[Basil Ransom]

The idea that a man can rape a woman with whom he has a sexual relationship is something of a feminist innovation. Feminists considered a woman's right to refuse more important than suffrage:

Quote:

Stanton: "'Woman's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights,' Stanton wrote to Anthony. 'How this marriage question grows on me. It lies at the very foundation of all progress.'" Stone: "It is clear to me, that [the marriage] question underlies, this whole movement and all our little skirmishing for better laws, and the right to vote, will yet be swallowed up, in the real question, viz, has woman, as wife, a right to herself? It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property &c. if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right. Not one wife in a thousand can do that now, & so long as she suffers this bondage, all other rights will not help her to her true position." Hasday, Jill Elaine (2000). "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape". California Law Review 88: 1425.

If a man is reduced to the use of non-consensual sex with a girlfriend or wife, the relationship is already dysfunctional, and they should separate. Whether an instance of non-consensual sex with a long-term partner constitutes 'rape' is up for debate. And there's definitely a spectrum to it - eg, deciding to penetrate your wife while she's sleeping, when you had sex four hours before, would be hard to consider as 'rape.' There's a certain assumption of consent, given by the continued presence of each party in the relationship, unless someone otherwise states they don't want to bang.

Just putting this out there to show that prior to feminism, this was not a clear cut issue. Feminism and progressives have been successful in making people believe that any beliefs that predate Women's Liberation are automatically evil and wrong.

In this instance, the anal sex sounds like genuine rape, given the nature of anal sex, its potential for injury and that she told him to stop.