Something which many people may not realize is that, not too long ago, there was no legal or even social category of 'spousal rape.' When a woman married a man, she essentially consented to sex whenever he wanted it - and if he forced her, it wasn't 'real' rape like it might be if they weren't married. This has been changing recently, but some conservatives haven't gotten the memo.

Roger Ailes quotes Phyllis Schlafly:

A man’s life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father by malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, one in which the man is always guilty. [emphasis Ailes’]

It’s nice that Schlafly acknowledges, at least implicitly, that it is possible for a man to rape his wife — but at the same time, she is quite explicit that raping one’s wife shouldn’t be punished like raping a stranger (or, presumably, someone you know but aren’t married to). Why is this? Do wives deserve less legal protection? Does Schlafly simply believe that marriage continues to qualify as consent to sex at any time and, therefore, that husbands who force their wives to provide sex shouldn’t be treated like “real” rapists?

You’d think that a “real” conservative would support principles like equal protection of the laws and enforcing laws against actions which harm others. If this is so, then the question becomes: is Phyllis Schlafly a “real” conservative, or has conservatism in American degenerated so far that it is no longer recognizable?

 

Read More:

• Godless Liberalism
• Godless Political Notes
• Godless Constitution