A Wedding Ring Doesn’t Mean That It Isn’t Rape

“MADISON, Wis. – Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.

“We are satisfied that Johnson’s expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote.”

The woman’s sister is upset that prosecutors brought charges against him, Kelly said. “She believes her sister’s husband was merely expressing his love for his wife and was trying everything he could to bring her back to consciousness,” Kelly said. MSNBC via Feminocracy

This report starts off from the wrong premise by calling what occurred sex.  For  two people to have sex, both parties must consent to the act, in absence of consent it is rape. Clearly this poor comatose woman was violated.  It is irrelevant that the man that did was her husband.  A wedding ring does not entitle him to life long access to her body.

How his supposed right to privacy could possibly outweigh her right to bodily integrity is beyond me.  To compound this horror, her sister is calling her rape an expression of love.  How can having a penis inserted into your body without your express permission be an act of love?  If this were an employee of the institution in which this woman was staying, there would be no discussion about love, it would simply be recognized for what it is…RAPE.

And people wonder why I have such issues with “traditional marriage”. This is exactly why.  It is assumed that when you walk down the aisle no matter the advances produced by feminism, that your ownership is being transferred from your father, to your new husband.  From beginning to end everything about marriage supports patriarchy. 

Until feminists fought for marital rape laws, it was deemed impossible for a man to rape his wife because they were considered one body.  Conveniently the one body clause always seems to apply when the woman is the victim.  In the name of maintaining traditional family values women have been beaten, raped and murdered.

Women who are date raped have difficulty achieving justice under the law and are regularly subject to slut shaming.  How much more difficult is it for a lawfully married woman when it is still socially assumed that her body is the property of her husband?  Who is going to speak for this woman when her own sister seems uncommitted to justice.  His right to privacy does not extend to providing the means for his continual assault of his wife.  A restraining order needs to be issued against his continual invasion of her body, and he needs to face justice just like any other rapist.  When he took his wedding vows and promised to honour, love, and cherish, he clearly did not take it seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *