>If I remember correctly the first time, and perhaps the first several
>times, that a husband was prosecuted for raping his wife the jury
>refused to convict. The first case got a lot of play in the press, but
>now I can't remember where or when.
>
>Carrol
First, I think John's original commentary was puzzling. He zeroed in on something that was written many years ago, failing to place Dworkin's work in context. It's like finding it outrageous that anyone would rail against lynching after reading Anna Julia Cooper's writings. Well, no, Jim Crow laws aren't officially on the books anymore and yes people don't typically adhere to biological racism, but that doesn't mean racism doesn't continue in new and different ways.
I think focusing on the particulars of marital rape ignores the way that the ideas that women are supposed to provide men with sex, presumably because they pay for it in some way (in the form of a higher income, social status, etc.), is embedded in wider normative patterns. that is, while most people would find it repugnant to think that a man would feel it his right to demand sex against a woman's will, you will find a lot more people perfectly fine with the idea that a man can go elsewhere for sex if he isn't getting it from his wife. in turn, there's the idea that a man deserves sex on a date if he pays for the date. i've forgotten the exact figures, but a scary high percentage of pre-teen boys think it's ok to demand sex if they pay for a date.
then there's the lovely comment one hears frequently enough: "if she's dressed like a whore, then she deserves to get raped." uh, no, she deserves to get paid for sex if she's dressed like a whore, eh? or, maybe just maybe she deserves to be treated like a human being who chooses to dress (or talk or act or...) whatever way she pleases and her clothes should no more signal desire for sex than a man's clothes (speech or actions).
kelley