Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape

last SG · 2008-08-06T12:45:44+00:00

To solve this debate, why not just criminalise women for marrying the wrong man willingly or vice versa.Those who do so must be shot without trial. Then ther...

reyes SG

as long we you dont agree with " fall justice" u r sexist and MCP.

dumbdumb! SG

lol. ok, since i can't help being "sexist" and "mcp", might as well be proud of it?

hi guys, i'm now a "sexist", where do i sign up for the free T-shirts and beer?

reyes SG

divorce also not enough to protect the wife? what more u want?

maybe sex is not obligation for some gays or lesbians, are you?

emotional is just all in that kind of relationship.

reyes SG

dumbdumb u r not alone. all singapore men are sexist and racist if base on the description by " fall justice".

just plain tiring talking to a sexist itself who trying to campaign to forbid sex between husband and wife and cause more social disharmony in our society.

we are stress enough to talk to another xxx life ' fall justice".

LatecomerX SG

wives are able to refuse sex to punish their husbands, then cry infidility when the husbands seek sex somewhere else, then divorce and get half of whatever he owns. the law obviously favours the women.

Guide for Gals to Get Rich

dumbdumb! SG

Guide for Gals to Get Rich

hurray for equality of the sexes. somehow don't feel so equal hor?

OH-FF SG

Guide for Gals to Get Rich

For the last wish "Entitled half of his assets" Probably there should be terms to go along with this enforcement. For example , she should prove that she had paid near to 1/2 of the assets she claims to be entitled to ? Otherwise claim on behalf of the child/children she bears. (Singapore lacks childbirth?)

People with $$ to afford his women not to work shouldn't have to live in fear. We want more men with $$$ to come to Singapore , not China MaMas with $$$.

dumbdumb! SG

you know, i was reading this article a few days back. someone slashed his wife. of course while it is the guy's fault for losing it and attempting to assault his wife, but the backstory is, the wife have been known to be verbally and (cannot remember) physically abusive to the husband for ages.

so, while it is wrong to slash someone, she deserves it?

so yeah, equality to the sexes = females are entitled to be asses, but it's wrong for them to get what's coming to them for being an ass.

yamizi SG

In the courts, they seems to recognise the 'battered wife syndrome', which is the wife had been suffered abuses from husband for a long time.

Sad to say in the court, there isn't seem to have a equivalent syndrome that is recognised in the courts for the men.

Glasscastlezine SG

4Justice, thanks for your very cogent arguments. I admire your patience in continuing to engage these sexists!

It's very sad that anyone should see sex as an 'obligation' or to see the right to penetrate an unwilling women who feels neither pleasure nor desire as an important part of marriage. You're never entitled to use someone else's body without their consent, and marriage doesn't change that. If you want sex with someone, you have to see what you can do about getting them to want sex with you too; and if they don't, you just have to accept it. It's their body. You don't own it.

And there are many barriers towards making false allegations - what exactly would women get out of it?! Many people who report rape, especially by their husbands, are disbelieved and shamed by other people, as there is still (wrongfully) a stigma attached to being a rape victim, which discourages many people from coming forward when they are real victims, let alone inventing trouble for themselves by making false reports.

But even where false allegations are made, as with all other offences, if there is insufficient evidence, either the police will discontinue investigation, the prosecutor will decide not to take the case forward, or the courts will acquit. This is the same for ALL offences, why should marital rape be specially exempt even from investigation?

The effect of the current law is that even if the evidence is 100% clearcut - for example, the rape led to vaginal injuries and there is DNA evidence - the husband is STILL not considered a rapist. This is totally unacceptable.

yamizi SG

4Justice, thanks for your very cogent arguments. I admire your patience in continuing to engage these sexists!

I think there are some misunderstanding here. I believe those that who do not support in such martial rape act, do not support in such rape too. So by labeling us sexist would be a bit too fast a gun to jump with.

I'm neither for nor against this campaign. I'm more interested to see the other legal complication that it might get.

But rather, the way 4Justice had put it, seems to imply there is totally no way of addressing such issue, which is not true. I had already stated the relevant Penal Code, although may not deem sufficient in your eyes, but it shows that there is something that you can get such unwanted husband for.

purpledragon84 SG

after the rape, the husband go slp that time, use fatum's favourite method lo..

Glasscastlezine SG

yamizi:

Maybe my first post was not very clear. At the moment, the Penal Code says specifically that an act that would normally be rape, is exempted from being rape, just because the rapist is married to the victim. I am suggesting that the exemption be removed.

Yes, there are other offences relating to sexual violence: for instance, there is outrage of modesty. However, rape is more serious than outrage of modesty, and in every case where the offender is not married to the victim the law now recognises this. But when it comes to spouses the classification "rape" is suddenly removed. So the only relevant question here is whether marriage means we think a rape is somehow less serious than it would be outside of marriage.

Why would someone think that except based on old-fashioned and sexist ideas about men owning their wives?

The distinction cannot be based on the risk of false allegations. At the moment a girlfriend who is not married to her boyfriend can falsely allege rape; a woman can falsely allege rape by her colleague; a student can falsely allege rape by her classmate; a businesspersoncan falsely allege rape by a business rival... just as all these people can falsely allege they were slapped or kicked by the other person. In every crime (NOT just rape, NOT just sex crime) with every set of people there is ALWAYS the risk of false allegations. We rely on proper police investigation, proper screening by the Attorney-General's Chambers, and proper examination of the evidence by judges, to prevent injustices from being done. Why should rape within marriage be seen as so special as to be taken outside of this process, so that even where the evidence is overwhelming it is not considered rape?

purpledragon84 SG

Why should rape within marriage be seen as so special as to be taken outside of this process, so that even where the evidence is overwhelming it is not considered rape?

maybe coz if she files for divorce the bastard's going to lose half his house.

Glasscastlezine SG

purpledragon84:

Criminal proceedings are separate from divorce proceedings. It's already possible for wives to file for divorce now; making marital rape a crime doesn't affect that. What isn't possible is for rapists (of their wives) to be punished under criminal law. Also, we already recognise that spouses cannot hit each other. At the moment wives could also falsely claim that their husbands hit them, but we rely on the legal system to make sure their claims are discredited. Surely you don't think the risk of false allegations in divorce proceedings means we should allow men to hit their wives? Why does the situation change when the beating is with a penis instead of a fist?

yamizi SG

yamizi:

Why would someone think that except based on old-fashioned and sexist ideas about men owning their wives?

Understood. You made a good point. However, as I already said, I am neither to nor against for this idea at this juncture, considering the many possible complications it may lead into.

Anyway the section that I had mentioned is not outrage of modesty, but causing grievious hurt to another. I hope you get my point, there is still avenue in addressing the issue, though it may not be equivalent to what you deem it to be.

I'm not sure are you aware of this, the traditional thinking is that women are men's property in marriages, that is why rape is became an exclusion in marriage.

yamizi SG

purpledragon84:

It does affect for the divorce proceedings. The affidavits would have to include the reasons for filing a divorce proceedings.

purpledragon84 SG

after the episode about sexual inequality, I've decided not to get involved in such male-vs-female-infront-of-law discussion anymore.. it's endless, and nobody's views gets changed.. just scold scold insult insult.. nothing gets done..

or maybe i've gotten lazy recently..

yamizi SG

or maybe i've gotten lazy recently..

Actually you're very right. Haha =)

Kuali Baba SG

Fear of abuse is not a good reason to stop this from becoming legislation, but if the loopholes can be tightened (such as by including evidence of injuries), then it'd be so much better.

« Previous Page Next Page »