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...

Glasscastlezine SG

oxford mushroom, I am a Singaporean. I am asking fellow Singaporeans, including presumably you, to change their minds. How are "Singaporeans" going to "decide" on changes in "societal and cultural norms" other than through conversation with one another? Why do you retreat into some imputed notion of what "we" support rather than just making up your own mind as a person? Do you support making both changes or do you not? That's the important question, not what you imagine everyone else thinks.

I find it bizarre that you think the situation where both sides are screwed over (women can be raped, men are subject to undue financial burdens) is preferable to a situation where only one side is screwed over. Everyone in the misery together, somehow that's better? For the record, I support gender-neutral maintenance laws REGARDLESS of whether marital rape is also criminalised. But I likewise support criminalising marital rape regardless of the maintenance laws. Each is a separate injustice that needs to be dealt with.

It is deeply anti-human to believe it's acceptable for society to have "package deals" where financial contributions justify non-consensual penetration. What's the difference between marriage and sex slavery then? Slaves get financially maintained as well, you know? As do farm animals. (And yes, I know where marital rape immunity historically came from. Britain traditionally treated women like chattel. It's now moving away from that I would hope that Singapore can do so too.)

parn SG

Under the Penal Code in Singapore, a man who forces intercourse upon his wife is not taken to have committed rape, unless they were separated or she had previously taken out a protection order or injunction against sexual intercourse against him.

This is wholly unacceptable. Women's rights to protection of bodily security and sovereignty should not vapourise upon marriage. It is absurd to require legal applications for orders and injunctions against being attacked. Sexual violence by any person against any person should always be criminal.

* Suggestions for action you can take to help change the law.

* A model letter you can customise and send to your MPs, the Prime Minister, the newspapers, and your school or company or club newsletters.

* A Cheat Sheet responding to common arguments against criminalising marital rape.

Are you sure you're not posting nonsense?

Glasscastlezine SG

What aspect of this do you think is nonsense? The first post is a bit disjointed because there was originally a line saying "Visit [this site] for...", but it was moderated to take out the link, so the second half doesn't seem to make much sense now. But otherwise, why would you think it was nonsense?

parn SG

If not nonsense, then how can "man who forces intercourse upon his wife is not taken to have committed rape"???

I don't think this is right. Where do you get this source of information from?

It's a criminal offence for man to force sex upon his wife.

Penal Code 375, Subsection (1) - Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis without her consent shall be guilty of an offence of RAPE.

You did not post the complete Penal Code 375, what you have posted is the subsection (4) of the Penal Code 375 which only states that it is not an offence for a man to have sex with his wife with her consent. Refer to subsection (1).

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Well all I can say is that the militant misandy of 4Justice probably helps the cause of gender equality for the human race as much as the MCPs that she fights so strongly against.

Which is really sad actually, life's too short to live in hate and contempt. It irony with some forms of militant feminism that in fighting for the rights of women they become so much like the very worst of men, the very things they were fighting against in the first place.

All the bigotry, hate, violence and ignorance isn't removed one bit, it's just transfered from one gender to another.

4Justice SG

Funny thing is, people here accuse me of being a militant feminist, people in the "should women do NS?" thread accuse me of being anti-females. You people are so fickle and biased that you have no fucking clue what equality is, you're just looking out for your own gender's interests.

Fantagf SG

Oh, dear me, I am seeing stars!

elementalangel SG

actually i got answer la.. why the fuck do u need such a law?

if what 4justice said is true about the sheep and wolf thingy... then why teh fuck would the sheep want to marry a wolf..

this law is a total waste of time.

u marry a rapist and u get raped, too bad.

just like u marry a serial killer and get killed , whose fault?

elementalangel SG

if this law goes pass, all the rich tai tai who wants to marry male whores can go abstain sex from their hubbies and then sue them for adultry if they ever commit it... lol

Glasscastlezine SG

parn, subsection (4) is an exception to subsection (1). Subsection (1) is subject to subsection (4). In other words, rape is forced intercourse by a man with a woman except where they are married.

Elementalangel, if you marry a serial killer and get killed, it is THE SERIAL KILLER'S fault. Just as if your husband rapes you, it is YOUR HUSBAND'S fault. The law should reflect this.

elementalangel SG

what i was trying to say is that, it takes both hands to clap, you have to marry him before all these can happen, why not find out more about the man before marrying instead of making all htese laws?

BadzMaro SG

lol ...

skythewood SG

If your wife don't want to have sex with you for extended period of time, there will be grounds for divorce. Similarly for adultry. Divorce is becoming too common these days...

I think the law is neccessary, you need consent to do stuff... would you like it if your wife suddenly turn out to be SM and tie you up for kinky sex? maybe you do, but i hope you get what i mean...

Glasscastlezine SG

elementalangel, so do you think we should make exceptions for the crimes of murder, theft, poisoning, knifing and beating someone, just because the victim is the husband or wife of the perpetatror?

Obviously if you could tell in advance that someone was going to beat and rape you, if you had any choice you wouldn't want to marry them. But over time, people may change, or in different circumstances people may show sides to them you hadn't seen before. Domestic violence happens. Murder between spouses does occur. Nobody would dream of saying that a woman who killed her husband, or a man who broke his wife's arm, should be exempt from the laws against murder or assault. Why change this for rape?

Rape is already a crime under the law. We all recognise (I hope!) this is necessary. But the Penal Code contains an extra provision saying that this does not apply when the rapist is married to the victim. I'm saying get rid of the extra provision.

The question is whether something which was wrongful violence outside of marriage, can suddenly become acceptable within marriage.

LifeIsBeautiful SG

I'm for but not Singaporean. Some husbands actually force themselves to their wife even with violence physically or psychologically or both.

Wah liew, what about the wives who force themselves on the husband... with bondage and violence... u alll cannot just help the girls leh.

parn SG

Wah liew, what about the wives who force themselves on the husband... with bondage and violence... u alll cannot just help the girls leh.

Are you the end-product of that unfortunate wife-raped-husband incident more than 10+ years ago?

jojobeach SG

Wah liew, what about the wives who force themselves on the husband... with bondage and violence... u alll cannot just help the girls leh.

Harlow.. if a man's weenie can stand sedee ia.. is he in some agony or ecstasy ?

I wonder how can a woman force herself upon a man and rape him.. if the man's weenie is not hardened ????

Kuali Baba SG

By the way, rape is defined as forced carnal knowledge of another person, and thus is not considered to be exclusively a male crime. (Edit: It is in a few places, and forced intercourse of other forms is categorised as 'sexual assault' - maybe we should propose to cover sexual assault including rape)

There are lots of things out there that can make a man have a hard-on, in case you haven't noticed - Viagra, pumps, rings, etc. And there are strap-ons for the back door as well.

All I'm saying is that it is possible for a woman to commit rape, even though it is rare.

jojobeach SG

There are lots of things out there that can make a man have a hard-on, in case you haven't noticed - Viagra, pumps, rings, etc. And there are strap-ons for the back door as well.

All I'm saying is that it is possible for a woman to commit rape, even though it is rare.

Technically .. those methods only work when the man is sexually aroused...

So.. if a man is sexually aroused and a woman force herself on him...... how can that be rape ?

Unless.. the man just wants to play with himself.. and refuse to have sex with his wife....

Then... I don't know man....

It's more like problem with the marriage.. rather than rape.

Glasscastlezine SG

Jojobeach, evidence of physical arousal doesn't mean that the physically aroused person will always want to have sex with anything in sight. Just because a man has an erection, or a woman is experiencing vaginal lubrication (for example), doesn't mean it's okay to try to engage in intercourse with them if they are non-consenting. It's still rape.

« Previous Page Next Page »