Is Rape justified in a marriage?

[Sahar]

Look, there is a difference between asking AGAIN (sweetly) when your partner seems disinterested, or snuggling up and whispering, "Oh, come on, baby...I'll make it worth your while!" - and throwing someone across a bed and raping them.

Anyone who can't tell the difference is a damn fool.

What I think the teachings from Islam are trying to get across is also what I was saying in my earlier post - if BOTH partners hold to a pattern of putting the needs of the other above their own needs, things will work out.

The point is - try putting the needs of the other ahead of your own needs, and that includes agreeing to sex sometimes when you're not overly interested in it. It does NOT mean allowing yourself to be raped.

Let's just be honest - sometimes partners become disinterested in sex, for a lot of reasons. Sometimes those reasons have very little to do with their partner. Is it fair to expect your partner to go without sex for long periods of time (you can define that based on how things were a year or two into the relationship) just because you've become disinterested? That's pretty damn offensive in and of itself. And they should just put up with it till you get back in the mood? And when might that be -weeks, months? Years? It happens. And they should just hope you change your mind? Continue to work and play together, raise kids, invest in a future, and all the while just hoping your libido eventually kicks back in? And be cheerful about it?

Of COURSE I am not saying that rape is OK. It never is. Never. But that doesn't mean that a partner has the right to constantly reject the other person either, and act aggrieved and surprised when the partner either becomes more aggressive, or angry, or eventually strays.

I have known many women over the course of my life who shock and amaze me - who, when with other women, ridicule their husbands, talk about sex as if it disgusts them, and even share that they haven't slept with their husband in months. I think this is appalling.

Very well said, great post.

 

[angrymoose]

Ok well before anyone says it isn't, I was arguing with some people who in their religious belief believe that there is no such thing as rape in a marriage.

I think, for a long time, this was the opinion in the west. Obviously, (i've not read 7 pages of the thread though), this is no longer the opinion in the West. I will concede that some religious traditions, created in the bronze age might in fact encourage this view. As an atheist, I think, I can take a higher pedistol and care about the people involved.

I think the idea that a woman should "please a man" in a marriage, ignores the idea that a man should also "please his wife". Now, granted, some people may decide neither husband nor wife should "please the other" but that children are the intent of marriage.

I understand the later concern but again the atheist, comes to the rescue. (Some religious traditions agree). If husband and wife have different views on how/when babies should be made, there is always divorce.

Our body is the most sacred thing we have. We should have the right to control when we are intimate with somebody. Again, the atheist view seems like the one, that most easily considers compassion.

 

[Kathryn]

Our body is precious - I'll definitely give credit to that statement. But why is OUR body more precious to us than the body of our lover? I think that's a skewered and selfish position.

I love my husband - his mind, his personality, and his body. If he needs me, wants me - I want to please him. I want to put his needs above my passing moods. Of course, as I said, this regard for each other goes both ways.

Two months ago, I had surgery on my achilles tendon, and even though that was my ANKLE - and not a part of my body that is an integral part of our sex life - he knew that I was in pain, and that the cast was uncomfortable, and that I was generally out of sorts for several weeks. He was patient, loving, and waited for me to come around. He let me know "I'm ready when you are" but would never have expected me to do anything I wasn't ready to do.

And I was touched when a couple of weeks into this ordeal, he let me know that he would just absolutely love some, errr, attention - whenever I felt like it. Did I feel sexy and hot with my gigantic cast on my leg? No. But I appreciated that he was thoughtful and yet still tenderly passionate toward me. That went a long way toward restoring intimacy in our relationship!

I think this is a good example of putting the physical needs of our partner above the physical needs of ourselves. A bit of sacrifice sometimes, grounded in love and respect for the other.

 

[Autodidact]

I heard some Christian dude on TV talking about how the bible says something like married couples must do each other unless they both disagree.
He put emphasis on the fact that men need sex or we will die, he explained in greater detail of how men going without sex is like dieing of thirst, of how we are Neurochemically created to need to get it on.
So, I guess you could call it rape if one doesn't agree but the other wants or needs it.
Dictionary.com says rape is an act of sexual interrcourse that is forced upon a person which to me is exactly what the dude was talking about.
Rape is okay with god.........

That's odd, since Paul commends celibacy. Well, TV preachers don't often feel the need to actually follow the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

No one is going to die if they don't have sex. That's ridiculous.

And of course any sexual act that is forced on another person is abusive, assault, and/or rape.

That being said, partners in a long term relationship need to keep in mind that even in the best relationships, sometimes sex is a bit of a sacrifice. I mean, sometimes people are tired, stressed, worried or simply not "in the mood." But I think it's best most of the time even in those circumstances to at least make the effort if your partner desires you.

Because that's what it boils down to - your partner, your love, DESIRES you. What a compliment!

Sometimes I'm tired or just plain sleepy, and not particularly in the mood when my husband is. But I've found that once we get started, I'm EVER so glad I decided to play along!

I guess I could get huffy and feel put upon when he knows I'm not particularly in the mood but he makes his move anyway. I guess I could focus on how "selfish" he is being. Or I can keep in mind that in spite of my harried mood, or my faded out t shirt and wild *** hair, or my middle aged body, he still wants me. Wow - that's great.

But of course, my husband would never - NEVER - force me to have sex, or try to make me feel guilty for not jumping his bones. If so - well, honestly, I don't think we'd be married for long. I ain't puttin' up wid dat ****.

I think Kathryn has it about right. If your partner still wants you after so many years, that's really something to be happy about and appreciate. OTOH, sex should never be done out of anger, power or violence. That's just wrong, and very damaging to a relationship.

 

[MoonWater]

Look, there is a difference between asking AGAIN (sweetly) when your partner seems disinterested, or snuggling up and whispering, "Oh, come on, baby...I'll make it worth your while!" - and throwing someone across a bed and raping them.

Anyone who can't tell the difference is a damn fool.

What I think the teachings from Islam are trying to get across is also what I was saying in my earlier post - if BOTH partners hold to a pattern of putting the needs of the other above their own needs, things will work out.

The point is - try putting the needs of the other ahead of your own needs, and that includes agreeing to sex sometimes when you're not overly interested in it. It does NOT mean allowing yourself to be raped.

Let's just be honest - sometimes partners become disinterested in sex, for a lot of reasons. Sometimes those reasons have very little to do with their partner. Is it fair to expect your partner to go without sex for long periods of time (you can define that based on how things were a year or two into the relationship) just because you've become disinterested? That's pretty damn offensive in and of itself. And they should just put up with it till you get back in the mood? And when might that be -weeks, months? Years? It happens. And they should just hope you change your mind? Continue to work and play together, raise kids, invest in a future, and all the while just hoping your libido eventually kicks back in? And be cheerful about it?

Of COURSE I am not saying that rape is OK. It never is. Never. But that doesn't mean that a partner has the right to constantly reject the other person either, and act aggrieved and surprised when the partner either becomes more aggressive, or angry, or eventually strays.

I have known many women over the course of my life who shock and amaze me - who, when with other women, ridicule their husbands, talk about sex as if it disgusts them, and even share that they haven't slept with their husband in months. I think this is appalling.

jeese, you're making it sound like a man will go crazy or couldn't possibly be happy in a marriage unless sex is involved. Someone like you should definitely know that there is more to marriage than sex and that it is more than possible to be happy in one without it. And then the line about "no right to act aggrieved if partner becomes aggressive or strays" makes it sound like you're blaming the victim. What I'm getting from that is that you're saying if I go for a couple weeks or a month of not being in the mood and my boyfriend decides to find release in some other woman who is, then I shouldn't be upset with him over it? What kind of sense does that make?

in my mind it would actually be more offensive to insist, push, or coerce someone into having sex if they're not in the mood. And yes that goes both ways for me. There have been times when my boyfriend hasn't been in the mood and the instant he tells me I back off out of respect for him just as he does the same for me. Now don't get me wrong I'm not calling "allowing yourself to be coerced" rape and nor do I condemn such a thing IF you TRULY find yourself content and happy with that. I just don't feel you can judge other couples by that same standard and look down on someone or mentally scold them simply because they aren't willing to put out when they're not in the mood and you are.

 

[MoonWater]

I think, for a long time, this was the opinion in the west. Obviously, (i've not read 7 pages of the thread though), this is no longer the opinion in the West. I will concede that some religious traditions, created in the bronze age might in fact encourage this view. As an atheist, I think, I can take a higher pedistol and care about the people involved.

I think the idea that a woman should "please a man" in a marriage, ignores the idea that a man should also "please his wife". Now, granted, some people may decide neither husband nor wife should "please the other" but that children are the intent of marriage.

I understand the later concern but again the atheist, comes to the rescue. (Some religious traditions agree). If husband and wife have different views on how/when babies should be made, there is always divorce.

Our body is the most sacred thing we have. We should have the right to control when we are intimate with somebody. Again, the atheist view seems like the one, that most easily considers compassion.

dude, the only view atheists have is that there is no god. Not believing in god does not necessitate that one will automatically hold compassionate views or hold more respect for the wishes of their spouse.

Hell the tradition I follow holds that all acts of love are rituals to the goddess(and no that is not just referring to sex) and while the tradition in and of itself is very new it was heavily inspired by and draws a lot from religions that are far older than those of the "bronze age".

Being an atheist does not automatically give you the moral high ground any more than following a religion does. Those views you spoke of are just as prevalent in religious philosophies as they are in secular ones. So no, it is not about "the atheist view" more easily considering compassion, it is about the individual choosing to consider compassion. Being an atheist has nothing to do with it.

 

[Alceste]

I'd stay way the hell away from those people. They're sick.

Second that. Also, whatever you do, do NOT let them set you up on any blind dates.

 

[linwood]

I

Rape generally falls beneath the category of zinaa.
My questions are these: Is there a such thing as marital rape in the shari`ah?

According to my research on this topic marital rape is an impossibility under the Zina laws interpreted by any of the 4 different schools of Sharia.

According to Sharia a man cannot be guilty of raping his wife.
He owns her.

 

[linwood]

am i the only one who thinks it's ridiculous for religion to HAVE to define rape? why does religion have to enter this topic at all?

Because this thread us about the justification of rape.

The most common justifications for rape are religious.

 

[TashaN]

According to my research on this topic marital rape is an impossibility under the Zina laws interpreted by any of the 4 different schools of Sharia.

According to Sharia a man cannot be guilty of raping his wife.
He owns her.

Man doesn't *own* his wife. He is just her partner.

 

[outhouse]

Ok well before anyone says it isn't, I was arguing with some people who in their religious belief believe that there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. In other words, if a woman decides to marry she must give up some of her "rights" and please her man. One woman told me that a man has needs and the purpose of a woman is to please those needs.

I know this sounds crazy but I was asked why it's rape and why it isn't justified in my point of view. Well for one, I don't think it's fair to the woman. I was raised in a society where men and women are equal in a relationship. However I'm not married, I was wondering what anyone else's point of view is when sex is forced upon a woman who is married to her husband.

its primitive and barbaric to think that rape is justified.

It carries the same weight against husband or wife as it would if one rapes a stranger in the civilized world

 

[Nerthus]

The point is - try putting the needs of the other ahead of your own needs, and that includes agreeing to sex sometimes when you're not overly interested in it. It does NOT mean allowing yourself to be raped.

I don't know if this was a response to my posts, but I did say several times that it wasn't rape.

Is it fair to expect your partner to go without sex for long periods of time (you can define that based on how things were a year or two into the relationship) just because you've become disinterested?

Why is it fair for your partner to expect sex when you don't want it? I don't agree with holding back sex for punishment purposes, but I also don't agree with having sex just to keep them happy, which it seems to be about.

When it comes to my body, I will do what I feel is right and not what someone else tells me. But, like I said this isn't rape, so it should get back on topic...

 

[Kathryn]

.

Let me break this down to you (thought it was obvious in my posts, but apparently not):

I am talking about PATTERNS here in relationships, not exceptions to the rule. I am talking about changing the rules per se and expecting your partner to simply deal with it, because you're just not that interested in sex anymore. I think that's unfair.

For most people, sex is a pretty important aspect of an intimate relationship. Generally speaking, people marry or enter a long term relationship with some implicit agreement between themselves about their expectations when it comes to sex and intimacy in the relationship.

Over the course of my lifetime, I've known many people - mostly women, but then I am a woman, so maybe it's just because I talk with more women than men about sex - anyway, I've known many women who, for a variety of reasons, lose interest in sex over time. I've listened to them laugh about their husbands, ridicule their attempts to talk them into sex, belittle the importance of sex, and act as if the idea of sex with their husbands is boring, or even disgusting.

I am pretty sure that when they got married, this wasn't the expectation.

jeese, you're making it sound like a man will go crazy or couldn't possibly be happy in a marriage unless sex is involved. Someone like you should definitely know that there is more to marriage than sex and that it is more than possible to be happy in one without it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most people expect regular sex in their marriage. This doesn't mean that they can't possibly find happiness without it - but most people expect it to be a component if at all possible.

Those of you who DON'T - please marry each other.

And then the line about "no right to act aggrieved if partner becomes aggressive or strays" makes it sound like you're blaming the victim. What I'm getting from that is that you're saying if I go for a couple weeks or a month of not being in the mood and my boyfriend decides to find release in some other woman who is, then I shouldn't be upset with him over it? What kind of sense does that make?

No - what I'm saying is what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you change the rules and lose interest in sex, over time you probably shouldn't be surprised if your mate loses interest in you, or becomes angry toward you, or eventually leaves you for someone who WILL have sex with him/her.

I am NOT talking about temporary situations in which sex isn't a part of a relationship. I specifically mentioned that when I had surgery, it was several weeks before sex even entered our minds and lives. If necessary, that could have extended to months, or even years if I was physically unable to have sex - but that's not what I'm talking about, and as I said, I think that's clear in my posts. I'm talking about simply "checking out" and cutting your mate off. Not cool - and if you do that, don't be surprised if your mate eventually tires of that and reacts in a way that's negative to you.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not calling "allowing yourself to be coerced" rape and nor do I condemn such a thing IF you TRULY find yourself content and happy with that. I just don't feel you can judge other couples by that same standard and look down on someone or mentally scold them simply because they aren't willing to put out when they're not in the mood and you are.

What I'm saying is this: Next time you're a bit lackadaisical about having sex, and you know your mate would like to, how 'bout you give it a twirl and see what happens. That's all I'm saying. Out of love and appreciation for your mate - just give it a try and don't get your panties in a wad. I'm sure he'll appreciate it - and while you're at it, don't act like you've climbed up on a cross to do it. Put your heart into it - you may be surprised at how rewarding it is.

And I don't "put out" when I don't feel like it. Frankly, I don't consider sex with my husband "putting out" or "humping" as someone else put it. I DO keep an open mind and a generous spirit when it comes to sex with my husband, and I'm never dissappointed. I know that our mutual agreement to be sensitive to the needs of each other has worked out very well for us.

What I'm talking about is an attitude of willingness and putting your partner's interests and needs above your own - out of love, respect, and appreciation.

I realize of course that this concept is totally alien to some people.

 

[blackout]

It's not necessarily about "changing the rules" Katherine.
Sometimes people change... or realize things...
Then new decisions need to be made.

People are not static. Neither are relationships.

It's unhealthy to live untrue to yourSelf,
compromised,
just to please someone else,
or because they expect you to,
or because you made some promise
at another time,
that you can no longer keep.

(I know you know this. you yourself divorced.)
(though I might add, there are, in some cases, other viable solutions. )

 

[Kathryn]

When I say "you," in this, I am speaking generally, not to anyone specifically.

I didn't say be untrue to yourself. If for whatever reason, justified or otherwise, you find that you no longer willing to meet your partner's expectations (and for all I know they're not meeting yours either - not laying blame here), I think it's more honest to leave the relationship rather than to simply expect your partner to "live with it."

Of course, if your partner is willing to put up with your new set of rules and expectations, that's another matter. Of course relationships change over times, and hopefully people change TOGETHER.

But if over time, one partner loses interest in sex and the other still expects it, I think that pretty much sucks for the one expecting sex to continue. In that scenario, I would recommend that the one who's uninterested make an extra effort for the other person.

It's called personal sacrifice - and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[MoonWater]

I see where you're coming from kathryn it's just that to me it seems more selfish and offensive for a partner to expect or continue to ask for sex when the other partner is not in the mood. I know if I were in a situation where I wasn't in the mood and after learning this my boyfriend snuggled up closer and said "come on, I'll make it worth your while." I would be offended and hurt as it would feel like he wasn't respecting my feelings on the matter. Now as I have said this goes both ways for us. There have been times when he hasn't been in the mood and as such out of love and respect for him I didn't and would never press him. I also know that f I went along anyway, even for his sake, it would feel like I'm lying to him because I wouldn't be able to fully give myself to him. Even if I did put my heart into it there would still be that part of that's just waiting for it to end so I can go to sleep or whatever and to have sex with my partner in that frame of mind just feels wrong to me. Now we don't hide from eachother our disappointment when this does happen but we don't try to make the other feel guilty and we usually discuss the why's and the what's going on. Now clearly the situation you have with your husband works for you as you seem to be very happy with it but that is not the only way one can make a sacrifice or compromise over intimacy in a relationship. The way my boyfriend and I do it is another way to compromise on the matter as neither one of us will press the issue if the other isn't in the mood.

Now yes with situations like with those women you described there is a problem, though granted from what you are telling me it sounds more like it comes from them losing interest in their husbands than them losing interest in sex. Let me add one caveat to your line of "shouldn't be surprised, blah, blah, blah." How about, "if you are withholding sex from your partner for a long period of time AND YOU DON'T TALK IT OVER WITH EACHOTHER(and I mean really discuss it and try to figure what's going on, what agreements you can come to etc.)only then should you not be surprised with the negative consequences, and even then I feel like those consequences would rise more out of that fact that the issue wasn't discussed and no compromise was reached, rather than the withholding of sex in and of itself.

Yes in any relationship sacrifices have to be made, but your way of doing it is by no means the only way and while it may work best for you it's not necessarily best for everyone, nor does it mean those who don't do it the way you do are automatically being selfish or offensive or disrespectful towards their partner. Like I said from my perspective it is the partner who is pushing, demanding, expecting, or coercing for sex when the other partner doesn't want to who is being the more selfish, offensive, and disrespectful(though yes I understand the pendulum swings both ways and this may not necessarily be the case.)

Though I'm curious, has there ever been in a time in your relationship with your husband that HE hasn't been in the mood when you have? If so did he oblige anyway as you have? If not, then would he if such a situation did arise?

 

[Duck]

i think there's no need for extra definition of rape. it is just sick to force people to accept it as normal under certain conditions. it reminds me of a law that's changed in 80s. once raping a prostitute was not a crime. it is disgusting. i think it comes from the same mind set. i would not call it arcaic. arcaic men could be very loving and protective. this is something else. i could not name it yet

.

There are two words that come to mind. One is barbaric, the other is EVIL.

 

[linwood]

Man doesn't *own* his wife. He is just her partner.

Spin it however you like Tasha.

Under Sharia raping your wife is a contradiction of terms.
It is impossible because any and all sex with your wife is legal even if you have to force her.

Sharia justifies rape in many ways not just within the bonds of matrimony.

Zina laws are designed to allow the rape and abuse of women.
This naturally leads to the belief that women are the property of men.

We`ve had this debate before.

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.
http://www.amjaonline.com/en_f_details.php?fid=2982

"The Hudood Ordinance makes no distinction between rape and adultery," Mr. Rahman explained to his audience. "It is just like saying there is no difference between an apple and an orange."

That flaw, critics say, has put many women behind bars. Of about 6,000 women in Pakistani custody awaiting trial as of March, 4,621 were being held on Hudood violations, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent group. Some 1,300 women awaiting trial were ordered released on Friday, after President Pervez Musharraf allowed bail in nonviolent offenses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/world/asia/09pakistan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[Kathryn]

it's just that to me it seems more selfish and offensive for a partner to expect or continue to ask for sex when the other partner is not in the mood.

As you probably know - There's HORNY, there's AFFECTIONATE, there's TENDER - there are lots of different moods that may lead to sex, or may lead away from sex. There's also lots of middle ground that's not particularly NEGATIVE about it, just not INTO it.

I guess everyone's different. I'm not at all offended when my husband makes a move on me and I'm not in the mood. He's not pushy about it, but then he really doesn't have to be, because unless I am absolutely SICK or dead tired, I don't usually tell him no - in fact, I don't think I've ever told him no unless I was sick or very tired. In other words, I don't have to be in the mood to agree to sex. Time has proven to me that he's very effective at getting me in the mood quickly, if I don't get my negativity up.

"Free your mind." Good motto in general.

I take it as a compliment that he desires me.

I know if I were in a situation where I wasn't in the mood and after learning this my boyfriend snuggled up closer and said "come on, I'll make it worth your while." I would be offended and hurt as it would feel like he wasn't respecting my feelings on the matter.

Well, I guess there's a difference between "not in the mood," and "absolutely no way." My husband doesn't make any moves on me when he knows I'm tired, or sick, and we certainly don't try to solve issues with sex (make up sex - gack, we both hate that). So I've literally never been in a situation where I can imagine him offending me or hurting me with his requests, hints, come ons, etc.

But I'm not easily offended, either. I'm very easy going and receptive.

I also know that f I went along anyway, even for his sake, it would feel like I'm lying to him because I wouldn't be able to fully give myself to him. Even if I did put my heart into it there would still be that part of that's just waiting for it to end so I can go to sleep or whatever and to have sex with my partner in that frame of mind just feels wrong to me.

To each his own. Like I said, I've never regretted it. Even if trumpets didn't flare and the sky erupt, it was still nice in the end. It's nice to be close - nice to be wanted - nice to be intimate. I don't carry baggage and resentment into sex. But I don't have someone who forces it on me either - if that were the case, I can assure you I'd be resentful - and divorced.

Now clearly the situation you have with your husband works for you as you seem to be very happy with it but that is not the only way one can make a sacrifice or compromise over intimacy in a relationship. The way my boyfriend and I do it is another way to compromise on the matter as neither one of us will press the issue if the other isn't in the mood.

OK.

Let me add one caveat to your line of "shouldn't be surprised, blah, blah, blah." How about, "if you are withholding sex from your partner for a long period of time AND YOU DON'T TALK IT OVER WITH EACHOTHER(and I mean really discuss it and try to figure what's going on, what agreements you can come to etc.)only then should you not be surprised with the negative consequences, and even then I feel like those consequences would rise more out of that fact that the issue wasn't discussed and no compromise was reached, rather than the withholding of sex in and of itself.

Yes, I can go with that. But many people don't talk about it with each other and it becomes the elephant in the room - till one or both wander off. And sure - withholding sex is the SYMPTOM of a deeper problem - but it usually doesn't help matters. It just digs a deeper hole and contributes to the problem in my opinion.

Yes in any relationship sacrifices have to be made, but your way of doing it is by no means the only way and while it may work best for you it's not necessarily best for everyone, nor does it mean those who don't do it the way you do are automatically being selfish or offensive or disrespectful towards their partner.

Relationships are complicated and differ widely. I do know this. I said what I said because so often that perspective is not even CONSIDERED, in the strident demands that our own rights be respected. In other words, in our demand to be understood and respected, sometimes we forget to try to understand and respect the other person.

My point was that maybe we should remind ourselves that the other person has feelings and needs as well - and maybe, just MAYBE, we should consider putting their needs and feelings ahead of our own sometimes.

Though I'm curious, has there ever been in a time in your relationship with your husband that HE hasn't been in the mood when you have? If so did he oblige anyway as you have? If not, then would he if such a situation did arise?

This rarely happens, because we are very compatible in that area. It has happened a time or two, and I didn't push him. But, see, here's the deal - I'm not responsible for his actions, I'm only responsible for my own. It was his choice not to have sex. It was my choice TO have sex. He has never forced me and I have never forced him.

I guess I'm just not too hung up on keeping score. We have a very fair relationship. We cut each other slack in different ways, because different things are important to each of us, and we each have different weaknesses, needs, and peculiarities.