Thoughts needed on this comment, please, sensitive issue.

[shipherlady]

Please do not read on if you're sensitive to comments regarding rape, I do not wish to upset anybody, just need impartial advice.

Anyway, dh and I having discussion about women's roles, basically, he held the view that if a 'woman does not pull her weight' financially, men have the right to rape them and do what they want in the bedroom. We were having a massive argument at the time, and he is at pains to say that this is what happened in the past ( I question this) and he has no desire to do this at all, but that is 'how it was' in the past when men earned all the money.
OK, now logically, I should be OK with his 'impartial' assessment of the past -even though I disagree with it-however, it's made me feel uncomfortable.
What do you think?

Vivacia/JYP You sort of make my point for me. The moral implications of marital rape weren't being discussed, but rather it took place in a broad discussion regarding the retrospective nature of the law (not a million miles from what the op and her husband/partner were discussing). Given the emotive nature of the subject, some women on the course weren't able to appreciate that something which most find abhorrent, not (at that point) being an offence in the eyes of the law.

The op's partner has never, accoring to the op, given her cause for concern prioir to this. Assuming it's not a new relationship, he should (and ignorring for now that all men are potentially would be rapists) be given the benefit of the doubt.

Contrarian No, I understood what you were saying. You were able to read the minds of these emotional women who couldn't understand the complexities around a man being convicted of a crime that wasn't actually illegal at the time he committed it. Thankfully, there were no men in the room who got all emotional, so they all got the lecturer's point straight away.

That's it. You've hit the nail on the head. For most men, we can discuss rape and recognise it as a disgusting offence, but, on the whole, it just doesn't resonate with us in quite the same way on a personal level. Not for most of us anyway. There will always be exceptions to the rule of course.

We all say stupid and nasty things in the middle of heated arguments. What those nasty things are is very often something random that comes into your head at the time. It may be he was trying to be funny and it clanged rather badly. He did not threaten to rape her - a threat is putting someone in fear that they might be raped. The OP said she has never been put in fear of her husband so let's put that nonsense to bed.

At any rate to suggest that OP should leave her husband without any other cause genuinely defies belief. If OP is seeking to leave her husband and find some sort of justification for it (which I wouldn't rule out given her comments) then that's another matter entirely.

ThreeTomatoes that's pretty much my interpretation too. Not accepting such behaviour isn't over-reacting in my book. In our relationship we talk kindly to each other, we back down, we explain, we apologise. I totally understand why the OP is shaken and confused and can't get the incident out of her head.

Fatherjake - I can't see how it may have been said as a joke if he said it nastily to the OP?

I wonder if he said the statement about taking her upstairs and then made a justification for it by bringing up history.

if the Take upstairs comment came first - this man is dangerous.

he backtracked, justified and tried to think up a reason for such an awful statement which was designed to instil fear. Possibly barbecuer he realised he allowed his anger to reveal his true thoughts and he knew they are unacceptable.

However, if the statement was made in the context of an argument about what happened in the past and if it was related to finances - he has a pretty skewed argument, but it is more of an opinion.

In either case, I would be worried about him bringing up rape in a conversation about money and working. it might reveal something about him which is dodgy in either case.

He did not threaten to rape her - a threat is putting someone in fear that they might be raped. The OP said she has never been put in fear of her husband so let's put that nonsense to bed.

But that is the problem. She is now worried he's working up to something.
In my book, that's a threat. She may not have been in fear until now, but she is now worried. :(

LazyJaney, if you truly believe that this guy's behaviour is "par for the course in all relationships" you are very wrong indeed.

OP I am the first to give the benefit of the doubt to men, but I can't do that here. I think that your DH was threatening you - in a round about deniablish sort of way, but still threatening. I would be very very uneasy about this if I were you. You have also said that you are worried he is building up to raping you and trying to build his justification in advance. You are the one there reading his body language and knowing him best. If you think that then it is probably true . I am not sure you are safe but am glad you at lest recognise something is not right. I hope someone else can advise further.

contrarian You say (please excuse long quote but this is a fast moving thread):

"I remember when studying for my LL.B, the lecturer tried (somewhat dangerously) to illicit some sympathy for the first man ever to be convicted of raping his wife. The tenant of the argument was that at the point the rape took place, the man hadn't actually committed an offence (in the eyes of the law). Needless to say, many of the women on the course (otherwise intelligent) weren't able to see his point. Rape is such an emotive subject - rightly so.

OP. Your partner/husband maintains that it's not a view to which he prescribes and unless he's given you casue to the contrary, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt."

I think you mean the tenet of the argument, and I think you mean subscribes not prescribes to view. I wouldn't normally correct a poster's vocabulary/grammar but in your post you have referred (somewhat condescendingly) to the intelligence of women so it seems appropriate.

I do not understand your point: why was the man convicted of rape not committing an offence at the point (?time) it took place? How come he was convicted, then? The law was not retrospective.

OP I wouldn't give your DP the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances you describe.

< snort >

Oh, also elicit not illicit.

Prof I've been typing too quickly to proofread any of my posts. I take you comments on board though.

Now. The point the lecturer was making was that at the point the man was convicted of rape, he hadn't actually comitted an offence. The law was indeed applied retrospectively - which, as a principle, isn't fair.

Also, the point I was making - which is sort of being proved here time and time again - was that these women were not idiots, but yet were still not capable of considering/discussing the offence rationally - somethign which is essential when studying the law.

Should women not study law then ? None of them ? At all ? Or should they make themselves "more like men" to enable them to do it "properly" ?

What ridiculous gender stereotyping.

Aren't the poor emotional women lucky to have you to tell them how to think?

And 'not fair'? My heart bleeds for the poor hard done to rapist.

Fuck off!

I also think this man is preparing the ground for an assault, OP. I suspect that he is angry (with you, or with women in general) and therefore he feels a need to harm you, to 'put you in your place' and train you into subservience. Because it's important to him that he is revered by you as The Man Of The House.
How many of the following things have happened?
He makes hurtful remarks about you (your appearance, your domestic work, your sexual behaviour) and claims not to mean them, to be only kidding or to be saying them affectionately.
He does little or no domestic work himself
He retells jokes about rape and about women's incompetence and inferiority and accuses you of having no sense of humour
He complains about a lack of sex
He threatens to leave whenever he doesn't get his own way
He takes the best of everything for himself (food has to be what he likes, all the leisure time available is his, he buys treats for himself but keeps you/DC short of moneyh)

There's no point trying to engage rationally....your fanny makes you too emotional.