Men and women bring different things to the marital table. Thus, the relation is much more than same-sex civil partnership, it is complementary in nature.
Whereas man must provide provisioning and protection to his wife and their children, the wife in return must give him respect, nurture him, and provide him regular sex. Even today, after years of feminist progress, this remains the norm. While women have started earning, a major chunk of household finances are still managed by men. Most household works and child rearing are managed by women although too men have started to contribute their bit.
Those who scoff at this idea that wife must provide husband sex, should realize that sex is a very powerful motivation for men and most work hard to make themselves eligible for marriage. Those with little societal/ financial standing will find it very difficult to get married. Since marriage is where one is generally assured of regular sex, many work harder and improve their profile just to get married to the best woman he can afford for his level.
Today, women have started earning big time, but they still marry up a man who’s higher than her in social and financial status. So women still expect their men to be the primary caretaker of home. So, traditional marriage is not about equal partnership, it is complementary and synergic partnership. (I say traditional, because same-sex marriage is legally sanctioned in many parts of world, and the dynamics here alter radically).
So when a woman marries, she has already consented for sex with her husband as long as the marriage endures. Sounds sexist? Just because she says “yes”, doesn’t mean you stop asking? Just because it’s husband, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape?
If wife can withdraw sex, can husband withdraw provisioning? How will feminists feel about that? If marriage is like any other business partnership, if one renegades from mutually agreed terms, why can’t the other? If wife can sue her husband for having sex without her consent, can man sue her wife for theft for using his money without his consent?
Sounds crass? The very existence of rape laws itself implies that men and women are unequal by nature as it assumes that men can force themselves on women easily statistically. Lest you come up with examples where women are prosecuted for rape, rest assured its far and few in between and mostly in cases where the male is juvenile.
How easy is it for a man to get justice for being raped? Contrast this with what happens when a woman complains. A man is promptly arrested, denied easy bail on the strength of a complaint alone, with no corroborating evidence.
A careful look at feminist progress in laws makes it amply clear that they’re so designed that man’s part of marital duties are legally enforceable, remain effective after separation and even divorce. But women not only don’t have any legally-enforceable marital duties, they’re in fact rewarded when they break the relation for their own selfish reason such as wanting to live with a lover now.
Women not respecting marital vows are called empowered. Men not respecting those very vows that wife has long discarded are punished as harassers as in “financial harassment” of Domestic Violence Act.
What difference does the innocence of husband make when he’s charged with 498a, Domestic Violence Case today? Irrespective of his innocence, a man once accused has to face the music. Whereas in 498a, the burden of evidence has been placed on husband, the Domestic Violence Act surreptitiously removes the necessity of proving harassment to receive the maintenance and residence orders.
The net result is that the innocence of husband is of no consequence once the wife feels like not respecting her marital vows. The man is safe only as long as his wife is attracted to him. Once he loses her attraction, nothing can be done to save him from the nuclear weapons that feminists have handed her.