“A fundamental human right”

A British judge appalls modern sensibilities by defending the core foundation of marriage:

A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case. “I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.

If the entire documented process of marriage does not provide consent, what on Earth does? What on Earth can? If marriage does not grant a man sexual rights to his wife’s body, why on Earth should any man ever marry a woman in the first place? What, precisely, does a man acquire in return for the right of permanent claims on his material wealth and income; remember that a contract is not even legally a contract if obligations are not assigned to both parties. How is a woman’s husband even theoretically distinguishable from every other individual on the planet if he has no more rights to her body than anyone else?

There are many, many legal examples of one-time consent. Those who enlist in the armed forces are not able to legally withdraw their consent at a later date or decide that they’re just not in the mood to obey the orders given by their superior officer. And it’s reprehensibly stupid for women to insist on creating this novel post-marital consent standard when they are already complaining about the increasing unwillingness of men to marry them.

This is why the concept of “marital rape” is not only legally incoherent, but insidious and dyscivilizational. No man should ever even consider marrying any woman who subscribes to the concept because she does not believe in the actual institution of marriage at all.