On the Sanctity of Marital Rape 🙏
A newsletter examining the sacred history of marital rape.
What’s up man.
I know my regular readers have been excited to see more newsletters about marital rape in their email and phone notifications. Lucky for you, I’m blessing your inbox today with commentary on the sanctity of marital rape as a follow up to my smash hit on the subject of spousal rape.
To the surprise of no one that previous essay on marital rape has really triggered a lot of normies, beta males, and jumbo sized feminist cunty cunts. It is truly intolerable to the flaccid normie mind that anyone would do some historical and legal research into marital rape - whatever the findings may be.
Now officially it’s still strictly legal to rape your wife today in over 40 countries around the world. This includes many of your favorite tropical vacation and honeymoon destinations (how convenient) such as The Bahamas, Jamaica, and Saint Lucia.
It also includes the usual suspects like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and other inbred shitholes.
Notably communist China and North Korea join the list shoring up Asian representation for diversity and inclusion purposes.
The Africans are here too of course in the marital rape Olympics with representation in the countries of Madagascar, Libya, Guinea, Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, and many more.
We could go on country by country where you can still rape your wife right now squeaky clean under the law, but I think it’s more pertinent to bring in this commentary from a reader.
The Hippocratic oath should be applied in the circumstance of marriage and I would include the making of most laws. First do not harm.
The reason so many countries, including our own until recently, did not acknowledge rape inside of marriage is because it was theoretically impossible and legally impossible to enforce justly.
Marriage was, until we changed the definition, a sacred covenant between 1 man and 1 woman and God. In marriage, eachs body belongs to the other. If that is so, how is it rape and who's accusation includes a separate witness? It comes down to lawyers and he said she said. That does more damage than good. (Refer to Hippocratic oath) If first do not harm? Then is the state involvement improving marriage?
The state being involved in marriage only weakened it. I offer you as evidence the state of marriage in modernity, since removal of church authority over the couple and the inclusion of state authority. The state reduced the accusation of rape in a marriage to the realm of medieval times. Where each party chooses a champion (lawyers) to fight to the death. We should all realize the outcome is seldom just or righteous.
My second point is the current definition of rape and sexual assault are no longer defined and most of us wouldn't realize we’re not even talking about the same thing.
Many feminist include all heterosexual sex as rape because there exist and unequal power dynamic between men and women during sex. If the man has more authority, strength or money in the relationship, it's considered forced. She had no option out. Sexual assault now even includes unwanted sexual advances even if just verbal. And example would include a wolf whistle.
So any discussion of sexual assault or rape in a marriage must first include defining what it is, then deciding if laws on it would do a greater good or increased harm. Should the protection of the marriage, which studies indicate is the safest most productive place for children, be enforced as a common good or are we as a society only interested in the protection of the woman?
Sometimes it's best for government not to be involved with everything. Every situation isn't made better by inclusion of a law.
I'll leave my point with this thought. Every law created is ultimately enforced by the state with armed men. Every law is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Even a parking ticket violation if disobeyed in it's entirety will have armed men confronting the violator. If that was truly understood, would we have as many laws?
This comment stands on its own merits, and highlights the larger purpose of today’s newsletter itself, the sanctity of marital rape.
As reviewed in my first essay on marital rape, very few Americans today know that raping your wife was completely legal for the first ~200 years of American history in every single state.
Stated differently it has been legal to rape your wife for the vast majority of American history. In fact you could still rape your wife in some US states as recently as 1992 - not that long ago really.
You could just wake up on a random Sunday with a woody, roll that bitch wife over, get some spousal rape going, hit the shower, and be off to church in the mini-van in no time with your freshly raped wife in the passenger seat (where she belongs).
Even now you can rape your wife just fine in nearby countries like The Bahamas.
Which is interesting to me as a millennial man. When is the last time you, I, or anyone heard a fat feminist cunt bitching about marital rape in Jamaica? China? Saudi Arabia?
In my entire life I have NEVER heard a feminist bitching and moaning about spousal rape in any of these countries. Not in public speeches, not “in real life”, not on social media, Tumblr, Reddit, literally fucking anywhere.
I’m sure some have but I’ve never fucking seen it, not one fucking peep. And I’m willing to bet you haven’t either.
This is in part because 99.9% of feminists are frauds as my good friend Janice Fiamengo highlights in this new essay.
That’s why you never hear American of Canadian feminists complain about women getting the shit kicked out of them, stoned to death, decapitated, etc in barbaric towel head countries.
They literally do not even give a shit about women getting their heads chopped off today.
What makes you think they care about some big booty Jamaican woman getting raped by her husband?
What feminists care about is power and destruction.
Everything they do is to gain more power for the purpose of destruction. They cannot help themselves. Women are destroyer class beings with ancient primal instincts to make babies, nurture children, and then destroy everything else.
This is why when you give women political power (that they have never earned, never fought for, do not deserve, and cannot handle) they destroy entire countries.
It’s in their nature to intentionally or inadvertently destroy everything. One way or another they will destroy.
Marriages - with or without spousal rape - follow the same pattern. For those of you who are husbands reading this for example, if you want to blow up your marriage into a million pieces, the most rapid and effective way to accomplish this is to let your wife lead the marriage and family.
You don’t have to do anything else. Just hand her the wheel of your marriage and family, and she will drive it right off a cliff ASAP. She will then blame you in the smoldering wreck of your divorce for being so retarded as to let her drive the car of your marriage.
Oh no Anthony, you don’t understand, my wife and I are co-equal.
No no dear reader. I understand your type of marriage perfectly. You are indeed co-equal and co-retarded with your wife, and the outcome will be all the same total destruction.
Now marital rape took about 20 years to fully criminalize in the United States, state by state.
Notably no-fault divorce - which began under President Regan during his time as governor in California - took about 15 years to become law of the land in a similar, state by state fashion.
A lot of the timing here overlaps too between spousal rape laws and no-fault divorce changes around the US. Which is to say that marriage as a legal contract and institution changed in dramatic, rapid ways compared to the historical traditions preceding these changes.
I am of the view that both of these changes have been devastating for the United States, for family formation, and marriage itself. President Regan for his part later described signing no-fault divorce into law as his “greatest regret”.
In recent years questioning the merits of no-fault divorce has come into the window of acceptable social and political discourse. Which is good. There are even high ranking government officials who openly call for ending no-fault divorce.
That’s a bold step in the right direction. Of course no one has the balls to do that for marital rape just yet. Which is understandable given how retarded the average person is. They just assume you are literally Hitler if you want to roll the clock back to 1992 where you could still legally rape your wife in some US states.
The bottom line is this.
Criminalizing marital rape was a major intrusion into the sanctity of marriage and private domestic affairs. As the reader earlier noted in his comment, this supposed crime is almost impossible to prove. Imagine a husband calling the police on his 300 pound wife for raping him.
Uh yes officer. That’s right yes we’ve been married for 12 years and have two kids. Yes my giant hippo wife raped me yesterday morning. It was horrible. Evidence? Officer look at this fucking sweat hog are you kidding me? She’s been raping me for years. Arrest that woman!
As I said earlier, what feminists were really after wasn’t ending some non-existent epidemic of spousal rape, it was power and destruction.
Feminist cunts wanted to eliminate the inherent consent traditionally provided by marriage itself. If you don’t want to have sex with this person, why did you marry them?
Wives properly (and historically) are also the property of their husbands. Men who should be engaged in husbandry where you breed, feed, control, and manage your wife like me.
It’s nonsensical that you can be charged with or even accused of raping your property, which is one important reason of several that we need to Make Women Property Again.
More specifically feminists have always wanted to enslave men as part of the destruction process, which in the legal context of marriage means dumping all responsibility onto the man while simultaneously removing all of his authority.
This makes men into work horses with, eventually, zero authority.
All of the obligations of marriage with none of the power to direct it. That authority doesn’t magically disappear of course, it has been systematically transferred to women.
With marital rape then it was about removing any and all contractual obligations of women (such as the infinite sex glitch that came with a wedding ring by default), while maximizing contractual obligations upon men.
Even now in our “strong independent woman” world women receive ~98% of alimony nationwide. Marriage at this point presents them with virtually zero obligations at all.
Merely suggesting one at all - of any kind, scope, or degree - generates screams of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
In conclusion feminist hysteria about marital rape was never real, as usual. It was a cover and a scam for more insidious purposes. Criminalizing marital rape was just one more hammer blow smashing the patriarchy, which has always meant smashing fatherhood, family, masculinity, and any responsbilities for women at all ever.
Intruding on the domestic privacy of marriage and the implicit sexual consent it historically provides has been a total disaster, and it seems few men alive have the balls to articulate these facts boldly and clearly.
Criminalizing marital rape was fundamentally wrong and it has caused a serious net harm to the cultural fabric of American culture. The reasons for doing so were bullshit from day one and we need to go back.
Oh no Anthony but what about wives who don’t want to submit to and obey their husbands?
Well if you don’t want to fuck your husband then you should have never married him in the first place idiot.
Most (90%) of those women are just gold digging whores anyway. No kidding they don’t want to fuck some fat flubby beta male. She knew that going in, it was just a cash grab.
Thanks for tuning in.
/s/ Anthony Johnson