Rape is rape.

It’s rape regardless of the relationship between the rapist and the victim. There is no ifs, buts or maybes about it.

The only difference between rape by a stranger and rape by a partner is one thing: a betrayal of trust.

In a marriage, you have a person whom you thought you knew intimately, with whom you share a history, a home and quite often children. It is a person whom you have made love to on a frequent basis often over many years, with whom you have shared your most intimate secrets and fears, and whom you believe to love you, want the best for you, who would never intentionally hurt you.

But then they do. In the most violent, soul destroying way possible.

The sad truth is, in Australia, most sexual assaults are actually perpetrated by someone known to the victim and often known very closely.

Before the 1980s, when Australian jurisdictions amended their law, it was said that women could not be sexually assaulted by their spouse. It was generally not possible for a man to be charged with, and prosecuted for, raping his wife or, in some cases, de facto partner.

The marital rape immunity was based on historical notions that women became men’s property on marriage, and that through marriage women consent, on a continuing basis, to sex with their spouse. It is the articulation of this notion by Sir Matthew Hale that is most often quoted:

[T]he husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.[83]

While this no longer holds true in the law across Australia, and in numerous overseas jurisdictions, it continues to hold some sway in community understandings about what is sexual assault.

In fact, many women who are victims of marital rape have great difficulty in defining it. 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.

A wife being raped will often question her right to refuse intercourse with her husband, and while she may realise that legally it now constitutes rape, there are many reasons which may prevent her from perceiving it in such a light.

A website in the UK, divides marital rape into three categories: those rapes which involve a degree of violence, those that use enough force to control the victim, known as ‘force-only’ rapes, and sadistic rapes.

Violent rape occurs, as the name suggests, when the abuser uses enough physical violence to cause injury to the victim, apart from any injuries due to the rape itself, ie injuries to the genital area or breasts. Examples would include the husband punching his wife or injuring her with a knife – the rape being part of a violent assault, or the violence being a part of the rape. Many abusers will also force their wives to submit to sexual acts after a physical assault, either to prove her forgiveness or to further intimidate and humiliate her – and if the wife should refuse such an act, even the threat of further violence (or a previous experience!) will soon ensure her compliance.

‘Force-only’ rape is usually understood to include only enough force used on the part of the abuser to control or hold his wife in position, eg holding down the victim by her arms or wrists to prevent her defending herself or escaping. This form of rape is common where there is a larger contrast between the physical size and strength of abuser and victim, or in abusive relationships where physical violence is infrequent or non-existent (insofar as one does not categorise sexual assault itself as a violent act). In most cases of ‘force-only’ rape, coercion plays a large part. The victim may also be so confused and numbed by constant emotional abuse, that she simply does not know how to act or react when sex is forced on her.

Sadistic rape is sometimes also present. This tends to indicate that in addition to the rape itself, the victim is either forced to comply with or undergo deeds designed to further humiliate her. Examples of this would be the abuser/rapist urinating on the victim, acting out a fantasy of torturer, or using other object during a rape. Sadistic rape may or may not involve further violence. Some people consider buggery as a sadistic form of rape, since its effect on victim is often particularly humiliating.

The website states that it is difficult defining clear-cut lines between the different types of rape, since rape can involve any of the above or a combination of them. For instance, the rapist may use coercion tactics and enough force to control the victim initially, but then use increased violence if the victim struggles. Many victims of marital rape feel guilty for not having struggled more, or have been told that if they did not try to physically fight their abuser and thereby sustained injuries, that it is not ‘real rape’.

Other reasons a woman may not fight back are so as not to disturb children sleeping nearby, thereby risking them witnessing the rape; shock or confusion at what is happening which paralyses her; and real concern for her abuser, which results in her not wanting to do anything which may harm or injure her rapist even to the detrement of herself.

It’s a fact that the vast majority of adult sexual offence cases rest on the issue of consent. If there is no physical evidence of the assault or witnesses to the assault, the evidence will focus on of the sexual activity was consensual. Often it’s not – but often women are not listened to.

This is a battle we will continue to face and there is still a long way for the law to come in terms of supporting victims of marital rape.