Update:
TOC responds to Thio Li-Ann’s criticisms.
In Singapore, raping your wife is not treated as rape in most cases.
But it should be.
Rape is rape is rape. An extreme form of violence and violation. Rape of a woman by her husband should be treated just like any other kind of rape. Abolish marital rape immunity. There can be no exceptions.
Visit notorape and lend your support to get marital rape criminalised.
The following is Channel NewsAsia’s documentary on marital rape:
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Lop
post #139 on September 25th, 2009 6.42 pm
////I have money deposited in the bank, it’s my right to get back my money when I want. Does that mean, after banking hours and I want my money real bad, I can break into the bank to get it?////
1. husband not human, no need to sleep is it?
2. hmmm, only married people need money? school children also need money for transport ler.
3. how to compare marriage & financial transactions? need supporting documents, finger prints, signatures, date stamps as proof is it?
another off tangent example? lmao… :P
btan
post #148 on September 25th, 2009 7.23 pm
yeah loh, 1 of them still got the cheek to mention cavemen, when some think like cavewomen?
when people believe they need another law, are they crying wolves? then why marry 1 based on their rhetoric that husband treat their wives as sex dolls, sex slaves, etc. these supoorters should be actively discouraging women from even marrying!
better choose wife more carefully (wait end up in prison)!! :)
@ 149) mice is nice on September 25th, 2009 7.34 pm
You might want to dust off your dictionary and look up the meaning of “analogy”.
While I may not agree with btan, he is at least making sense. You, on the other hand, appear to suffer from some major comprehension and logic fail. Trying to engage you in a meaningful conversation appears to be futile so I’m not even going to try. I applaud Lop for trying.
>>Now you smoke out more by saying about public when I mentioned private. Why are you so afraid to answer my question? Should a wife or should she not sue the husband for “marital molest”? After all, you support “marital rape” law, meaning a woman can sue the husband for rape, right? (how can the law protect her if she does not report to the police?)>>
I’m afraid, intentionally or unintentionally, you missed the point totally. The focus on my example should be on the word *immunity* – which is relevant to the topic. Public or private, however is not. Also focusing on the word *should* is also irrelevant. I’m talking from the law perspective. A person invokes the law to protect his interests – I’m discussing whether such a law exists to protect, whereas you went off tangent to talk about whether the person should invoke the law. To say it more clearly, 2 women were raped by their husband, the first woman chose to press charge whereas the second did not report the case. Who are we to tell these women whether they should or not sue their husband? It’s entirely their decision. We are not the victim, they are. The important thing is, there must be a recourse if any of them wish to seek justice i.e. the law does not grant immunity to their husbands for raping them.
>>As for your question, I can tell you a man who fondle his wife in public, with or without her consent, will be committing an act of public indecency, and will be dealt with by the law. Since we are talking about acts in the privacy of the home, it is better you stick to that.>>
I’m sorry, it wasn’t a question and by answering it, it shows that you totally missed the point.
>>Of course it does. If she does not sue the husband, how is she getting her protection and justice? Are you proposing police should go check every household to see if “marital rape and molest” is taking place or not? Hmm?>>
Read my explanation above.
>>Ah, but isn’t this what you are trying to do? You are telling a woman her husband can rape her… so caught in your own logical fallacy…you are promoting a concept that is alien to the institution of marriage.>>
I wasn’t telling a woman anything – if a woman chooses to remain silent after being raped by her husband, it’s her prerogative. I’m merely questioning why the law grants a man the immunity against rape crime. I’m sorry I’m brought up in the 21st century, my concept of marriage doesn’t include raping my wife.
>>Relatives and trusted men are not supposed to have sex with the woman and have babies, husbands are…it seem you still have a very ignorant concept of what a marriage should be.
There is no immunity, go check the law again.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
The law never say “a man can rape his wife, please do so, we support you”>>
Yes, a husband is supposed to have sex with his wife, but how do you jump to the conclusion that he’s also supposed to rape her?
I see that you have posted Penal Code 375 that clearly states “No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) against his wife” – why do you still say there is no immunity?
>>And please give me ONE example where the existing law cannot adequately protect a woman who has an abusive husband.
Or else I can only dismiss your arguments as just purely emotional drivel.>>
Is this even relevant? There are already existing laws that protect women, therefore we can allow their husband to rape them??
Just in response to btan #148
>>Fallacy 1 : they assume all rapes are violent rapes, as portrayed in the youtube video.
Fallacy A: If rape is not violent, it is more acceptable.
>>Fallacy 2 : they assume that those against this law means they support men abusing their wives
Fallacy B: Men who don’t abuse their wife need to be granted immunity against raping their wife.
>>Fallacy 3 : they assume women who have been abused by their husbands have no recourse from the law and are helpless
Fallacy C: Women are already getting a lot of help from abusive husbands, therefore husbands should be granted immunity to rape them.
>>Fallacy 4 : they assume married couples have sex are always willing to have sex at that time. (some are not willing but may give in out of love or sense of duty to spouse)
Fallacy D: A woman who is unwilling and yet decides to oblige is the same as a woman who looks you in the eye and tells you to back off – A man can force himself on her because it’s her duty to give sex.
>>Fallacy 5 : they are naive to think that things will be clear cut once this law is in place and guilty men will be punished and victims will be protected. in fact, if a man truly terrorise his wife, she may be too afraid to go to the police and continue to suffer, despite laws that protects women from being abused at home, a new law will not be able to do much
Fallacy E: A man who intends to rape his wife will still continue to do so, therefore there’s no point to change the law – let’s keep it that way to allow a man to legally rape his wife.
>>Fallacy 6 : they assume ALL women cannot think and take care of themselves and they have to suffer in silence due to unjust laws.
Fallacy F: Since most women can think and take care of themselves, it’s ok to let a handful suffer in silence due to the unjust law.
@ #149 btan -
You really confuse me, because on the surface, you sound so clever and logical with your “fallacies”.
“Fallacy 1″ – Rape as violence.
The conception here is that rape is inherently violent. Even if it’s incapacitated rape via drugs, hostaging, whatever. The rationale is that as long as it’s non-consensual for whatever reason, then by its intent the nature of coerced penetration is at the very least tantamount to sheer physical violence.
I don’t know what your argument is with this conception, because even if you disagree, the established penalties for rape are severe. So unless you mean to take issue with rape law as a whole, I don’t think this is a very useful route to take.
Rape as violence isn’t even important in our discussion, consent should be.
“Fallacy 2″ – Opponents as supporters for marital rape.
Opponents may not be outright supporters, but the law should have zero tolerance for rape of any sort. It’s unfortunate that there’re people who cannot put bodily integrity before other concerns.
“Fallacy 3″ – Current recourse.
There’s no such assumption here. The question is a twofer. Following your “Fallacy 1″, not all rapes are violent, so those with no evidence of associative crimes cannot be charged with rape regardless of glaring the evidence. Also, criminal justice looks at charging people for every crime committed, so what does it mean for an obvious case of marital rape where the husband is charged for everything leading up and following the rape, but not the rape itself (ala PPvN)? This wouldn’t be the same for non-marital rape. It’s about justice and punishment appropriate to severity of crime. Rape alone is severe.
“Fallacy 4″ – “give in out of love or sense of duty to spouse”
You confuse interest with consent. If the spouse were to “give in out of love or sense of duty”, then that’s consensual and not rape. The idea of non-consent is quite limited and strict and doesn’t apply to every scenario of sex on the spectrum of lacking interest.
“Fallacy 5″ – “things will be clear cut once this law is in place”
Er… I don’t get it. Enforcement issues abound. Do we drop murder laws because the laws are fail-proof way of eradicating the problem. Also, this will not be ‘a new law’. It is the removal of a law to align the established system of investigation, protection, and prosecution to cover more people. Yes, this petition proposal will not solve anything, but at least it begins to set something rolling, as opposed to–you know–opposing the petition.
“Fallacy 6″ – “women cannot think and take care of themselves”
Nobody is saying that. In fact, so far, it seems to be opponents to the changes here who are making sweeping statements about how women can or cannot take care of themselves, with the constant tenuous relating to Women’s Charter and whatnot. What does any of this have to do with that? Are you suggesting vigilante action? Their being able to take care of themselves doesn’t negate or make the matter marital rape any more or less a problem from a criminal law point of view.
Lop – hat off to you, mate.
153) K on September 25th, 2009 7.46 pm
////While I may not agree with btan, he is at least making sense. You, on the other hand, appear to suffer from some major comprehension and logic fail. Trying to engage you in a meaningful conversation appears to be futile so I’m not even going to try. I applaud Lop for trying.////
examples of it (major comprehension and logic fail)?
here’s Lop’s,
post, 140) Lop on September 25th, 2009 6.42 pm
////I have money deposited in the bank, it’s my right to get back my money when I want. Does that mean, after banking hours and I want my money real bad, I can break into the bank to get it?////
post, 60) Lop on September 24th, 2009 1.00 am
////Most normal rational people do not murder – so the law against murder is targetting normal rational people as if normal rational people take pleasure in killing others?////
did you say meaningful conversation? its your 1st post, & this is your rather partial opinion. selective pickings?
Lop
post #155 on September 25th, 2009 9.12 pm
////Fallacy A: If rape is not violent, it is more acceptable.////
its people with an agenda who sensationalise issues.
////Fallacy B: Men who don’t abuse their wife need to be granted immunity against raping their wife.////
rape is not abuse? are you as confused today as in post,
75) Lop on September 24th, 2009 2.05 am :)
////Fallacy C: Women are already getting a lot of help from abusive husbands, therefore husbands should be granted immunity to rape them////
yet another off tangent reply to Btan’s fallacy number #3…. where does the “alot of help” come into play in referance to Btan’s fallacy #3?
////Fallacy D: A woman who is unwilling and yet decides to oblige is the same as a woman who looks you in the eye and tells you to back off – A man can force himself on her because it’s her duty to give sex.////
a rather confusing statement.
////Fallacy E: A man who intends to rape his wife will still continue to do so, therefore there’s no point to change the law – let’s keep it that way to allow a man to legally rape his wife.////
is the wife that dumb to allow a self serving husband to do so? can we all believe there is nothing she can do? absolutely nothing?
////Fallacy F: Since most women can think and take care of themselves, it’s ok to let a handful suffer in silence due to the unjust law.////
its naive to say that without this petition the handful of women will not suffer in silence anymore. marriage is afterall a social contract with many strings attached.
#158 mice is nice
Sigh I really don’t know how to communicate with you effectively. My last attempt here.
1. Please don’t read my post literally – sometime I end with a “?” but it’s really not a question – I’m trying to highlight some inconsistencies but my command of the language does not allow me to put it in a better way other than in the form of a question.
2. The deposit money into a bank is an analogy:
right to withdraw money from bank = right to have sex with wife
want to withdraw money when bank is closed = want to have sex with wife when she’s unwilling (also underlying meaning the bank will not be closed everyday = wife will not refuse sex everyday; if bank is closed everyday, change bank = if wife refuse to have sex everyday, change wife)
break into bank to get your money = force wife to have sex i.e. rape
Therefore the analogy is:
Although you have right to withdraw money from bank, you do not have right to break in to get your money = Although you have right to have sex with your wife, you don’t have the right to rape her.
3. Rational people and murder is also another analogy:
Most normal people = Most husbands
Do not murder = Do not rape their wife
Law against murder = Law against husbands raping their wife
There the analogy is:
There should be a law against murder not because most normal people will commit murder but because murder is wrong = There should be a law against husbands raping their wife not because most husbands will rape their wife but because rape is wrong.
#159 mice is nice
*white flag* *surrender*
To be honest, I din know “In Singapore, raping your wife is not treated as rape in most cases.”
My concern is will a man, who has intention to divorce the wife or his wife has intention to divorce the man, after learning about this fact lead him to ABUSE or REVENGE on his wife by raping her knowing he may get may with it?
I mean last time, some men may mistaken that a rape is a rape even if it is the wife and thus avoid doing that out of fear. Now leh?
sincerely,
hum liker.
meeper beeper
post #156 on September 25th, 2009 9.34 pm
////You really confuse me, because on the surface, you sound so clever and logical with your “fallacies”.////
unnecessary taunt.
////The conception here is that rape is inherently violent. Even if it’s incapacitated rape via drugs, hostaging, whatever. The rationale is that as long as it’s non-consensual for whatever reason, then by its intent the nature of coerced penetration is at the very least tantamount to sheer physical violence.////
you are confusing sexual violence with physical violence?
////Rape alone is severe.////
an oxymoron. the fact that you support this petition. lol…
the response to
“Fallacy 4″ is fair.
////this will not be ‘a new law’. It is the removal of a law to align the established system of investigation, protection, and prosecution to cover more people. Yes, this petition proposal will not solve anything, but at least it begins to set something rolling, as opposed to–you know–opposing the petition////
cover more people or give leverage to ~? what is the “something rolling”, can you blame critics for not supporting the cause when there is a vague “something”? what if it turns out to be “something bad”? see my point?
////Nobody is saying that. In fact, so far, it seems to be opponents to the changes here who are making sweeping statements about how women can or cannot take care of themselves, with the constant tenuous relating to Women’s Charter and whatnot. What does any of this have to do with that? Are you suggesting vigilante action? Their being able to take care of themselves doesn’t negate or make the matter marital rape any more or less a problem from a criminal law point of view.////
here’s your sweeping statement, Meeper Beeper,
post 25) on September 23rd, 2009 7.18 pm
////… this lousy idea of conjugal rights as a 24/7 access to the woman’s body…////
does Women’s Charter not have anything to do with women? lmao….
supporters of this petition do sound vigilant to me… :P
@ 158) mice is nice on September 25th, 2009 10.32 pm
Examples? No, I don’t think so. I’ll be here all night copying and pasting just about every reply you’ve made here. Your examples of Lop’s replies pretty much proved my point.
@ 163) mice is nice on September 26th, 2009 12.01 am
“oxymoron”
That word does not mean what you think it means.
I won’t be replying to you anymore. Thanks for playing.
Lop
post #160 on September 25th, 2009 11.29 pm #158 mice is nice
////Sigh I really don’t know how to communicate with you effectively. My last attempt here////
or you dunno how too effectively talk win me? :P
////1. Please don’t read my post literally – sometime I end with a “?” but it’s really not a question – I’m trying to highlight some inconsistencies but my command of the language does not allow me to put it in a better way other than in the form of a question.////
wah, you “sound” like woman.
husband ask: can anot?
wife reply: ok?
lol…
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lop
post #161 on September 25th, 2009 11.36 pm
*white flag* *surrender*
sign the surrender documents?
lmao… :)
K
post #164 on September 26th, 2009 12.13 am
////I won’t be replying to you anymore. Thanks for playing.////
who’s playing? you?! lol…
easy come easy go… 8)
Hi,
148) btan on September 25th, 2009 7.15 pm
Thanks for the extract from the statute.
To me, the current legislation provides protection against so called marital rape of the wife by the husband so long as she no longer lives with the husband and also the other circumstance as mentioned in the statute.
To: # 135) meeper beeper
“Let me get this straight: your idea of a ‘factual, logical, real, rational and constructive” solution to marital rape, or perhaps all rape, is that women [1] not resist, so as to avoid being ‘harmed’ by being hit (no grievous harm charge, no battery charge), and [2] magically produce market lube and somehow miraculously consent to applying on themselves so that they don’t experience vaginal damage.”..
In particular your mention of “perhaps all rape”.
Why bring in “ALL rape” when it is abundantly clear that I only dealt with the topic in this thread about sex IN A MARRIAGE between husband and wife who happens to not want the husband to penetrate her, contrary to knowingly and willingly given her irrevocable consent when she said I do to get the marriage certificate?
I don’t think that is being intellectually honest.
In the part of your sentence :
“[1] not resist, so as to avoid being ‘harmed’ by being hit (no grievous harm charge, no battery charge), and [2] magically produce market lube and somehow miraculously consent to applying on themselves so that they don’t experience vaginal damage.”..
I suggest you read the CONTEXT of what I had posted in all my posts, in particular when I mentioned in my first post that a woman featured in Cheryl Fox program talked about feeling the pain.
The rest of your comments in #135 doesn’t deserve any comment because, as is obvious you failed to see the CONTEXT of what I have been saying
I suggest that if you are seriously interested in DEBATE, then please start from my first post and if possible answer the questions I have posed; after which you might like to deal with the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES if so called marital rape is made a crime.
140) Lop on September 25th, 2009 6.42 pm
“I have money deposited in the bank, it’s my right to get back my money when I want. Does that mean, after banking hours and I want my money real bad, I can break into the bank to get it? ”
The banks have what are called TERMS AND CONDITIONS, which include OPENING HOURS.
In the CONTEXT of the topic/issue under discussion it is obvious that the so-called “marital rape” happens NOT BECAUSE the husband demands sex the equivalent of “after banking hours” BUT because the relationship between husband and wife is already estranged and the wife now experiences PSYCHOLOGICAL REPUGNANCE to the husband.
As I have replied to someone else earlier on, why bring in an analogy – in your case, an inappropriate one at that – rather than deal directly with the questions I have pose?
I have defined my parameters. If you think these are inappropriate, then please show me why you so think and define your parameters when you talk about marriage, sexual relationship between husband and wife and why there is a need for making “marital rape” a crime instead of opting for easy to obtain divorce as I have suggested?
This is my final post in this thread as it is obvious to me that even after so many posts, no one has yet decided to deal directly with the questions I have posed and other comments I have made in the CONTEXT I have made them.
To: # 135) meeper beeper
“….magically produce market lube and somehow miraculously consent to applying on themselves so that they don’t experience vaginal damage.”..
KY or Durex lubricant for sex are EASILY available at Guardian and other pharmacies, Watson’s, supermarkets etc
There is nothing “MAGICAL” nor “MIRACULOUS”.
And, are you doubting that the manufacturers of KY or Durex have misrepresented the efficacy of their product to make penetration easier?
I suggest you should alert CASE and perhaps MOH about such misrepresentation/
167) What’s Marriage?
Rape is defined as nonconsensual sex and is commonly performed by familiar faces (family, spouses, friends, …). We can all agree that rape is a criminal act. Nonconsensual sex between two persons in a marriage is currently not considered criminal currently, but rape is real and can occur within a marriage.
We cannot brush the fact off with ‘oh, but they are married‘ because marriage is not an agreement to write off rights available to the ordinary human being. Nonconsensual sex is rape even within a marriage because individuals’ spouses are not sex slaves, and everyone should know that instead of sticking to their caveman idea in this age and time when gender equality has been fought for (not about dominance of women over men).
Marriage is a path many men and women choose as proof that they want to commit themselves to their partners. Should rape occur and the victim request for a divorce, the divorce proceedings do not punish the rapist for his/her actions. How fair is it to the rest of society to have someone who forces themselves on others roaming the earth freely?
The law should be in place to protect against rape between two married persons for the victim to be provided with support (both physically and emotionally if the law is written up proper), and to punish the rapist.
Thus the need to extend rape within the confines of marriage. Basic human rights.
Ryvyan
post #168 on September 26th, 2009 1.55 am
//// rape is real and can occur within a marriage.////
this i agree.
////Nonconsensual sex is rape even within a marriage because individuals’ spouses are not sex slaves, and everyone should know that instead of sticking to their caveman idea in this age and time when gender equality has been fought for (not about dominance of women over men).////
1) do married women see themselves as sex slaves? this is relevent because its this specific group of women whom this petition seeks to protect.
2) laws itself lend dominance, legal power.
////How fair is it to the rest of society to have someone who forces themselves on others roaming the earth freely?////
cavewomen language here? lol….
its not fair, but let’s not go down the road “rape is rape, & should be treated just like any other kind of rape”. there are differences.
////The law should be in place to protect against rape between two married persons for the victim to be provided with support (both physically and emotionally if the law is written up proper), and to punish the rapist.////
there are laws in place against abusive husbands, unless there are sane & loving husbands who out-of-a-blue-moon rapes his wife. this petition assumes that normal & loving husbands are prone to raping their wives, that’s what makes this petition ridiculous.
for abusive husbands, be it physically, verbally, sexually, emotionally, etc, is there no telltale signs that the marriage is not working out? alcoholism, gambling, financial issues that may plague the already strained marriage? are there no avenues or solutions to those?
marital rape do not “just happen” out of the blue. lol… :?
////Thus the need to extend rape within the confines of marriage. Basic human rights.////
this is a specific issue about a specific group of society, it isn’t basic in any way. try not to overgeneralise just to bring your point across, it may very well backfire.
#167 What’s Marriage
I think you are too presumptuous to think that you know every reason why a woman refuses sex. In any case, entering into marriage does not make a woman a lesser human being i.e. she has no more say and therefore can be compelled into sexual intercourse – if you like, the TERMS and CONDITIONS are a woman is still a human being with full autonomy before and after marriage. Also your notion that marriage is a ‘blank cheque’ to sex is ridiculous. Before marriage, a man needs consent from his girl friend to have sex, but after becoming his wife she loses that prerogative? I think most women today would object such a notion. Better lay your terms out (and not hide them as fine print) before you get married.
>>Why there is a need for making “marital rape” a crime instead of opting for easy to obtain divorce as I have suggested?>>
Because such a notion is bordering on being despicable. In essence you are telling women that you should have initiated divorce before you refuse sex, for the fact that you didn’t, you deserve to get raped.
If his wife consistently refuses sex, the husband can always initiate a divorce or even find sex elsewhere – but raping his wife should not be an option.
Also your approach seems so one-sided – centering on what a woman should do to avoid getting herself raped, but shouldn’t we ask
1. What gives a man the right to rape his wife?
2. What are the merits in granting a man immunity to marital rape?
#167 What’s Marriage?
“…contrary to knowingly and willingly given her irrevocable consent when she said I do to get the marriage certificate? ”
Hmm, whose terms and conditions is this? Is this stated in the marriage certificate?
(This is my last comment to this thread because I’ve spent enough time here, and I think I should acknowledge brick walls when I see them. Plus, I really want to conserve some energy for Round 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc until this stupid immunity is lifted.)
@ What’s Marriage?
I’m merely extending your great solution to help protect all women from the damages of rape. Since you effectively championed a solution that’s not really specific to marital rape despite your contextualising. And who can blame you since as Ryvyan suggests in #171, it’s actually quite difficult to tease out wives as somehow not quite as human as other women when being raped. Except, of course, by maintaining this immunity. That’s where they differ: in protection and recourse.
And you really expect wives to carry around with them a bottle of lube everywhere just so that they can preempt and predict their personal violation? Or that she’ll not consent to have sex but will keep herself lubed *just in case*, or run to Watson’s to buy KY or Durex (I’m partial to its Tingling variety) get home and lube up for non-consensual sex?
Lastly, I already answered most of your all-important questions from your all-important first post. But then some people thought I was conjuring sweeping statements of my own T_T
I’m still voting you for President. Say Mars? Then you can export KY, Durex, Guardian and Watson’s there.
(Oh! This is fun. No wonder mice is nice loves making snide, smart alecky remarks!)
now you all know why HDB give “better” price to those who live near parents?
so the parents can hop over to sign the CONSENT FORMS before they make love.
wife: wait, i need to call my parents to come over to sign the forms before we can proceed.
husband: ok.
wife’s parents: wah, you both think we fastfood delivery service? 24/7 on call to sign your consent forms?
husband: sorry, mum & dad. it’s a new requirement (new law). no choice, now everything need black-&-white.
wife’s parents: we sign sign for you who sign for us?….
lmao… :)
meeper beeper
post #174 on September 26th, 2009 2.54 am
////(Oh! This is fun. No wonder mice is nice loves making snide, smart alecky remarks!)////
whoah, i got a fan (dun forget to *thumbs up* my posts)!! 8)
on your post,
#135 on September 25th, 2009 3.50 pm
////[2] magically produce market lube and somehow miraculously consent to applying on themselves so that they don’t experience vaginal damage.////
no magic, wizardry or witchcraft was involved in any production stages of any lub. if there is, i’ll like to know!! :P
the comments are so many i gave up reading them before i even reach a quarter.
anyway, my view is that the current problems we having is a direct result of our “modern thinking”, 1 wife ideology and philosophy abt equal rights, etc…
if we look back just a hundred years ago, our society is still in the state where the guy can have multiple wives and women mostly still remain as the maintainer of the household. This formulae had worked for the past 5000 years of Human history and in the last 100-200 years: we human beings decide that one guy should have only one wife and also woman should have more “freedom” and etc…
Not that i am against woman from studying, having a career and being successful , etc… (i got many female friends doing very well) ; but this alteration of the role of the female species disrupts the natural balance in human society.
Where males in the past get married and have kids during their teenage years, learn their trade from their father and elders, work and bring food back home; while the female also married in the teenage years, learn from their mother-in-law and learn how to take care of the family and raise the kids of the next generation. That was how it was is for the past 5000 years. And the concept of multiple wives holds fine, as the more successful a guy is, the more “wives” to kindda reward himself and more “offsprings” he would like to carry on his genes.
But now, as the western concept of 1 life partner came about, couples are now face with much greater limitations than before. Not to mention that we get married and learn abt responsibilities much later (used to be in teenage years remember?), the advent of woman “working habit” disrupted their biological duty of purely taking care of the family and rearing kids.
Yes, modern women will say they can deal with it, work and take care of kids: but ultimately, who is really teaching and taking care of the kids now? The granny? The maid? And like many young ppl now remember, they usually dun see their parents come home until they already fell asleep. And thus, the natural system of family bonding and inter-relationship is all messed up.
I crapped alot now, yes. But how it links to the Marital Rape?
If the woman truly loves the guy, and she had been waiting all day at home for the beloved husband to come home, what are the chances that she would reject sex when the husband wants it? (it might be the husband want to reject it because he might be too tired)
But in modern times, the women work too! So the woman come home shagged and no mood for sex; and the guy wants it? Then how?
Another thing abt Marital Rape is the way how the “rape” is conducted. If there is violence involved, then maybe we can call it rape or domestic violence. But its simply because the wife dun want but the husband insist, and then after they did it, she report to the police saying the husband raped her – then i think we need to rethink does it make any sense.
I personally believe that all the high divorce rate, relationship problems, etc… mostly is born from the fact that we had changed our society and social behaviour. Although the “old ways” might not be “perfect”, but at least you would hear abt oxymoronic things like marital rape.
And to make it even simpler and shorter: If the husband “rapes” you, just divorce him. Those make such a big hoo-ha.
@Lop
Firstly, I’m not going to reply to you anymore because I can see that you are no longer coherent especially with your reply to my fallacies. I still fail to see how you can read “immunity” when I already posted the law to you. Especially you can quote part of the law but ignore all the exceptions. Please read further and if you can find a sentence in the law that says men can “rape” his wife, please let me know. As far as the law is concern, which I agree, there is no such thing as rape as far as marriage is concern. Abuse, yes, rape, no.
To others,
Keep repeating that husband can “rape their wives and the law give them “immunity” is just sensationalising the issue. You are in fact, NOT helping the victims and causing harm to a lot of innocent men who may be slapped with this law by vindictive wives.
And FYI, no husband can be convicted of molest, sexual harassment of his wife either. And husbands and wife cannot be convicted of “invasion of privacy”. I am also pretty sure it will be tough for a judge to convict a husband or wife for “stealing” the spouse’s money. Context will be everything. If the wife took the money of the husband because she is not working and the husband refuse to give her any pocket money, she should be punished as a common thief?
The whole idea is ridiculous.
You also do not see how difficult it is to convict a rape case. A rape case is very tough because it is basically a “your word versus my word” case. That is why women who went to hotel room with men, then claimed they are raped, a judge has to be sure if this is a genuine or a false cry-rape. In a domestic situation where the husband and wife are expected to sleep on the same bed, how does a judge tells if the woman is genuinely being forced by sex or not? There is simply no way.
Therefore, the law gives the woman one weapon. She can go to the court to submit an injunction against her husband to prevent him from having sex with her. Once she does that, he no longer can legally have sex with her. THAT’S IT.
There is NO IMMUNITY. If a woman give consent, then the consent is given and she cannot “cry rape” later. For other men who is not married to the woman, the default is NO CONSENT. For husbands, the default is CONSENT. It’s as simply as that. The only way for the woman to not give consent to the husband is to go to court.
Savvy?
@175) mice is nice on September 26th, 2009 3.02 am
*shudder* at your scenario.
That is why I said the marriage institution will be unravelled because now husbands have to be very careful. If they don’t provide good sexual services to their wives, their wives can haul them to court and charge them “marital rape”. With so many pro-women laws, most of the time the women will win and you will see a record number of men going to years for up to 20 years just by pissing their wives off.
Another way a wife can sabotage her husband is, when the marriage breaks down, instead of filing for divorce, she can file for “marital rape”. So when the man is convicted and goes to jail for 20 years, she can have everything instead of just 50%.
One last scenario is those horny stupid old men who go marry those PRC gold digger dragon ladies (no offense to the rest of the proper PRC ladies) and those gold diggers can use the laws to strike back at these stupid horny old men by getting them convicted and then take all their money. While these men maybe stupid, there are still innocent and needs to be protected from their stupidity.
Unfortunately, not many people here realised the possible side effects.
@162) Pink Dow Wager wants the hum on September 25th, 2009 11.44 pm
[[To be honest, I din know “In Singapore, raping your wife is not treated as rape in most cases.”
My concern is will a man, who has intention to divorce the wife or his wife has intention to divorce the man, after learning about this fact lead him to ABUSE or REVENGE on his wife by raping her knowing he may get may with it?
I mean last time, some men may mistaken that a rape is a rape even if it is the wife and thus avoid doing that out of fear. Now leh?
sincerely,
hum liker. ]]
That is why you need to read the law. The law says : the moment a divorce proceeding is started, the man no longer can have sex with her without getting EXPLICIT consent. The MOMENT divorce proceeding starts, she will be protected by the full extend of the law.
Sigh,
Have never heard so much nonsense from one post before.
`If the woman truly loves the guy, and she had been waiting all day at home for the beloved husband to come home, what are the chances that she would reject sex when the husband wants it?’
It seems like the sentiment for against the idea ‘rape within marriage’ are those that do not believe woman are men’s equal.
Lack of sex and other issue linking to refusal of sex are blamed on the women. Do they ever stop and think that if the MEN are at fault too?
Just grab any magazine, you will see column or forum teaching men on art of foreplay. So many men, or even Singapore men dont believe in foreplay or dont even know what it is. And you wonder why women are turn off with that kind of intimacy that gratify only one party?
Those that dont believe in ‘rape in marriage’ also should reflect what is the definition of marriage to them. Or keeping the status quo is so important because at the moment it weight heavily in favor of the MEN!.
Finally, please do not bring into the arguement on alimony and women charter or protection of women in divorce. If the men wish to even the battle ground, please do so. We dont see any men starting any petition against, say paying alimony to more well off wife? Why? Ego?.
Marriage is about Love, not just sex!
Rape is rape.
Sigh
btan,
heh, if you have read the solution (divorce) offered to men by supporters of this petition who are not happy with the marriage, yet can support a petition to (criminalise &) put the husband behind bars, you know something is not right.
cannot force the wife to have sex, i agree. but i cannot agree to forcing any husband to do time in prison with a petition that does not take into account the relationship between a husband & a wife.
if a law is not a type of force (ie, legally enforce), i dun know what is.
Kezu
post #181 on September 27th, 2009 1.25 am
////It seems like the sentiment for against the idea ‘rape within marriage’ are those that do not believe woman are men’s equal.////
rape itself in S’pore context largely refers men as aggressors, women (in this case wives) as victims.
as for equal, do note that laws regarding gender offences (not just sexual) are heavier for men as women are still viewed as the fairer sex. also, where child rearing is concerned women enjoy more benefits compared to men. thus, in S’pore when the various laws (punishment & entitlement) do not treat both genders as equals, how can one claim that women are men’s equal?
////Lack of sex and other issue linking to refusal of sex are blamed on the women. Do they ever stop and think that if the MEN are at fault too?////
speaking for myself, the answer is: no, its not that there are those husbands who may be at fault.
////Just grab any magazine, you will see column or forum teaching men on art of foreplay. So many men, or even Singapore men dont believe in foreplay or dont even know what it is. And you wonder why women are turn off with that kind of intimacy that gratify only one party?////
so what happens to cases where some wives are turned on (in your words) by more sexually dominate husbands?
lmao… :)
yet you can still say?
////Have never heard so much nonsense from one post before.////
lmao…. :)
////Those that dont believe in ‘rape in marriage’ also should reflect what is the definition of marriage to them. Or keeping the status quo is so important because at the moment it weight heavily in favor of the MEN!.////
men never champion any petition to criminalise wives! lol…
////Finally, please do not bring into the arguement on alimony and women charter or protection of women in divorce. If the men wish to even the battle ground, please do so. We dont see any men starting any petition against, say paying alimony to more well off wife? Why? Ego?.////
do men view marriage as a battleground in the 1st place? lmao…. :)
////Marriage is about Love, not just sex!////
that is why women who chose to marry still do, because doing so does not equate them to being sex slaves!!
////Rape is rape.////
rape is rape, but marital rape does not exactly translate to rape per se. this is why even consexual sex with an underaged (locally defined) girl is also a form of rape in S’pore.
correction in previous post:
////Lack of sex and other issue linking to refusal of sex are blamed on the women. Do they ever stop and think that if the MEN are at fault too?////
my original reply:
“speaking for myself, the answer is: no, its not that there are those husbands who may be at fault.”
edited:
“speaking for myself, the answer is: no, its not that there are those husbands who may NOT be at fault.”
What exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking about male rights in the marriage or are we talking about the right of a woman to refuse to have sex?
As a guy, I get married to a woman because I want to be with her and one would assume that sharing sexual intimacy is part of that “wanting to be with” someone. So, we can agree that marriage is about two people signing a contract to be together.
Does that contract mean that one party has to subjugate themselves to having sex whenever the other party demands it? Yes, one assumes a married couple got married to share sexual intimacy but simple logic will tell you that no two people will WANT to have sex ALL THE TIME and at the SAME TIME. No one can argue that the honeymoon is going to be representative of the rest of the marriage.
Now, allot of the arguments in favour of keeping marriage as a protection from rape charges have used the line that the woman has already consent when she agreed to marry and more importantly women who withhold sex are failing in their conjugal duties and so a man has the right to force the wife into having sex whether she likes it or not.
Let’s leave aside the obvious and ask ourselves what happens if the opposite was the case. Men, much as we hate to admit it, do have “down-times” when it comes to our urges. So, let’s ask ourselves this question – if a man does not wish to have sex, does his wife have the right to drug, beat or threaten him into it.
Biologically speaking that’s supposed to be impossible. However, the point remains, is it OK for anyone to have sex with you without your consent? A man who does not have sex with his wife is also guilty of not performing his conjugal duties. Does the woman have the legal right to force him into “performing?” It’s a thought worth considering.
such petition gives wives an unfair legal advantage over their husbands. since gender differences is a given fact, how can some even claim gender equality? society itself, not forgetting laws (locally speaking) plays up this inequality.
no force should be used against wives to get any sexual gratification. but such a petition automatically gives wives the power to criminalise their husbands with no regard to the relationship they both once chose to walk down.
to say “rape is rape. There can be no exceptions.” shows how trivial marriage is viewed by some. by comparing rape cases where the man can be anybody, regardless of the relationship with the victim.
Mice is Nice,
‘as for equal, do note that laws regarding gender offences (not just sexual) are heavier for men as women are still viewed as the fairer sex. also, where child rearing is concerned women enjoy more benefits compared to men. thus, in S’pore when the various laws (punishment & entitlement) do not treat both genders as equals, how can one claim that women are men’s equal?’
I cant believe this.
First of all childbearing benefits only applies to those that are actually going through childbirth.
Please dont insult others inteligent by saying men should enjoy the same benefit in that aspect. Face it, men dont have a infant coming into the world between his feet. (sperm dont count)
Equality is referring to the aspect of human rights, and basic one to me is right to his/her body.
`so what happens to cases where some wives are turned on (in your words) by more sexually dominate husbands? ‘
sexually dominate = rape? wow scary.
‘men never champion any petition to criminalise wives! lol…’
how often does one hear a woman raping a man?
`do men view marriage as a battleground in the 1st place? lmao…. ‘
with more women joining the workforce, its a reality my friend.
187) Kezu on September 27th, 2009 6.38 am
we have one of the lowest birth rates in the world. so are women who do not bear children after getting married, exempt from this law?
186) Mice is Nice.
I believe in the right of consent, but yet consensual sex with a minor is considered a crime.
Rape is Rape without regards to the circumstances is a dangerous premise.
However if the wife takes money from the husband’s wallet without telling him, is that considered stealing? Can the husband charge the wife in court for stealing his money?
If a man does not support his wife financially, the wife can go to the courts and divorce the husband. The husband is required by law to maintain his ex-wife, with almost zero considerations for the grounds for the divorce.
1.) So if a wife refuse to have sex with her husband, can the husband go to court to force his wife to have sex with him?
2.) If a wife does not want children, Can the husband go to the courts to force the wife to bear his children?
Will the courts use the 2 above mentioned as a consideration for the man to not be required to support his wife after they divorce?
I’ll avoid the vindictive wives premise because there are also sexually deviant husbands.
But it seems to me that in a marriage, the husband is getting the short end of the stick. I question the fairness of the institution of marriage.
Can anyone tell me what are the real tangible benefits for a man to get married?
Tax relief? HDB housing grant?
Since your wife is no different from your girlfriend. Why get married?
Because if the laws are not adjusted as a whole to change with the times. I’m afraid that the husband is just relegated to a life time meal ticket.
Kezu
post #187 on September 27th, 2009 6.38 am
////First of all childbearing benefits only applies to those that are actually going through childbirth.
Please dont insult others inteligent by saying men should enjoy the same benefit in that aspect. Face it, men dont have a infant coming into the world between his feet. (sperm dont count)
Equality is referring to the aspect of human rights, and basic one to me is right to his/her body.////
this is the type of opinion piece that does little to add credibility to the petition. to say both gender should be treated equal, is to ignore the biological differences.
////sexually dominate = rape? wow scary.////
this was in response to your point about foreplay. in post
#181 Kezu on September 27th, 2009 1.25 am
so it would seem you are clutching at straws… 8)
////how often does one hear a woman raping a man?////
good point, this is why the petition is gender biased. talk about shooting at your own foot… :)
////with more women joining the workforce, its a reality my friend.////
eh, maybe you can enlight everyone how joining the workforce has got to do with this petition? lol….
mice is nice,
How amusing. Now we see comments ie clutching straw and so on.
However, i would attempt once more on this issue.
Equality as human being is what i am getting at, because fundamentally men or women are both … human. That’s the basis of human rights i am getting at.
But does that literary means men and women are the same?
You say so yourself, biologically we are not. Being different does not necessary mean unequal.
Clutching straw on foreplay issue.
Perhaps we differs on definition of sexually domination.
Sexually dominate to me means more proactive, ‘ being on top kinda sex ‘.
Unfortunately to you, immediately either whips and rape?
Correct me if i am wrong, cause to me violence and sex do not mix.
Ah, now for my shooting my own foot remark, I actually do believe that its physically impossible for a woman to rape a man. So unless its proven otherwise . . .
Kezu
post #190 on September 27th, 2009 11.15 pm
////Equality as human being is what i am getting at, because fundamentally men or women are both … human. That’s the basis of human rights i am getting at.
But does that literary means men and women are the same?
You say so yourself, biologically we are not. Being different does not necessary mean unequal.////
as for being equal, why did you even bring up the issue on childbearing in your previous post? you are in fact citing a basic biological difference with that…
////Clutching straw on foreplay issue.
Perhaps we differs on definition of sexually domination.
Sexually dominate to me means more proactive, ‘ being on top kinda sex ‘.
Unfortunately to you, immediately either whips and rape?
Correct me if i am wrong, cause to me violence and sex do not mix.////
maybe we do differ in our opinion on sexual dominance…
… but, where in my posts did i state that “whips and rape” narrowly defines sexual dominance? do quote words to that effect but do not quote out of context (include the date & time), yeah?
////Ah, now for my shooting my own foot remark, I actually do believe that its physically impossible for a woman to rape a man. So unless its proven otherwise . . .////
so what equality is there, with this gender biased petition?
MIce is nice,
You read what you want to read.
Once more, biologically we are not the same. But being different does not necessary mean unequal.
Sigh, enough said.
Kezu
btw you have yet to answer my question
“eh, maybe you can enlight everyone how joining the workforce has got to do with this petition? lol….”
to your…
////with more women joining the workforce, its a reality my friend.////
from you post number
#187 on September 27th, 2009 6.38 am
8)
Mice is nie
Lol, isnt it obvious? The whole issue is *some* men never reconciled the fact that women can compete and excel in work arena.
With this kind of insecurities couple with ego problem, could very well compel *some* individuals to domestic violence, marital rape etc.
This petition, only to protect the victims my friend. Retaining the law, in a way protects the agressor.
It IS possible for a female to rape a male.
To understand that, we go back to the definition of rape, being roughly “Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person’s consent.”
The male organ CAN be aroused irrespective of the male’s objections. from that point, it is just a matter of the female forcing the male to have intercourse with her. And you get Male rape.
And I’m talking about females raping males here.
See
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t88035m5295g6751/?p=f4627938f6ee449bad67bc5f803aebf8
http://www.vaonline.org/vls6.html
http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html (Pt 7)
If you think its a stigma for female rape victims to report their rape, imagine how much worse it must be for males to do so…..
“It IS possible for a female to rape a male.”
PM Lee,
is that true ?
Kezu
post #190 on September 27th, 2009 11.15 pm
////Sexually dominate to me means more proactive, ‘ being on top kinda sex ‘.
Unfortunately to you, immediately either whips and rape?
Correct me if i am wrong, cause to me violence and sex do not mix.////
kindly back up your claims with quotes, please include details the date & time.
kindly do not quote me out of context, thank you. ;)
I dun think it should even be called rape.
Unless the wife has a real physical problem he wife shld f*ck her husband when he wants it
and I agree with one of the earlier comments about the womens charter being very unfair
you know what’s funny
women always ask for equal right and all that crap right
dlo you see that in a burning building? No
women and children out first
obviously children shld get piroity. But why women?
That’s why women do not have equal rights
bcos they leave the building first
I think that many of the men who are offended by the idea of ‘marital rape’ have no idea what it is like being a vulnerable woman – too terrified or confused to report her husband for fear of breaking up her family. Trust me, I know of many women who would do much less than that to keep their children safe.
I’m not saying that sex within a marriage isn’t sacred and crucial to building a stong marriage, but sometimes men use sex to show their power. And honestly, until you are faced with the same scenario, the rest of us should just stop all this chatter.
By the way this incident smacks of the rape case in Italy where a judge ruled that women wearing jeans cannot possibly be raped because it requires their consent to remove the jeans. (http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/02/12/fhead.htm)
It is horrifying to imagine being in her place and having even the judge think that you were a willing partner in your own rape.
Regarding:
199) blackbeanSG on October 4th, 2009 10.04 pm
Your comments are offensive and idiotic. Women are allowed to go first in a burning building because they are a physically weaker sex…. It has nothing to do with equal rights.
From your comments, you are a person who believes that as long as you are stronger you can bully and rule over those who are weaker and probably deserve oppression. This will be a savage world if we determine everybody rights according to their physical strength.
Equality means equal rights even if you are weaker, in a wheelchair or whatever.
And please keep your “F” word at bay.