I don't think you've tested that

Few things shock me. I mean, think about it: I'm a blogging Chicken which is also Magical. I'm so implausible that I'm probably imaginary. So nothing mere humans come up with should surprise me anymore.

Nevertheless, some of the gems on this thread at Temasek Review gave me pause. The No To Rape campaign quite sensibly argues that being married shouldn't legitimise rape, and cites one particular case:

Ten years ago, in the case of PP v N, a man tied up his wife, gagged her, slapped her, and forced her to have sex with him. No charges could be brought for rape, only for much lesser offences. The law has been tweaked slightly since, but today the outcome would be the same.

Buried amongst the epic fail in the comments is this contribution from one 'btan':

The case of the husband tying up and beating the wife, don’t you think that the beating is worse than the sex part??

Inquiring minds wish to know: has 'btan' tested this proposition? Has 'btan' ever been tied up and slapped? Has 'btan' ever been raped? Has 'btan' surveyed a large sample of women - or even a small one - to ask them about their preferences as between (a) being tied up and slapped and (b) having a penis repeatedly inserted into their vagina against their wishes, and found an overwhelming response in favour of (b)?

Heck, while we're at it, has 'btan' consulted a sample of men, and discovered that they would choose having a penis inserted into them against their wishes over being tied up and slapped?

Or is it possible that 'btan' is quite simply making shit up so as to restate an unsupported prejudice: namely that rape isn't that bad because having penises put in them is what women are for?

A thought which makes even this hardened Chicken sick to her Magical core.