Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape
-
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. -
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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.
Visit http://www.glass-castle.org for:
* 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.So if you had a wonderful sex with your wife last night, this morning got into some fight and she wants to take you to court for raping her last night, then how?
Declare first ah, I am neither for nor against this campaign of yours.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
So if you had a wonderful sex with your wife last night, this morning got into some fight and she wants to take you to court for raping her last night, then how?
Declare first ah, I am neither for nor against this campaign of yours.
Then that means that you obviously married the wrong women.
I'm for but not Singaporean. Some husbands actually force themselves to their wife even with violence physically or psychologically or both.
-
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
Then that means that you obviously married the wrong women.
I'm for but not Singaporean. Some husbands actually force themselves to their wife even with violence physically or psychologically or both.
People changes. That's the issue.
I have heard about why some husbands go for prostitution because the wives don't want to have sex with them.
Again, I say first, I don't support such maritial rape too.
It's a very very grey area to touch with.
-
very grey area. personally i think laws don't really protect people. ppl only try to manipulate the law to their own advantages. like yamizi said, the wife could frame the husband, and declare that he raped her etc.
and the wife could use this law to punish the husband by refusing sex etc. i'm concerned with this as a christian, because for us, we believe that once a couple is married, it's really 2 bodies becoming 1. the husband body does not belong just to himself, but also to the wife, equally, and vice versa.
or what if it becomes like the ah long movie, "buy the sack of rice, nv get a chance to cook it"
But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.
In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
-
I support it but many Singaporeans are still too male chauvanist pig to support it. Apparently the rights of men not being falsely accused of martial rape is more weighty thanthe rights of women not being subjected to martial rape.
The least we can do is to make proviso for such a crime to be brought to trial.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
i'm concerned with this as a christian, because for us, we believe that once a couple is married, it's really 2 bodies becoming 1. the husband body does not belong just to himself, but also to the wife, equally, and vice versa.
Keep religion out of legal matters please. We're a secular state. I'm sure wives who've genuinely been subjected to martial rape don't think highly of yr christian views. -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I support it but many Singaporeans are still too male chauvanist pig to support it. Apparently the rights of men not being falsely accused of martial rape is more weighty thanthe rights of women not being subjected to martial rape.
The least we can do is to make proviso for such a crime to be brought to trial.
Then maybe we should have a provision that wife raping husband as well?
Once a provision is made, it becomes enforceable.
The catch is, if rape has occurred, what must happened before it? Certain degree of physical violence. That would be sufficient to ask for a Personal Protection Order to keep the bad husband away. While meantime seeking legal means to resolve the issue.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Then maybe we should have a provision that wife raping husband as well?
Once a provision is made, it becomes enforceable.
The catch is, if rape has occurred, what must happened before it? Certain degree of physical violence. That would be sufficient to ask for a Personal Protection Order to keep the bad husband away. While meantime seeking legal means to resolve the issue.
Sure. Why not. Altho that will be hard since by legal definition, rape constitutes the insertion of the penis into the vagina.While we're at it, lets also make it illegal for wifes to refuse sex for their husbands eh? I'm sure that would please you barbarians
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Keep religion out of legal matters please. We're a secular state. I'm sure wives who've genuinely been subjected to martial rape don't think highly of yr christian views.of course i don't condone it either. unfortunately i really do think that laws can be manipulated. like what yamizi says.
and i think laws are never fair to the men la. if you want something to be a law, it must be equal to all, and cannot be manipulated.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I support it but many Singaporeans are still too male chauvanist pig to support it. Apparently the rights of men not being falsely accused of martial rape is more weighty thanthe rights of women not being subjected to martial rape.
The least we can do is to make proviso for such a crime to be brought to trial.
that's so untrue. the law has always favoured the women. that's why it's more impt to protect the men from false allegations. rape is a very serious matter, too serious to be used as a mean to spite the husband because of a petty quarrel.
and yes, i think some women are capable of doing such things just to spite their husbands. or blackmail the husband into her point of view.
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.
but rape allegation is just too serious to be messed around with just petty disagreements.
too bad that humans are like that, cunning and evil, if everyone was honest and pure in motive, i wouldn't have a problem with that law, because i wouldn't fear that it will be misused and manipulated.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
of course i don't condone it either. unfortunately i really do think that laws can be manipulated. like what yamizi says.
and i think laws are never fair to the men la. if you want something to be a law, it must be equal to all, and cannot be manipulated.
So because a law can be manipulated, we cannot have this law, so what path of recourse do women who HAVE undergone martial rape have then? I have yet to see any better suggestions from you guys. Anything less than actually being able to bring a man to court for the specific crime of martial rape is not acceptable. What if the husband never physically abused the wife but psychologically abused her? What if thats how he intimidated the wife into martial rape, then what?There is no certain degree of physical violence, hence it won't be sufficient to ask for a Personal Protection Order to keep the bad husband away. And since bad husband cannot be kept away, there is no legal means to resolve the issue, unlike what Yamizi mistakenly said.
So how then? Husband cannot be charged for any physical abuse or assault, PPO cannot be taken out against him, there is ONLY the specific crime of martial rape, what recourse does the victim have in such a situation? Should the law be revised to provide a means of justice for such victims? I say yes, even if that means men are at a higher risk of abuse of a law, because being martial raped is far worse than being falsely accused of martial rape.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
that's so untrue. the law has always favoured the women. that's why it's more impt to protect the men from false allegations. rape is a very serious matter, too serious to be used as a mean to spite the husband because of a petty quarrel.
and yes, i think some women are capable of doing such things just to spite their husbands. or blackmail the husband into her point of view.
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.
but rape allegation is just too serious to be messed around with just over quarrel.
Hey well the law favours women, but that's cause the law was moslty written by YOU men. And why did men get to write the law? Because society favours men. So you win some, u lose some. If you don't want the law to favour women, maybe your entire gender has to be knocked a few pegs down in society 1st.
-
Also I find the justification of "chance of abuse of the law" laughably stupid as a justification. Then what about rape? Gfs can also abuse that law after a tiff with a bf, girls who regret after a ONS can also abuse that law, so is it justification to abolish rape laws? What about outrage of modesty laws? What about ANY laws then? They ALL have the potential to be abused, and some even more so than a martial rape law. If the potential for a law to be abused is not good enough a justification to scrap them, then why should it even be allowed as valid reason to not pass a martial rape law? Seriously.
-
see what i mean?
i was merely humbly inputing my opinion, and already i'm attacked irrationally and with such spite and hatred. and i didn't even do anything to offend you.
that's precisely why laws must protect men against females too.
you think men cannot be psychologically abused by girls? i was, ya? took me two years to recover and stop fearing. did the law protect me? where can i turn to for help?
so pls, ya? i really empathise with rape victims, whether marital or otherwise, but who emphatise my plight? zzz.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Sure. Why not. Altho that will be hard since by legal definition, rape constitutes the insertion of the penis into the vagina.While we're at it, lets also make it illegal for wifes to refuse sex for their husbands eh? I'm sure that would please you barbarians
Wah, so here I'm suggesting something to make fairness to men and you label us barbarians, how '4Justice' can you be?
Since the current definition of rape is that a penis has to enter a vagina, might as well ask the legislation to review the need to have another definition equal in protecting man from raped by a woman! If you're really '4Justice' in the first place.
The point is that, rape, which relates to violence, would have been able (thought may not necessary mean adequate) addressed since it enables the victimised wife to apply for Personal Protection Order and the whatever follow-ups (ie. police investigation, trials, etc).
The law may not be perfect in covering all ends, but that doesn't mean you're left with no options.
You can consider to go for under Penal Code, Chapter XVI, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Offences Affecting Life, section 320 (Grievous hurt) sub (i) that says 'penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain'.
-
anyway, 4justice's remarks really proves the point la. females (i'm assuming) are irrational and emotional, so much so, that they cannot be trusted not to abuse the law to their advantage to frame others over petty issues.
and that doesn't mean that i don't feel that rape victims need protection.
-
Boy/girl-friend does not have that commitment as recognised as wedded couples. Of course to minimise abuse of law is another weightage to be considered when the legislation is enacting a new law.
Are you a martial raped victim who cannot find revenue in seeking redress?
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Boy/girl-friend does not have that commitment as recognised as wedded couples. Of course to minimise abuse of law is another weightage to be considered when the legislation is enacting a new law.
Are you a martial raped victim who cannot find revenue in seeking redress?
nope. but according to the defination of being psychologically abused, i was a victim.
-
I'm sorry. A PPO against a RAPING husband is as good as applying for a PPO against an attempted murderer.
Like I said, if the potential for a law to be abused is not a good reason for a law to be passed, why do we have our current laws since they all have potential to be abused? Please answer to this point.
Dumbdumb: So were you martially raped? Or raped in anyway by a girl? You know that its impossible since you don't have a vagina. Like I said, you men were the ones who made the law right? And why? because you receive a higher social standing. Maybe if you stepped down to our level, it would be easier to make the law equal don't you think?
It's like saying you put wolves and sheep in the same field, you need to protect the wolves from the sheep as much as u need to protect the sheep from the wolves. Does that make sense to you, honestly?
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Boy/girl-friend does not have that commitment as recognised as wedded couples. Of course to minimise abuse of law is another weightage to be considered when the legislation is enacting a new law.
Are you a martial raped victim who cannot find revenue in seeking redress?
Luckily no. But don't you think just because we're not victims ourselves, means we shouldn't care about those who have suffered and have no AVENUE for seeking redress? (revenue is income, in case you didn't know that) -
Originally posted by yamizi:
You can consider to go for under Penal Code, Chapter XVI, Offences Affecting the Human Body, Offences Affecting Life, section 320 (Grievous hurt) sub (i) that says 'penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain'.
Btw, that law covers sexual assault, if my study of law textbooks hasn't failed me. It doesn't carry the same weightage and does not include the human penis.
The sole definition of rape according to the law which Singapore inherited, is the insertion of the penis into the vagina. So technically its not possible for a man to rape a man too.
The simplest thing is to make rape a chargable offence even when the victim and perp are married. Then you don't need to have a special martial rape law.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I'm sorry. A PPO against a RAPING husband is as good as applying for a PPO against an attempted murderer.
Like I said, if the potential for a law to be abused is not a good reason for a law to be passed, why do we have our current laws since they all have potential to be abused? Please answer to this point.
Dumbdumb: So were you martially raped? Or raped in anyway by a girl? You know that its impossible since you don't have a vagina. Like I said, you men were the ones who made the law right? And why? because you receive a higher social standing. Maybe if you stepped down to our level, it would be easier to make the law equal don't you think?
It's like saying you put wolves and sheep in the same field, you need to protect the wolves from the sheep as much as u need to protect the sheep from the wolves. Does that make sense to you, honestly?
you were talking about being psychologically abused, even if there's no rape.
and, the men "with higher social standing" made that law to protect women, so even if i was raped by a woman, i have no way to seek redress, so why are angry about that law?
you're starting to be too irrational to continue this conversation and discussion in an objective manner.
and unfortunately, your sorry don't cut it. just like sorry don't cut it when a man rapes a woman.
i've proven my point.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Luckily no. But don't you think just because we're not victims ourselves, means we shouldn't care about those who have suffered and have no AVENUE for seeking redress? (revenue is income, in case you didn't know that)i didn't have an avenue to seek redress either. you care for me?
lol, you're already too bias to be objective to talk about creating a law to protect ppl. i don't even know if your motives for wanting the law is pure or not.
-
Irrational is saying "omg im a man i am scared this law might be abused and used against me don't pass it even if there are victims out there who would benefit from it!" Guess who started saying "no because men can kenna" 1st? Oh hey its you. To be irrational 1st and then accuse me of being irrational because I point out its worse to be raped than to be falsely accused of it? Thats some ironic bullsh1t you sprouting there boy
.Please don't make me laugh. And pray tell how are you going to get raped by a woman?
Thats like saying a sheep can kill a wolf.
I say, enact the law, and THEN work on the methods of detection to minimise abuse of the law. Lie detector tests, physical examinations, whatever it takes, but pass the law FIRST.
After that you want to debate on how to make sure innocent people don't kenna, I won't give a rat's ass lol.