The 1990’s saw legislation drawn up against a particular rape myth, that had major implications concerning the idea of consent. By the mid 1990’s marital rape had been recognized and criminalized in all fifty US states.
Before this many states had exceptions in their rape laws that excluded acts of sexual violence committed by spouses against their partners being considered criminal offenses (the first state to do so was Nebraska in 1976).
Prior to 1991, in England, Scotland and Wales, a spouse could not be tried for marital rape i.e., a spouse couldn’t legally, not consent to sex, even if they didn’t want to engage in a sexual act. In 1991, the House of Lords, ruled that the marital exception for rape should no longer apply.
This ruling was codified into law in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1984 for England and Wales, and the 1995 Criminal Procedure Act in Scotland, and somewhat later in the 2008, Sexual Offences Act in Northern Ireland.
It is important to note that whilst laws don’t necessarily reflect societal opinions, they are enacted because those in power believe they do. Such acts are extremely important, as they recognize a woman’s right to not consent to sex, when in an intimate relationship.
This had important implications, as it recognized that women weren’t obligated to engage in sex acts, and that just because a person was in a certain type of relationship, they had the right to not consent.
These legal rulings acknowledged if not explicitly, but implicitly/tacitly that women could be raped by acquaintances, friends and people they know. This is true but it often receives backlash, with individuals still trying to promote the idea that rapes and sexual assaults are usually committed by strangers.
Another important piece of legislation in the UK, was the 1999 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act. Section 41 introduced restrictions around the admissibility of a complainant’s sexual history.
Before the act, a defendant’s barrister (a lawyer who prosecutes/defends criminal acts) would often use a complainant’s sexual history to infer that they were sexually promiscuous and the rape that they were claiming was actually regrettable, or even revengeful, consensual sex i.e., they would rely on the “rape myth” that those victimized, who had an active sex life, past and/or present, were unlikely not to consent to sex etc.
The Criminal Evidence Act meant that the Defense had to prove to a Judge that a complainants’ sexual history was relevant to the case, and that its probative value (relevance/usefulness of the evidence) would outweigh its potential prejudicial effect (the distracting and negative implications), before it could be allowed into court/trial.
The act also allowed for testimony by video link, or with the person giving evidence being able to do so behind a screen, so that they didn’t have to face the court and/or the person they were giving evidence against. In the U.S., the 1978 Federal Rules of Evidence 412, known as the “Rape Shield” law, that prevented a complainant’s sexual history being admissible in a civil or criminal case, was amended in 1994, strengthening its effect.
Whilst the 1990’s, saw some significant changes in the way that rape and sexual assault was viewed and handled by the criminal justice system, and several rape myths were directly addressed, this didn’t mean that they were always enforced or challenged etc., or that the idea of a “rape culture” was no longer relevant etc.