Discussion Main / MaritalRapeLicense

Lie Back and Think of England is "someone doesn't enjoy sex, but they go through with it anyway." She is still consenting, just not necessarily enjoying it. It's no more forcing her than asking her to do the dishes is slavery.

This is "she really doesn't want to. But she's his wife so she doesn't get to say no."

In all countries. Read on: Sweden was the first country to make marital rape illegal, and that was in 1965.

This trope is on the No Real Life Examples Please index, yet it seems to me that the point in the description about how this trope was the law in most of the world until recently is letting Real Life examples in through the back door. Why not simply allow a category for Real Life examples with an entry that says this was a very commonplace law?

Incidentally, not every law code held this until recently. I know of at least one notable aversion, and I think it would be useful to allow Real Life examples in order to list notable aversions.

There's a difference between saying the trope exists in real life, and opening up a Real Life section that will inevitably be used by tropers to rant.

I agree that such a difference exists, but isn't there some less extreme solution to the problem? Can we not rely at all on the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment?

We wouldn't need to keep linking to it if we could rely on it.

Also, consider that at least one troper tried to basically rewrite the page and make a redirect along the lines of "Islam endorses raping children," it's safer to just keep RL stuff off the page.

Fair enough. If there are no objections, though, I would like to edit the description to point out that not all law codes prior to modern times permitted marital rape.

Also, the discussion of 'women as property', etc. is, well, incorrect. Not only is that not true of, oh, Europe the actual legal reasoning behind not being able to demonstrate marital rape was rather different and nuanced.

New Meat here .... , the Hadith entry on Mythology and Religion seems too blurred to me, brought up as a moderate, this troper observed that it was more or less these 3 aspects that influence the interpretation towards the practice of the hadith : 1. Cultural Aspects (General Patriarchy and Misoginy of the Middle Eastern society (and the world in general for it's day) - though still practiced. 2. Psychological aspects - Insecurity : The fear and insecurities of men in general , (which may or may not explaining the prevalence of patriarchy itself) about being a Henpecked Husband 3. Economic Aspects - also related to cultural aspects of patriarchy , even counts as an effect of patriarchy itself, that most women were not able to look for economic means to support themselves 4. Another Psychological Aspect - the power dynamics in relationships , especially an aspect to avert the All Take and No Give part where the woman are the culprit - (also counts as Double Standard - Abuse Female on Male) 5. An effort to avoid Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe - Paternity issues , since the whole Middle eastern societies are very SERIOUS about genealogy, since for some men this is their only chance about leaving a legacy, especially in lower & middle class in the society, in the days before DNA testing, also related to point (4) ,(3 ) & (2) , since for people in the middle of nowhere where life is a struggle (those days, not now - relatively speaking) , unrewarding jobs and all, the last thing you need is the news that your children is not your children indeed, not to mention slavery. Some men care not about who their wife is, they'll love him the same, it's expected of him to - even as a commodity, although Dehumanization is you know... WRONG (And Thats Terrible...)

Then, the problem lies with the intelligence of the commonfolk - even biased intellectuals , who unintentionally , though personally this troper suspects it's intentional - too much social unrest will arise by flipping the table (metaphorically) on social norms - this troper wouldn't even call those norms values since that kind of social axioms worthless -

Hope that clarifies some misunderstandings, and these are interesting though they're fundamentals, not advanced analysis internet links - this troper related to the interpretation of the hadith - on social perspective, that such norms predates the hadith and Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah#Origins

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society

Also note the verse on additional information on fundamentals on INTERPRETING this very hadith, the grammatics says and, which in basic mathematics logic only done truthfully if mutual sides practiced it - abuse is a no-no:

Verily, men who surrender unto God, and women who surrender, and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who speak the truth and women who speak the truth...and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard (their modesty), and men who remember God much and women who remember – God hath prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward.

—Verse 33 of the Qu'ran, 'The Coalition'

(And also that's why this troper suspect, it is biased people who chose to misinterpret the hadith, Islamic scholarship is somewhat complex - very complex indeed in archival research and interpretation)

Bounded Rationality indeed ," He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

sorry for Sasquipedalian Loquaciousness, this is the simplest this troper could explain it