Talk:Marital rape/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Definition of Marital Rape

The definition of marital rape here has undergone a number of revisions; mostly with no real gain in meaning. Many of these fail because of (a) the cardinal sin of defining a word--use of a word to define a word, (b) failure to identify the uniqueness of the term. Currently, we are sporting a definition proffered by Flyer22 Reborn, which, while aiming for simplicity, overlooks the point. On failing on the criterion (a) "Marital rape ... is rape in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." The "perpetrator/victim" is just presumptive language to lend a legal/criminal air with no contribution to the meaning. This same definition might be stated simply without loss of meaning here:

"Spousal rape ... is the rape of one spouse by the other", or "Spousal rape ... is rape between spouses"

And then added, for good measure to ensure that nothing more might be read into this: “It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse.”

Utter fail on both criteria. The thrust of the law on this, which can be read with some benefit, is the Wikipedia article on “Marital rape (United States law)” where marriage was once understood as exclusionary to the idea of rape, as marriage was a consensual legitimization of conjugal relations. The point is that largely, marriage has been legally redefined so that, specifically, this is no longer the case. Specifically, consent is required.

“Marital rape is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one’s spouse.”

No need to repeat the word “rape” again in the definition to try—in vain—to add to the definition.

The language ““It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse”, which attempts to pile on in place of clarity, adds even less than the current definition which says, <rape is a form rape>.

Just to be clear, the law has no “force” or “resistance” requirement; a definition that includes that requirement would be misrepresentative.

Themistoclides (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Themistoclides. My changes to the lead sentence here and here were in response to this edit an IP made. I see no issue with the final wording I used, legally or otherwise. It is accurate and can be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Stating that it is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse is WP:Lead material, since these aspects are discussed lower in the article. And that sentence can also be supported by WP:Reliable sources.
I could agree to go with the wording "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." But stating "rape between spouses" can make it seem like we are stating that both spouses have committed rape. While both spouses can commit marital rape, this does not automatically come with the territory and the sources are usually referring to one spouse raping the other (usually a man raping his wife). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, Flyer22 Reborn. The failure of "spousal rape is the rape of a spouse by the other" is that it is a tautology, As a definition it simply repeats the same words; little different than: " 'a red apple' is an apple that's red." If phrased rhetorically, this would be even worse, as a proposition so stated, often intentionally, is used to obscure the lack of valid reasoning. One might point to putative "reliable" sources, but if the definition is both vacuous and invalid, the point is moot. Themistoclides (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with that view, but I get the gist of where you are coming from. Still, the lead sentence should be clear on what marital rape is. And your suggestion of "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is good on that point. So I've gone ahead and changed the lead sentence to that (followup tweak here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you do not agree, the purpose of the Talk page is to discuss that, not for unilateral judgments. On the definition, if the point is to be as tautological as possible, then: "spousal rape is spouse on spouse rape" is even more so; semiotically, it adds nothing. Instead of adding "clarity", it advances a stifling monotony. I don't understand why the acute reaction whenever the definition here doesn't rely on the repetition of same word. Themistoclides (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see that there was more to discuss. There was no unilateral judgment. You suggested, or seemed to suggest, "Spousal rape ... is the rape of one spouse by the other." Going by the "Utter fail on both criteria" statement, perhaps you were not suggesting that wording? I went with that wording, per what I stated above. As for using "spousal rape" in the lead, it should be in the lead per WP:Alternative title. I see no problem with stating "marital rape" and then using the term rape to describe it in the same sentence. That's what it is -- rape. And that is how many sources define it. It is not being needlessly repetitive. If we look at the Marital rape (United States law) article, it states "is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." We could use that wording (and linking the term rape soon afterward would be important), but then we'd be left with the "perpetrator/victim" aspect that you object to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And I think that "Marital rape is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse." is poor wording for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion based on “I don’t agree” or “I think … [its] poor wording” are not arguments. I get why “rape is rape” assertions are so popular: they relieve the person of having to think and invite a welcoming stupor, reassured in the comfort that yo-yo definitions inanely repeated often enough will eventually ring true. One women was so adamant in repeating that “rape means rape” (only in all capitals), that one could nearly see her: index fingers in ears, turning red, and jumping up-and-down, all the while reciting this mantra. Given this, it likely is a misguided effort on my part to disturb such happy frames of mind.
I surmise that the reason so many don’t make an argument or don’t like giving an actual definition is because they don’t like the outcome. When it is spelled out, readers balk; I suspect that few meet the strict reading of this definition.
One addition consideration that should be touched upon: English is wanting in a fitting verb for “having sexual relations.” The words are either it is too clinical or too vulgar, and so the reliance on periphrastic phrases, such as the three-word “having sexual relations”. The vulgar expression would be quite succinct: “Martial rape is **** one’s spouse without consent.” Or a more homespun version, “It’s when you **** your spouse without asking first.” One proper English equivalent for this would be “Marital rape is having sexual relations with one’s spouse without consent.” One can tweak style such as “non-consensual vs. without consent” or “having vs. engaging”, etc., but these are incidental. Themistoclides (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion based on "I don't agree" or "I think ... [it's] poor wording" are arguments. In fact, it's often how WP:Consensus is formed. The arguments should have valid reasoning behind them, however. My valid reasoning is this: What WP:Reliable sources use wording such as "is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" when noting what marital rape is? Using "Marital rape is having sexual relations with one's spouse without consent." is questionable because there are many arguments in rape literature that rape is not having sex. Of course, it's technically sex and debates about sexual consent exist, but "sexual relations" wording when it comes to rape is considered a POV issue. If you want to have this matter go through some form of WP:Dispute resolution, so that we can get more opinions on what is the best lead sentence, we can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note that: "I don't agree" or "I think  ...” are not arguments.  A horde of people following the herding instinct to the same POV might gain momentum, but it will ever be on tenuous grounds; arguments must have (and not “should have”) reasons.
Now that you’ve at least put forward the rudiments of an argument, i.e., that no reliable source has “non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse” as defining spousal rape.  Reliable sources are easy enough to cite for this; so this is more complicated than that.
Another argument that you make is that “there are many arguments in rape literature that rape is not having sex.”  Good.  Put them forward. Let's see 'em.
Of relevance, too, is whether the definition can stand several tests, among which are:
(a) an attempt at rape can follow from the definition. For example, a spouse's attempt at rape would include conduct such as unwanted groping, rubbing, holding, or touching.
(b) Applicable to statutory rape, i.e., couples, legally married, but where at least one spouse is under the age of consent, constitutes rape by the other spouse.
(c) Mutual rape is included, e.g., where both spouses are intoxicated and unable to render consent.
(d) Where consent is exclusive, where a spouse's consent to extra-martial sexual relations may be illegal.
(e) Where renunciation of consent itself qualifies divorce as duress, for example, “If conjugal privileges are not going to be part of this marriage, then I’m out.” 
Let's see if a sufficiently low brow, philistine, coma-inducing definition works: “Marital rape is rape in a marriage.” It handles all the above, since rape is rape. Even the mutual rape case (c), where each spouse can at once be both perpetrator and victim (something that the current definition clearly fails at) is covered. Hey, nothing to see more about this definition, time to move on.
The crux, however, is that marriage has involved a mutual exchange of conjugal consent that is at once privileged and exclusive. Denial of this is what is at the heart of defining taking sex within marriage as rape. It is a rejection of marriage and nothing to do with physical assault against one spouse as legal—the penalty for assault against one's spouse should be severe, more severe than against a non-spouse. It could be enforced by a court-imposed divorce or even be a capital crime being the hideous crime against one's spouse that it is. But it is not the theft of sex; the point of which is to abnegate marriage. This is why these editors are so hysterical to write-out “consent” from the definition—just leave it as synonymous with rape, and avoid a definition. Themistoclides (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, we disagree on what is an argument, and I've already been clear why. I have made my arguments, and I'm certain that others would agree that I have.
"Non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" is not the wording I objected to. I am speaking of exact wording. What I objected to what "is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" because it is not common wording for marital rape, whether among the general public or in the literature. And either way, "non-consensual sexual relations" is not terminology that is commonly used in the sources. "Non-consensual sex" or "non-consensual sexual intercourse"? Yes, those are commonly used in the sources.
Once again, I see no issue whatsoever with stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." And stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is certainly better than stating "Marital rape is rape in a marriage."
Once again, we are at an impasse. When it is clear that editors are not going to agree, the next step is to seek outside opinions. This can be done via a WP:RfC or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. I am not going to keep arguing the same thing over and over. And I cannot stand arguing with an editor who condescends to me. So either you seek more opinions, or I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's clarify. The terminology of “sexual relations” was the standard usage in English. As someone whose father was born in the 19th century, I think that I have a particularly long view on this, though that does not relive me of the obligation to prove this through research. The omission of “relations”, and using only the noun “sex” as a verb still seems a bit bawdy for many of us. I remain astounded on how frequently former President Clinton's statement “... I did not have sexual relations with ...” is misquoted as “I did not have sex with ...” A google search show this. And, even … for video clips titles!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNN6kuSEOLM The whole point of the President's defense was that he didn't have “sexual relations.”
Next, I progressively attempted to trivialize the definition until it was a straw man, nothing more than restating an attributive adjective as a a predicate adjective. (It's a bit more subtle here since there are two partys involved), but “marital rape is rape in marriage” (or, a happy spouse is a spouse that's happy) is the point. No new information is conveyed.
The current definition fails the five criteria I laid out above. Take, for example, as it is currently stated, it assumes that “rape” cannot be mutual. Say: “A couple is going to celebrate their 5th wedding anniversary by meeting at a resort. After dinner and drinks, where both are over 0.08 blood alcohol level. Thereafter they retire for the night and conjugal relations ensue. Behold! Two rapists! Restate this example as a wedding night, if you like. Besides this being a reduction ad absurdum, it disproves the non-mutuality provision of the current definition, i.e., “one … the other”.
Given that the whole point of the “marital rape” is to disqualify marriage as legitimizing sexual relations, per se, the inclusion of “consent” in the definition is needed. Legal and dictionary definitions are all over the place. My suggestion is “Marital rape involves non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse” or “ “Marital rape involves having sexual relations with one's spouse without consent.” I know there are going to be those who want to include some “force” requirement, or the like. But that requirement is not there. Themistoclides (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You stated, "Take, for example, as it is currently stated, it assumes that 'rape' cannot be mutual." What do you mean by "mutual"? If you mean that both spouses can commit rape, as in rape each other, I already argued above that "stating 'rape between spouses' can make it seem like we are stating that both spouses have committed rape. While both spouses can commit marital rape, this does not automatically come with the territory and the sources are usually referring to one spouse raping the other (usually a man raping his wife)." And a couple is not said to have simultaneously raped each other. Using the words "one spouse by the other" does not the negate the possibility that the spouses might have raped each other. Also, your latest suggestions state "one's spouse."
As for your latest suggestions, using "is" instead of "involves" would be better. And using "sexual relations", or even "sexual activity," is broad. Not all sexual activity counts as rape under whatever rape law is at hand. "Sexual intercourse" is more narrow, and is usually more accurate when defining rape (going by the rape laws). I know what you are proposing. I also know that some people do not view marital rape as rape, which makes noting that it is rape all the more important. Linking to the Rape article makes it clear that rape is non-consensual. Even though people know that rape is defined by the lack of consent, another alternative is to state "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is non-consensual sexual activity, and is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." or "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is non-consensual sexual intercourse, and is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
First, going back to the prior point, what I meant by "mutuality in rape", is that the current definition, i.e., "one spouse ... with... the other", suggests one-way directional arrow, but it can be simultaneous (two-way concurrent). But the definition of marital rape allows for simultaneous rape, e.g., when both are intoxicated. I gave 5 criteria (above) where "marital rape" is distinguishable from rape. I am especially surprised that criterion (e), arguably the most salient, has not attracted any attention in the literature. There is a long list of types of rape, and this list is liable to become unwieldy long because it deals with incidental circumstances. While these incidental circumstances may be vital to formulating interventions and may distinguish the extent of the harmful effects on the victim, none of these go to the essentiality of the co-consensual legitimization of sexual relations, which makes marriage different.
Now, to your current point: I agree, using "is" is better. "Is" for definitions is generally preferred as it denotes equivalence. The lack of an acceptable verb in English, however, is problematic. For the verb, "sexual relations" is an exact one-to-one synonym for "sexual intercourse", the former simply being the preferred polite form in public discourse; and I can accept the latter, sexual intercourse, given the legal context. What I cannot brook, is that in order to make a point--a point that its advocates are unwilling to state unequivocally because they don't like it--that the definition be made iterative, i.e., it folds back upon itself. Specifically, "we have to say it's rape so that it's rape" (!) A misguided and self-assuring dodge. Given the above, I believe it comes down to, simply, "Marital rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without consent." Themistoclides (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Where is rape ever defined as simultaneous, except for in some cases of gang rape? Like I stated above, "a couple is not said to have simultaneously raped each other." When two people are married to each other, and both are intoxicated and have sex, that is not defined as rape. Unless, of course, one of the two is mentally challenged beyond intoxication and any consent on that person's part is not valid. Or unless it's child marriage (in which case it's not simply "have sex") and people on that case contend that the child cannot validly consent to sex within the marriage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that you've read above. In any instance, gang rape is serial, not simultaneous. By simultaneous I mean that neither of the couple provided consent. The lack of consent--including being in a condition unable to render consent (e.g., intoxication, 0.0008 BAC, cf. college rape cases) is rape, as defined. On what basis do you claim that marital couples are exempt from this aspect of consent? Also, marriage is, per se, a defense against statutory rape (criterion (c), above. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I read what you stated. As for gang rape being "serial, not simultaneous," notice that I stated "in some cases of gang rape"? I specifically added "in some cases" so that you would get the point that I was not stating that all gang rape is simultaneous. Some gang rape, however, is simultaneous. As for your consent argument, my argument is that, except for some cases of gang rape, rape is not defined anywhere as being a simultaneous act. Couples are not stated to have raped each other at the same time. In the case of a couple, there is one victim and one perpetrator...unless the other spouse raped the other partner after the initial rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I noted what you said. I've already demonstrated that a couple can be co-rapists if both are intoxicated. Two drunk drivers that collided are both guilty of drunk driving. Regarding gang rape. If a "gang" consists of a minimum of 3 assailants, I don't see how a 3+ assailant-rape can be synchronous. Certainly not of a man as victim. Perhaps you should just spell out your meaning; I'm not seeing it. Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a WP:Reliable source stating that people can simultaneously rape each other, I will not be giving your claim much credence. If two people who are intoxicated have sex with each other, that is not rape...unless one of them is legally considered incapable of consent. As for gang rape, if one guy has a penis in the woman's mouth and other has a penis in her vagina, that is gang rape. Yes, with just two assailants. And it is simultaneous. And if a third has his penis in her anus/rectum, that is also gang rape. And it is certainly possible, just as it's possible in pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, OK, I would call the other two something else, but what I am referring to is mutual rape, as described as follows below. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The only thing that comes close to the "we simultaneously raped each other" viewpoint is when two people are forced to have sex with each other, as noted in this 2006 Intervention, Terrorism, and Torture: Contemporary Challenges to Just War Theory source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 275. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This incident happens frequently on college campuses. To the best my knowledge, the way it is resolved when the two parties are both intoxicated beyond consent and mutually engage in intercourse, the crime is charged to the man, [here]. The underlying notion here is that women are incapable of initiating sexual intercourse--i.e, the male member can insert, but the female member cannot induct. As long as this lie continues, then yes, only one of two parties, men, is capable of engaging in intercourse. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You state that and yet no reliable sources support the idea of mutual/simultaneous rape. Not even the ones about campus rape. What you are describing is not what most people would categorize as rape. Not unless one of the people was incapable of giving consent due to the intoxication. Two intoxicated people deciding to have sex with each other is not rape by any legal definition. It only becomes rape when one of the two is thought to not have validly been able to give consent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
What criterion (e)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
See above. Much of the rape literature address types of coercion. Unique to marriage is divorce. I quote from above: “If conjugal privileges are not going to be part of this marriage, then I’m out.”  The effects of a divorce could be devastating--making it an extremely potent coercive threat. I have not seen the threat of divorce as a basis for attempted rape or rape in the literature. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The term sexual relations is broader than the term sexual intercourse, which is why it does not redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. Not using either term and simply stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is useful in any case that sexually assaulting one's spouse without engaging in vaginal, anal or oral sex might still be termed "rape." For example, use of an inanimate object to penetrate the spouse. That stated, the sources generally seem to be focusing on sexual intercourse. As for what you can or cannot accept, there is no need to forgo noting that marital rape is rape. Noting that it's rape is not misguided at all. Even if we use one of your suggested proposals for the lead (initial) sentence, it does not mean that we cannot note after that sentence that marital rape is rape. In an article that is about rape, the term rape should be linked somewhere, especially in the lead. Linking it at the beginning with the bolding, however, goes against MOS:BOLD. So it needs to be linked somewhere after the bolded term rape. Linking both "marital" and "rape" side by side causes a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, the "re-direct" from "sexual relations" to "sexual activity" only uses the words once (1x) in a near 6,000 word article (and then in a clear and unambiguous sense: "though most religions disapprove of extramarital sexual relations, it has always been widely practiced.") Hard to see where this redirect in "sexual relations" is coming from. Having sexual relations is not the same as having any sexual activity. Again, I refer you to the case of President Clinton on having "sexual relations." On your other point, yes, the word rape can be used very broadly, example, "the invaders raped the land as they went ..." But this is a metaphorical application; that is not the kind of rape we are discussing here. This is sexual intercourse by at least two; that said, a human cannot engage in a conjugal union with an object. Certainly can be sexually abused by it, for sure. Also, please read above, where I layout that in definitions you cannot cop-out and use a word to define a word. Yes, you can use the term later, once the initial definition is established. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sexual relations is broader than sexual intercourse, regardless of Bill Clinton's definition of sexual intercourse. I've studied sexual topics long enough to know that sexual relations is a broad term. And given the broadness of the term, the article the term should redirect to is either the Sexual activity article or the Sexual relationship article (which redirects to Intimate relationship). And out of those two articles, the Sexual activity article is the best destination for the term, given that people sometimes use "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse" (like the Bill Clinton example you keep citing), but "sexual relationship" is usually about an ongoing sexual relationship or a past sexual relationship that was not simply a one-time matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No. "Sexual relations" is an exact synonym for "sexual intercourse" used in polite discourse. It is impossible to correctly understand English literature otherwise. I am not going to argue it--when contemporaries can't even define the word "man", I don't expect much. I surmise this is just a denigration to remove anything that hints of modesty or propriety.Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The claim that it is an exact synonym for "sexual intercourse" doesn't hold up when it's used for sexual activities that people wouldn't define as sexual intercourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm told that "he" or "she" doesn't hold up, that's sex is an "assignment" not a "categorization", etc. But, there is clearly a breakdown occurring in English, as it's becoming increasingly difficult for various parts of the population (principally stratified by age) to obtain a common meaning. I don't mean to belabor the example of President Clinton, but I do believe it is illustrative of what is being missed here. When he said that "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." What he meant was that they limited themselves to 3rd base, never going to home plate.
Later, in the actual perjury trial, the definition used, as defined by the Independent Counsel's Office, including whether he had engaged Miss Lewinsky in oral sex; the question arose of whether he "gave" or "received" it. More specifically, with the intent of sexual gratification of the other person. He implied, given this definition, that it was not her mouth that was sexually gratified, but his sexual organ that was. So he was on the receiving, not the giving end. This same distinction of who the active agent is comes into play, again, in the question of mutual rape. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have anything more to state on this aspect of your argument. But I will state that while a lot of people go by Bill Clinton's definition of what is or isn't sex, many others do not, especially in this day and age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Your latest suggestion is "Marital rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without consent." Immediately after that, I proposal the following: "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse, it was once widely unrecognized by law and society as a crime or wrongdoing, but is now recognized as rape by many societies around the world, repudiated by international conventions, and increasingly criminalized." This is text already in the lead; I've simply rearranged it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That addresses my objection. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added all of what we agreed on (or seemingly agreed on). I also replied above. In the future, I ask that you don't split up my comment when replying to me. I don't like disjointed discussion such as that, and one reason that I don't like it is because it leaves parts of my comment unsigned; I went ahead and duplicated the signature above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll attempt to figure out the peculiarities of the signing in WP. To the point: I edited the sentence for grammar. The sentence begins with an adjectival phrase. Let's look at adjectival phrases by way of example: "An obese man, he couldn't buckle his seat belt." The "An obese man" is an adjectival phrase qualifying "he". The sentence could be rewritten, with only minor loss, as "The obese man couldn't buckle his seat belt." We're somewhat left in the rewrite to infer that he couldn't buckle his seat belt because he was obese. The lead adjectival phrase makes attribution to obesity clearer. Now in our example we have the adjectival phrase "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse", this phrases modifies the "it" that follows. But this adjectival phrase has nothing to do with what follows, i.e., that it (a) was widely unrecognized, (b) now recognized, (c) repudiated, and (d) increasingly criminalized. While "An obese man" informs "he couldn't buckle his seat belt", the "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse" is actually dependent on (a) - (d), i.e., the other way around! That why the sentence is so jarring.Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't care if the format I originally used remains, or if this one I just used remains. As long as the "domestic violence and sexual abuse", "once widely unrecognized by law and society as a crime" and "is [...] rape" aspects remain, I am fine with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is clearer since it's not a matter of anyone consenting, but rather the other spouse consenting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Marital Rape

This entire article is entirely too long. Link certain words to other Wikipedia articles because too much time is wasted explaining things that do not need to be explained. Also work to make the article look more uniform because it's appearing as an eyesore when the sub section titles change fonts. LemonisLime (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Denmark

Using Denmark as an example of a country "which were early to criminalize marital rape" here is a bit misleading, as they didn't remove references to marital status until 2013. Excerpt from a report by Amnesty International:

The Danish Penal Code’s provisions on rape come under the chapter on vice crimes and a number of the provisions on sexual offences include references to marital status. The legislation even provides for a possible reduction in the penalty for rape if the victim and the perpetrator marry or enter into a registered partnership. [...] Furthermore, the Danish Penal Code provides that the perpetrator’s subsequent marriage or registration of partnership with the victim is grounds for reducing or remitting punishment. Various sections of the code refer to marital status. Rape and sexual violence are serious violations of a woman’s right of sexual self-determination and integrity – marriage with the perpetrator does not change this fact.

...which is why I've removed the unreferenced mention of Denmark. / Gavleson (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is wrong to say that Denmark was "early to criminalize marital rape", because this is true. Although its original laws allowed for shorter sentences, and in some cases (if the victim reconciled with the perpetrator) allowed for a pardon, the fact remains that Denmark was in fact one of the first countries to criminalize marital rape. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
However, I agree with your note on "unreferenced mention", this is a problem with the whole article, particularly the map and the sections on the countries which have and have not criminalized marital rape. I'd appreciate if you could comment on this problem of the article, as it has been brought up many times on talk, but nobody seems to be interested in it.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a "disputed" tag to the sections on countries which criminalize and which don't; the tag should stay until the problem is solved.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The 2013 change in Danish law was a repealing of a marry-your-rapist law: a legal provision that exempts a rapist from punishment if he marries his victim. This is different from marital rape, which occurs after marriage has taken place (instead of before it). Marital rape was indeed criminalised in Denmark in the 1960s. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marital_rape/Archive_3&oldid=1022030076"