Social purity reformers, and also feminist thinkers, believed that women’s bodies were not the property of her husband, and therefore she had the right to say no to his sexual advances (91). Since the belief was still that men were the aggressors and women were the passive counterparts, “[social purity reformers] defined women’s freedom mainly in terms of the right to refuse intercourse” (92). Eliza Bisbee Duffee went further and urged men consider the sexual needs of their wife (91). However, this was not necessarily common belief and most reformers believed that the women’s right to say no was enough to prevent physical and sexual cruelty within a marriage.
Despite the lack of interest in women’s sexual happiness, I find it interesting that the social purity reformers did not attempt to take legal actions against men who treated their wife’s body like property. There were no laws in the 19th century that specified if a man could be charged with the rape of his wife, yet “reformers did not discuss the legality of marital rape” (94). Was this still a way of maintaining the power hierarchy within marriages? A woman’s right to refuse intercourse fits into the belief that men were aggressive and women were passive. But if women were allowed to legally charge their husband with rape, it would have given women more power than men. Women were however granted divorces if they experienced marital rape (92). But divorce during this time did not favor women and often furthered the power hierarchy. In addition, a marital contract should not have been an excuse to make rape legal. This lack of legal actions is concerning.
Another concerning factor of the social purity reformers’ position on marital rape is that it often seemed as though they believed women held responsibility. Elizabeth Pleck describes the attack on common beliefs by social purity reformers, and adds, “When a bride failed to restrain her husband’s animal impulses, then the wedding night became ‘a night of rape and torture’” (91). Since they also believed that men were not “inherently brutish” why must a woman restrain her husband in order to prevent rape (92). Social purity reformers also wanted to educate men and women about sexual standards. At these meetings they discussed women’s rights and how to properly raise children: advice their sons to avoid prostitutes and view sex as a means of procreation, dress their daughters modestly to lesson the sexual passions of men, and more (93-4). This suggests that women were responsible to control the sexual urges of their sons, and men who came into contact with their daughters. But why were men not instructed to control themselves in order to prevent rape?
It seems as though this was another way to maintain the differences in power among men and women. Social purity reformers wanted women to have the right to say no, but still had the beliefs that men held the power in a marriage. Therefore they did not seek legal actions against marital rape and instructed women to prevent future sexual cruelty. If men were held fully responsible for their actions they could have lost their power over women.
I like this post, and I enjoyed the main argument. I think something that could make it stronger is to make a more specific and stronger argument instead of just proposing questions. All of your questions were thought provoking and interesting, but I wish you had picked a couple and answered them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stacy, answers to your questions, or at least attempts at answers, would go a long way, particularly since the problem of marital rape, and how to define and punish it, is still a contentious issue. Your central argument is clear and expanded upon (attempts to address marital rape did not go far enough, as they still sought to appease male dominance), and trying to provide answers to your concerns could perhaps shed some light on the current issues surrounding marital rape.
ReplyDeleteBrittany, I like the way that you start your response with an informative and catchy title so immediately your focus for the piece is highlighted. However, I had a little bit of trouble highlighting your main argument in the beginning (was it social purity reformer flaws? lack of sexual understanding? lack of divorce granted?), because it seemed to conflict with your title at first. As the piece went on I understood better what you were saying and enjoy your perspective on the marital rape issue. My only advice would be to make this a bit clearer right from the beginning. Overall, I think this is a great response!
ReplyDeleteI thought that your piece held a lot of good detailed information on a variety of topics surrounding the issue of marital rape. But this also made it difficult to understand what your main argument was. I know the topic is marital rape, but I'm at a loss to say what your argument on that topic was. Clarification on that would be great and since you already have such good sources, it would be easy to narrow down the information.
ReplyDeleteI felt like you got to the heart of your argument at the end of your post: that describing men as "inherently beastly" and avoiding the task of actually enacting laws into place to protect women were purposeful in maintaining the differences in power among men and women. I would have liked to see you lay out your argument more in the beginning of your post and then support it with textual evidence throughout. It might prove to be simple stylistic preference, but aspects of your post felt more like a stream of consciousness that a calculated argument. Perhaps there is a happy medium between the two? I would suggest taking what you say at the end of your piece and addressing it in the beginning. I would also suggest staying away from questioning as a method of transitioning from one idea to the next.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly a very interesting topic and I enjoyed how thoroughly you covered it. Your textual evidence is strong, and your questions are valid. However, there does seem to be the lack of a clear argument. Remember that this is supposed to be a close reading- pick out specifics and delve into them, then form an analytic claim based upon those key points. It seems like you're arguing that the battle against marital rape was not effective. Go more into detail of why it wasn't effective, and start your piece off with this claim right from the get-go. Also, while your questions are interesting and pertinent, I'd try to stay away from them and veer more towards explicating your point. Questions are important in the writing process, but I would phase them out of your formal writing and try answering them instead.
ReplyDeleteI think this close reading covers an interesting concept. I liked how you covered different aspects of the social purity movement. I especially liked how you discussed the legal side of martial rape and how there were essentially no helpful legal avenues for women at this time. I think your close reading would be stronger if you explain your argument about the power differences between men and women at the beginning of your piece rather than the end. Otherwise, good job!
ReplyDeleteI think that you have started a very interesting discussion on the motives behind a lack of action that we saw during the time of "reform movements". I think that you begin touching on the WHY of the issue - so, why reformers didn't try to make marital rape illegal, etc.- but I wish that you would go a little further with why women were placed with responsibility for change and maybe even extend the discussion to ways that this is still present in today's society and the implications of that.
ReplyDeleteI think that you have started a very interesting discussion on the motives behind a lack of action that we saw during the time of "reform movements". I think that you begin touching on the WHY of the issue - so, why reformers didn't try to make marital rape illegal, etc.- but I wish that you would go a little further with why women were placed with responsibility for change and maybe even extend the discussion to ways that this is still present in today's society and the implications of that.
ReplyDeleteI think your paper concerning the lack of enforcement and acknowledgement of key issues is an interesting one. I have to agree with other comments and ask that you answer some of your own questions, because they are articulate and thought-provoking and would make for an excellent read. You also use a lot of evidence from the text to highlight your points, which further helps illustrate the different attitudes towards male and female sexuality and responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting exploration of the ambiguity surrounding marital rape (an issue we still seem to struggle with today).
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems that this is only an exploration - it appears to lack a clearly argumentative thesis. I think you're getting to something really interesting with this topic, but you need a point to argue so that readers can follow your trail of evidence and arrive at the same conclusion.
Great topic. I like the way you introduce and analyze some of your quotations.
ReplyDeleteA few words of advice. I feel like the differences of power between men and women is the strong point of your paper, but the intro does not necessarily allude to that claim. Rather, it comes off as a paper that will be about women and their refusal of sexual intercourse. If you incorporate the power dynamic more clearly in the beginning and usher it throughout the various paragraphs of your piece, your supporting text will match that of your overarching idea.
I liked your paper, however I agree with some of the other posters that I would've liked to see less rhetorical questions in your response and more solid, argumentative claims. The ambiguity of marital rape was certainly an issue, and your points clearly identify that, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue, per se. One point you made about the power women could hold if they were able to charge their husbands with rape (and the lack of power they received when they divorced them) is an interesting one. I think that could be a strong topic to be explored.
ReplyDeleteYour questioning was very thought-provoking. I think it challenges the issue well, so great job. I will say that your argument becomes clear, but I don't think it's explicit from the start. Your conclusion was excellent though! Also, watch out for a few spelling errors, namely words that sound the same but are spelled different -- "advise" is the verb form of 'advice,' and you meant "lessen" not 'lesson' (both are in the second paragraph).
ReplyDeleteOops, the third paragraph!
DeleteI agree with many of the previous posts; you do well in introducing the topics that you are arguing. However, by answering some of the questions that you bring up, it is tough to decipher exactly what your main argument is. I think if you focus this paper a bit more then it will be a much easier read.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of your second paragraph, I like how you began with an "I find this interesting" statement, but then that didn't continue through the rest of your post. I think you should retain your point of view and construct an argument to make your focus on the power hierarchy more influential. If you started your introductory paragraph with a claim similar to that, you could use your thoughts about women's inability to successfully refuse intercourse with their husbands as a supporting argument rather than your intro statement.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is well stated in the beginning of your writing. However, I think you stray from your beginning argument, making your final argument a little unclear. I think if you changed a few parts of your paper including the rhetorical questions, you could have a stronger argument throughout and have a better understanding of your focus.
ReplyDeleteI believe that your argument on the struggle of power and the hierarchy in both marriage and society was good, but could have explored the struggle more. As others have said, you raises a lot of interesting and poignant questions but lack in expanding and explaining the answers.
ReplyDeleteI believe your thesis lied in where one can find the power in a relationship and how the society viewed that power. I wish you would have expanded on why the male still held the power in the relationship even after a divorce.
You bring up many valid points, however I felt it was more of a summary. I think if you took some of the most interesting information and looked further you would really have something.
ReplyDeleteWhile I enjoyed the ideas you presented in your post, I can't help but wish you had made your thesis more clear in the beginning. To me, your thesis was about exploring the power relationship between women and men and how that affected marital rape. However, I didn't really see that put into writing until the final paragraph. Perhaps you could do some rearranging and rework that intro paragraph to be more concise to make your paper stronger.
ReplyDeleteYou need to focus your argument more. I was confused through out your close reading trying to figure out what your main point was. Really good thoughts though on the power struggle and moms raising their sons!
ReplyDeleteThere were a few grammatical and stylistic issues (for example, asking rhetorical questions) but other than that I enjoyed reading your paper. I remember this was briefly mentioned in class so it was nice to be able to get more in depth on the issue. It definitely could have gone more in depth and perhaps better organized but I think its a good rough draft.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that men and women were taught to educate their daughters to dress modestly and for sons to use sex for procreation only when in marriage, this didn't even come close to being of importance. Men didn't take procreation into account and it didn't matter whether a women dressed modestly or not. Also, the quotes you used were spot on with your arguements and your thesis statement was quite strong.
ReplyDeleteI thought your blog held good details yet there was much more of the authors voice than of yours. Instead of packing quotes on top of each other maybe unpacking each and offering your insight of each will give the reader a better sense of the purpose of the piece. It seems that you begin to unpack more as you go in your writing possibly unpacking from start to finish will help it to flow and read better.
ReplyDeleteI liked your argument, it was very interesting. The only thing I would suggest is that instead of posing questions, you turn them into statements. It would make your argument stronger if you left out the rhetorical questions.
ReplyDeleteYour topic is very interesting and you explore the implications of the actions of the legal system very well. I would suggest, however, that you try to add a more analysis with your quotes and paraphrasing so you can avoid piggybacking your quotes.
ReplyDeleteI think that you provided much strong evidence from the Pleck reading about marital rape which is a topic that was still questionable in terms of legislature up until the mid – late ‘90s in some states, but I would have liked to have seen your argument more throughout your entire close reading and not just given at the end.
ReplyDeleteI thought your topic was well argued and written. You had a lot of supporting evidence to back up your claims and I thought you provided a decent amount of analysis. To strengthen your argument, you could consider doing some research on rape today, or in the late 90's as stated by Jazmen above me.
ReplyDelete