Such complaints continue to remind me of the type of shallow polemics i have too often seen skeptics employ and it seems are taught at liberal universities, and which rely on so much ignorance or miscontruance of Scripture that they are an argument against themselves.
Here, it is charged that rape within marriage is not addressed, and thus it is inferred that it must be sanctioned, a logic fallacy for sure, and it never is given any sanction.
Instead of sanction, what we see is contrary to rape and such ill treatment. Rape is referred to as "folly," that "no such thing ought to be done in Israel" (2Sa. 13) and vengeance being taken on a man (and his people) who seduced a single Hebrew women, (Gn. 34) and a hardhearted tyrant husband dying a hardened heart, (1Sa. 25) and consensual romantic martial love being what is glorified, (SoS) and with the marital relations of OT saints showing consideration and often yielding of husbands to wives, and the ideal wife is not chattel but a wife and mother who can engage in many things including commerce, (Prv. 31) while the NT requires a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church and sacrificially gave Himself for it - not rape it!
Moreover, mutual consent is taught as regards conjugal relations, though they are to normally engage in such. (1Cor. 7:1-4) Only by making the headship of the husband into a position that requires unconditional obedience can one argue the Bible sanctions forcing the wife to have sexual relations.
I understand that as an atheist your quest is to find some fault with Biblical law but selective proof texting, but those who seek to live by the word of God must consider all of what Scripture teaches, and in context, and what is reasonably warranted.
Thank you, daniel.