Elders in Council,
Your wisdom is from above, and it is both curious and concerning that opposing counsel should rely on broad sociological data to settle a question so deeply rooted in marital context.
The US National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reports that about 1 in 5 women report experiencing rape in their lifetime, and a significant portion of female rape victims report the perpetrator was an intimate partner or spouse.
Also, an aftermath of the ruling in R v R is that reporting increased gradually, though prosecution rates remain lower than in stranger rape cases. Opposing counsel presented to us that the UK crime surveys show that around 1 in 20 women report sexual assault by a partner since age 16.
It is malicious on the part of opposing counsel to lump these instances with those of their married counterpart. It goes without saying that we are here to interrogate the instance of alleged non-consensual sexual relations within the context of marriage. The bone of contention remains whether marriage provides a permanent consent, or whether consent should be present at every initiation of such relations. In the instances I highlighted, we can see opposing counsel’s weak attempt to paint with one brush both married and unmarried couples.
Everything is context-based. Human interactions have nuance. Hence, in the interrogation of interpersonal relations, we call to bear the following: context, consent, and the ethics of interpretation. Invariably, to delete from the conversation the context within which a said interaction happened is not to have allowed that interrogation the full room to breathe. Note: the difference between BDSM and domestic violence is consent. The defining factor between flirtation and harassment is the person doing it, and this is very well determined by the recipient’s perception of the person. As such, to eliminate the acknowledgement of context in our conversations, interrogations, or examination of an event is to do an injustice to such an intellectual endeavor.
Armed with this knowledge, as men of faith, we understand that sexual sins include but are not limited to fornication, adultery, sodomy, as well as amorous thoughts. Nevertheless, as much as this should not be found in the fold, those who engage in these acts know better to do so with a consenting partner. Contrary to this, they ought to hang. Had that been the situation of the Bishop, I would be the first to call for his head.
Having thus established this, I need must remind members of this honorable Council of the damaging impact a guilty verdict will have. It is true we do not believe in divorce; nevertheless, coloring alleged non-consensual sexual relations within marriage as domestic violence may be misused during divorce proceedings. Crystal clear is also the fact that it is difficult to prove due to a lack of witnesses.
More so, a guilty verdict could criminalize marital disputes. Honorable members, contrary to our godly motives, we give place to the devil. In addition, how do we confront the reality that cultural norms in some societies define conjugal rights differently? Honorable members, by convicting my lord the Bishop, do we not fear the State’s overreach into the private marital sphere?
It is unfortunate but true that the state controls nearly everything, including determining how we must raise our children. Marriage remains the last line of defense against total state control. What next should we expect? Should the State decide how we celebrate anniversaries? When we get married, or to whom we marry? Perhaps, we should expect a sexual relation prescription from the NIPS: once every two weeks for five minutes at 11 o’clock sharp. We can limit state control with a simple “not guilty” verdict.
Nonetheless, it is sacrosanct to establish that a guilty feeling after consensual sex is not tantamount to rape. Narrowing this down, sex is not a reward for good behavior. A husband is entitled to take a dip in the honey pot, irrespective of his behavior, accomplishments, or contributions.
However, genuine care showered on the wife is the greatest lubricant there is. Random acts of kindness, as well as flirtations, have proven to be a potent aphrodisiac. I am no sex expert, but the testimonies I have heard, especially on the Dr Phil show, provide a solid foundation for my assertions.
Honorable members of this Council, as we seek to acquit Bishop Amukwe, it behooves us to sufficiently embolden the lines between ill feelings and actual rape situations. Hence, the above is my worthy contribution to this Council’s intention to provide clarity on divisive terminology that casts a dark shadow over the interpretation of interpersonal human interactions.
Remember, a successful marriage is a marriage in which either takes the initiative to initiate sexual relations. Husbands are always willing to take such initiatives, and a “not guilty” verdict keeps that power with them. Honorable members, I have yet to find a husband who doesn’t fall like a pack of cards when pushed by his scantily dressed wife. In conclusion, borrowing a leaf from India, let us not destabilize family structure. Acquit the bishop, I so submit.
Defense counsel,
Bishop Otuodi, Esq.
