isn't really anything they can do as it is a crime without any evidence. My word against his and obviously he has denied everything when he was questioned.

Sorry it was late at night and i was not at my best coherent self.
Yes withholding intimacy can be ONE of the signs indicating (emotional)abuse. Mostly in a you don't deserve it/have to earn it pattern. Imagine your partner saying you can't hold their hand,touch them,be near them,cuddle them etc until they say so,until you redeemed yourself in their eyes for some transgression.Not even in a sexual context but the day to day things. Or when the only form of intimacy or contact you are allowed is during sex.
Lack of intimacy is obviously not good for a relationship,but when used as a punishment yes it can be abusive.
Probably i'm not making much more sense now either,sorry. I'm somewhat biased on this.

I was a teenager when the law changed and was so shocked that the law was not already in place. I had wrongly assumed that rape had always been rape.

Shortly after the change, a close family friend told us that her husband had been raping her for many years and that the law change gave her the confidence to finally leave him. In the end she didn't press charges as she didn't want her DC to know what an evil bastard their dad was.