Talk:Marital rape/Archive 1

From VfD:
Hmm... I debated listing this on 'cleanup' or here. I think we'd all be served best if this were merged into rape or statutory rape or acquaintance rape. I could be wrong, though. - UtherSRG 16:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) end moved discussion
 * Keep. List on cleanup.  The topic has a specific legal history that could easily justify a separate article.  Joyous 16:40, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, Joyous is right. There are enough separate legal and cultural issues to deserve a separate article. You could merge and redirect for now but I suspect it would eventually get broken out again. Rossami 16:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but specific clean up: This is an enormous topic that would warrant a very long article.  First, we have the concept, then the jurisdictions where it has been made criminal (in the US alone, this is a long and vexatious list), then we have whether it is sex-blind or not, any prosecutions.....  This is a case where we almost need to make this a Featured Article of the Week or whatever it's called where Wikipedians band together to make something.  Geogre 17:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, but I'm sure we can improve on the article. Andrewa 05:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I was going to say keep, but it turns out statutory rape and acquaintance rape and date rape are not in fact separate articles, they're all redirects to rape. They've been merged, and appear as paragraphs within the rape article, meaning that there is only one actual article, covering all the kinds of rape. This means that if Spousal rape is kept as a separate article after cleanup, we would be in the, ahem, taxonomically inappropriate situation of having the subject of rape covered by these two articles: 1) "Rape" and 2)"Spousal Rape". In order that there may be one rather than two, I vote merge and redirect.
 * Well, masked man, whoever you are, you're right. (Oh, it's bishonen, ok.) You're right.  This puts me in an odd position.  I think it should be fleshed out and cleaned up and then I'd vote merge and redirect.  So it's Clean up, merge, redirect, and delete. Weird vote. Geogre 12:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (Another acceptable way of making the information tree logical would be to break out statutory rape and date rape etc, and have them all separate little articles, but I'm a mergist rather than an atomist, and it's not the way I like.) --Bishonen 23:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is tripe. It's written from hearsay (Cosmopolitan? Give me a break...) and doesn't by any means merit its own article. I accuse the author of this trash of trying to stir up yet more controversy on an already overdone subject. Let's add a couple of lines to Rape &mdash; I'll even do it myself &mdash; and be done with it. Jeeves 02:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a deletion candidate, the concept is distinct from other forms of rape and quite significant to feminist perspectives on marriage. Whether we merge different forms into a single article or have separate articles is something to be addressed by the people who choose to write the material. --Michael Snow 23:56, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Without passing on the merits of present content, it's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. The concept of spousal rape has a quite distinct legal history. In the U.S., clear into the 1970s, it was a legal impossibility for a man to be convicted of raping his wife (even if they were legally separated). I suspect that situation obtains in quite a few countries today. Definitely deserves an article, so at most this should be a candidate for cleanup. -- Jmabel 06:35, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Jmabel and Michael Snow. Regardless of the specific content of this article, the subject merits an article. Spousal rape is a special kind of rape, because of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. It could be expanded to include views on spousal rape in various cultures (some cultures/religions hold the belief that in agreeing to marry, the wife permanently consents sexually so that there can exist no spousal rape), famous cases of spousal rape, jurisprudence, cases of women raping their husbands, or things like that. This article belongs on wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't be deleted. Aecis 23:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP, as separate article. 'Marital/spousal rape' is a political issue, a debated crime, and a socialogical event. This comment was placed here February 8, 2004, and was not part of the moved discussion.

"or ex-spouse"
Someone added "or ex-spouse" in the phrase "...when the perpetrator is the spouse or ex-spouse of the victim." I do not believe this is correct, especially insofar as this is a legal term. If a man rapes a woman who once was, but no longer is, legally his wife, I believe that (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same in the eyes of the law as if they had never been married. I am removing this phrase; if you are restoring, please explain here. -- Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

cite sources
Diana Russell and the National Victim Center sound, offhand like good sources, but we really should have actual citations, either to their publications in which they make these claims or at least to a web page from a well-known individual or organization that attributes these findings to them. -- Jmabel 05:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?
There is an NPOV tag on this article from back when it was on VFD. I see no comments here documenting what the issues were, and the article has been almost completely rewritten. I am taking the liberty of deleting that tag. If someone wants to restore it, please explain here on the talk page the basis of your dispute. -- Jmabel 05:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed tag
I added the TotallyDisputed tag for several reasons: Carrp | Talk 00:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No sources are cited for the statistics in the last paragraph.
 * POV phrases such as "curiously small amount of attention has been paid to the woman's sexual rights"
 * The article's tone is anti-male
 * And I see you not only added that tag, but User:Wordrider completely rewrote the article into more or less a defense of a man's "right" to have sex with an unwilling, even separated, wife. Charming. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

A possibly useful reference
If someone wants to work heavily on this,, linked in the article, looks rather thorough for U.S. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

04/20/05
I made an initial attempt at cleanup, as requested on the Community Portal. I added some external links in the article including: the conjugal rights article from Malaysia (I couldn't find anything better that made the case for conjugal rights) & the UN links. I also removed the "totally disputed" and "cleanup" flags, as they were 2 months out of date. I'll be expanding the references section.--ghost 03:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 04/22/05 - Whew. The IP edit got me inspired to cleanup the links. I chose not to revert the removal of the "man vs woman" sentence, since we could reinsert the links it contained without affecting the content.  I hope that I followed the MoS properly on the references.  Please let me know.--ghost 02:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gender
The following was recently cut from the lead paragraph: "As with most types of rape and sexual assault, the vast majority of cases are committed by a man against a woman." Clearly this is a true statement. It seems to me to be relevant to the topic. What is the rationale for removing it? -- 06:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * An IP edit removed the sentence. Rather than argue with a phantom, I moved the links that were included elsewhere in the article.  I agree that the statement is true, but having known several victims of female vs male abuse, perhaps removing it is less POV.  You are welcome to reinsert it, but please edit the links if you do.--ghost 15:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This edit, intended to create gender neutrality in language, in many cases just creates false claims. For example, the insertions (bolded) "Historically, many cultures have had a concept of a married man's or woman's conjugal right to sexual intercourse with his wife or her husband," are almost certainly false, and certainly not borne out by the citation. Similarly, and more dramatically, "As the legal status of women has changed, the concept of a married man's or woman's marital right to sexual intercourse has become less widely held." I'm not aware of any country where the law upheld a woman's right in this respect.

This is a case where gender-neutral language amounts to a lie. The historic laws were about a man's "right" to force sexual activity on his wife; for the most part, the opposite was never even contemplated by the law. I believe these changes should be reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right although it should be noted a woman probably couldn't rape a man anyway, rape was legally usually only something a man could do. Which is not to say the woman necessarily got away with it, she just wouldn't have been considered a rapist Nil Einne 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought this over further; I think these changes were so wrong that I am reverting them myself without waiting for further discussion. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am generally sympathetic to the basic problem here, as a Jew, I have to tell you that Jewish women have, for millenia, had rights to a certain level of sexual intercourse in heterosexual marriage. Failing to provide sex to a wife above a certain minimal level was grounds for divorce, return of dowry, and sanctions against the husband who did not meet societal sexual norms. There is a very significant problem with attempting to determine how often these penalties were imposed, but the commentaries went so far as to specify different minimums by husband's occupation (since some men worked at home and others might be out to sea a good portion of the time or otherwise unavailable, a single standard was considered unfair and unworkable).

This does not have the effect of granting a woman/wife physical control over her husband's body in order punish a failing of this obligation or enforce performance of the obligation - it thus doesn't condone a wife's rape of a husband, which is a very important distinction - but nonetheless Jewish women had "a right to sexual intercourse." I wonder how many other cultures/traditions might have had something similar. Would returning *some* of this language while explaining the context and differential effect be appropriate? Or should we delete the statement? I don't think it is justifiable to maintain a statement that we know to be false simply because it makes it more complicated and difficult to explain/communicate another truth that we believe is (/may be) more important.

what do you all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.33.146 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's exclusive to Judaism. For example, Catholic doctrine traditionally held that impotence (that is, the inability to consummate marriage) was an impediment preventing a valid marriage (see ). However, it's not obvious that this is related to the concept of "spousal rape", which is what this article is about. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to make a connection between this "right to sex within marriage" and "spousal rape" in this article unless we can find some reliable source that explicitly makes such a connection (see WP:OR). Gabbe (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statuatory rape
Also this edit, summarized as "Rape could be consensual too (statutory rape)": the legal doctrine of statuatory rape relies on the inablitiy of the victim to give legal consent. - Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of image
I was curious about the accuracy of the image that indicates which countries of the world have laws criminalizing spousal rape. I didn't individually check every country, but I specifically noticed that Israel is not a "pink" country on the map, but this link among many others that came out of a simple Google search shows that Israel has had spousal rape laws at least as far back as 1987. I wonder if this is indicative of a general faultiness in the map.--DLand TALK 13:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the image, which is freely update-able. UNIFEM 2003, as sourced, describes Israel as 0, no legislation or unknown. I doubt the flaw is systematic, and using a systematic source such as those cited here is better practice than googling each country. After that, we fix things one by one. Care to insert a sourced sentence on Israel's law into the article? I'll update the graphic when I get back to my computer in New York if you don't.--Carwil 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Marital rape - not a crime in Turkey (apparently)
According to the article (as of Dec 2007), a referenced source (, from 2005) states that Turkey proposed a new penal legislation code that defines marital rape as a crime. However, a recent 2007 article mentions that Turkey's Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that marital rape is not a crime. Can someone familiar with the situation in Turkey verify this information and update the article accordingly? Note: The map also needs to be updated. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

POV of "surrender[ing] consent"
The article states, "Because there is a widely held view that a man or woman surrenders consent upon entering a marriage, the law has been slow to criminalize this form of sexual assault." In other words, it is rejecting the POV of the first clause (marriage implies a continuous consent to sexual intercourse) out of hand; there are also no quotes, discussion of viewpoint, etc. for this POV. I disagree with it myself, but I still feel it deserves a NPOV representation. Superm401 - Talk 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I spoke a bit too soon. Lower, in the article, there are some isolated quotes about specific laws/legal regimes.  But I still think a section with a comprehensive explanation of the viewpoint would be warranted. Superm401 - Talk 14:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Highly misleading Map
The map seems to suggest that in the "non-pink countries" a man can rape his wife all he wants, which is patently not true, in most of the pink countries marital rape is considered a specific crime, while in other countries, including many of the non-pink ones the a rape would be prosecuted under the general rape law.

It should be amended to display that those countries have laws against the specific crime of marital rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement and I had almost left a comment on the map but instead I came here. The map is grossly misleading and needs to be revised. There are 5 categories: 1. Specific laws against marital rape 2. Non-specific (which is a bit sketchy), 3, specific laws being considered. 4. Non-specific laws being considered, 5. No sanctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.255.17 (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

image
I am sorry to see the disappearance of the 1815 cartoon showing a man forcing his wife to submit. If a techie person could shrink it, that would be fantastic. The cartoon eloquently summarises so many aspects of marital rape: that it has long been embedded in culture (excuse the pun); that it is treated to some degree with levity, and justified by religious texts; that it can involve physical pain and torture; that it occurs in otherwise comfortable households. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it back. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

first sentence
I don't understand:
 * Spousal rape is also called marital rape and often wrongly conflated with partner rape or intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA).

So spousal rape = marital rape. OK. But then Spousal rape [not =] partner rape. Why? "Partner" (as in domestic rather than business) is often used for marriage-like relationships. And finally, Spousal rape [not =] intimate partner sexual assault. Why? Rape is a form of sexual assault; legal systems differ in terminology. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spousal/Marital rape involves the historical and legal process of conjugal rights being superseded by individual rights. The discussion of 'partner rape' or 'date rape' or 'acquaintance rape', etc., represent a different social issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.30.6 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RvR
I was contemplating creating an article for R v R when I stumbled across this. I wonder if a separate article might be warranted in order to do justice to the significance of the case to English law? Any opinions would be appreciated. Also, why does R v R draws a blank, but R v. R (with the full stop) redirects here? HJ Mitchell (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that R v R does warrant a separate article, which could go into more detail on the legal reasoning which would not be warranted here. The wording here could perhaps then be trimmed, as it is disproportionately long in the context of the rest of the Article. Regarding the redirect, it is probably just an omission - I will set "R v R" up as a redirect until someone can add a full article. 57.66.103.6 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church doctrine
In the Catholic Church's canon law, where divorce is not legally recognized and where separations only occur in rare cases of annulment, spousal rape has traditionally been rejected as a motive for an annulment. Because the related concept of conjugal duty, which prohibits a wife from refusing sex to her husband in the first place, a female spouse has no right to claim that a rape occured at all. This is due to the very nature of the marriage contract, which implies mutual marital obligations. This should probably me mentioned in the article, because it has been a difficult subject for religious communities to deal with for a very long time before the women's rights movement emerged in the 19th century. ADM (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting this be put into the article??? Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it makes sense to mention that the Catholic Church has never really recognised spousal rape as a cause for divorce, since it doesn't recognize divorce at all and only permits annulments in rare cases. Many of the more conservative Catholic legal scholars will argue that women must always submit to their husbands in case where the husband demands to be sexually satisfied. They selectively quote saint Paul in the New Testament who himself recommends this (cf Paul of Tarsus and women). ADM (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the causes for divorce in Catholicism are enumerated, it makes no sense to begin itemizing the myriads of possible causes for which it would not be justified. Also, the ADM user inexplicably rewrites the Catholic position from mutual rights to unidirectional (male) rights.  Examples of demand of wife's conjugal rights are well established.  Moreover, he/she apparently wants to introduce a doctrinal debate into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.123.54 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead links
Several links are dead. The Bergen one, for example is, though a working one is this. I'm changing some statements to match the sources; I recommend someone give a full go-through of all sources since fake links or links with non-inclusive info tend to propagate. Penguinwithin (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading
Spousal rape is still legal in many states in the United States, requires a significantly higher standard of proof, requires additional criminal activity, or is otherwise de facto legal in many circumstances. You do no one any favors by presenting the untrue whitewash that spousal rape was eradicated in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.234.225 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you have a source? Gabbe (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spousal rapists get exceptions other rapists do not in 33 states for example. A higher standard of evidence is often needed for convictions . High evidence burdens are only one of many marital exemptions from sex crimes. I am not really sure how to cite things in articles or what is a good enough source. Are these good sources for Wikipedia? Can you explain why or why not for me? 67.247.234.225 (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

incorrect color code
In the image in the section "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence", the lit countries are a colour (a violet-purple) not like the key (red). I can't think how to change it. Someone fix it.--Auric (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done!  Lova Falk     talk   11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Two different maps about the same subject??!
How come the article has two maps, one showing in which countries "Marital rape is criminalized" and the other showing "Countries where marital rape is criminalized" - with considerable differences, especially in South-America. Which one of these maps is correct?? Lova Falk    talk   12:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There should only be the newer SVG one, which is being updated as information is added to the page and Talk:Spousal rape/Country lists.--Carwil (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New Map, Fixing the country lists
I've recreated the criminalization map as an SVG file, which is editable with any text editor. All sources cited are commented inside the SVG file itself, but I will add them to the file description soon as well. I'm posting the image here for one week in order to solicit comments before adding it to the page itself. All sourced countries described on the Wiki page are included, along with those from a variety of other sources. I've done google searches on the top 10 largest countries as well, but clearly additions are welcome.

While we're at it, it would be really useful for someone to extract the country lists in this image and add them as sourced portions of the article itself. Maybe that will be me someday. --Carwil (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to create a subpage of the discussion Talk:Spousal rape/Country lists for cleaning up and fully documenting the lists of countries. Arbitrarily (really, because several sources are region-specific), I'm arranging the list by continent. Also, can someone make the US State Department citation more clear, because unless someone did a long country-by-country search, I don't see where it comes from on that site. --Carwil (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting the country list
I've done some updating in the past couple days (happy International Women's Day!), but ultimately this page should look a lot more like Use of capital punishment by nation or Same-sex marriage legislation around the world. Tables and notes are far more readable and informative than our current lists. I'll continue to use Talk:Spousal rape/Country lists as a storage bin for references and possibly a design experiment for the table, but extra hands would be appreciated.--Carwil (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
The entire header of this page is a word-for-word copy of Solano County's page on spousal rape. Jacie Cady (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So is the entire Psychological Damage section, although I'm not going to tag it at this time because it seems silly to put two section-specific copyvio tags on the same page. The section cites http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm as a source, but it is in fact a copy-paste of http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/fvp/sexual_assault/rape.asp. Jacie Cady (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright investigation
The header of this page seems to have evolved naturally on Wikipedia. I cannot locate an archive of http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/fvp/sexual_assault/rape.asp, so I cannot verify definitively, but note a few significant points: Given the evidence, I don't believe that we can conclude that http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/fvp/sexual_assault/rape.asp published the material first. It seems likely to me that they simply copied the first several paragraphs from the Wikipedia article at some point in March, before this change, and altered a few words ("wrongly conflated" in our article becomes "wrongly mixed"). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence of the external source is "Spousal rape is non-consensual sexual assault in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." In August of 2004, we have the first germ of the opening sentence added here, when the sentence "Spousal rape or marital rape is a generally uncommon type of rape that involves spouses." was altered to read "Spousal rape or marital rape is a phrase used to describe an instance of non-consensual sexual activity, when the perpetrator is the spouse or ex-spouse of the victim." A look at the article at that time shows the rest of it is very different from the suspected source. In August of 2004, "ex-spouse" was removed from the equation, here. In January of 2005, the sentence evolved again, with "is the spouse of the victim" becoming "is the victim's spouse." Here it became "Spousal rape or marital rape is non-consensual penetrative sexual activity in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." That evolved into the same form used at the external source in July of 2007: here.
 * Looking at the paragraphs beginning with "Spousal rape is also called marital rape....", this was introduced to the article in June of 2006, in a split from the article rape. Note the significant differences:
 * In our article, it says, "Spousal rape is also called marital rape, wife rape, partner rape or intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA)." The external source says, "Spousal rape is also called marital rape and often wrongly mixed with partner rape or intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA)." Our article was altered a year later in June 2007, here, to read "Spousal rape is also called marital rape and often conflated with partner rape or intimate partner sexual assault (IPSA)." It's unlikely that it would have been pasted into our article in June of 2006 in an altered form and modified a year later again to break it closer to that external source. It's more likely that another source copied us.
 * In the external source, it says, "One reason for this is thought to be the lack of social validation that prevents a victim from getting access to support. Domestic violence services have made inroads in addressing this problem. Another reason is the betrayal of trust." Our article is identical, except that it stops with the words "addressing this problem." The phrase "Another reason is the betrayal of trust" was not added to our article until March of 2008, here. Again, it's more plausible that the external source copied us, at some point after that second sentence was added, than that copyvio was introduced twice.
 * Speaking of that second sentence, it is part of another illuminating series of edits. This all from March 2008 by User:Barbara Shack. When adding that sentence, "Another reason is the betrayal of trust", she adds down to the first footnote, which is present at the external source. Here she sections the article, as it is sectioned at the external source. Hours later, she adds through the second reference, here.

The Solano County website is an official government page which clearly identifies the author of the article. It is ludicrous to suggest that a government source is plagiarizing Wikipedia as opposed to the other way around, especially given Wikipedia's history of plagiarism. Jacie Cady (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Solano County website clearly identifies the author of the article "A Crime Aganist [sic] Woman [sic], A Crime Aganist [sic] Wives". That article (actually titled "Real Rape Real Pain: Help for Women Sexually Assaulted by Male Partners”) begins with the words "In 1987...." It seems to have been originally published here. (What that website is offering as a title is a bit of a badly formatted stab at the subtitle: "A crime against women, a crime against wives. When the one you love commits an act of sexual violence against you, the scars lie deep and buried.") I don't find it quite so ludicrous to believe that the Solano County employee who pasted that article, under the wrong title, might have copied material from Wikipedia as well. It happens more often than you might think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it funny, that you (User:JacieCady) had more trust into the authenticity of "an official government page" than the evidence lain so plainly in front of your own eyes :)
 * What you're saying here is that either lots of different Wikipedia users made lots of little changes over months, each of them one little step to the final goal of plagiarizing this webpage or that in a bout of "parallel evolution" the government official who "wrote" the page miraculously arrived at the same result as this article... Now I have quite a lot of problems believing this and so should you 79.234.77.116 (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China
Has marital rape legal or illegal in China? Because it is listed under both countries that have made marital rape illegal and countries that have not made marital rape illegal. There may be other counrties under both lists too, I haven't read them both thoroughly. Matthew Fennell (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The current list of criminalizing countries is problematic. I've been trying to sort this out to completion on Talk:Marital rape/Country lists. Read the section New Map, Fixing the country lists above before going there. A big problem is that the principal source on the page isn't available to confirm what it says. So the goal of this sub-page is to sort out and document all the countries. This has been easier for the does not criminalize countries, which are fully updated on the main page. Thanks for your help!--Carwil (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

India, Indonesia and domestic violence law
It appears from text already in the article that India "criminalizes" marital rape in a different and more limited way than most other criminalizers, through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. While thanks are due to the efforts of the IP contributor who moved India to the "does not criminalize" section, I don't think it's quite that straightforward:
 * Current text: In India, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (passed August 2005; entered into force October 2006) created a civil remedy for victims, but it did not criminalize marital rape,[26][27] and jail time is only considered if a court order has been violated.

I think the same situation obtains in Indonesia Does anyone object to a new color on maps to reflect this different criminalization, perhaps orange?--Carwil (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "In Indonesia, the marital rape provision is within the Domestic Violence act."
 * "Our breakthrough finally came in September 2004. After years of effort, the parliament passed the law on violence against women in the home (Law No. 23/2004). The new law outlaws four forms of violence – physical, psychological, sexual (including marital rape), and economic neglect. Significantly the law makes ‘criminal’ violence against all members of the household, including husbands, wives, children and extended family members." Ratna Bataramunti "Justice for women? New anti-domestic violence law brings hope for women," Inside Indonesia, July-September 2006.

Morocco ?
The article states that spousal rape is legal there. But this source says that it isn't (ie. that there is no law exonerating husbands, no law saying that husbands can't be guilty of rape). The source is the site of UNOG

Source says:

"The law [in Morocco] defined spousal rape as the aggression of a man towards a woman by applying force, whether they were married or not. If a wife was subject to violence or force then the wife had the right to go to court. There was no legal text in Morocco which exonerated a husband from any form of violation of his wife." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.160.2 (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The text you've cited is a denial by a Moroccan government official. We have a Freedom House report (see the country lists page) saying it is not criminal. This is reaffirmed by this journal article:
 * Moroccan human rights groups cited in this report to the UN concur.
 * --Carwil (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * --Carwil (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany Dubious
Please clarify in terms of the DDR's advanced domestic and workplace policies on gender, and the FDR's retrograde sexual politics. The DDR may be covered above, which makes for a confused situation regarding marital rape in the period between the FDR's criminalisation, and the DDR era. Sources would be most welcome. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs fixing
This is perhaps one of the more inaccurate and incomplete article I have seen in some time. Firstly,the various lists do not clarify what the mean

i) Spousal rape is specifically prohibited. In this case we need to note which countries is spousal rape punished the same as other rapes and where the punishment is reduced or enhanced. ii) Spousal rape is not specifically prohibited however an incidence of spousal rape can be prosecuted under ordinary rape laws, that relation between the parties is irrelevant. That is in effect the same as no i). iii) That the existence of a marriage or other relationship between the parties is relevant as a point of law either a) completely excusing the action or b) leading to a reduced sentence.

Furthermore many of the resources for non-criminalising countries are NGO reports or other claims. I would perfer that for all instance the reference be the specific statutory enactment and or relevant case law.

I have modified the map caption accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.158.38 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Spousal rape → Marital rape — Marital rape is the more common name (on the web: 625k vs. 143k and in books: 27,100 vs. 3,970 by Google hits) and the one used in prominent international legal and human rights discussions on the subject. This includes the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Marital rape (and its longstanding legality, and recent widespread criminalization) is legally an issue relating to marriage as such, rather than primarily the relationship of spouses.--Carwil (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose this move. While I have no doubt that marital rape is the more historically used term, this is really talking about spouses, marriage is irrelevant. Language can be slow to change but that's no reason to misrepresent a topic on wikipedia. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kuguar03, while I think I disagree (and will explain that below), I also just don't understand. Is there some substantial segment of spouses-not-in-marriage whose abuse is best covered here? Are there married couples that don't qualify as/consider themselves spouses?
 * I also want to be clear that this page has developed on the assumption that it is not covering all forms of partner rape, which unfortunately redirects here. Partner rape and other forms of intimate partner violence are important, and spousal rape/marital rape are a significant portion of them. However, spousal rape/marital rape has the distinct condition of being religiously, socially, and legally authorized for much of recent history, as well as an historically important trajectory of criminalization in the last century.
 * And to clarify one more thing: I have no interest in prescribing away spousal rape as a term, or in prescribing away marital rape as the preferred term (once I hear whatever arguments there are for doing so). Marital rape and spousal rape would remain in bold in the lead. However, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the more common term if it is not POV or misleading (and some times even then, but that's an argument for a different page).--Carwil (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: I don't see a logical argument either way so we might as well go with the one with more hits. –CWenger (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source
This could be used as a source:

UN Women's 2011 Report. It lists the countries which have a law explicitly outlawing marital rape; (where it says "no" it means there is no explicit law, it doesn't necessary mean it is legal).

This is the report:

This is an article from the Guardian talking about the report: ; there is a table there and the countries are listed in alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:A0B9 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Map
I think the colors for "Marital rape is criminalized" and "Marital rape is criminalized only if the couple is legally separated" need to be more different as they are too close in shade and they are barely distinguishable. Maybe a blue or green would be appropriate for "Marital rape is criminalized only if the couple is legally separated".2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:A0B9 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Honduras
Several sources claim that spousal rape is illegal in Honduras.

"The law criminalizes all forms of rape, including spousal rape."

"Acquaintance rape (date rape) is considered rape as well as spousal rape." (in the section "Special Information for Cases of Sexual Assault and Rape"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1A13 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lithuania
Lithuania is listed under both "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence" and "Countries that have not made marital rape a criminal offence". Please someone edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.156.197 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In Lithuania there is nothing in the law saying that a husband can't be charged with the rape of his wife, and therefore, in theory, marital rape is illegal. But because of social views, it is not pursued; and hence there is a need to explicitly criminalize it (write something specific about it in the law). I removed Lithuania from the section Countries that have not made marital rape a criminal offence because it implies that marital rape is legal in the country, which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A308 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What if it is illegal but not called rape
The discussion of the United Kingdom indicates that husbands who raped their wives could be convicted of assault or indecent assault. If that is true, does not that mean that marital rape was illegal, it just was not called rape? (And punished less severly.) Might this have been the situation in more countries?

It would certainly make it somewhat dubious to say that men had a right to rape their wives.MathHisSci (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The header is "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence" and even though UK doesn't call spousal rape for rape, they still have made the act a criminal offence, so I think it is correct to include UK in this list.  Lova Falk     talk   07:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The UK DOES call spousal rape for rape: in 1991 the marital rape exemption was abolished by a House of Lords decision (R v R (1991 All ER 481)). Since that date, raping one's wife is considered to be rape and the law makes no difference between the rape of a wife and other forms of rape. I think what user:MathHisSci was asking is whether in a country where the law explicitly says that a husband can't be charged with the rape of his wife it is still possible to prosecute such an act of rape under other laws (eg. assault, battery etc laws). I think what user:MathHisSci was referring to was that before 1991, in the UK a woman couldn't get her husband charged with rape, but, in limited circumstances, wifes have been able to use assault-based crime charges against sexual attacks by their husbands. Whether this was/is possible in countries with a marital rape exemption is more difficult to know, and it depends on the country and on the circumstances. For instance, if a husband threatens his wife with a gun/knife or severely beats her when he forces her into sex, these acts may be charged under various laws dealing with physical violence. This however depends on the country and on the specific circumstances and on how much violence was used etc. Also, one must not forget that wife-beating itself was legal until recently in many countries and continues to legal today in some countries: eg in 2010, the United Arab Emirates (UAE)'s Supreme Court has ruled that a man has the right to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he doesn't leave physical marks..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9F31 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because rape can be accomplished by way of illegal assaults, which were then theoretically prosecutable, doesn't mean that forcing someone to have sex through those means was a crime. It clearly doesn't mean that marital rape without those assaults was a crime. If there are legal approaches and prosecutions that are described by reliable sources, maybe you should bring them here, on Talk, before modifying the date of criminalization.--Carwil (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Solomon Islands outlaws marital rape
Are these sources reliable?

  2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9E84 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

adding to "sustaining factors"
Would this be a good place to put information about activists who are advancing the idea that marriage is consent to sex?108.15.50.162 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cameroon
I removed Cameroon because the source was not adequate and other reliable sources state that the situation is legally not clear.

This report states this:


 * "Rape is punishable under article 296 of the Penal Code and punishable by a term of five to ten years imprisonment and is defined as “Whoever by force or moral ascendancy compels any female whether above or below the age of puberty to have sexual intercourse with him.” (pg 135)


 * "It is not clear whether marital rape is considered a crime or not, since the doctrine is divided in to two camps and the courts are careful not to take a decision in favour of either side.53 However, it seems to be culturally accepted that consent to marriage constitutes consent to each request of sexual intercourse." (pg 133)

The report also says that if a man rapes a woman/girl and if she is above puberty and after the rape she "freely consents" to enter into a marriage with the rapist he will be exonerated. But the laws appear to say nothing about the situation when a man rapes his wife; so it's up to the courts to deal with this situation.188.25.26.93 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy on countries that criminalize/don't criminalize, of map; and using reliable sources
There are serious problems in this article in the sections "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence"/"Countries that have not made marital rape a criminal offence" and with the map.

This article seems to confuse two different situations that exist in various countries: one situation: where there is a marital rape exemption in the law, that is where the law clearly states that a husband cannot be prosecuted of the rape of his wife - such as for instance those countries that have inherited the 1860 Indian Penal Code (and have not modified it) which states in the rape section that "Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape" (eg in Bangladesh, Burma) see here: and another situation: a country where there is a law on rape which does not say anything about the subject (eg. it doesn't explicitly say that a spouse can/cannot be prosecuted; and neither does it have a specific law on marital rape), and where it is up to the courts to decide. One example is Mongolia, that is listed under the "Countries that have not made marital rape a criminal offence" and is also black on the map. That country doesn't have anything in its criminal code that exempts a spouse from prosecution; here is the criminal code of Mongolia:

Law on rape in Mongolia:

Article 126. Rape

126.1. Sexual intercourse by physical violence, threat of violence or in other forms, or by taking advantage of helpless state of the victim, as well as by humiliating the victim shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to 5 years.

126.2. The same crime committed:
 * 126.2.1. by humiliating or torturing the victim;
 * 126.2.3. inflicting a severe or a less severe bodily injury;
 * 126.2.4. repeatedly;
 * 126.2.5. rape of a person under the legal age;
 * 126.2.5. in a group or by group at an advance agreement shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 5 to 10 years.

126.2.3. The same crime committed by a recidivist, rape of a child under the age of 14, or rape entailing death of the victim or another grave harm shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 15 to 25 years or the death penalty

There is nothing in the criminal code of Mongolia saying that a spouse can't be charged with rape.

A report commenting on Mongolia states this: "In Mongolia there is not any terminology defining marital rape, no single case investigated and punished as crime in practice". Now this may mean indeed that in practice it is not prosecuted, but a country like Mongolia should be differentiated in this article from a country such as Bangladesh.

2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:1A5D (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, since this article deals with legal issues, the sources have to be extremely reliable, and up to date (since laws are in many parts of the world now changing/under review). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:1A5D (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed from the lists:
 * Mongolia -see above
 * Mauritania (from countries that criminalize) - dubious, sourced only to the US Country Report; see this: ,
 * Liberia: the current laws in Liberia are in the Rape Amendment Act (2006), see here: ; there is nothing in the laws saying a husband can't be prosecuted; from the point of view of the law that exists on the books, a spouse can be prosecuted, since there is no exemption - whether the courts would do it is something else...
 * Honduras- contradicted by several sources (there is a section above).2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9FC7 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most survey sources on this topic attempt to sort out one issue: Can people who rape their spouse be prosecuted for rape? This can happen through specific legislation, court precedent, or prosecutorial practice in the absence of a legal or common law exception. This is the basis for the categories. A smaller number of sources attempt to address the "specific legislation" issue. Since many sources don't differentiate between these things, we can provide more complete information by adopting the broader category.
 * More help on sorting out sourcing and details, and providing better sources that the US State Department material is totally appreciated. Please see Talk:Marital_rape above.
 * Third, while "the law" (i.e., the text of the criminal code) may appear to be black and white on this issue, it often isn't. Sometimes marital rape exceptions are common law exceptions, rules governing prosecutorial action, etc. A reliable source making the judgement is always better than a wikipedia editor. See the rule against original research on Wikipedia.
 * Finally, in the event that a country can prosecute, but just hasn't ever done that, just add the country to the sentence in the article on this topic. It begins, "Human rights observers have criticized a variety of countries…"
 * P.S. I will look over the individual country issues later.--Carwil (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mongolia: The Immigrant and Refugee Board of Canada, citing the United States, the United Nations, and the National Center Against Violence finds "Additionally, spousal rape is not regarded as a criminal act in Mongolia (US 11 Mar. 2010, Sec. 6; UN 7 Nov. 2008, Para. 25). According to the NCAV because law enforcement organizations do not view marital rape as a crime, victims will consequently not ask for help from law enforcement officials (NCAV 2009)." I'm citing and adding. And I restate what I said above about WP:OR in reading criminal codes.--Carwil (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Honduras: Criminalization confirmed and sourced in the article now.
 * Mauritania: sources conflict. Will be greyed on the map.
 * Liberia: Criminalization in 2006 confirmed. Will be red on the map now. --Carwil (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Lithuania
I see it is now black on the map.

According to the latest US human rights report on Lithuania:

"The law criminalizes rape, including spousal rape" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:A0D7 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Map - Suriname
Marital rape was made illegal in 2009. Map must be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DC5C (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mozambique, map and SOURCES again
Mozambique is colored black on map, and listed in the section on countries which have not criminalized marital rape. But several sources contradict this.

"The law prohibits rape, including spousal rape,".
 * According to the US report:

"The law prohibits violence against women and nonconsensual sex, including between married individuals".


 * This source claims that:

"In 2009, the parliament passed a specific domestic violence law, which prohibits violence against women and marital rape."


 * Mozambique should probably be gray on the map.188.25.158.197 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The role of religion
I think a section about this is appropriate; since especially Christian and Muslim teachings have been interpreted by many to uphold absolute "conjugal rights". I however am by no means an expert on religious topics so I will not try to address this topic in the article. But could someone with very good knowledge of it help? A section Relation to religion, or something like this, would be appropriate.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A354 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Belgium
"Belgium has been very progressive on this issue." I don't understand the justification for this statement.86.159.35.255 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The justification for this statement is that a court has convicted a man who forced sex on his wife of rape in 1979, at a time when such a conviction wouldn't have yet been possible and accepted in most other countries (including most Western countries)- ie. Belgium has been one of the first countries to recognize marital rape as a crime. Read the article! 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A213 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Split - United States section
I'm going to split the section on the US into a new article Marital rape (United States law). This article is already too long.Skydeepblue (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am again raising SERIOUS concerns about the accuracy of this article in regard to country laws and sources
This article makes numerous claims about the laws in various countries (in the sections "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence"/"Countries that have not made spousal rape a criminal offence"; and on the map) claims which are poorly sourced and even unsourced. The problem is that the majority of countries in the world have rape laws which do not address the issue - that is, they neither say that a spouse can be guilty, nor that he can't (you can just do some research yourself - criminal codes are easily available online). Whether these laws are applicable in marriage depends on case law- what courts have said/are saying; and finding out what the judicial practice in these countries is is extremely difficult, and often in many of these countries the issue hasn't even been tested in courts recently. Sources contradict themselves. And just look at China: it is black on the map- but apparently according to this source "According to the judge of this case, only when a marriage has entered an abnormal situation, such as separation and divorce proceedings, can the conjugal relationship between husband and wife be considered invalid. During this period, if a husband forced his wife to have sex with him against her will, this can be ruled as rape."[] Not sure how reliable that is, but I'm just giving you an example; maybe light pink is a better color for China.


 * The bottom line is this: when dealing with legal issues there is a very high standard in regard to sources (just like dealing with medical issues). We cannot simply throw in anything we like, and just find one source for it. I firmly believe that the sections "Countries that have made spousal rape a criminal offence"/"Countries that have not made spousal rape a criminal offence", and the map should be done away with; and countries which are clearly known to be in a specific position can all be discussed in the "20th and 21st century criminalization" section. I'm not going to attempt to remove these sections or the map (user:Carwil disagreed with this), but I would like more people to offer opinions here on talk.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1AF7 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Without re-stating the general point, I would invite you to put forward more detailed evidence about China. A judge's counterfactual comments in one case (had the facts been X, I would have ruled Y) hardly suggest a general criminalization. Are people who rape their spouses going to jail or not?--Carwil (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Are people who rape their spouses going to jail or not?"
 * This isn't a question that can be easily answered because many countries rely on case law (because the rape laws do not address it one way or another) and for many of these countries there simply isn't sufficient information available; and sources often contradict each other. And AGAIN: many sources used in this article are not reliable.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BCD (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)