Sarah Weinman’s Without Consent is a rigorously reported, emotionally charged history of the first major U.S. spousal rape trial and the decades-long fight to recognize marital rape as a crime, with significant strengths in research and narrative power but some notable gaps in legal depth and intersectional analysis. Its relevance is high for contemporary debates about bodily autonomy, intimate-partner violence, and how law codifies or dismantles misogyny.bookmarks+3
Centers on the 1978 Oregon v. Rideout case, in which Greta Rideout accused her husband John of rape at a time when marital rape was criminalized in only a handful of states.politics-prose+1
Shows how Greta’s public vilification and John’s acquittal exposed a court system structurally predisposed to disbelieve wives and shield husbands.bostonglobe+1
Tracks how the case galvanized feminist activists such as Laura X, whose organizing helped push marital-rape reform through all fifty states by 1993.wsj+1
Connects the 1970s–1990s legal struggles to ongoing battles over women’s bodily autonomy and consent, including post‑Roe debates about reproductive rights and intimate-partner violence.goodreads+1
Positions the book as both feminist legal history and a work of true crime that interrogates, rather than exploits, violence against women.bookmarks+1
Research depth: Draws on archival records, trial transcripts, media coverage, and new reporting with people linked to the Rideout case and later prosecutions of John, offering a granular reconstruction of events.publishersweekly+1
Narrative strength: Uses Weinman’s true‑crime storytelling skills to make complex legal and political developments accessible and compelling, weaving courtroom scenes with activism and later fallout.booksandbookskw+1
Victim-centered lens: Deliberately foregrounds women whose experiences were minimized by courts and media, pushing back against true‑crime voyeurism and emphasizing survivors’ humanity and long-term trauma.goodreads+1
Historical clarification: Corrects the common assumption that marital rape has “always” been illegal, showing how the doctrine of wives as husbands’ property persisted well into the late 20th century.booksandbookskw+1
Activist genealogy: Highlights the state‑by‑state, often unglamorous work by feminists and legal reformers, making visible the political labor behind what now seems like a basic right.politics-prose+1
Topical urgency: Resonates with contemporary conversations about coercion, consent, and the limits of legal remedies, making it useful for readers in law, public health, gender studies, and advocacy.bostonglobe+1
Limited legal-theory depth: Some critics argue the book is relatively light on legal theory and does not fully unpack how different actors in the case conceptually understood “rape” and “consent.”bookandfilmglobe+1
Scope and focus drift: There is a sense that the book tries to be both intimate true‑crime narrative and sweeping legal history, and at times struggles to hold a clear through-line between Greta’s story and the broader legal revolution.bookandfilmglobe+1
Intersectional gaps: Reviewers note that centering a white, working‑class couple leaves race and class underexplored, particularly how Black and poorer women experienced marital rape law and its enforcement.goodreads
Consent and trauma analysis: The treatment of Greta’s later choices, including returning to John after his acquittal, is criticized for not fully engaging with concepts like trauma bonding and coerced consent.goodreads
Ethical tensions in reporting: One critique faults the book for giving significant narrative space to John Rideout, including later interviews, while offering less clarity on the consent and participation of Greta’s surviving family members, raising questions about whose voice is prioritized.goodreads
Unmet promise of the title: Some reviewers feel that, despite powerful sections, the book does not fully deliver on the expansive promise of its subtitle, leaving structural questions about consent, power, and systemic violence insufficiently theorized.bookandfilmglobe+1
Illuminates how slowly and unevenly the legal system adapts to new understandings of bodily autonomy, making it a case study in how cultural norms and law interact.wsj+1
Offers a historical frame for current debates on intimate-partner violence, coercive control, and reproductive rights, showing that legal recognition is only a first step toward meaningful protection.bostonglobe+1
Raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about how media, courts, and even true‑crime literature can either challenge or reinforce misogynistic narratives around victims and perpetrators.nytimes+1