Katy bars the door:
The traditional idea that it is impossible for a man to rape his wife and that somehow, in taking our marriage vows we have abdicated any say over our own body and sexuality, basically denied ourselves the right to say ‘no’, is still prevalent amongst wives as much as amongst their husbands.
Those who believe in the concept of “marital rape” are asserting that the man has no claim on his wife’s body and they stake out an interesting position, as most will simultaneously insist that a wife does possess a claim on a husband’s property and financial interests. In other words, they do not believe that marriage obliges a woman to provide anything for a man but somehow obliges a man to provide everything for a woman.
Given this point of view, what on Earth would be the point in marrying a woman who does not subscribe to the traditional idea? There is none, it is merely creating a massive set of obligations without any benefit to oneself. Most wives lacking this traditional idea have no genuine commitment to their husbands beyond the pecuniary; if you’re married to one and you doubt me, just try telling her that you don’t feel like paying the mortgage, the health insurancee and the food bills for a few months, that you really feel the need to spend some money on yourself instead.
The chances are high that she’ll file for divorce before the third month is up, whether she has a job herself or not. She’ll probably even threaten it in the initial conversation and she’ll almost certainly cut off sex. Strangely, women are capable of making that conceptual connection when it’s their marital benefits at stake….
Even the most secular scientist understands that marriage is about mutual obligations, they tend to view it as women trading sex and offspring in return for protection and provision. So, if a man has no right to the former, then the woman has no right to the latter and they can be ethically withdrawn from her as freely and on as little notice as she provides.