Talk:Marital rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Marital rape:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Acquire information on the remaining countries; create table for national policies
  • Photo : Map of early criminalizers; map of current US laws by state
  • Verify : Confirm or deny information from vague "US State Department" source
  • Other : Globalize: Add information on different religious perspectives on marital rape; Include history from before 1950 outside of US and UK

Contents

problem with lists citing countries which have criminalised rape[edit]

China appears on both lists. There are also other inaccuracies. Please check. Unable to edit. Thanks.

Copyright Violation[edit]

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[edit]

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:

  • 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.

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 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)

New Map, Fixing the country lists[edit]

Map of countries which criminalize marital rape

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[edit]

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)

Misleading[edit]

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 [1]. 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[edit]

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)

Resolved
Done! Lova Falk talk 11:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Two different maps about the same subject??![edit]

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)

Resolved
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)

Requested move[edit]

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[edit]

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 rapeMarital 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.

People's Republic of China[edit]

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[edit]

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

  • "In Indonesia, the marital rape provision is within the Domestic Violence act." [2]
  • "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.

Does anyone object to a new color on maps to reflect this different criminalization, perhaps orange?--Carwil (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Morocco ?[edit]

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 [3]

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:
  • Boughima, FA (2011). "Domestic sexual violence (descriptive study of 28 cases)". Sexologies. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Moroccan human rights groups cited in this report to the UN concur.
--Carwil (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany Dubious[edit]

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)

Source[edit]

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:[4]

This is an article from the Guardian talking about the report: [5]; 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[edit]

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)

Husband?[edit]

This article is feminist!!! Women also can rape men so saying "...is illegal but widely tolerated and accepted as a husband's prerogative." is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.14.215 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure if I got this right, but "Traditional views on marriage which dictate that a woman must be (sexually) submissive to her husband continue to be common in many parts of the world." should be cited explicitly. To me, as a person who is forming a world view, it sounds as a commentary on culture as opposed to established by study. I would love to have a clarification on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikisarma (talkcontribs) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What if it is illegal but not called rape[edit]

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.[6]. — 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)

Honduras[edit]

Several sources claim that spousal rape is illegal in Honduras.

"The law criminalizes all forms of rape, including spousal rape."[7]

"Acquaintance rape (date rape) is considered rape as well as spousal rape." (in the section "Special Information for Cases of Sexual Assault and Rape").[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:1A13 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lithuania[edit]

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)

Solomon Islands outlaws marital rape[edit]

Are these sources reliable?

[9] [10] [11]2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9E84 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

adding to "sustaining factors"[edit]

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[edit]

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:[12]

  • "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[edit]

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:[13] 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:[14]

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".[15] 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: [16], [17]
  • Liberia: the current laws in Liberia are in the Rape Amendment Act (2006), see here: [18]; 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#New_Map.2C_Fixing_the_country_list 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)

Questions[edit]

In the light of the above section I would like to ask:

Does anybody object if I remove the list of countries (since most of them are unsourced or poorly sourced)?
Does anybody object if I remove the map? (same reasons as above + laws are changing quickly)?

Note: I have also corrected Jamaica with a linked to the The Sexual Offences Act, 2009. Again, please be careful with sources when dealing with legal issues.2A02:2F01:1059:F003:0:0:BC19:A017 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see I got no responses so I've removed the countries from the list. I added several more countries in the section on 20th/21st century criminalization and will add more with proper sources. If any problems please discuss here on talk.2A02:2F01:1059:F002:0:0:BC19:A2B7 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. I object to both wholesale removals.
Please correct things, instead of deleting them altogether. All of the sourcing issues are discussed above on Talk, and there's even an open work page for dealing with cleaning up the sourcing: Talk:Marital_rape/Country_lists. I'm willing to do the svg code updating periodically (more like every five weeks than every five days) to make the map correspond.
As best I can tell the "not criminalized" list was properly sourced on the main page, although you may not like every cited conclusion. As with everything else on wikipedia, find a competing source that is more reliable or more current in the event of disputes and errors.--Carwil (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I have to ask, why does the article need both a map and a list of countries? I think only one of these options is sufficient (personally I think neither is needed since countries can be discussed in the 20th/21st century section; but if map or list must stay, then I think choosing only one option is better, since they are difficult to maintain). Regarding sources, I am not the only one to complain about them, since in many countries the situation is very difficult to determine and sources are contradicting each other. There is no need to list all the countries of the world here, and only countries that are extremely clear and extremely well sourced should be discussed here.188.25.26.177 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
for instance, as said in the above section:
Honduras should not be black on map
Mauritania should not be red on map188.25.26.177 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We should have a table and a map, because Wikipedia is a reference work. Tables and maps are two very simple ways to access detailed, geographically distributed information, and therefore appropriate for a reference work like Wikipedia. (Saying this with a smile:) If you think we shouldn't do something because it's "very difficult," perhaps an online encyclopedia of human knowledge is not the project you're looking for.--Carwil (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Honduras: Criminalization confirmed and sourced in the article now.
Mauritania: sources conflict. Will be greyed on the map.--Carwil (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I object the wholesale removal of either things. As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference". Otherwise, it can be re-sourced. If there is too much contradictory information, then only those certain countries should go away. The entire list should not! TheReportingReporter (talk) 00:13, 06 October 2014 (UTC)


The problem is that you are confusing two different issues:

countries where marital rape is not explicitly criminalized

and

countries where marital rape is not covered by the 'ordinary' rape laws.

These are two different issues; and the article should not imply they are the same.

See here: [19]

As of 2011, at least 52 countries had explicitly made marital rape a criminal offense,[2] and according to a 2006 report from the UN Secretary-General, at least 104 countries criminalize marital rape—if not under explicit marital rape statutes, then under general rape laws.

The section is called Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence but uses a source which lists countries which do not explicitly criminalize. Not the same thing (because in some of them it may still be covered under the general rape law). I removed countries cited only to that source.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, what I meant was that the only countries which should be there are the ones which directly state that is criminalized or not criminalized. TheReportingReporter (talk) 01:04, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania[edit]

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"[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:1059:F004:0:0:BC19:A0D7 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Map - Suriname[edit]

Marital rape was made illegal in 2009.[21] 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[edit]

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

  • According to the US report:[22]

"The law prohibits rape, including spousal rape,".

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

  • This source claims that:[23]

"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[edit]

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)

Japan again[edit]

I have removed all mentions of Japan from this article (source for new addition was in Japanese language and is not appropriate, especially since other sources seem to conflict; map also shows Japan in red). Please do not add anything to the article about this country until all problems are clarified here on talk page.2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A124 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Since there are conflicting sources, shouldn't Japan be totally be blanked from the maps? I don't know, maybe it is probably illegal, but not implemented. TheReportingReporter (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Belgium[edit]

"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)

I am again raising SERIOUS concerns about the accuracy of this article in regard to country laws and sources[edit]

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."[[24]] 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)

Split - United States section[edit]

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)

Georgia (country) on the map[edit]

Why is Georgia shown in black on the map? It should be red, it is illegal; it's listed on the list of countries which have criminalized, and is sourced.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1BCD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's referenced here: [25], on pages 4 and 5. UNIFEM 2003, which only presents a list in table form refers to "non-specific legislation" criminalizing marital rape in Georgia. In general, I've avoided using this kind of list as a source unless there was no contradictory information. However, in the case of Georgia, this sequence happened: 1) I added it to the Not criminalized list, using that citation. 2) Someone removed it. 3) I added a set of non-contradicted countries cited in UNIFEM 2003 to the criminalized list.
I suspect we can find clarity on the matter, and would defer to your judgment about greying the country on the map or not until then.--Carwil (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Georgia should be grey on the map, at least for now, because there is very much contradictory information.
For instance [26] states that marital rape is illegal: pg 122 - questions 5.1 and 5.2. 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A3E3 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Georgia is now greyed on the map. Let's see if we can pull together sources on Georgia though.--Carwil (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

African customary law[edit]

What is meant by "African customary law"? You realize Africa is a vast continent and the customs of different groups differed widely? The source cited is about a single country, Malawi.--190.80.116.134 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/not criminalized[edit]

I removed these sections for reasons that were already discussed above. Sources are poor, outdated and unclear. Also please do not confuse countries where marital rape is not explicitly criminalized/not specifically addressed, with countries where it is legal. In many of these countries it may still be covered by the 'normal' rape law (if it is not specifically excluded by the text of the law). Also, many of the countries which do not explicitly criminalize are countries that used to have a statutory exemption in the rape law that was specifically removed by the legislature for the purpose of including marital rape under the ordinary rape law.

According to existing sources:

  • The 2006 UN Secretary-General's In-depth study on all forms of violence against women found:[27] - page 113:
"Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted."
  • In 2011, the UN Women report Progress of the World’s Women:In Pursuit of Justice found (UN Women Justice Report) found:[28] - page 17
"By April 2011, at least 52 States had explicitly outlawed marital rape in their criminal code".

Note that this report referred to countries which explicitly criminalize marital rape (does not necessarily mean that it is legal in those which don't).

Please do not revert my change until discussing it here. Also see the sections above where this has been discussed.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AF6A (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source (for Europe):

Analytical study of the results of the Fourth Round of Monitoring the Implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the Protection of Women against Violence in Council of Europe member states (results for 2013): [29]
results from 46 member states of the Council of Europe (Russia did not participate). At page 61, all the 46 contries answered "Yes" at the question on the criminalization of rape within marriage on the same basis as rape outside marriage (in the table -the sixth question)


I copied this from the "Questions" section: "I object the wholesale removal of either things. As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference". Otherwise, it can be re-sourced. If there is too much contradictory information, then only those certain countries should go away. The entire list should not! Some countries can be more authenticated than others! TheReportingReporter (talk) 00:13, 06 October 2014 (UTC)".

And where is the "Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence" section? I can't seem to find the editing text of it! Well, if I find it, I will put the following statement underneath "Some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information." Don't you agree that this is better than removing the entire list? TheReportingReporter (talk 00:50, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

I responded in the Questions section. However I will seek a third opinion through RfC because I don't want an edit war.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
"As long as references are provided for most of them, it can be used as a "reference"" - No it cannot. It must be a reliable source - WP:RS. The media, random books, or various NGOs are not usually reliable with regard to legal issues. The standards are very high when it comes to sources for legal and medical articles.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Sorry, it was not my intention to start an edit war either. I mentioned what I meant by that statement under the "Questions" category. Peace. TheReportingReporter (talk) 01:07, 06 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - sections Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence and Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence; the map[edit]

There is a dispute regarding the accuracy of these sections and of the map. An editor with very good knowledge of legal issues (familiar with both common law and civil law legal systems) would be an ideal help. The questions are:

  • Should the sections stay?
  • Should the map stay?
  • What sources are appropriate (ie. sufficiently reliable)? What to do about contradictory sources?

The relevant problems are discussed on this talk page, in particular in the section Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/not criminalized above, but also in other sections such as Questions; Factual accuracy on countries that criminalize/don't criminalize, of map; and using reliable sources ; or I am again raising SERIOUS concerns about the accuracy of this article in regard to country laws and sources and other sections. Also see this discussion also User_talk:TheReportingReporter#Marital_rape.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459D (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the map includes all the sources in the SVG code. The most common source used seems to be the U.S. State Department. If the map isn't accurate, it should be updated, not discarded. Are there still any specific problems with the map that have not been fixed? Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the section stay, why should the map stay, and have you heard of the reliable sources noticeboard? If the section is broken fix it. If the map is broken fix it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask Wehwalt as he's an attorney and would understand the legal bit. He's also an admin so would understand policy, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to pass on this, I'm short on time at this particular moment. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Somalia[edit]

Somalia is mentioned in the list, but it is not black in map. I don't know how to edit maps. Can someone please sort this out? Thank you. TheReportingReporter (talk) 22:46,07 October 2014 (BST) .

Done. Kaldari (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is illegal there. Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution prohibits any form of violence against women [30]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Marital rape not illegal in India[edit]

An exclusion for marital rape exists in the law against rape in the Indian Penal Code, which is also pointed out recently by a judge acquitting a man of raping his wife (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10824964/Rape-in-marriage-not-a-crime-Indian-court-rules.html). Also after the Delhi gang-rape incident it was advised by the law committee making anti-rape law stricter that this exclusion should be done away with however this proposal was rejected. Another thing is that marital rape is not described as non-criminal domestic abuse under any Indian law. Isolated judgments cannot dictate the status, only official status of the act can which under the IPC is excluded as a criminal offense on the law against rape. So I think the status of marital rape in India should be moved to not illegal in the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The map and list is about simplicity. As mentioned in the article you have given, non-consensual sex in India is not deemed as 'rape' or criminalized through any legal means and therefore it should indeed be black on map. I think someone may have mistook India for Indonesia from section 10 above. Even then, why isn't Indonesia in black either? Of the two sources provided for it, one seems to be in Japanese (and irrelevant) whilst the other one is dead. Since the country presumably runs with aspects of the Sharia law, it will probably be black on map. TheReportingReporter (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the current classification for India is accurate. See [31] and [32], which says that "any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades, or violates the dignity of a woman" is considered domestic violence. Domestic violence is not considered a criminal offense in India, but it does allow the wife to apply for a protection order. As to whether we should simplify the map, I would support such a change as it would be less confusing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and innapropriate[edit]

The sections "Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence/Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence" start with the text:"Please note that some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information". This text is really inappropriate and unencyclopedic and should not be in the article. Unfortunately it is true, so to remove it while leaving the sections in the article would also be problematic. The problems with the reliability of this article have been discussed for years, and this topic is all over this talk page, but it appears that the logical solution - which is to remove these two sections and the map (both poorly sourced/unsourced) does not seem to be accepted... The response seems to be on the lines "If the sections are incorrect, unsourced etc, then fix them and do not remove them!" despite the fact that it has been explained repeatedly that they can not be fixed, because there are no reliable sources available for the about 200 states that exist in the world... and that many sources contradict each other... and that it is not always a black of white issue.5.12.61.229 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The warning has now been removed by ip:67.174.254.238, but the problem with the lack of accuracy and reliable sourcing has not been solved... 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:48CC (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a "disputed" tag to the sections; the tag should stay until the problem is solved. (This tag is encyclopedic, unlike the previous warning)2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Denmark[edit]

Using Denmark as an example of a country "which were early to criminalize marital rape" here is a bit misleading, as they didn't remove references to marital status until 2013. Excerpt from a report by Amnesty International:

The Danish Penal Code’s provisions on rape come under the chapter on vice crimes and a number of the provisions on sexual offences include references to marital status. The legislation even provides for a possible reduction in the penalty for rape if the victim and the perpetrator marry or enter into a registered partnership. [...] Furthermore, the Danish Penal Code provides that the perpetrator’s subsequent marriage or registration of partnership with the victim is grounds for reducing or remitting punishment. Various sections of the code refer to marital status. Rape and sexual violence are serious violations of a woman’s right of sexual self-determination and integrity – marriage with the perpetrator does not change this fact.

...which is why I've removed the unreferenced mention of Denmark. / Gavleson (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is wrong to say that Denmark was "early to criminalize marital rape", because this is true. Although its original laws allowed for shorter sentences, and in some cases (if the victim reconciled with the perpetrator) allowed for a pardon, the fact remains that Denmark was in fact one of the first countries to criminalize marital rape. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
However, I agree with your note on "unreferenced mention", this is a problem with the whole article, particularly the map and the sections on the countries which have and have not criminalized marital rape. I'd appreciate if you could comment on this problem of the article, as it has been brought up many times on talk, but nobody seems to be interested in it.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a "disputed" tag to the sections on countries which criminalize and which don't; the tag should stay until the problem is solved.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:567F:92D7 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The 2013 change in Danish law was a repealing of a marry-your-rapist law: a legal provision that exempts a rapist from punishment if he marries his victim. This is different from marital rape, which occurs after marriage has taken place (instead of before it). Marital rape was indeed criminalised in Denmark in the 1960s. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed map[edit]

I removed the map. This has been discussed for years.

  • the map doesn't cite its sources.
  • if a map exists, it must have sources which are:

- extremely reliable (sources for legal and medical issues are held to a very high standard), certainly random books and newspaper articles are not good enough

- up to date: we are in 2015, and so sources must be from 2015: most marital rape laws are very new: if you go back in time even 5 years ago, the laws in many countries were different than today

  • in many countries the situation is still unclear, as explained here in this article (the law does not exclude marital rape from the definition of rape - ie. there are no statutory exemptions - but the jurisprudence is still not well formed)

Please do not re-add the map without discussion and consensus.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:85A2 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem fairly active on this page. Don't you think it would be easier if you just made an account? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You had no right to remove the map. The accuracy and possible discarding of the list and maps were already discussed under the Questions and RFC - sections Countries where spousal rape is a criminal offence and Countries where spousal rape is not a criminal offence; the map part of the talk page. Your problem with the map was already discussed by some other headings if not these ones. It was concluded that the map should instead be constantly updated and corrected, not be taken down altogether. This was also the opinions of some users with a hard knowledge of the law, as seen under the second topic. The map needs to go back up. TheReportingRepoter (User talk:TheReportingReporter) 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The map is in violation of WP:V. There have been many discussions about the sources through the years, but there is currently no consensus to keep the map. The map was removed after a warning on the talk page: nobody objected so it was later removed. If material is in violation of Wikipedia policies (and unsourced material certainly is) than not only that there is a right to remove, but there is an obligation to do so. If you can source each country on the map to a reliable legal source (not newspapers!) dating from 2015 then restore it. Otherwise don't. Please read the policies of this encyclopedia.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The RFC from one year ago was closed without any consensus, and the only person who actually appeared to be "with a hard knowledge of the law" as you put it, said he did not have time to comment, and did not offer on opinion. That RFC was closed without any consensus. Please study what RFC is and how it works. If you want to start another RFC do it, but for now this unsourced map will not stay.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And by the way you can't say "oh if we don't have reliable sources we'll just use what we can get (ie. poor unreliable ones) and then we'll warn users that the source might be flawed" - that's how user:TheReportingRepoter seems to think, but that's not how Wikipedia policies work. I'm saying this because user:TheReportingRepoter has in the past added to the article, above one section, the following warning text for readers: "Please note that some of the sources are not highly authentic and therefore should not always be taken into consideration. Please view the talk page for more information". 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some editors seem to think that the law is a joke, and that you can make assertions about it sourcing them to random newspapers, sites, obscure books, NGOs and other non-legal writings. But the law is not a joke. With regard to this article: unless there is either a statutory exemption in the law excluding the possibility of a spouse being charged with rape, or, conversely, an explicit criminalization, you need to be very careful on making assertions about the applicability of that rape law in marriage. In this latter case (where there is neither an exemption, nor an explicit criminalization) if there isn't either a ruling from the highest court (which in civil law systems usually serves as providing a uniform interpretation of the law, thus helping with the unification of the non-unitary judicial practice of lower courts; and in common law systems provides a binding precedent which lower courts are obligated to follow) or unless there was previously a statutory exemption in the law that was removed by legislators in order to implicitly include marital rape in the ordinary rape law - then you can't freely make affirmations (though you could look at what lower courts do - though in many civil law jurisdictions non-unitary judicial practice is a serious problem). But you need real, up-to-date, legal sources for this. Such sources are simply not provided in this article for the map (and for the sections on the countries) 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:FD91 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on Japan :"The law criminalizes all forms of rape involving force against women, including spousal rape, and the government generally enforced the law effectively. The law defines a rapist as “a person who, through assault or intimidation, forcibly commits sexual intercourse with a female of not less than 13 years of age or commits sexual intercourse with a female under 13 years of age.” " [33]

So I removed Japan from section "spousal rape is not a criminal offence". The source used, apart from not being reliable, states that "incest and marital rape are not defined explicitly as crimes under the penal code" which is not the same as not being outlawed, since it is included in the 'ordinary' rape law (there is no exemption). 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:50C:911D (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Marital Rape[edit]

The definition of marital rape here has undergone a number of revisions; mostly with no real gain in meaning. Many of these fail because of (a) the cardinal sin of defining a word--use of a word to define a word, (b) failure to identify the uniqueness of the term. Currently, we are sporting a definition proffered by Flyer22 Reborn, which, while aiming for simplicity, overlooks the point. On failing on the criterion (a) "Marital rape ... is rape in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." The "perpetrator/victim" is just presumptive language to lend a legal/criminal air with no contribution to the meaning. This same definition might be stated simply without loss of meaning here:

"Spousal rape ... is the rape of one spouse by the other", or "Spousal rape ... is rape between spouses"

And then added, for good measure to ensure that nothing more might be read into this: “It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse.”

Utter fail on both criteria. The thrust of the law on this, which can be read with some benefit, is the Wikipedia article on “Marital rape (United States law)” where marriage was once understood as exclusionary to the idea of rape, as marriage was a consensual legitimization of conjugal relations. The point is that largely, marriage has been legally redefined so that, specifically, this is no longer the case. Specifically, consent is required.

“Marital rape is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one’s spouse.”

No need to repeat the word “rape” again in the definition to try—in vain—to add to the definition.

The language ““It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse”, which attempts to pile on in place of clarity, adds even less than the current definition which says, <rape is a form rape>.

Just to be clear, the law has no “force” or “resistance” requirement; a definition that includes that requirement would be misrepresentative.

Themistoclides (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Themistoclides. My changes to the lead sentence here and here were in response to this edit an IP made. I see no issue with the final wording I used, legally or otherwise. It is accurate and can be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Stating that it is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse is WP:Lead material, since these aspects are discussed lower in the article. And that sentence can also be supported by WP:Reliable sources.
I could agree to go with the wording "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." But stating "rape between spouses" can make it seem like we are stating that both spouses have committed rape. While both spouses can commit marital rape, this does not automatically come with the territory and the sources are usually referring to one spouse raping the other (usually a man raping his wife). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, Flyer22 Reborn. The failure of "spousal rape is the rape of a spouse by the other" is that it is a tautology, As a definition it simply repeats the same words; little different than: " 'a red apple' is an apple that's red." If phrased rhetorically, this would be even worse, as a proposition so stated, often intentionally, is used to obscure the lack of valid reasoning. One might point to putative "reliable" sources, but if the definition is both vacuous and invalid, the point is moot. Themistoclides (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with that view, but I get the gist of where you are coming from. Still, the lead sentence should be clear on what marital rape is. And your suggestion of "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is good on that point. So I've gone ahead and changed the lead sentence to that (followup tweak here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If you do not agree, the purpose of the Talk page is to discuss that, not for unilateral judgments. On the definition, if the point is to be as tautological as possible, then: "spousal rape is spouse on spouse rape" is even more so; semiotically, it adds nothing. Instead of adding "clarity", it advances a stifling monotony. I don't understand why the acute reaction whenever the definition here doesn't rely on the repetition of same word. Themistoclides (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see that there was more to discuss. There was no unilateral judgment. You suggested, or seemed to suggest, "Spousal rape ... is the rape of one spouse by the other." Going by the "Utter fail on both criteria" statement, perhaps you were not suggesting that wording? I went with that wording, per what I stated above. As for using "spousal rape" in the lead, it should be in the lead per WP:Alternative title. I see no problem with stating "marital rape" and then using the term rape to describe it in the same sentence. That's what it is -- rape. And that is how many sources define it. It is not being needlessly repetitive. If we look at the Marital rape (United States law) article, it states "is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse." We could use that wording (and linking the term rape soon afterward would be important), but then we'd be left with the "perpetrator/victim" aspect that you object to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And I think that "Marital rape is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse." is poor wording for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion based on “I don’t agree” or “I think … [its] poor wording” are not arguments. I get why “rape is rape” assertions are so popular: they relieve the person of having to think and invite a welcoming stupor, reassured in the comfort that yo-yo definitions inanely repeated often enough will eventually ring true. One women was so adamant in repeating that “rape means rape” (only in all capitals), that one could nearly see her: index fingers in ears, turning red, and jumping up-and-down, all the while reciting this mantra. Given this, it likely is a misguided effort on my part to disturb such happy frames of mind.
I surmise that the reason so many don’t make an argument or don’t like giving an actual definition is because they don’t like the outcome. When it is spelled out, readers balk; I suspect that few meet the strict reading of this definition.
One addition consideration that should be touched upon: English is wanting in a fitting verb for “having sexual relations.” The words are either it is too clinical or too vulgar, and so the reliance on periphrastic phrases, such as the three-word “having sexual relations”. The vulgar expression would be quite succinct: “Martial rape is **** one’s spouse without consent.” Or a more homespun version, “It’s when you **** your spouse without asking first.” One proper English equivalent for this would be “Marital rape is having sexual relations with one’s spouse without consent.” One can tweak style such as “non-consensual vs. without consent” or “having vs. engaging”, etc., but these are incidental. Themistoclides (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion based on "I don't agree" or "I think ... [it's] poor wording" are arguments. In fact, it's often how WP:Consensus is formed. The arguments should have valid reasoning behind them, however. My valid reasoning is this: What WP:Reliable sources use wording such as "is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" when noting what marital rape is? Using "Marital rape is having sexual relations with one's spouse without consent." is questionable because there are many arguments in rape literature that rape is not having sex. Of course, it's technically sex and debates about sexual consent exist, but "sexual relations" wording when it comes to rape is considered a POV issue. If you want to have this matter go through some form of WP:Dispute resolution, so that we can get more opinions on what is the best lead sentence, we can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note that: "I don't agree" or "I think  ...” are not arguments.  A horde of people following the herding instinct to the same POV might gain momentum, but it will ever be on tenuous grounds; arguments must have (and not “should have”) reasons.
Now that you’ve at least put forward the rudiments of an argument, i.e., that no reliable source has “non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse” as defining spousal rape.  Reliable sources are easy enough to cite for this; so this is more complicated than that.
Another argument that you make is that “there are many arguments in rape literature that rape is not having sex.”  Good.  Put them forward. Let's see 'em.
Of relevance, too, is whether the definition can stand several tests, among which are:
(a) an attempt at rape can follow from the definition. For example, a spouse's attempt at rape would include conduct such as unwanted groping, rubbing, holding, or touching.
(b) Applicable to statutory rape, i.e., couples, legally married, but where at least one spouse is under the age of consent, constitutes rape by the other spouse.
(c) Mutual rape is included, e.g., where both spouses are intoxicated and unable to render consent.
(d) Where consent is exclusive, where a spouse's consent to extra-martial sexual relations may be illegal.
(e) Where renunciation of consent itself qualifies divorce as duress, for example, “If conjugal privileges are not going to be part of this marriage, then I’m out.” 
Let's see if a sufficiently low brow, philistine, coma-inducing definition works: “Marital rape is rape in a marriage.” It handles all the above, since rape is rape. Even the mutual rape case (c), where each spouse can at once be both perpetrator and victim (something that the current definition clearly fails at) is covered. Hey, nothing to see more about this definition, time to move on.
The crux, however, is that marriage has involved a mutual exchange of conjugal consent that is at once privileged and exclusive. Denial of this is what is at the heart of defining taking sex within marriage as rape. It is a rejection of marriage and nothing to do with physical assault against one spouse as legal—the penalty for assault against one's spouse should be severe, more severe than against a non-spouse. It could be enforced by a court-imposed divorce or even be a capital crime being the hideous crime against one's spouse that it is. But it is not the theft of sex; the point of which is to abnegate marriage. This is why these editors are so hysterical to write-out “consent” from the definition—just leave it as synonymous with rape, and avoid a definition. Themistoclides (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, we disagree on what is an argument, and I've already been clear why. I have made my arguments, and I'm certain that others would agree that I have.
"Non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" is not the wording I objected to. I am speaking of exact wording. What I objected to what "is the commission of non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse" because it is not common wording for marital rape, whether among the general public or in the literature. And either way, "non-consensual sexual relations" is not terminology that is commonly used in the sources. "Non-consensual sex" or "non-consensual sexual intercourse"? Yes, those are commonly used in the sources.
Once again, I see no issue whatsoever with stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." And stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is certainly better than stating "Marital rape is rape in a marriage."
Once again, we are at an impasse. When it is clear that editors are not going to agree, the next step is to seek outside opinions. This can be done via a WP:RfC or some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. I am not going to keep arguing the same thing over and over. And I cannot stand arguing with an editor who condescends to me. So either you seek more opinions, or I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's clarify. The terminology of “sexual relations” was the standard usage in English. As someone whose father was born in the 19th century, I think that I have a particularly long view on this, though that does not relive me of the obligation to prove this through research. The omission of “relations”, and using only the noun “sex” as a verb still seems a bit bawdy for many of us. I remain astounded on how frequently former President Clinton's statement “... I did not have sexual relations with ...” is misquoted as “I did not have sex with ...” A google search show this. And, even … for video clips titles!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNN6kuSEOLM The whole point of the President's defense was that he didn't have “sexual relations.”
Next, I progressively attempted to trivialize the definition until it was a straw man, nothing more than restating an attributive adjective as a a predicate adjective. (It's a bit more subtle here since there are two partys involved), but “marital rape is rape in marriage” (or, a happy spouse is a spouse that's happy) is the point. No new information is conveyed.
The current definition fails the five criteria I laid out above. Take, for example, as it is currently stated, it assumes that “rape” cannot be mutual. Say: “A couple is going to celebrate their 5th wedding anniversary by meeting at a resort. After dinner and drinks, where both are over 0.08 blood alcohol level. Thereafter they retire for the night and conjugal relations ensue. Behold! Two rapists! Restate this example as a wedding night, if you like. Besides this being a reduction ad absurdum, it disproves the non-mutuality provision of the current definition, i.e., “one … the other”.
Given that the whole point of the “marital rape” is to disqualify marriage as legitimizing sexual relations, per se, the inclusion of “consent” in the definition is needed. Legal and dictionary definitions are all over the place. My suggestion is “Marital rape involves non-consensual sexual relations with one's spouse” or “ “Marital rape involves having sexual relations with one's spouse without consent.” I know there are going to be those who want to include some “force” requirement, or the like. But that requirement is not there. Themistoclides (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You stated, "Take, for example, as it is currently stated, it assumes that 'rape' cannot be mutual." What do you mean by "mutual"? If you mean that both spouses can commit rape, as in rape each other, I already argued above that "stating 'rape between spouses' can make it seem like we are stating that both spouses have committed rape. While both spouses can commit marital rape, this does not automatically come with the territory and the sources are usually referring to one spouse raping the other (usually a man raping his wife)." And a couple is not said to have simultaneously raped each other. Using the words "one spouse by the other" does not the negate the possibility that the spouses might have raped each other. Also, your latest suggestions state "one's spouse."
As for your latest suggestions, using "is" instead of "involves" would be better. And using "sexual relations", or even "sexual activity," is broad. Not all sexual activity counts as rape under whatever rape law is at hand. "Sexual intercourse" is more narrow, and is usually more accurate when defining rape (going by the rape laws). I know what you are proposing. I also know that some people do not view marital rape as rape, which makes noting that it is rape all the more important. Linking to the Rape article makes it clear that rape is non-consensual. Even though people know that rape is defined by the lack of consent, another alternative is to state "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is non-consensual sexual activity, and is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." or "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other. It is non-consensual sexual intercourse, and is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
First, going back to the prior point, what I meant by "mutuality in rape", is that the current definition, i.e., "one spouse ... with... the other", suggests one-way directional arrow, but it can be simultaneous (two-way concurrent). But the definition of marital rape allows for simultaneous rape, e.g., when both are intoxicated. I gave 5 criteria (above) where "marital rape" is distinguishable from rape. I am especially surprised that criterion (e), arguably the most salient, has not attracted any attention in the literature. There is a long list of types of rape, and this list is liable to become unwieldy long because it deals with incidental circumstances. While these incidental circumstances may be vital to formulating interventions and may distinguish the extent of the harmful effects on the victim, none of these go to the essentiality of the co-consensual legitimization of sexual relations, which makes marriage different.
Now, to your current point: I agree, using "is" is better. "Is" for definitions is generally preferred as it denotes equivalence. The lack of an acceptable verb in English, however, is problematic. For the verb, "sexual relations" is an exact one-to-one synonym for "sexual intercourse", the former simply being the preferred polite form in public discourse; and I can accept the latter, sexual intercourse, given the legal context. What I cannot brook, is that in order to make a point--a point that its advocates are unwilling to state unequivocally because they don't like it--that the definition be made iterative, i.e., it folds back upon itself. Specifically, "we have to say it's rape so that it's rape" (!) A misguided and self-assuring dodge. Given the above, I believe it comes down to, simply, "Marital rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without consent." Themistoclides (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Where is rape ever defined as simultaneous, except for in some cases of gang rape? Like I stated above, "a couple is not said to have simultaneously raped each other." When two people are married to each other, and both are intoxicated and have sex, that is not defined as rape. Unless, of course, one of the two is mentally challenged beyond intoxication and any consent on that person's part is not valid. Or unless it's child marriage (in which case it's not simply "have sex") and people on that case contend that the child cannot validly consent to sex within the marriage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe that you've read above. In any instance, gang rape is serial, not simultaneous. By simultaneous I mean that neither of the couple provided consent. The lack of consent--including being in a condition unable to render consent (e.g., intoxication, 0.0008 BAC, cf. college rape cases) is rape, as defined. On what basis do you claim that marital couples are exempt from this aspect of consent? Also, marriage is, per se, a defense against statutory rape (criterion (c), above. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I read what you stated. As for gang rape being "serial, not simultaneous," notice that I stated "in some cases of gang rape"? I specifically added "in some cases" so that you would get the point that I was not stating that all gang rape is simultaneous. Some gang rape, however, is simultaneous. As for your consent argument, my argument is that, except for some cases of gang rape, rape is not defined anywhere as being a simultaneous act. Couples are not stated to have raped each other at the same time. In the case of a couple, there is one victim and one perpetrator...unless the other spouse raped the other partner after the initial rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I noted what you said. I've already demonstrated that a couple can be co-rapists if both are intoxicated. Two drunk drivers that collided are both guilty of drunk driving. Regarding gang rape. If a "gang" consists of a minimum of 3 assailants, I don't see how a 3+ assailant-rape can be synchronous. Certainly not of a man as victim. Perhaps you should just spell out your meaning; I'm not seeing it. Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a WP:Reliable source stating that people can simultaneously rape each other, I will not be giving your claim much credence. If two people who are intoxicated have sex with each other, that is not rape...unless one of them is legally considered incapable of consent. As for gang rape, if one guy has a penis in the woman's mouth and other has a penis in her vagina, that is gang rape. Yes, with just two assailants. And it is simultaneous. And if a third has his penis in her anus/rectum, that is also gang rape. And it is certainly possible, just as it's possible in pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, OK, I would call the other two something else, but what I am referring to is mutual rape, as described as follows below. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The only thing that comes close to the "we simultaneously raped each other" viewpoint is when two people are forced to have sex with each other, as noted in this 2006 Intervention, Terrorism, and Torture: Contemporary Challenges to Just War Theory source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 275. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This incident happens frequently on college campuses. To the best my knowledge, the way it is resolved when the two parties are both intoxicated beyond consent and mutually engage in intercourse, the crime is charged to the man, [here]. The underlying notion here is that women are incapable of initiating sexual intercourse--i.e, the male member can insert, but the female member cannot induct. As long as this lie continues, then yes, only one of two parties, men, is capable of engaging in intercourse. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You state that and yet no reliable sources support the idea of mutual/simultaneous rape. Not even the ones about campus rape. What you are describing is not what most people would categorize as rape. Not unless one of the people was incapable of giving consent due to the intoxication. Two intoxicated people deciding to have sex with each other is not rape by any legal definition. It only becomes rape when one of the two is thought to not have validly been able to give consent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
What criterion (e)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
See above. Much of the rape literature address types of coercion. Unique to marriage is divorce. I quote from above: “If conjugal privileges are not going to be part of this marriage, then I’m out.”  The effects of a divorce could be devastating--making it an extremely potent coercive threat. I have not seen the threat of divorce as a basis for attempted rape or rape in the literature. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The term sexual relations is broader than the term sexual intercourse, which is why it does not redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. Not using either term and simply stating "Marital rape (or spousal rape) is the rape of one spouse by the other." is useful in any case that sexually assaulting one's spouse without engaging in vaginal, anal or oral sex might still be termed "rape." For example, use of an inanimate object to penetrate the spouse. That stated, the sources generally seem to be focusing on sexual intercourse. As for what you can or cannot accept, there is no need to forgo noting that marital rape is rape. Noting that it's rape is not misguided at all. Even if we use one of your suggested proposals for the lead (initial) sentence, it does not mean that we cannot note after that sentence that marital rape is rape. In an article that is about rape, the term rape should be linked somewhere, especially in the lead. Linking it at the beginning with the bolding, however, goes against MOS:BOLD. So it needs to be linked somewhere after the bolded term rape. Linking both "marital" and "rape" side by side causes a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, the "re-direct" from "sexual relations" to "sexual activity" only uses the words once (1x) in a near 6,000 word article (and then in a clear and unambiguous sense: "though most religions disapprove of extramarital sexual relations, it has always been widely practiced.") Hard to see where this redirect in "sexual relations" is coming from. Having sexual relations is not the same as having any sexual activity. Again, I refer you to the case of President Clinton on having "sexual relations." On your other point, yes, the word rape can be used very broadly, example, "the invaders raped the land as they went ..." But this is a metaphorical application; that is not the kind of rape we are discussing here. This is sexual intercourse by at least two; that said, a human cannot engage in a conjugal union with an object. Certainly can be sexually abused by it, for sure. Also, please read above, where I layout that in definitions you cannot cop-out and use a word to define a word. Yes, you can use the term later, once the initial definition is established. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Sexual relations is broader than sexual intercourse, regardless of Bill Clinton's definition of sexual intercourse. I've studied sexual topics long enough to know that sexual relations is a broad term. And given the broadness of the term, the article the term should redirect to is either the Sexual activity article or the Sexual relationship article (which redirects to Intimate relationship). And out of those two articles, the Sexual activity article is the best destination for the term, given that people sometimes use "sexual relations" to mean "sexual intercourse" (like the Bill Clinton example you keep citing), but "sexual relationship" is usually about an ongoing sexual relationship or a past sexual relationship that was not simply a one-time matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No. "Sexual relations" is an exact synonym for "sexual intercourse" used in polite discourse. It is impossible to correctly understand English literature otherwise. I am not going to argue it--when contemporaries can't even define the word "man", I don't expect much. I surmise this is just a denigration to remove anything that hints of modesty or propriety.Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The claim that it is an exact synonym for "sexual intercourse" doesn't hold up when it's used for sexual activities that people wouldn't define as sexual intercourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm told that "he" or "she" doesn't hold up, that's sex is an "assignment" not a "categorization", etc. But, there is clearly a breakdown occurring in English, as it's becoming increasingly difficult for various parts of the population (principally stratified by age) to obtain a common meaning. I don't mean to belabor the example of President Clinton, but I do believe it is illustrative of what is being missed here. When he said that "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." What he meant was that they limited themselves to 3rd base, never going to home plate.
Later, in the actual perjury trial, the definition used, as defined by the Independent Counsel's Office, including whether he had engaged Miss Lewinsky in oral sex; the question arose of whether he "gave" or "received" it. More specifically, with the intent of sexual gratification of the other person. He implied, given this definition, that it was not her mouth that was sexually gratified, but his sexual organ that was. So he was on the receiving, not the giving end. This same distinction of who the active agent is comes into play, again, in the question of mutual rape. Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have anything more to state on this aspect of your argument. But I will state that while a lot of people go by Bill Clinton's definition of what is or isn't sex, many others do not, especially in this day and age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Your latest suggestion is "Marital rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without consent." Immediately after that, I proposal the following: "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse, it was once widely unrecognized by law and society as a crime or wrongdoing, but is now recognized as rape by many societies around the world, repudiated by international conventions, and increasingly criminalized." This is text already in the lead; I've simply rearranged it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That addresses my objection. Themistoclides (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added all of what we agreed on (or seemingly agreed on). I also replied above. In the future, I ask that you don't split up my comment when replying to me. I don't like disjointed discussion such as that, and one reason that I don't like it is because it leaves parts of my comment unsigned; I went ahead and duplicated the signature above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll attempt to figure out the peculiarities of the signing in WP. To the point: I edited the sentence for grammar. The sentence begins with an adjectival phrase. Let's look at adjectival phrases by way of example: "An obese man, he couldn't buckle his seat belt." The "An obese man" is an adjectival phrase qualifying "he". The sentence could be rewritten, with only minor loss, as "The obese man couldn't buckle his seat belt." We're somewhat left in the rewrite to infer that he couldn't buckle his seat belt because he was obese. The lead adjectival phrase makes attribution to obesity clearer. Now in our example we have the adjectival phrase "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse", this phrases modifies the "it" that follows. But this adjectival phrase has nothing to do with what follows, i.e., that it (a) was widely unrecognized, (b) now recognized, (c) repudiated, and (d) increasingly criminalized. While "An obese man" informs "he couldn't buckle his seat belt", the "A form of domestic violence and sexual abuse" is actually dependent on (a) - (d), i.e., the other way around! That why the sentence is so jarring.Themistoclides (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Themistoclides (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't care if the format I originally used remains, or if this one I just used remains. As long as the "domestic violence and sexual abuse", "once widely unrecognized by law and society as a crime" and "is [...] rape" aspects remain, I am fine with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

This is clearer since it's not a matter of anyone consenting, but rather the other spouse consenting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Marital rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Marital Rape[edit]

This entire article is entirely too long. Link certain words to other Wikipedia articles because too much time is wasted explaining things that do not need to be explained. Also work to make the article look more uniform because it's appearing as an eyesore when the sub section titles change fonts. LemonisLime (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove tagged section (update: opened RfC)[edit]

Question: should the section "Legislation by country" remain in this article, considering its poor sourcing, the contradiction between sources, and the practical problems regarding this legal issue (ie. assessing the case law of all world countries). Many countries for which there is clear sourcing are already addressed in the body of the article. The question is: should we have a table which lists the legal status of all countries in the world? Note that the debate has been going on for years. An opinion from someone with a legal background would be very useful.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Note: this discussion occurred before opening the rfc.

I have finally removed the section "Legislation by country", after years of debate (see all the discussions above on this page). It was tagged, as it fails WP:RS (using the press and various books- not written by legal experts- is not acceptable for legal issues); it uses outdated sources from years ago; some sources which list whether it is criminalized only refer to countries where it is explicitly criminalized (rather than included implicitly in the general law); it contradicts other sources for various countries. Please do not restore the section unless there is WP:CONS. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section. There has been no WP:CONS, especially considering it has been updated today by Nederlandse Leeuw. If there is consensus to remove then fine, but it should not be removed purely based on the views of an unregistered editor. --John B123 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The section was tagged for years. The update was not really an update, because it left virtually all problems listed above as unsolved, and made almost no changes. It's sufficient to start reading the table and you see problems right from the beginning: ie. it lists Andorra as not criminalizing, when the US country report on Andorra says: "the law prohibits rape, including spousal rape," [34]. When a section grossly fails wp:rs,it must be removed, even more so when it's tagged.22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk)
The fact you tagged it 3 years ago does not give a consensus to remove. As stated previously it should stay until there is such a consensus. --John B123 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, and counterarguments, it can be seen as consensus. And when you have a tagged section that violates grossly WP:RS, you have to remove it, otherwise it violates wiki standards. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
A section cannot stay tagged forever. This is an open discussion on whether the section should stay or not. If nobody objects and the section is not fixed in a few days, I will remove it.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I object, additionally, if there is no support for retaining them I'll remove the historic tags. --John B123 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A source used is this article is this: [35]. It's a Guradian article about a 2011 report on laws on violence against women. But the source lists countries which explicitly criminalize marital rape; and it is completely wrong to list the counties which don't in the table as "not criminalized", implying that marital rape is legal there, when in fact it may be implicitly included in the ordinary rape law (The Guardian source is not even used consistently, because many countries which are listed as "no" in that source, are listed in this article as "yes", often based on earlier sources (a 2003 report); but others are listed as "no" based on that Guardian source).


In this article, the section 20th and 21st century criminalization refers to this report and other reports; it reads"

In 2006, the UN Secretary-General's in-depth study on all forms of violence against women stated that (page 113):[23] "Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted."
In 2011, the UN Women report Progress of the World's Women:In Pursuit of Justice stated that (page 17):[24] "By April 2011, at least 52 States had explicitly outlawed marital rape in their criminal code".

If it isn't explicitly criminalized, it means that the rape law doesn't specifically refer to it for example by stating that "Marriage is not a defense" or by creating a specific "Marital rape" offense. But it doesn't necessary mean it is not implicitly included in the ordinary rape law (unless there is an exemption in it). You would have to study the jurisprudence to see the situation in such countries. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: in Europe, Andorra, Monaco, are listed in the article here as "no", the US reports contradict this: [36], [37].
If we decide to keep the section, what sources are to be used, ie. could (the latest version) of the US country reports be used? They are by no means perfect, but much better than most of the sources we have now. Normally, we shouldn't use sources that are not legal literature. You can't just use press articles, and NGO writings are questionable too, if they're not from authors with a legal background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note again: On European Council member states: the Analytical study of the results of the 4th round of monitoring the implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence in Council of Europe member states at page 61 states that all countries in the study (46 countries, as Russia did not participate in that study) criminalize marital rape (see the table there under "rape within marriage on the same basis as rape outside marriage, it says "yes" at all countries)[38]. But in this wiki article some European countries (Andorra, Monaco, Latvia, Lithuania) are listed with "no". 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the statuses of those European countries which you think are incorrect if you can provide more recent reliable sources for them than I have (UN 2011 report). Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. As you have seen, I've turned the two separate sections of lists into a single alphabetical sortable Wikitable, with an indication about the legality of marital rape and extra room for notes and explanations. An overview like this will always be a dynamic list, a work in progress, because laws change all the time. In the case of marital rape, they have been steadily moving towards criminalisation since the mid-1970s, so we can expect more recent reliable sources claiming that marital rape has been criminalised in country X to be more likely true than an older reliable source saying marital rape is legal in country X. When reliable sources date from around the same time, those who give the most context and explanation are to be preferred. It will be helpful for readers and editors alike to have notes after the 'Country' and 'Criminalised' columns to find when it was criminalised (if it was), and under which law (often an article or section in a state's penal/criminal code), how this is phrased or perhaps justified, and how this is different from earlier situations. In some cases it might not be clear in which 'camp' a country is, like Malaysia, where you can't call sexual violence within marriage 'rape', although it is de facto treated as such (so I labelled it 'Yes/No').
I'm willing to help verify or falsify the reliability of all sources provided throughout the years so far, and have already made a start in doing so. In my view, 2A02 is right that we should provide reliable sources for everything, and the most recent we can find. But we must start somewhere. I've found a UN source for Albania, and used the UN 2011 Women report for the other countries that missed citations (in some cases leading to a different status). To indicate these statuses may be outdated, I added 'As of 2011' (or a different year) in the 'Notes' column, so that readers and editors alike will know this figures may be out of date, and there could be a more recent reliable source out there that says something else, and we'll have to use that to replace to old one cited on this page.
The demand for all country statuses to be completely up to date (to 2018) is unrealistic, but if we work together, we can improve the list a lot. Especially in the case of older sources saying marital rape is legal, I think we should add "As of [year]"; we don't want to accidentally misinform people that some act is legal that has been criminalised in the meantime. I also noticed 152 countries are mentioned here, while there are about 200 countries in the world, so a lot are still missing. Note that User:Carwil has provided lots of sources in the source code of their map File:Marital rape criminalized map.svg. In order to access those, you need to download the file and open it with Notepad or a similar programme, and you'll find them (so it's incorrect to say that the map does not mention any sources). I would recommend us to first get this overview in order, agree on which sources are most reliable and recent and how these are to be understood, and then finally based on that update the map and add it back to the page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Apart from lack of reliability, another problem is misuse of sources. The 2011 report is arguably reliable, but what it does is list countries which explicitly criminalize marital rape (countries where the rape law makes specific reference to it - by excluding marriage as a defense/exemption or by creating a specific 'marital rape' crime). So while that report can be used as a source for countries which criminalize marital rape, it can't be used for listing countries where marital rape is legal, because not being explicitly criminalized =/= being legal. It may still be included implicitly in the ordinary rape law (unless there is a marital exemption in that law). More explanations are provided in the article itself:
Determining the criminal status of marital rape may be challenging, because, while some countries explicitly criminalize the act (by stipulating in their rape laws that marriage is not a defense to a charge of rape; or by creating a specific crime of 'marital rape'; or, otherwise, by having statutory provisions that expressly state that a spouse can be charged with the rape of their other spouse) and other countries explicitly exempt spouses (by defining rape as forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage; or forced sexual intercourse with a woman not the perpetrator's wife; or by providing in their rape provisions that marriage is a defense to a charge of rape), in many countries the ordinary rape laws are silent on the issue (that is, they do not address the issue one way or another)—in such cases, in order to determine whether marital rape is covered by the ordinary rape laws it must be analyzed whether there are judicial decisions in this respect; and former definitions of the law are also important (for instance whether there was previously a statutory exemption that was removed by legislators for the purpose of implicitly including marital rape). 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) wrote "we don't want to accidentally misinform people that some act is legal that has been criminalised in the meantime." Well, this is exactly what that section is doing on so many countries; and it's not only because it "has been criminalised in the meantime", it's also because the section lists countries as "no" merely because they are not listed as having explicitly criminalized in that 2011 report.

For now I changed Andorra, Monaco, Latvia, based on the Analytical study of the results of the 4th round of monitoring the implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence in Council of Europe member states [39] and the US Human rights reports.[40], [41], [42]. (Note that Andorra & Monaco are also parties of the Istanbul Convention). Latvia is listed as "no", when in fact the US report says this on it: "Spousal rape is explicitly considered rape with “aggravated circumstances.” " There are very serious problems with that section, and either they get solved urgently, or it should be removed. Each country should be carefully examined. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Some clear contradictions between what this article says and what the US Human Rights Reports say:

Angola, listed here as 'no', but the US report says: "Rape, including spousal rape, is illegal and punishable by up to eight years’ imprisonment" [43]
Dominica, listed here as 'no', but the US report says: "The law criminalizes rape of men or women, including spousal rape. " [44]
Fiji, listed here as 'no', but the US report says: "[...] there was a large increase in the reported number of rape cases this year, due at least in part to greater awareness that a spouse can be charged with rape of his/her partner. [...] The law recognizes spousal rape as a specific offense." [45]
Grenada, listed here as 'no', but the US reports says: "The law criminalizes rape of men or women, including spousal rape"
Guatemala, listed here as 'no', but the US report says: " The law criminalizes rape of men or women, including spousal rape" [46]
Vietnam, listed here as 'no', but the US report says: "It also criminalizes rape, including spousal rape, for men and women." [47]

Do people still think that this section is ok, and we should just "let it be"? And the countries above which I used as an example are countries where there is an unequivocal claim by the US reports that marital rape is illegal, without even including those countries where the reports still suggests it is illegal, but in a more ambiguous way (ie, for El Salvador it says "The law criminalizes rape of men or women, and the criminal code’s definition of rape may apply to spousal rape, at the judge’s discretion." [48]

As I see it either we accept a US report for a country as being, by itself, a reliable source, and, as such, we change these countries to "yes"; or we recognize that there is a contradiction between the US reports and whatever source is listed here, and as such, we remove that country. Personally I prefer the second option, but I'm open to other views. These countries, however, cannot stay any longer as listed with "no", the table must be changed quickly. I'm waiting for feedback. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. A few points to consider:
    • I find the original Rfc was worded in a non-neutral manner and reflected the OP's POV.
    • The first question should be do we need a table. Although much of the information is available within the body of the article, in my opinion a 'view at a glance' table is a positive addition to the article.
    • The press and NGOs are accepted as RS for legalities all over WP, I don't see that the criteria for RS should be changed for this article.
    • As a general legal principle (and I'm not aware of any countries that don't follow this principle), legislation applies to everybody unless certain groups are specifically excluded from the legislation, or the legislation is limited to specified groups. In countries where there is general rape law but no specific spousal rape laws, to question whether the rape law applies within marriage is akin to asking if speeding laws apply to Ferraris as Ferraris are not specifically mentioned in the legislation.
    • My experience with US Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (in other areas) is that they are generally correct but occasionally get it wrong.
    • As mentioned previously, the table can never be 100% accurate as of today as there may have been changes recently. Using 2017 data, and marking 'as of 2017', is as close as we can get. This applies both to the table and also the body of the article.
    • Whilst a simple 'legal/illegal' covers most countries, there are some cases where the law doesn't fall into a simple yes or no. (El Salvador where it's at the judges discretion, as mentioned above, is an example). It may be that in some countries rape laws are made at State level rather than Federal level so could vary from state to state within the country. We therefore need additional categories.
    • I propose we use the US 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as a base for the table and then if legislation within a country changes, or if the US report is inaccurate for that country, update the entry accordingly.
--John B123 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Couple of things on what John B123 (talk) states above:
The press and NGOs are accepted as RS for legalities all over WP, I don't see that the criteria for RS should be changed for this article
That depends on the type of press and NGOs, as well as the types of legalities. If you're talking about BBC, for instance, it's normally allowed, but not The Sun. And the assessment of a journalistic source sometimes needs to be done also on the individual article within a specific context, not only on the publication. On NGOs, it would depend on whether it's a major, recognized NGO, or some obscure one. With regard to legalities, the standards would differ on whether you're talking about a clear-cut issue, or a very complex legal issue (the latter types being subject of debate even among legal academics, especially in civil law legal systems).
As a general legal principle (and I'm not aware of any countries that don't follow this principle), legislation applies to everybody unless certain groups are specifically excluded from the legislation, or the legislation is limited to specified groups. In countries where there is general rape law but no specific spousal rape laws, to question whether the rape law applies within marriage is akin to asking if speeding laws apply to Ferraris as Ferraris are not specifically mentioned in the legislation.
Here you are wrong on the issue of rape. While as a "general legal principle" what you say is true, it did not historically (and still in some countries today) apply to rape. Rape was understood as an act done without consent, and by marriage a woman was deemed to have consented to sexual intercourse on demand (according to social, religious and legal marriage regulations) so she could not have been 'raped' by her husband, because the sex was deemed 'consensual' regardless of circumstances. This was the predominant view in most jurisdiction until quite recently (both common law and civil law) and still is in some parts of the world. In many jurisdictions, this was codified in the statutory law (ie. defining rape as forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage) but in others it simply followed as a "logical" conclusion of what marriage was (legally and socially) and the courts followed this, even without a marital exemption in the rape law. Also, until recently rape was classified as a crime against honor or morals (rather than a crime against the person) and this led courts again to the "logical" conclusion that it can't be applied in marriage. Anybody who knows a little legal history is aware of this. And if you go even further back time, many legal systems allowed the use of 'moderate' violence (chastisement) against the wife by the husband if it was for a 'legitimate' purpose, which included sexual intercourse. So there was no need for an exemption in the rape law, the courts simply applied the rape law in the "logical" way. Also, wives were legally obligated to obey their husbands and could be coerced into doing so. Obviously, today such views are condemned internationally, and have been largely abandoned, but there are still countries and their legal systems where they are prevalent. However, it is completely wrong for us to list a country in this article as "no" simply because it does not explicitly criminalize marital rape, and this needs to be changed quickly.
My experience with US Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (in other areas) is that they are generally correct but occasionally get it wrong. [...] I propose we use the US 2017 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as a base for the table and then if legislation within a country changes, or if the US report is inaccurate for that country, update the entry accordingly.
You are right, but the "occasionally get it wrong" is the problem here. Also how do you determine "or if the US report is inaccurate for that country". My view is that where there is a contradiction between recent sources, the country should not be listed at all. Ideally, the US reports should be backed by at least one other reliable source.
2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AEF5 (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with your comments about sources, and the need to look at them in context. However that's not the same thing as using legal sources only.
The World Bank has recently published it's 2018 'Women, Business and the Law Report'. This covers marital rape laws and is cited by the UN in 'Facts and figures: Ending violence against women'. The report presents the information as 'Does legislation explicitly criminalize marital rape?' and 'If there is no specific provision that explicitly criminalizes marital rape, can a woman otherwise file a criminal complaint against her husband for rape?' (It might be good to add if there is an explicit marital rape law into the table in this article). In my previous experience with World Bank data, it has always been good and I've never found any inaccuracies. Perhaps using both World bank and Country Reports data for the table is the way forward. Where there are discrepancies between the two, further sources could be sought. --John B123 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'll be brief this time. I'm glad to see 2A02 added reliable, more recent sources for Andorra, Latvia and Monaco, thank you :) . I've checked and Wikified them. I agree with the general suggestion that this section should be corrected and improved soon (rather that removed), and it looks like we three are willing and able to do that, if we cooperate well. I'll do more tomorrow. Good night, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for tagging me above. After a long stint of updating the map and having the hidden sourcing (and clashes with the on-page list) be a point of contention here, I decided the best approach was to emulate tables like Same-sex union legislation. To that end I created a user page here: User:Carwil/Marital rape laws by country. I strongly recommend distinctly describing the form of criminalization (or banning under civil law) that applies, and use these terms: Criminal code (non-explicit), Criminal code (explicit), Criminal code (distinct offense), Court decision. I wish I had time to collaborate this month.--Carwil (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Lithuania should not be listed as a "no". It is listed "no" based on the US report which states "Rape and domestic violence are criminal offenses, but no law specifically criminalises spousal rape." The report, however, does not say that marital rape is excluded from the ordinary rape law. The view that marital rape is legal in Lithuania is contradicted by 2 sources:

Does legislation explicitly criminalize marital rape? Answer: No
If not, can a wife file a complaint against her husband for rape or sexual assault? Answer: Yes
  • Analytical study of the results of the 4th round of monitoring the implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence in Council of Europe member states
at page 61, in the table, at the question on criminalization of rape within marriage on the same basis as rape outside marriage, it says "yes" [50].

If it helps, here is a summary of the dialogue at the review of a periodic report of Lithuania on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in 2018): (Follow-up Questions by Experts) "Were there any plans to explicitly criminalize marital rape?" (Replies of the Delegation) "Marital rape was punishable as any other type of rape." [51] This can't be used as a source, but it seems to confirm what the other sources say, namely that marital rape, while not explicitly criminalized, is included in the ordinary rape law.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:5337 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this correction 2A02, I referenced your first source and moved Lithuania back to 'Yes'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated table[edit]

I've updated the table and am confident the information within the table is now accurate.

Where the 2018 World Bank and 2017 are in agreement I've updated the refs and added some comments.

The 2017 country reports have been ambiguous in a few cases, just stating marital rape is not specifically criminalised but not saying if general rape laws apply. In a few other cases the two reports didn't agree. In these cases I have looked for other sources. In most cases there are multiple sources supporting one or the other.

Where there has been a change in status from yes to no or vice versa, I have looked for other sources to confirm this is correct. Where there has been a change from no to yes due to new legislation, I've tried to include the legislation in the comments.

The situation in El Salvador has very little information available online. The few sources available aren't in agreement. I made the status 'unclear' and listed the different opinions.

Are we happy to remove the disputed tag now? --John B123 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2018‎ (UTC)

Thanks so much, John! You've done way more than I have when I first converted the columns into a combined list with notes. The information is now as up-to-date and complete as possible. :) I think the disputed tag can be removed now. I'm also happy to cooperate with you in the future on this and similar topics. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's now a good place to start from. I think it might be better split into sections as suggested by Carwil and demonstrated at User:Carwil/Marital rape laws by country. This would of course make a lot of the existing comments redundant, but adding the relevent legislation into the comments would enhance the table imo. --John B123 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Split article[edit]

The article is now way above the 'Almost certainly should be divided' size in the WP:TOOBIG guidelines. The table would probably be able to stand on its own in say Marital rape laws.

Any thoughts? --John B123 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same. "Marital rape laws" looks like a good title to split the table to. The current article has 270 KB. Before we started converting the legislation columns into a table on 7 October, it had 185,766 bytes, so it was already a bit too long.
Especially the sections about the situation in the UK (England and Wales) seem overly detailed for an article meant to encompass a global phenomenon, so they may be split off for a separate article as well. This should be distinct from the more general articles on Sexual offences in the United Kingdom and Rape in English law. This new article could be modeled on Marital rape (United States law).
The section "legal changes" is telling in prose basically the same information as the laws table does. Maybe we should consider them duplicates, condense the section and refer to the table with a 'Main article' template under the section heading?
There are various other unsourced or poorly sourced sections that don't fit the article well, that need justification for inclusion or perhaps are better integrated into other sections or moved to other articles. These are "Marriage after rape" (about a fundamentally different phenomenon on which I have already written the marry-your-rapist law article), "Wife-on-husband violence" and "Same-sex couples" (poorly sourced but worth telling), "Universal lived experience" (poorly sourced and I don't understand it well; perhaps can be integrated into Sustaining factors or Prevalence). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
All of your suggestions make sense.
  • Looking at other article, the title most commonly used is of the format "Laws regarding .." (such as Laws regarding rape), so Laws regarding marital rape would be more consistent with other articles of this type.
  • The UK section does need splitting off into say Marital rape (United Kingdom law) and just an overview remaining here.
  • The 'Legal changes' section could be trimmed a bit, but I think it's a useful history about the evolution of marital rape laws. Whether it belongs here or on the proposed page Laws regarding marital rape is another matter.
  • The other sections you mentioned need cleaning up/merging/moving. It may be that once we start working on them, the best way of dealing with it will evolve.
  • I haven't closely looked at marry-your-rapist law, but when I was updating the table I noticed a few countries had repealed the marry-your-rapist law, so the article may need an update.
Cheers --John B123 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: For "by country" articles, we use "by country" titles. So "Marital rape laws" or "Laws regarding marital rape" should be "Rape laws by country" "Marital rape laws by country," if the article will essentially be a list like the "Legislation by country" section is, and maybe even if it's not a list but is focused on rape laws in different countries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we have the "Laws regarding rape" title, but it's not a list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for the input. As far as the article is concerned, I'm not that fussed about the title, but for consistency of titling across WP "Marital rape laws by country" makes sense. --John B123 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "Marital rape laws by country." I corrected my wording on that above. On a side note: Remember that there's no need to ping me at articles I'm watching. I prefer not to be pinged in those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I did assume you meant "Marital rape laws by country." Noted regarding pinging. --John B123 (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I just want to bring up that in numerous countries, the legality of marital rape is determined by court rulings. So perhaps Legality of marital rape by country? Similar naming issues have come up at Same-sex union legislation / Status of same-sex marriage.--Carwil (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure I'd describe the number of cases as "numerous", you are right about the naming. Not sure "by country" is needed? (Legality of polygamy, Legality of euthanasia etc). --John B123 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the title of the future article tbh. @John I last updated marry-your-rapist law in May 2018, I just checked again and I think the article is still up to date. Were the countries perhaps Denmark, Jordan, Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco, Bahrain and/or Palestine? If so, I've got them covered already. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it was a couple of Arab countries but don't remember which ones I'm afraid.
I've started working on the new article at Draft:Marital rape laws by country, (we can move it to whatever name is decided on when the time comes). It's some way from being finished, I'm trying to add in more of the legal justification for the situation rather than just a 'yes' or 'no' which is very time consuming. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for starting up a new draft. I support further clarification of the legal status, although I'm not sure if we should let go of the Yes/No column, let alone split up the table by letter sections. This defeats my purpose of having a sortable wikitable so you can more easily compare groups of countries. My idea of improving the wikitable is more along the lines of user:Carwil's draft User:Carwil/Marital rape laws by country. Carwil's 'current status' column is comparable to our 'criminalised' column to show whether a country criminalises marital rape, and I would recommend a separate column for 'Type of legal act' to explain how a country (if applicable) criminalised (or legalised) it (Criminal code (explicit or non-explicit, separate offence or falling under a general rape law) or by court decision), and yet another column for 'Date of act' to show when the country did. (I don't think we need columns with multiple dates; if it was criminalised more than once, we can state that in the notes). Making all of this sortable in these 5 columns (Country, Criminalised, Type of legal act, Date of act, Notes) provides the reader with a much easier overview of the information. This makes it possible to read the table like a story, e.g. 'Belgium (Country) criminalised (Yes) [marital rape by] court decision (Type of legal act) [in] 1979 (Date of act); the judge ruled that a husband has the right to sex with his wife, but Belgian law did not allow citizens to take their rights by force. The criminal code was amended in 1989 to treat marital rape the same as other forms of rape. (Notes)' What do you think of that idea (based on Carwil's draft)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the five column structure works. I would change the "criminalised?" column into legal status, which could include "Legal," "Civil offense," "Criminal offense (lesser charge than rape)," "Criminal offense," and "Criminal offense (aggravated form of rape)."--Carwil (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I did start making the draft as per Carwil's draft, which splits the table by legislation type, but abandoned that as it seemed the biggest sections would be 'Criminalised but not sure of how and Legal but not sure of how. (Although I'm not sure, having researched further, if that is the case).For editing I find it far easier to have it split into small sections. Once all the information is in the table it's not to difficult to stitch all the sections together, add columns etc.
Before deciding on the format of the final version, we need to understand how the end user is going to use the table(s). If someone just wants to know what the legality is in say Somalia, splitting alphabetically is the easiest way for them to navigate to the information, rather than scrolling down the full table. Splitting by legislation type would make it more difficult to find an individual country. If someone wants to know which counties explicitly criminalise it then split by legislation is ideal. We need to find the best compromise between simple and advanced users, with some sort of bias towards who is going to use the page most (although this may need a crystal ball).
There are disadvantages to long tables from a usage point of view. People's attention span on web pages is far shorter than for printed matter. If they cant find the information they in the first two screenfuls they tend to give up. Although probably not applicable here as the columns are generally self-explanatory, one of the disadvantages of long tables is that if you need to scroll down a long way to find the row you want, you have no idea what the columns mean. You mave to scroll back up to find the headers and then scroll back down again.
Tables really only work on desktops. On mobiles they can become a disaster. As more than 50% of internet useage is from small screen devices (mobiles etc) (the exact figure varies dependant on source) we need to be thinking about the page on mobiles as well as desktop. As the screens are narrower, the text within a cell spreads over more lines lengthening the table considerably. This is made worse as on most mobiles you cant grab the scroll bar on drag it down, you have to swipe through each screen.
Whilst tables generally take the width available to them (if you don't set a width), there is a minimum width for any table. This is set by the length of the longest word in each column plus padding and borders. If this minimum width is greater than the screen width, then we get horizontal as well as vertical scrolling. Obviously the more columns you have the more likely this is to happen. If you look at List of members of the United Nations Security Council#Non-permanent (1966–present) for example, it just becomes a collage of flags on a mobile. Again we need to compromise, and find a balance between desktop and mobile. --John B123 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit to Add: I have made a couple of mock-ups on my sandbox to illustrate the above. The first one is the existing table in this article, the other is the first table from User:Carwil/Marital rape laws by country. --John B123 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
So, I see three natural ways in to viewing this data: by country, by date (i.e., what is the historical trajectory?), and by status. The breaks in name of country are unnatural ("A – F") and countries have multiple names in some instances, so that kind of break is not good. The breaks by date are arbitrary, and we may not have dates for everything. So, a break by legal status is useful. I would recommend legal/not legal as the only break and put the details of illegality in a field.
Re tables and scrolling: We're not going to avoid having a big chunk of table (whether subdivided or not), but we can avoid the reader having to scroll back to the heading to understand each item. That means no "Yes"/"No" fields, since they only make sense if you can see the heading. Other shortening things: No flags; years for dates.--Carwil (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm still working on the draft but the research is taking far longer that I thought it would. --John B123 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, patiently waiting for you to do the research you deem is necessary. Feel free to contact me/us when you think you're ready. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nederlandse Leeuw and Carwil: I have completed the research at last. The draft needs tidying up, copyediting etc. We also need to add an introduction, decide a title and which format to use (subdivisions, columns etc). --John B123 (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Fix references[edit]

Large section with references in parentheses instead of properly cited Spaceman912 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Violence/abuse edit explanation[edit]

@Flyer22 Reborn:. Recently the lede stated that *subject matter* need not involve violence, just to immediatly state that it is a form of violence (domestic violence). Since domestic violence and domestic abuse are treated as synonyms in the article on domestic abuse, I thought it was better to use that wording, and avoid an explicit contradiction. (The definition of violence is obviously a tricky issue. In any case, I think the intention is clear, and unchanged by the edit.) Greetings, St.nerol (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

St.nerol, no need to ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. As for this and this, it seems to me that the "need not involve violence" piece is meant to be "need need not involve physical violence." You know, since domestic violence is also violence, including when it's not physical. Violence is not only physical, as made clear by the Violence article. I will go ahead and change the text back to its original wording while clarifying "physical violence." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)