The crime of marital rape has the potential to damage the lives of those who are victims to it. The most common victims of marital rape, which are wives rather than husbands, can experience an extensive amount of trauma. Women who have experienced marital rape experience higher levels of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and poor self-esteem and body image (Martin et. al., 2007, p. 342). Women have also experienced negative physical effects to their health, in addition to the psychological toll that experiencing marital rape can result in. Physical injuries such as soft tissue injuries, lacerations, pelvic pain, and other deleterious gynecological symptoms can arise as a result of the trauma they have experienced (Martin et. al., 2007,
…show more content…
In the 19th century, women were not encouraged to work outside the home. In obtaining a husband, women were also obtaining a means of survival. The husband provided financially for his wife; he was often the one who put a roof over her head, provided money for the food on the table, and ultimately was a resource for the wife and her family’s survival. This financial support implied that a wife must be obedient and subservient to her husband. She is expected to listen to him, and adhere to his demands – after all, he is providing the ultimate support to her own being. This implies that a wife must engage in sexual intercourse and activity at any time her husband desired to. In theory, because marriage was viewed as a contract, the sexual intercourse between a husband and wife was always consensual. A man was incapable of raping his wife because he was the one who was providing for her; thus, because he was giving something to her, she was expected to give something back. In being married to her husband, an implied consent is assumed that she will have sex with her husband, as she was viewed to be the property of her husband as well (Siegel, 1995, p. …show more content…
One argument was that marital rape was simply not as serious as the rape of other women – it was widely believed that marital rape rarely occurred. Additionally, it had been argued that the consequences of being a victim of non-marital rape are more serious than being a victim of marital rape (Siegel, 1995, p. 358). However, despite the occurrence of marital rape being more frequent, even if this happened to one woman, that should not dismiss it as a crime overall. There was also a fear that if the marital rape exemption were to be removed from the law, there would be more false accusations of rape against husbands. One reason that those who support the marital rape exemption believe this is that by accusing a husband of rape, it could give the wife leverage in a divorce or a custody battle over a child (Siegel, 1995, p.361). The idea that charging a husband with rape perpetuates the ideas that wives are calculating liars, and those women who would claim that something as traumatic as spousal rape occurred to them would only do so to seek vengeance on their partner. It is interesting that the law recognizes that a wife could file charges against her husband for a domestic assault, or even the abuse of their child, but not claim that he has raped her. This exemplifies how
In the 19th century, women were not encouraged to work outside the home. In obtaining a husband, women were also obtaining a means of survival. The husband provided financially for his wife; he was often the one who put a roof over her head, provided money for the food on the table, and ultimately was a resource for the wife and her family’s survival. This financial support implied that a wife must be obedient and subservient to her husband. She is expected to listen to him, and adhere to his demands – after all, he is providing the ultimate support to her own being. This implies that a wife must engage in sexual intercourse and activity at any time her husband desired to. In theory, because marriage was viewed as a contract, the sexual intercourse between a husband and wife was always consensual. A man was incapable of raping his wife because he was the one who was providing for her; thus, because he was giving something to her, she was expected to give something back. In being married to her husband, an implied consent is assumed that she will have sex with her husband, as she was viewed to be the property of her husband as well (Siegel, 1995, p. …show more content…
One argument was that marital rape was simply not as serious as the rape of other women – it was widely believed that marital rape rarely occurred. Additionally, it had been argued that the consequences of being a victim of non-marital rape are more serious than being a victim of marital rape (Siegel, 1995, p. 358). However, despite the occurrence of marital rape being more frequent, even if this happened to one woman, that should not dismiss it as a crime overall. There was also a fear that if the marital rape exemption were to be removed from the law, there would be more false accusations of rape against husbands. One reason that those who support the marital rape exemption believe this is that by accusing a husband of rape, it could give the wife leverage in a divorce or a custody battle over a child (Siegel, 1995, p.361). The idea that charging a husband with rape perpetuates the ideas that wives are calculating liars, and those women who would claim that something as traumatic as spousal rape occurred to them would only do so to seek vengeance on their partner. It is interesting that the law recognizes that a wife could file charges against her husband for a domestic assault, or even the abuse of their child, but not claim that he has raped her. This exemplifies how