ohhh my my my...what has the world become? Are people still so stupid?

I wonder if Washington University realizes how greatly it's devaluing its degrees by giving this idiot a Ph.D.

This is one fo the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The argument makes no legal sense, and no ethical sense.

I can't believe this woman is getting a degree for being an idiot. I thought they only gave those out at Oral Roberts.

Whose definition of marriage is she using? I didn't know there was even anything in the Bible that said getting married was permanent consent to sex.

Last time I checked, "I'll have sex with you anytime you want" is not part of traditional wedding vows...

Schafly's notion of consent in horrible, but I think her argument rests on another, in my opinion, also horrible idea: All marriages are the same; all people commit to the same things when they get married. I feel as though this "we are all the same" notion is at the heart of most social conservative views.

I find the dichotomy between 'no, he can't slap, hit or beat me' and 'I've consented to sex, no matter the form, for the rest of my life because I said I do' to be impossible to justify. He's not allowed to abuse me with his hands but it's OK for him to do it with his penis??

No, there should be no PhD for wrong-headedness. I agree that this will devalue all WU degrees.

It's not a crime if you do it with your penis?

I wonder if I can rob a bank with my penis...

Chilly: yes, what you said. This is so ridiculous. And "I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed"?? When did this ever get into a sex ed curriculum?

FWIW, Schlafly is not receiving a PhD; honorary degrees are almost never PhDs because PhDs are first doctorates. She will be an honorary doctor of humane letters.

The 'Sex Ed' she means, is the 'Abstinence Only' kind, which teaches girls to save their 'sexuality' for their HUSBAND ONLY. And if it's taught to be 'given' solely for the use of the husband, then it's only a small step to saying that once married, the Wife's sexuality is OWNED by him. After all, she GAVE it to him when they married, so how can the wife claim any rights over it anymore?

Gawd, it pissed me off just typing that.

Her ideas about marital rape's existence are clearly asinine, but I'm really put off by the fact that she describes marriage as being for sex. I always thought marriage was about committing to spend your life with someone, supporting each other, sharing what you have, and compromising together. This is the same reason why people who get married so that they can have sex drive me crazy--sex is not marriage, okay???

I'll have to try this one on my (feminist) wife after an especially long day:

"Honey, how about some sex?"
"I'm not really in the mood."
"Neither am I, to tell the truth. but we HAVE to."
"Why?"
"Phyllis Schlafy sez so. That's what marriage is all about."
"Love?"
"Nope."
"Happiness?"
"Nope. Just sex."
"Well, shit."
"yup."
"huh."
(pause.)
"I'll get the Bible; you get the Crisco."*

It'd be funny if she were on SNL; it's scary that she's real. jeez, that woman is pretty much nuts.

*humor props to xkcd

What a moronic mooncalf...pfft

Marnanel: I think the idea is that, if these silly little girls are getting upset when their husbands have sex with them, they must not have ever been told what sex is, and thus not realized what they were promising their husbands. Because they couldn't possibly fail to understand that, whatever sex is, a husband can demand it from his wife whenever he wants.
Yuck.

Well I just went on Facebook and saw that their protest group is up to almost 3,000 members. Commencement is this weekend, so if you haven't put your two cents in yet, now's the time. The chancellor et al need to get twice the mail this week that they got last week.

What woman would ever get married today if her husband could rape her at any time? (And with gender neutral sexual assault laws, this would also give the wife license to do whatever she'd like sexually to the husband.)

The no-fault divorce laws were enacted to help eliminate lying, even conspiratorial lying, to end marriages. Sometimes husbands and wives would agree to make up a tale about the husband abusing the wife just to have grounds for divorce. Yes, sometimes people make up things in custody battles about abuse, etc. It's not right, but it's human nature. But aside from custody battles, the primary reason that marital rape claims are not rampant is that most people (certainly not all) "get it" -- sex has to be mutually agreeable. What woman would marry a pig who thought it was his right to have sex whenever he wants?

Have you read much in her defense? I came across 2 Facebook groups supporting her - "In Support of Phyllis Schlafly's Honorary Degree from Wash U" and "I Heart Phyllis Schlafly". Here's one very special quote:

"There is no more pristine example of the left's in-crowd snobbery than their treatment of author and activist Phyllis Schlafly... Her very name prompts derisive hoots from Hollywood starlets who couldn't approach Schlafly's IQ if they were having brains rather than silicone injected."

Says it all, really. There's only a very weak attempt to qualify 'left-wing treatment' for a start. And the insinuation of unintelligent bimbos - right, cos we're not supposed to respect those kind of women, right? Jeez.

I've not looked at this properly, but the bits and pieces I've come across in her defense (obviously not just on FB!) is weakly argued and show about as much respect for women as Schlafay.

Have you read much in her defense? I came across 2 Facebook groups supporting her - "In Support of Phyllis Schlafly's Honorary Degree from Wash U" and "I Heart Phyllis Schlafly". Here's one very special quote:

"There is no more pristine example of the left's in-crowd snobbery than their treatment of author and activist Phyllis Schlafly... Her very name prompts derisive hoots from Hollywood starlets who couldn't approach Schlafly's IQ if they were having brains rather than silicone injected."

Says it all, really. There's only a very weak attempt to qualify 'left-wing treatment' for a start. And the insinuation of unintelligent bimbos - right, cos we're not supposed to respect those kind of women, right? Jeez.

I've not looked at this properly, but the bits and pieces I've come across in her defense (obviously not just on FB!) is weakly argued and show about as much respect for women as Schlafay.

Did anyone else notice that she refers to the women who have the far-out idea that they can be married and still say no to sex as "girls"?

I'm trying to wrap my head around her reasoning, but apart from the premise being appaling, there's something really off about it. So essentially, because she doesn't think marital rape is rape, everybody who does must have ulterior motives for demanding punishability for it? Something like that?

And that last bit is really telling. To me it seems to be merely the 'but what about false rape allegations?!?!' cry repackaged.

Why does anyone still listen to this woman? She is crazy! "Violence or mistreatment" can be dealt with? What does she think rape is? I agree with Pai, she clearly thinks that women do not have to consent to sex because their sexuality and their bodies are not their own. Ick!

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex.

This quote made it to a website I visit which features reader gathered quotes from religious fundmentalists, misogynists and just plain crazies across the net. It's interesting to note that a woman receiving an honorary degree from the University of Washington is quoted alongside near to complete lunatics of the world wide web.

The depth of her misogyny really shows in her choice of words in this statement. "He said/she said" implies that the man is going to be believed simply because he's a man, but the woman will be assumed to be a liar. How can a person hate herself that much?

What's really bizarre is that she's allowing that the intercourse in question may have been obtained through violence, but even though that's like the most clear-cut and obvious definition of rape, it's apparently not rape in this case, merely assault/battery.

Sorta wish the interviewer had pinned her down on that point...

I fell in love with my partner for many reasons. but one of the major reasons is he didnt want to have sex with me 24/7

My idea of the reason to marry someone is someone who loves and respects you enough that even if you never had sexual intercorse that its okay because love doesnt end the moment you can't stick it in.

her statement horrorfies me "Thats what marrages are all about" I have run into my fair share of this classic quilt trip of "your my girlfriend/fieance/wife so you have to have sex with me" in my life but to read that line, esp from a woman. and a woman getting an "honarary" degree(dont let me rant on how much honorary degrees piss me off being a disabled american who cant finish the two last years of her bachlors because of health issues).

Like someone said. I dont recall "I'll submit to sex any time you want it" in the wedding vows. As well as again, someone else said, its more common now that people write their own vows and in no way does my vow to my loved one would ever be "its all yours! go at it!"

so many levels of wrong. what is that teaching the men? that they should be able able to use you like a disposable product for their bodly fluids any time they get the urge? what the hell.

augh. so many things wrong with this... i cant get a clear thought out.

her point of view offends me so much, it feels like a dirt residue all over my love and my partner because we have so many other things to share and give in our agreement than who can put what where when...

blarg! someone bonk them on the head so they dont give that leach a degree....

or beter yet. let me get mind so I can teach and help stamp out this kind of crap

Omigod. I am at a loss for words after reading this article. I can't believe women like her still exist. I'm married, I'll be damned if that means my husband can just take sex from me whenever he wants to. Hence, the terms "consensual sex".

It's not a crime if you do it with your penis?

I wonder if I can rob a bank with my penis...

@ robos:

Good idea, but awfully hard to hold a gun that way. :)

The thing about PS, for me, is that she's a woman consistantly telling other women that their role in society is to sit down, shut up and let the men run it. And yet, she never sits down or shuts up. Which breaks my heart a little. She's the only person who needs to hear her own advice.

Done. Emailed 'em both. This is really gonna disillusion me if that degree crap does go ahead.

I didn't know there was even anything in the Bible that said getting married was permanent consent to sex.
Try 1 Corinthians 7, 4-6.

FWIW, I know I will get flamed on this, but let me try to explain where she is coming from:

If you do not have sex until marriage, then marriage is distinguished from dating by, in part, the presence of intercourse. If you do not have sex until marriage, you know that your husband is capable of restraining himself sexually... something that you simply cannot know when you give him oral on the first date and sleep with him on the second. In theory, men who have proved that they can restrain themselves sexually for the benefit of their brides, before marriage, will carry that same character trait with them in matrimony. So, if you've chosen well, you won't have a husband who rapes you - you'll have a husband who respects you for saying "no," which you've done during your relationship.

More than that, though, you've asked him to pledge sexual fidelity to you. That pledge carries a two-fold price: sexual fidelity in return, and an implicit agreement to not cut him off. While only 20-40% of divorces are initiated by men, most of the men who leave say that they got tired of not having sex with their wives. Sex is important in a good marriage. If he forces it on you, then there is associated assault - and she made that point very well.

FYI, ladies: the Bible is also pretty clear that men are not to deprive their wives of sexual pleasure. Pope John Paul said, IIRC, that Catholic men are to ensure that their wives achieve regular orgasm, by any means necessary. It is part of their marital duties to bring sexual pleasure to their wives.

It's a two-way street, in the eyes of Christians. It is also part of a larger system, one that is rejected by somewhere between 99% and 99.99999% of the people on this site. Examine the entire system, not just an isolated element of it.

Why are we talking about the bible? Oenphile, you do realize that the Bible commands people to do all sorts of wacky stuff, right?

It's a two-way street, in the eyes of Christians. It is also part of a larger system, one that is rejected by somewhere between 99% and 99.99999% of the people on this site. Examine the entire system, not just an isolated element of it.

As with many such nominally two-way streets, only one set of obligations get any real emphasis or enforcement.

Thus, for example, we often hear from these quarters the admonition that "wives, be subject to your husbands" without the remainder of the quote that clearly establishes that the subjection is supposed to be mutual.

Similarly, the theoretical duty of male pre- and extramarital chastity has rarely, if ever, received the level of emphasis that female chastity has, whether historically or in the present culture of "abstinence education."

It is unsurprising that fanatics are often quite selective when it comes to the sections of their chosen scriptures that they want to be fanatical about, and much can be learnt from the priorities this selective emphasis evidences.

irishgirl, well put. i'm not a christian, but i'll never understand the pick-and-choosiness of what parts of the bible people want to apply verbatim into the modern age and what parts they're cool with ditching.

elise, nicely done.

oenophile, "So, if you've chosen well, you won't have a husband who rapes you - you'll have a husband who respects you for saying "no," which you've done during your relationship."

and if you've chosen poorly (or been misled!), you get a husband who thinks all that pre-marital waiting was worth it to obtain ownership of a sexually inexperienced person who hasn't been tainted by relations with other dudes and who is obligated to give him sexual pleasure anytime he pleases for the rest of his life! awsm!

People, people, please learn to read.

Someone above-thread asked about the Bible. So I mentioned it.

I then mentioned the THEORY of all of this. I did not say that I buy it all; I did not say that it is infallible, perfect, or otherwise free from flaws; I merely thought it pertinent to point out the roots of Mrs. Schlafly's comments.

If anyone finds a freaking explanation to be offensive, then I can't help you. What I can do is to provide some context for something, so you can think about it, develop better arguments, and consider what you're fighting against. If something is a logical outcome of a valid, sensible system, you can attack the logic used to get there, the lack of consideration of other factors, and make a much better - and more feminist! - argument, instead of being blown out of the water for the inability to see beyond your own noses.

Rant over.

If you do not have sex until marriage, you know that your husband is capable of restraining himself sexually...

Um, that's IF you know for a fact he's not fucking around on you when you're not with him. While the woman is playing the good "virgin" role he could be off with the Madonna, getting what he "needs" there instead. Just because the woman is saying no to sex in the relationship doesn't mean the man is.

So, if you've chosen well, you won't have a husband who rapes you - you'll have a husband who respects you for saying "no," which you've done during your relationship.

Once again we get the onus on the woman to make sure she doesn't get raped. In this situation it's choosing a man she *knows* won't rape her in marriage because by god, he didn't do it outside of it. It's also part of the abstinence bullshit that it's the woman's responsibility to deny the man sex in the relationship, as opposed to the man knowing he shouldn't be asking for it in the first place because HE shouldn't be having premarital sex either. The woman has to say no in trade for marriage later on, only to get married and apparently have no real option to say no anymore because, since she'd been saying no before they were married, she can't say no now that they are married because she's been "bought".

Yeah, sign me up for some of that! /snark

Whoops, that should be "whore" not Madonna, wasn't finished editing. Sorry.

UltraMagnus, I rather liked it as "Madonna", in both senses of the word.

PS's comment about women using marital rape as an excuse to lie really pisses me off.

Noah said this:
"But aside from custody battles, the primary reason that marital rape claims are not rampant is that most people (certainly not all) "get it" -- sex has to be mutually agreeable."

Um, I think the primary reason that marital rape claims are not rampant is, well, who the hell would believe you? Trust me on that one.

If anyone finds a freaking explanation to be offensive, then I can't help you. What I can do is to provide some context for something, so you can think about it, develop better arguments, and consider what you're fighting against. If something is a logical outcome of a valid, sensible system, you can attack the logic used to get there, the lack of consideration of other factors, and make a much better - and more feminist! - argument, instead of being blown out of the water for the inability to see beyond your own noses."

gee thanks for the lesson in debate! we could really use it around here as NO ONE who comments here is ever able to unmask bullshit anti-feminist arguments for the illogical, woman-hating drivel they are. i really don't know how we've survived this long without you.

as for your remark about logical outcomes, i think it's pretty clear that schlafly operates somewhere outside that realm altogether. if her views are the logical outcome of christianity, then why isn't every other christian on board with her, to say nothing of christianity being a "viable, sensible" system in the first place. yikes.

oenophile, you can't get from Corinthians to "therefore you MUST give your spouse sex whenever he (or, yeah, technically she, but let's be realistic here) demands it without regard for your own health or happiness" UNLESS that's what you're already predisposed to think is the dulce et decorum thing for marriage - even the Church has a long history of holding up celibate marriages as moral models, though Christianity has never been interested in stopping marital rape generally any more than any other sort of male privilege (unlike, say, heresy.) But you can't get from "a general right to have sex goes with this legal relationship" to "therefore NO sexual demands at ANY time may lawfully be refused" - Some does not entail All, as students of formal logic will recall from class.

And since marriage in this country is a secular institution, what exactly does Phyllis' adherance to her interpretation of the Bible have to do with anything?

The grotesque thing about Schlafly's argument - which is the same old one that cons have been making against marital rape laws since the 1970s when the campaign to make them got seriously underway - is the whole what the hell is wrong with your marriage that you assume all wives would lie to get out of it and WHY on earth would you want to STAY in a marriage with someone who hated you that much, or why would you think that a couple who hated each other that much SHOULD be forced to stay together? What is WRONG with their sex lives, what is wrong with their EMOTIONAL lives, that they all think this is the norm for a good, healthy family? Why exactly do they think a woman would be SOOO desperate to get out of a marriage that she would lie about rape, go through all that, and what kind of a man provoke that behavior - or want to force a woman who DID do that to stay with him? None of it makes the least damn bit of sense, outside the lens of "males are demigods because they have TEH PEENZ and women are all succubi even the chaste submissive ones (stealing our manly essence!!1!)" which is what conservative gender roles all boil down to.

Just surreal.

"When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it."

Calling something a he-said/she-said situation is making a statement about whether it will be easy or difficult to prosecute. That is different from the issue of whether or not the behavior complained of ought to be illegal. There are plenty of behaviors that are hard to prosecute but are still illegal because they deserve to be punished whenever possible, and condemned by being named a crime. I would put raping someone you have sworn to love and honor into that category.

Oh, obviously.

Obviously every single man who doesn't have sex with a woman until marriage is an abuser who is screwing around with other women on the side.

Obviously, every single woman who cries "rape" after a marriage is over is telling the truth; not a single one does it for revenge.

I'm happy for everyone here that they've never seen a divorced family. In case you didn't know, people who are getting divorced use every weapon at their disposal against their partners.

Why exactly do they think a woman would be SOOO desperate to get out of a marriage that she would lie about rape, go through all that, and what kind of a man provoke that behavior - or want to force a woman who DID do that to stay with him?

Um... I don't think that's what Mrs. Schlafly was driving at. Every single anti-divorce person I know firmly believes that divorce is justified in the following circumstances: abuse and adultery. So if there is abuse, she can leave. Sorry to knock down that strawman.

i really don't know how we've survived this long without you.

(Small voice) Well, rileystar, 95% of the statements here are total nonsense, with no consideration to the underlying issues or the fact that opponents can have valid arguments. I seem to remember a kerfuffle when the Feminsting bloggers, in doing a "Who are you voting for in the primaries" poll, refused to include the Republican and libertarian primaries, on account of the "fact" that all Republicans and libertarians are anti-woman. That got a few commenters, mostly libertarian, upset. I also seem to recall that, although more than half of women are pro-life, and more women than men are pro-life, that every anti-abortion position is seen as anti-woman. So actually, you've survived in an echo chamber, but not much else.

Silly me, I thought that you wanted to survive in the real world, which is radically different from this site. Sometimes, the differences are not due to misogyny on the part of those who think differently, but are the outcome of very valid considerations. Ignore those at your peril. As a feminist, I get pissed when so-called-feminists pretend that everyone else is stupid.

oenophile, you can't get from Corinthians to "therefore you MUST give your spouse sex whenever he (or, yeah, technically she, but let's be realistic here) demands it without regard for your own health or happiness" UNLESS that's what you're already predisposed to think is the dulce et decorum thing for marriage

Well, sucks for you, but I never said that. Again, learn to debate and read.

I'm happy for everyone here that they've never seen a divorced family. In case you didn't know, people who are getting divorced use every weapon at their disposal against their partners.

Really now? All divorcing spouses resort to perjury and abuse of process in order to obtain the divorce?

I also seem to recall that, although more than half of women are pro-life, and more women than men are pro-life, that every anti-abortion position is seen as anti-woman.

This, I assume, is intended as an illustration of oenophile's statement about the veracity of "95% of the statements" on feministing.

She's been saying this for quite a while. Interestingly, she always merely "seems to recall" or somesuch.

I've said this before, but just because someone can spell doesn't exempt them from the troll category? Oenophile has a long history of derailing threads with utter nonsense and personal attacks. Perhaps it's time to finally stop feeding this one.

Every single anti-divorce person I know firmly believes that divorce is justified in the following circumstances: abuse and adultery. So if there is abuse, she can leave. Sorry to knock down that strawman.

Oh, but are we supposed to believe women when they say they've been abused? You know that they lie, and they'll just say it to get out of the marriage and ruin poor helpless men's lives. It's just a he said/she said, after all, and in those circumstances are we supposed to believe her???

/sarcasm

Oenophile has a long history of derailing threads with utter nonsense and personal attacks. Perhaps it's time to finally stop feeding this one.

Oh, fine, I suppose that's true enough. Poor little troll will go hungry though.

"I'm happy for everyone here that they've never seen a divorced family. In case you didn't know, people who are getting divorced use every weapon at their disposal against their partners."

Oh hell. I'd better ring up both the ex-husbands and let them know that we screwed the whole thing up all to hell by dividing everything up neatly via separation agreement and having a painless divorce hearing twelve months later that only the filer even had to show up to.

elise, i'm afraid you're right. we're not getting anywhere by arguing with this one, either.

Oenophile said: "If you do not have sex until marriage, you know that your husband is capable of restraining himself sexually."

I am happy to tell you that this is not at all true.

First of all, most sexually active couples don't spend all of their "alone time" screwing; there'll be occasions when one or the other doesn't feel up to having sex. A woman can judge how her partner reacts to being turned down.

Second, even if the couple are going at it like rabbits every time they get together (which could be true if they don't see each other often, or just both have high sex drives), a straight woman can still tell if her boyfriend is able to restrain his own desires out of consideration for her, because sex is a complicated process with a lot of steps and choices. How does he react when she says things like, "Hang on, I'm not wet enough yet,"? Does he ask if what he's doing feels good? Does he try to push her into acts she doesn't like, or doesn't feel like at that moment? etc.

It's a LOT more complicated than, "People with restraint don't have sex, people without restraint do".

elise, i'm afraid you're right. we're not getting anywhere by arguing with this one, either.

I'd like to make a small, completely unrelated clarification. I've noticed recently that there's another Elise posting here, whose name also includes a link. Just to aid in telling us apart, my link goes to http://lifeaftergonzales.blogspot.com.

Just to avoid any confusion in attributions.

By the way, this has been nagging at me for a while: wouldn't a clearer title for this thread be "Phyllis Schlafly still thinks it should be legal for men to rape their wives"?

There's a certain ambiguity in "married women can't be raped".

...or, for that matter, "Phyllis Schlafly still thinks it's not rape if you marry her first."

Schlafly can't understand where feminists are coming from because she subscribes to the "gatekeeper" model of sex: intercourse is something men are always trying to get from women. Once a woman has "given it up" for some guy, she's lost. Whereas feminists (and any sexually sensible people, really) view sex as a collaborative effort: without the active participation of one party, it's not really sex.

(Thanks to Pandagon.)

without the active participation of one party, it's not really sex.

Without the active participation of both parties, at best it's outsourced masturbation.

"The thing about PS, for me, is that she's a woman consistantly telling other women that their role in society is to sit down, shut up and let the men run it. And yet, she never sits down or shuts up. Which breaks my heart a little. She's the only person who needs to hear her own advice."

Which reminds me, what if the dean or whomever introducing her at UW's commencement starts off by congratulating her for being so outspoken and proving that women can succeed in careers outside the home...?

"Interestingly, she always merely 'seems to recall' or somesuch."

I've heard of an anti-divorce faction firmly believing that abuse is justified in the name of preventing divorce, and I'm not just seeming to recall it this time (see the ending of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3168638.stm ).

I never seen so many "strong", "independent", "empowered" chumps so scared of dissent.

Did you ever think people see things differently, for different reasons? Onephile has many points in what he/she said.

To shut someone down, belittle them, or call them names simply because the disagree but articulate their disagreement in such a friendly manner, well, is weak and pathetic to say the least.

Shame, because the exact behaviors feminists bitch and moan about are egregiously displayed here.

Kind of like child abuse, it has to stop somewhere... Why not here?

Does her idea of forever-consent only apply to penis-vagina sex? When I said "I do" was I also agreeing to oral? Anal? Did my husband also agree to sex whenever I choose? Can I strap on a dildo and take my husband any time I feel like it? I bet she'd feel different about that.

This thread is about Phylis Schlafly, Scilian. Do you have an opinion about her?

--------

I keep rereading the Schlafly interview, and I find it really disheartening. The 'he said/she said' statement is the worst part for me, because it really seems to assume that all women lie and we need to protect men from them. I can't imagine going through life with that kind of bias against half of all the people I meet.

In my only real experience with divorce, my mother did everything she could to minimize the trauma to her children, and my father did everything he could to destroy her, including lying on the stand. I have always assumed though, that the standard laws in place to punish people for lying in court prevent this from happening most of the time. I would never have dreamed of extrapolating my personal experience to a condemnation of an entire sex. It involves such a dark and pessimistic worldview, but I find that conservatives are generally dark and pessimistic, though they deny it.

Scilian, if you're talking about the choice of whether to buy a Honda or Toyota, your comment has merit. But Onephile's comments would seem to be in defense of statements that it is ok for husbands to rape their wives. And if it isn't an outright defense, it's a rationalization of someone else's defense of a crime. So thanks, but I think they're entitled to resist that kind of "dissent." I get so tired of the one-way street mentality when it comes to conservative/liberal disagreements. Phyllis Schlafly (and Onephile) have a right to express themselves as defined in the constitution, and I respect that, but the other side of that coin is that these women have the same right to express their disagreement with Schlafly, Onephile, you, and whomever. Get it?

Schlafly isn't the only one with the "women as gatekeepers" model of sex. Oenophile does as well!
If I get married, am I allowed to shove a dildo up his ass whenever I please? Where does that fit into your theory? Men aren't the only ones who have to "exhibit control" over their sexual impulses.

And Scilian, we are handling dissent very well - by pointing out the flaws in Schafly's and Oenophile's arguments.

And your last comment was completely uncool (not to mention nonsensical): comparing women speaking out against spousal abuse to child abusers.

I don't know what sex ed class she sat through, but in my high school health class I learned that when a woman does not give her consent for sex, it's rape whether the rapist is her husband or a stranger or her best friend. To say otherwise dehumanizes her. If this is Schlafly's view of marriage, I wonder what are her views on prostitution.

I can't believe an institution devoted to education is taking this conspiracy nut seriously. Her views on marital rape being a nefarious tool of men-hating feminists who want nothing more than to add divorces like notches on their belts, is a paranoid delusion. Why anyone would honor this creep is beyond me.

" I also seem to recall that, although more than half of women are pro-life, and more women than men are pro-life, that every anti-abortion position is seen as anti-woman."

i am confused by this statement -- i have read before that roughly half the women in the US are anti-choice (self professed pro-lifers) but ive never read or heard anything like this before - anyway, studies have shown that in the privacy of their own homes over 70% of Americans believe abortion should be legal

And if it isn't an outright defense, it's a rationalization of someone else's defense of a crime.

Yeah, that's how I saw it. A rationalization, not a support of what PS believes. Anyway, I think PS is probably quite naive. She probably can't even imagine a husband raping a wife, I'm sure she's never met a woman who she knew experienced it, and she probably think the closest you get to rape in marriage is unwanted sex (with consent). And as someone said of conservatives, they can expect everyone to be the same. She probably thinks since she's never been raped by a husband, who else would be?

Like enhancedvibes, I'd like to see a source for those alleged statistics.

I'm glad Schlafly did not try to soft pedal her position. It makes her all the more grotesque. The changes in the marital rape laws came into being because of the horror stories of battered women. Before the changes an abusive husband might as well rape his wife on top of knocking her around, since there was no punishment for the rape.

Charges of rape between spouses, uncorrroborated by signs of violence or neighbors' testimony of loud and angry noises, will always be difficult to prosecute. It's horrific to say that consent is forever given for all times and circumstances by the simple act of marriage.

I doubt anyone here would argue that sexual intercourse is not one of the reasonable expectations one spouse has of the other, absent specific mutual agreement otherwise. That's far from saying it must be provided anytime, anyplace. The civilized remedy to unilateral abstinence is divorce, maybe preceded by a round of counseling, not forcible unwanted intercourse. Some couples even permit, explicitly or tacitly, outside sex by the higher drive partner.

It seems to me that signs simply quoting Schlafly's words would be an effective form of protest. It wouldn't reach her, of course, but that's hopeless. You're trying to reach the bystanders, and any reasonably enlightened person would be horrified to view her words.

I've ended up writing alot and I'm not sure that I've made myself perfectly clear. But I tried.
Please don't get offended until you've read this and tried to understand where my thoughts were coming from.

I'm a man in the UK, we have different laws over here.
It's not legal to rape your wife, in fact you can be locked away for hitting your wife without her pressing charges ( or even making any form of complaint ).

You can legally be convicted of rape without a woman saying no or making any form of struggle, she can claim that she would have said no but was scared.
The law appears to not require any reason for her being scared.

If a woman is drunk and consents to sex then she can effectively withdraw her consent after the fact, forgetting she said yes means that she said no.
Nothing in the law allows that if the man is drunk that he can be forgiven for believing that his luck is in, it's assumed that she was a victim at the point she accepted those drinks from him.

So my view of this situation might be from a different angle than most peoples here.

I don't believe she thinks that rape within marriage is justified, but I might be wrong.

Marriage is many things, however one of the top things is that it's supposed to be the preferred vehicle for mating.
It doesn't mean you have to do it all the time, but mating outside of marriage is less preferred because of the perception that two parents are better than one.
Sex doesn't have to lead to pregnancy nowadays, but the way alot of people are programmed is to find a mate and reproduce.
The Women are programmed to think about having nice things for their baby and the Men are programmed to think about all the sex.
Unfortunately the Male programming doesn't necessarily include only finding one mate.
You don't have to follow your programming, some people find it harder to override it though because it's a stronger urge for them. You can't judge people on that.
Marriage is effectively a contractual agreement where you give up some rights and take on responsibilities.

I know there are women with various levels of sex drive and the same for men too, so you can get married and never have sex.
Equally some couples decide that they can't get enough from their partners so look outside and are still happy.
I think that people should have a right to decide which camp they are in.

I believe that if you get into bed with someone then you are consenting to them trying to have sex with you ( male or female ).
Thats not having sex, just trying. If you have a problem with that or the methods they use to pursuade you, then you don't share a bed with them.

I'd hate to be trapped in a marriage without sex.
You can't win, if you leave because your wife won't have sex then you're branded a pervert for having a high sex drive and abandoning your wife and a failure because you couldn't entice your wife into satisfying you.
When the situation changes because your sex drive drops and your wifes increases, then you are deemed a failure again.
Now she's free to leave and find a man that will satisfy her now that she actually wants it & everyone will applaude her for that.

People stay for many reasons, it's about compromise. "Ok, so there is not enough sex but look at everything else I've got".
I imagine that women think along the lines of "Ok, so he wants sex more than me but look at everything else".
If at the end a man has had sex less than he wants and a woman has had sex more often than she wanted then I think thats fair enough.
Compromise doesn't mean that a man has sex less often than he wants and a woman has sex exactly the number of times she wanted.
It gets tricky if a woman who can't afford to leave, or thinks she can't, is in a marriage with a man that wants what she won't give him.
I think that you have to take responsibility for getting yourself in that situation, i.e. he is providing for you.
But of course I don't condone violence or threats.
Those kinds of marriages are one of the results of force feeding the idea that you can marry into wealth, without any concequences.
It's effectively legalised prostitution & alot of women are ok with that. If it all goes wrong then you take the responsibility.

I believe that both people in love should enjoy sex when it happens, making sure it doesn't hurt etc.
You have to realise though that while some men are jerks that some are very nice apart from they get real horny & if you rev a guy up then he can get carried away & that can make it hurt.
But people in a real solid relationship can work on that.
Women should know how to slow a man down so they can enjoy sex. As well as speed him up so that they can get it over with as quick as possible, if thats what they want.
Men should know the same thing about women.

What I saw when I read the original quote is that effectively putting a tick box that says "did he ever try to have sex when you didn't want it" on the divorce and custody papers as a sure fire way of winning, is not very helpful.

You can't protect against a man or woman lieing, but sometimes the wording of these laws actually forms the basis for how people determine what the truth is.
I'm sure that in a relationship, when one person is annoyed with the other then they do things they know will hurt the other.
A common one for women is that they shut a guy off, but wouldn't it be so much more pain for the guy if you encourage him and then say no?
If after the guy gets fed up and leaves, the lawyer ( who has a vested interest in the outcome ) will definately question the woman if he was ever forceful.

Will she weigh up wether she was to blame? Maybe not if the law says she doesn't have to.

If you got him to the point of no return then I'd expect some form of verbal coersion from him at least. From my point of view, at this point you've effectively waved your right to foreplay.

People rely on laws in the way they rely on their ABS braking systems.
If your brakes work better on your car then you don't need to think so carefully about what you're doing as you can brake later and still stop.
Men don't have ABS. We don't have convenient pedals that can be pressed and guarantee to stop before something gets dented.
I'm sure if you love a man you don't want his ego to be dented, so you should plan your journey better so you can stop off at all the places he wants as well as the places you want.
If you brake too late you can't blame the other driver.

I think it's sad when a women walks home alone, drunk, in the early hours of the morning. Wearing provocative clothes and is attacked or disappears.
She felt safe doing it because any man is supposed to stop when she says no.

If I got divorced and found that my attempts at scoring with my wife the whole time were deemed as rape then I think that would destroy me. I don't think I deserve to be destroyed.

Are my fears justified? I don't know. I don't have that luxury.
However, a friends daughter takes pleasure in sexually winding guys up. Making it look as if it's there on a plate.
Shouldn't there be a law against that? False advertising?

Should it be her right to sexually confuse a man to the point he has no rational thought process left?
Do feminists recognise that a mans loss of rational thought is similar to the way that hormonal changes in their own bodies can affect their thought patterns in a similar way?

I know some feminists believe that sex that isn't initiated by a woman is rape and men should be grateful for the rare occassion that the woman does.
The belief that all men are rapists will be true, if you define rape as everything about male sexuality.

I'm not anti-women, I'm pro equality. On both sides.
If you have extreme feminist views and believe that all women should share the same view and that all men who want sex are bad, then the future of the human race is not looking good.

"Should it be her right to sexually confuse a man to the point he has no rational thought process left?"

Laws don't dictate everyone acting fairly to everyone else. There are men who make women think there might be a chance at a relationship or something else but really don't care about her. Goes both ways.

"all men who want sex are bad"

I don't think anyone's said this. Why can't we reach a point where we recognize that sometimes both men and women want sex and sometimes they don't. What's wrong is wanting sex so badly that you will do anything for it.

Rape is not an attempt at "scoring" so don't worry about that.

Oh, now that I wrote an essay about it it's an annoyance of my that we tell women to say no. Saying no to refuse something is not the natural way to communicate for men or women to communicate. When a group men were asked how they know a woman is refusing sex the first thing they said was "body language".

Do feminists recognise that a mans loss of rational thought is similar to the way that hormonal changes in their own bodies can affect their thought patterns in a similar way?

No. This makes no sense. We are all rational adults and should behave responsibly. The hormone defense/offense has no basis in science and is used simultaneously as a hammer and an excuse. Don't buy it.

As for the rest, Phill, you're making up positions nobody else has put forward and defeating strawmen.