Lace violations and marriage are described here as a form of gendered violence that many condemn, and in time may face court scrutiny. One notable case unfolded in Zaragoza on a recent Monday, where a young man appeared before the court charged with coercing his wife, a mother of two, into a domestic partnership through pressure and force. He faced allegations linked to a premature ejaculation issue that reportedly sparked the dispute. The defendant, a 31-year-old Venezuelan identified as MHAM, now faces up to a decade in prison.
The case traces back to September 2020, during an incident in social housing managed by a non-governmental organization. A young woman described how police were called after she woke to find the accused in close proximity, attempting sexual advances despite her clear lack of consent. She resisted, and he allegedly restrained her as she cried out, insisting she would not let her leave the bed.
The defendant contends that the interactions were consensual. He says he moved toward intimacy, asked for sex, and she replied she was tired. He claims she agreed only after he pressed for a quick encounter, and he attributes any perceived dissatisfaction to a personal issue with premature ejaculation. He maintains that he stopped once she indicated discomfort and that she later accused him because she felt he did not satisfy her sexually. He says, in his words, that he was told he failed to please her and that she later became upset with him for reasons tied to the sexual experience.
During testimony, the complainant’s attorney, Alberto Peiró, challenged the logic of her alleged frustration with premature ejaculation if she had asked for something quick. The defendant responded that his performance had not satisfied her, which led to further conflict. The legal team for the defense argued that there was no clear evidence of a violation, and maintained that the defendant had given the same account to the National Police as he did in court. The proceedings were expected to determine whether legal punishment was warranted.
The trial also saw contradictions in witness statements. A neighbor described seeing the accused kicking the girl, but later admitted that the apartment door had been locked at the time. Forensic professionals at the Mother and Child Hospital in Zaragoza evaluated the woman and reported grip injuries consistent with an assault protocol, yet found no conclusive proof that the children were somehow involved or forced in the incident. The assessment did not establish a direct link to an assault that would satisfy all required criteria for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense argued that there was no evidentiary basis for a crime and that the defendant had maintained his version from the start. The case proceeded under the possibility of punishment, with the court weighing whether the facts meet the legal definition of violence against the person and whether coercion or intimidation occurred in the context of a sexual act. The complexity of the account, coupled with conflicting testimony, highlighted the challenges in translating claimed domestic conflict into a prosecutable offense.
Overall, the proceedings emphasized the sensitive intersection of intimate relationships, consent, and the legal standards applied in cases of alleged violence within a marriage. The outcome would depend on the credibility of the witnesses, the interpretation of consent, and the ability of forensic findings to corroborate or refute the parties’ competing narratives. As the courtroom examined the evidence, the case remained a focal point in discussions about how gender-based violence is addressed within the justice system and how such charges are adjudicated in civil courts.