Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
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.
see? that's why men have no way to redress themselves. nobody believes that a guy can be psychologically abused. and that's why, you're bias.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
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.
What redress you want? Go b1tchslap the girl lor. lol I thot men were supposed to be tough, thats why they're the ones doing the raping lol.Ok not all men rape, But like I said, is your being physically abused by the girl far worse than being raped? If not, I say we work on the more serious cases 1st eh? After that you want to start a thread saying "pass a law for the psychologically abused" i'll come and support you.
And I'm not biased at all. Trust me, if women had penises and men had pussies and WE were the ones doing the raping, I'd sure as f*cking hell say "enact a martial law!" as well.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
see? that's why men have no way to redress themselves. nobody believes that a guy can be psychologically abused. and that's why, you're bias.
no. didnt say i dont believe u can be psychologically abused. thats silly. ANYONE with a brain can be psychologically abused. However you notice I'm asking how its possible for you to be raped.Unless you've been using "rape" as a substitute for "psychological abuse" and im not so sure rape victims would be happy about that. It's like substituting "orphaned" for "no ice cream". Both are not nice, but I doubt the orphans would feel their plight is on par with someone having no ice cream to eat. lol
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
What redress you want? Go b1tchslap the girl lor. lol I thot men were supposed to be tough, thats why they're the ones doing the raping lol.Ok not all men rape, But like I said, is your being physically abused by the girl far worse than being raped? If not, I say we work on the more serious cases 1st eh? After that you want to start a thread saying "pass a law for the psychologically abused" i'll come and support you.
And I'm not biased at all. Trust me, if women had penises and men had pussies and WE were the ones doing the raping, I'd sure as f*cking hell say "enact a martial law!" as well.
let everyone here judge for themselves if you're rational or not. i personally feel you're not unbias enough to make a decision which will affect the whole of singapore. i'm not saying that i am either. but i don't assume that i am fair enough to make a motion.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
no. didnt say i dont believe u can be psychologically abused. thats silly. ANYONE with a brain can be psychologically abused. However you notice I'm asking how its possible for you to be raped.Unless you've been using "rape" as a substitute for "psychological abuse" and im not so sure rape victims would be happy about that. It's like substituting "orphaned" for "no ice cream". Both are not nice, but I doubt the orphans would feel their plight is on par with someone having no ice cream to eat. lol
you were talking about this:
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?
-
that mean i can bend my wife over and ram her anytime i wan?? wah cool!!
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
you were talking about this:
Psychological abuse that leads to the ability to intimidate the wife resulting in martial rape. Psychological abuse itself is NOT martial rape my dear. Lol have you been misunderstanding those 2 sentences? Oh dear
Well I'm glad thats clarified now.So are u going to start a thread asking for avenues of recourse for the psychologically abused? I'll go support if u do ^^
As for being biased, even if I'm biased, the decision still has to be made for the sake of the victims, simply because the pros outweigh the cons by a lot.
-
IMO,
I guess when married, sex is usually consensual, but that does not rule out cases of men who forced it upon their wives. I'm guessing its difficult to give the wife the benefit of the doubt when all of a sudden out of the blue she cries rape. Unless, like someone has mentioned, there were signs of violence or marriage unstability. Then the PPO comes in right? Sure it can be argued that, surely prevention is better than cure.
Currently, it is already quite easy for some women to manipulate the law to their advantage. In marriages, the women are more susceptible to sex, hence the window of manipulation is higher? Possible? It is indeed a grey area as of many other laws. But in the end its a decision of which side is a stronger case, and inadvertently, someone loses out.
just a 2 cents worth, when in discussion, im pretty sure there is no need for sheer arrogance..
-
Originally posted by dinky1409:
IMO,
I guess when married, sex is usually consensual, but that does not rule out cases of men who forced it upon their wives. I'm guessing its difficult to give the wife the benefit of the doubt when all of a sudden out of the blue she cries rape. Unless, like someone has mentioned, there were signs of violence or marriage unstability. Then the PPO comes in right? Sure it can be argued that, surely prevention is better than cure.
Currently, it is already quite easy for some women to manipulate the law to their advantage. In marriages, the women are more susceptible to sex, hence the window of manipulation is higher? Possible? It is indeed a grey area as of many other laws. But in the end its a decision of which side is a stronger case, and inadvertently, someone loses out.
just a 2 cents worth, when in discussion, im pretty sure there is no need for sheer arrogance..
Can I ask in the most academic manner possible, if there are no visible signs of marriage instability or outward violence like in cases of psychological abuse, how do you ensure a PPO is obtained before martial rape happens, bearing in mind most victims of psychological bullying are too terrified to apply for one? How can you be sure that prevention is applied in time before cure is needed?
And yes, either way someone loses out, and I feel that having an avenue for seeking recourse for actual, existing victims of injustice is a stronger case than worrying about non-existing, hypothetical victims of abuse of the law.
-
guys just hold their balls back den will do la.
there are much more things in life other den sex.
in a marriage, when the woman repeatedly keep refusing to have sex with the husband (as the form of "punishment" or wadever crap), den wad for save the marriage? divorce la.
i can tell you, you argue till the cows come home and the owls awake there will be no conclusion.it is a very grey area.
-
this is where public education must come into place. if one feels that he or she is a victim of physical or psychological abuse, he or she must be aware that some avenues or places where he or she can seek help.
even if they do not know where to seek help, friends and family must also play a part. for example if one day i see my sister being very troubled and with physical scarring, as her brother, i must be her voice to seek protection and redress even if she have no courage to do so. likewise for friends... public education plays an important role.
sometimes we just have to pay a little bit more attention to things and people around us and we might just be able to prevent a major mishap from happening...
-
I posted a URL which I think must have been against forum rules as the moderator removed it, so my first message looks a bit disjointed... sorry. If anyone wants to know about the website where I mentioned there is more information (including responses to the questions about false accusations) please feel free to PM me.
-
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.
* 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.
I'm afraid that might not be a very good idea, and its not because its bias against the men or any sort.Rape is a very difficult crime to prove as most of the time the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Since a married couple are mostly alone when they are having sexual intercourse, its basically her words against his. In the case of strangers however, its easier to prove that the guy did indeed rape the girl based on the scenario.
Currently husband who force themselves on their wives however, are not going scot free. They are just being charged under a different crime, assualt, which is a whole lot easier to prove.
So although I agree with the morality of criminalising marital rape, the legal technicality is such that its easier to punish an abusive husband with assualt than with marital rape.
Just my 2 cents
-
Hi all,
Like to apologise my typo of 'revenue' for 'avenue'.
Anyway, I think why are there other laws enacted even though the potential for being abused, I guess every law enacts would have carefully been thought through.
If UK can enact Civil Partnership Act which is the recognition of same gender marriages, I guess, what you're holding on to, the tradition of penis enter vagina then can constitute rape, should change too!
In this manner.
And as mentioned, there are already other sections in the law that can put justice in place.
-
Originally posted by novelltie:
this is where public education must come into place. if one feels that he or she is a victim of physical or psychological abuse, he or she must be aware that some avenues or places where he or she can seek help.
even if they do not know where to seek help, friends and family must also play a part. for example if one day i see my sister being very troubled and with physical scarring, as her brother, i must be her voice to seek protection and redress even if she have no courage to do so. likewise for friends... public education plays an important role.
sometimes we just have to pay a little bit more attention to things and people around us and we might just be able to prevent a major mishap from happening...
The theory is nice. The reality is different. Short of YOU forcing your sister to go to the police against her will, they will not seek help. Yes, that IS the reality of most victims of psychological abuse, they get to a point where they will refuse to seek legal redress out of sheer terror until it's too late (i.e. martial rape happens).
Seems most of you are able to understand seeking redress in theory, but how many of you have experience of real life cases? If you do, you'll know that majority of the victims simply cannot be identified at the "prevention" stage because the reality is that they live in such terror they will not willingly identify themselves. And if you wish me to delve further into the mindsets of such victims, which I am able to do and will happily do so in order to further educate and inform, then here it is: Many victims also develop a sense of irrational shame and will engage in massive effort to make sure that their marriage appears normal on the surface. This sort of mindset is apparent in a wide variety of abuse victims, and has made identifying potential victims of martial rape very very difficult.
Another point: It's nice to talk about prevention, but what about current existing victims? Seeing the perp put away for another crime means some, if not many victims won't get the closure they seek. Often the purpose of convicting a criminal serves as much as an acknowledgement by society of the injustice the victims suffer. If you let the errant husband be convicted of a "lesser" crime there is a high chance the victims will be left damaged and unable to move on for life. Theres a specific reason why rapists aren't charged with assault.
Anyways like I said, the needs of existing actual victims should outweight the needs of non-existing hypothetical victims. Knowing the cruel realities of domestic abuse of women, I have to say that all the current laws simply do not do enough to address the victim's right to justice.
-
Originally posted by hiphop2009:
, den wad for save the marriage? divorce la.
i can tell you, you argue till the cows come home and the owls awake there will be no conclusion.it is a very grey area.
good one
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Can I ask in the most academic manner possible, if there are no visible signs of marriage instability or outward violence like in cases of psychological abuse, how do you ensure a PPO is obtained before martial rape happens, bearing in mind most victims of psychological bullying are too terrified to apply for one? How can you be sure that prevention is applied in time before cure is needed?
And yes, either way someone loses out, and I feel that having an avenue for seeking recourse for actual, existing victims of injustice is a stronger case than worrying about non-existing, hypothetical victims of abuse of the law.
Hmm.. If they are too terrified to apply for one, even if there is a law that criminalise marital rape, they probably be too terrified to cry rape to, no?
I would agree that an avenue for seeking recourse for actual, existing victims of injustice is a stronger case than worrying about non-existing, hypothetical victims of abuse of the law, but in the end its a matter of weighing the consequences of the implementation or not of such law. Hmm, but why is marriage the main factor in the discrepancies of such laws?
I'm not too sure, but could it be that even though the laws are of secular nature, it still recognise some elements of traditional/religious/cultural treatment/practice regarding the rights of married women?
If not, it doesn't make complete sense that your married status determines which laws you are governed under.. hmm...
-
Originally posted by dinky1409:
Hmm.. If they are too terrified to apply for one, even if there is a law that criminalise marital rape, they probably be too terrified to cry rape to, no?
I would agree that an avenue for seeking recourse for actual, existing victims of injustice is a stronger case than worrying about non-existing, hypothetical victims of abuse of the law, but in the end its a matter of weighing the consequences of the implementation or not of such law. Hmm, but why is marriage the main factor in the discrepancies of such laws?
I'm not too sure, but could it be that even though the laws are of secular nature, it still recognise some elements of traditional/religious/cultural treatment/practice regarding the rights of married women?
If not, it doesn't make complete sense that your married status determines which laws you are governed under.. hmm...
Usually the rape is the straw that breaks the camel's back, although it must be said that victims only break their silence after repeated rapes.
But yes. Like you mentioned,
"Hmm, but why is marriage the main factor in the discrepancies of such laws? it doesn't make complete sense that your married status determines which laws you are governed under"
Thats what I wonder too! Why does being married to the rapist make a victim any less of a victim of a rapist? I think thats a major point we are in agreement about.
Perhaps the more pratical course of action would be to make rape a chargable offence even though the accused is married to the victim.
Would have to point out though, that even implementing that course of action still results in a similiar consequence as passing a martial rape law. And I still think the positive consequences far outweight the negatives.
But I would like to bring one more point back into consideration. Your spouse is supposed to be someone you trust the most. Hence that is what makes martial rape a particularly heinous crime. That the rapist is not some random criminal, but the one person you probably trust most in life. That alone, might actually justify an even heavier sentence for a martial rapist, hence the need for a seperate martial rape law. What do you think?
-
there is no need to change the penal code.
if the women who doesnt want to have sex with his husband should file for separation. otherwise, she is deem not to fulfill her responsibility as a wife.
anyway, the wife can also use this as a excuse for divorce isnt it?
why keep an husband when the basic obiligation cannot be fulfill to the husband?
grey area? not grey? unless the mind of the wife is grey, meaning she doesnt know what is part of her responsbility as a wife is?
-
dont understand why ppl use the word rape against their husband.
maybe we should also amend the law that forbid the wife to file for divorce if she decline to have sex with her and the allow the husband to look for other woman.
then the whole saga can be deem fair.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
there is no need to change the penal code.
if the women who doesnt want to have sex with his husband should file for separation. otherwise, she is deem not to fulfill her responsibility as a wife.
anyway, the wife can also use this as a excuse for divorce isnt it?
why keep an husband when the basic obiligation cannot be fulfill to the husband?
grey area? not grey? unless the mind of the wife is grey, meaning she doesnt know what is part of her responsbility as a wife is?
So everytime the husband demand sex, the wife cannot refuse? If the wife has a headache, is not feeling well, is very tired, or is annoyed, she can't say no? That gives the husband the right to rape his wife?
It's bullsh1t to say that sex is a basic obligation as though the wife has no basic rights. Thats a totally sexist way of thinking. You talk as if women are not on equal standing to men. Please f*ck off because this discussion has no place for sexist male pigs like you.
how many thousand of years of evolution and you still think like a barbarian. what a waste of the gene pool. Someone needs to cull you.
-
ohh well, please mind your languages.
what you said doesnt correspondence well with your nick " 4justice".unless it meant " fall justice".
that why i said she should consider divorce. since she is sick and husband is still forcing her to sex. why still stick with such husband? am i right? which part of my comment is sexist and put women in no equal standing? please state and justify comment. otherwise your comment are also sexist. fighting for not knowing what u fighting for. dont be a blinf warrior ok?
aint not satisfying each other sexual needs can be use to file for divorcing right? i dinnt say, wife must do it right? i just say it part of the obilgation? or rather each other obiligation?
-
next time before you open hand to write. read carefully.
try acting tough and dont use your brain, dont serve your cause well.
-
morever, i dont wish to have discussion with you either " fall justice" coz you ask me F... off coz just because i offer alternative view from you.
that itself is narrow minded and self centered.
am i not right? now that i quoted from your statment. it proven!
-
There is no obligation in marriage to have sex. Perhaps you're not too widely read or knowledgable, but there are people who are perfectly happy in romantic but non sexual relationships, many who are even married. A marriage is a life long commitment that covers a great many areas besides sex. It certainly isn't an obligation to have sex.
If a woman has a headache that isn't apparent, or if she just isn't in the mood, its not something a husband would reasonably notice, so why would a husband who asks when shes not in the mood be a bad husband? Nobody is bad for asking, any reasonable man will say "its ok, your welfare is more important". A husband is bad when they don't take no for an answer AFTER asking.
If the husband is unreasonable and commits martial rape, a divorce is not enough once the rape happens. And also, it's not like you can file for a divorce in the minutes a martial rape is committed right? You gotta be really stupid to think that in the final moments when the wife has rejected sex due to any reason and the husband disrespects that, she can file a divorce and be safe from martial rape. What utter crap.
Finally, rape is the act of a man forcefully inserting his penis into a woman's vagina without consent, whether that woman is his wife or not. Nowhere in marriage does it say that marriage means the woman has given permanent consent. In fact marriage says to respect each other, and that means if the wife says no, it means no. If a guy can't respect that, he needs to be castrated because he really needs to be removed from the gene pool.
"maybe we should also amend the law that forbid the wife to file for divorce if she decline to have sex with her and the allow the husband to look for other woman."
"grey area? not grey? unless the mind of the wife is grey, meaning she doesnt know what is part of her responsbility as a wife is?"
Anyone reading your retarded backwards comments know that you're just a male chauvanist pig.
People who have common sense will see what I said perfectly correspond with my nick. I have no problems with people like you who fail to see the link between what I say and what my nick is. Maybe you'd like to consult with Dinky. He seems to be vastly your intellectual superior and can tell you how to use a spoon to eat.