Header

 


Date: 31 January 2002 23:24
Subject: [MANUMIT] Marital Rape and Eminem



Quote #1: This is no theory. It's what's done. A State Attorney boasted to
me "Marriage as once understood is now a crime in the USA." Legally, spouses
are equivalent to streetwalkers in many respects, she gloated. She told me
of a seminar she attended at Yale where it was pointed out that, legally,
since it embodies an illegal pledge, the marriage ring is itself inherently
abusive and "evidence of rape" and violence. Several judges and scholars
present affirmed that this, while technically true, would need time to be
presented to the public "by incremental, socially targeted prosecutions."

Quote #2: An Oklahoma feminist legislator proposed spouses get notarized
consent before l'amour, per act. It was speculated this would be also a boom
to taxation. The daily (discount daily multi-passes were discussed in the
back-halls) taxation could in part fund enforcement and even inspection.
Alas, D.A.'s have since said, under rape-shield laws, these
bedroom-passports would be... inadmissible.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.lewrockwell.com/delemos/delemos12.html

LewRockwell.com
16 February 2000

Marital Rape and Eminem
By Michael Gilson De Lemos

A great menace to Liberty is the concept of Marital Rape. The concept makes
sense if you believe landlords can prosecute for "tenant trespass," or
property is theft (or government theft is property). This concept is for you
if you feel initiating social contact by saying that someone looks nice is
vile harassment, while saying they look like a dog is just free speech and
if they object then they are being offensive. As formulated today, it's far
beyond nave media images of brutal husbands. Combining viciously with other
procedures, its legal Alice in Wonderland.

I'll leave a fuller discussion to another article. My point here is that the
law, and actual legal practice under which thousands are silently jailed, is
so counter-intuitive - even Libertarians are taken in. Thus some claim
cohabitation is no defense for sexual assault charges, destroying the work
of '70's Libertarians who removed cohabitation laws, championing
relationship privacy as an absolute barrier against the State. Libertarians
favoring these ideas tacitly and unwittingly accept the growing practice of
forbidding all mention of even ongoing romantic activity in marital rape
prosecutions. Spouses are regularly threatened with prosecution as a rapist
before juries forbidden to know the people are married or involved.

In this climate thus prosper marital thieves, insurance murderers (attempted
rape, which in practice no longer needs documentation in many courts, is
generally an absolute defense against homicide) and money-hungry accusers
with conniving lovers who conveniently witness these rapes. In cases brought
to my attention, among such lovers encouraging accusations are D.A.'s,
police, divorce attorneys curiously thus furthering their careers. As I
said, laws and procedures combine. D.A.'s solicit perjury by hectoring
witnesses to "tell the truth!", threatening spouses for not making a charge
of rape they "should have made" - all very handy in forfeiture cases. Good
for the goose? Good for the gander: men now concoct charges. Gays are
blackmailed by street-hustlers alleging relationship-rape.

Date and marital rape laws' modern genesis was the Soviet Union, their
imposition a prime international objective, if that gives you any clues. The
object? Gramsci-style ending of the basic bond of society, the right of
mares, unquestioned marital sovereignty of the couple.

Self-described "Vulgar Marxists" have won, not the culture, but the
vulgarity wars. Your relationship to hostile strangers is now of less legal
significance than a long-standing marriage.

This is no theory. It's what's done. A State Attorney boasted to me
"Marriage as once understood is now a crime in the USA." Legally, spouses
are equivalent to streetwalkers in many respects, she gloated. She told me
of a seminar she attended at Yale where it was pointed out that, legally,
since it embodies an illegal pledge, the marriage ring is itself inherently
abusive and "evidence of rape" and violence. Several judges and scholars
present affirmed that this, while technically true, would need time to be
presented to the public "by incremental, socially targeted prosecutions."

There is a lunatic dialectic logic to this, when you realize that the term
rape, derived from raptus, originally, it is said, meant the free converse
and automatic intimacies of marriage; hence the archaic term unlawful or
unsanctified rape.

I get tales of woe. In places, police spend over 60% of their time on
often-staged domestic violence calls. (That the complainant proffers the
divorce attorney's card as police storm in is an indication that, according
to one report from California, police are instructed to ignore - on pain of
reprimand after attending "sensitivity" seminars.) In many States, rape is
so defined that if you deep-kiss your spouse in the ear thrice while they
sleep (or insert a pencil, watch it) you're subject to life in prison.
Withdraw while making love, unannounced? That, by being "non-consensual" is
rape as well.

An Oklahoma feminist legislator proposed spouses get notarized consent
before l'amour, per act. It was speculated this would be also a boom to
taxation. The daily (discount daily multi-passes were discussed in the
back-halls) taxation could in part fund enforcement and even inspection.
Alas, D.A.'s have since said, under rape-shield laws, these
bedroom-passports would be... inadmissible.

The insane is upstaged by the perverse.

Government monitors your bedroom. Lawyers call these laws, first famous in
Michigan, " Attorney Full-Employment" Acts. There's no presumption of
romantic priority: it's indirectly punished.

Thus, from the legal interactions and side-effects combinations, the
outrageous prosecution of the rap-star Eminem. I know little of this fellow.
I care less. Someone must sing silly songs, and to this he by many accounts
appears suited.

But he faces 5 years on gun charges (in Michigan) for physically stopping
someone apparently accosting his admittedly emotionally eccentric wife on
the street, touching and kissing her in what was later described as a
misunderstanding. He's thrown himself to the D.A.'s mercy, pled, not to
assault, but attack with a gun (he hit the accoster, who sued him the next
week, with an unloaded weapon he had at hand). His distraught wife later
attempted suicide, allowed then disavowed a divorce suit where her
presumably by-the-book, I-know-the-courthouse-buzz lawyer claimed Eminem
"abused her" with his "music" from which she wanted a large sum. Clucking
Moral-Uplift groups now join Feminists who demonstrate against his music
award. For he is a " confessed felony abuser" who puts "his 5-year old
daughter at risk," and embodies "Hollywood Violence".

He pled on discovering it's no defense in America that you thought to defend
your wife from possible assault, groping, or street rape. After all, you
have no property in her. Who do you think you are? Analysts I consulted said
he couldn't in practice prove, thanks to the lack of marital priority, the
rhetoric of "her choice," that she wasn't offering herself to passerby.

Her previous relation with him is (under shield laws) irrelevant; his
defense, thus undefendable. Officials meanwhile call for more taxes, gun
laws, anti-violence laws, hate-speech laws to defend us from further wealthy
Eminems.

He (you) kisses his wife while asleep? A batterer-rapist. He (you) does
nothing while, tipsy, she is gang-raped? A modern citizen.

Let me say something people in America fear to say: before calling for
family values, realize we have strangled the family ideal itself with a
hundred Lilliput laws. In two generations, if not opposed, no one will have
experienced marriage, or any real to-hell-and-back commitment, and
therefore, know what it was. Eminem is just the latest unlikely but
prominent, incremental, and socially instructive, victim of the web of
centered on marital rape and similar jurisprudence and tacit, implied
interactions caused by its expanding effects. Personal consent over time is
invalid, goes the current law-school refrain, only coerced and indefinite
government "consent" over ones body and spirit reigns.

Let us have the honesty, the decency, to recognize we have allowed these
laws to make marriage a sham for bureaucrats ready and seeking to plunder
the family wealth of deluded people in distress, and we delude the world
with us.

You are no longer a trustee self-encharged by a resolute oath of high
purpose with the personal care, corporeal satisfaction and mental guidance
of another person, and they you. Why, we are told, that's slave-like
property in another human being. The unstated idea is clear: only a
controlling abuser could want to possibly interfere with a spouses
impulsive career-romantic choice, street-servicing passerby. Since rape no
longer happens in the street, only, as every normal mind unofficially knows,
the marital bed or corporate boardroom, only the socially dangerous could so
presume something amiss, and bash someone for getting fresh with one's
spouse.

And thus: marriage, the unstated crime.

Now normal defensive actions are treated as crimes, or transmuted to one
through a handy technicality where using a gun consists of not using it at
all; and by whose logic burglars can claim they were just making love to
your spouse, and if the spouse denies it, why, the burglar was raped. In the
confusion everyone from insurance-murderer to bar-lout may claim they were
the victim and sue. This is a new service now that government provides, and
freedom cannot.

The internet commentary on Eminem is revealing. Besides Senate denunciations
for daring to suggest in blunt street language that our legal system is a
madhouse, there are articles and mass-petitions typically saying:

" (Eminem's...) at fault for the constant downgrading of society and social
values... If only people were still burned at the stake; maybe he could face
punishment... we have the right to freedom of speech, we do not believe
anyone has the right to (... have Eminem's opinions ) save only his
financial gains... EMINEM IS A LOSER! "

Yes. Eminem is a Loser - where up is down; right is left; wrong is right.
The Winners nodded self-righteously over communist-era laws they didn't
understand, creating this legal weapon. Just don't brandish an empty gun
back.

Remember that the next time you consider defending your family on a dark
street or from a home invasion.

---

Michael Gilson De Lemos, known as MG (articles at
http://www.gilson.uni.cc/ ), is Coordinator of the Libertarian International
Organization. He believes with Jefferson that, along with Gibbon, Cicero and
Tacitus should be read by all grade-schoolers. In Latin.