Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape
-
Originally posted by reyes:
next time before you open hand to write. read carefully.
try acting tough and dont use your brain, dont serve your cause well.
Try to learn to speak properly. Oh wait, you're from the reject of the gene pool. I read properly, perhaps you're too retarded to realise we all know u're just some male chauvanist pig who can't admit women have equal rights to you.If I want to ask someone to use my brain, for a start I'd make sure I get the simple things which require using the brain, like writing PROPERLY, right to begin with.
-
Originally posted by reyes:
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!
No loser, you seem to fail to grasp that you've been asked to f*ck off for being a male chauvanist pig. We don't tolerate racists like the KKK, why should we tolerate you? Its laughable if you went up to someone who believes in racial harmony and is anti-KKK and told them "you're narrow minded because you tell people who encourage discrimination and falsehoods to go f*ck themselves". Its equally laughable that you're calling me narrow minded for calling out your sexism, male chauvanistic views and degradory view of women.
You've proven nothing, but thanks for a pathetic attempt at sounding smart. Sorry. Reyes, you epic fail.
-
lol, 4justice is only for justice if it's her/his justice.
what's the difference between you and hitler then?
from what i've been seeing, there are more people who are against you than for your cause.
better work on your people skills first before pushing for any reformation.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
lol, 4justice is only for justice if it's her/his justice.
what's the difference between you and hitler then?
from what i've been seeing, there are more people who are against you than for your cause.
better work on your people skills first before pushing for any reformation.
Whats your justice then? No justice for victims because you're worried about some hypothetical victims who do not exist? I'm sure thats very very just. I don't mind people who're against me if they're people like Reyes and you. Smart people like Dinky can see the validity of my points. Heck he's even reinforced some of it. Who cares what some backwards, ignorant, unthoughtful or just plain sexist people think as long as its the smart ones who have the proper discourse. ^^
And I'm sorry, as you can see, I reserve my people skills for smart people like Dinky even though he has also pointed out similiar points to yours. I don't bother wasting it on people like Reyes that's for sure. People like him are for my sadistic amusement
I enjoy a nice civilized discussion with Dinky, I also enjoy a nice putting down of the males who think non-existing hypothetical victims carry the same weight as existing, suffering victims just because those hypothetical victims are also male. -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Whats your justice then? No justice for victims because you're worried about some hypothetical victims who do not exist? I'm sure thats very very just. I don't mind people who're against me if they're people like Reyes and you. Smart people like Dinky can see the validity of my points. Heck he's even reinforced some of it. Who cares what some backwards, ignorant, unthoughtful or just plain sexist people think as long as its the smart ones who have the proper discourse. ^^
And I'm sorry, as you can see, I reserve my people skills for smart people like Dinky even though he has also pointed out similiar points to yours. I don't bother wasting it on people like Reyes that's for sure. People like him are for my sadistic amusement
I enjoy a nice civilized discussion with
Dinky, I also enjoy a nice putting down of the males who think
non-existing hypothetical victims carry the same weight as
existing, suffering victims just because those hypothetical victims
are also male.not really bothering to read.
the way i see it, you're just here making noise, i don't think you're even serious about your cause. you want to see change? you need to convince people, that your cause is right and just, which means you need to earn our respect, and our empathy
now, to us, you're just barking like a mad dog begging to be put down. continue what you're doing, ya? i'm sure we'll see a change in... maybe another 80 years, after when you're dead and gone, and someone else nicer comes along to fight for the victims.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
not really bothering to read.
the way i see it, you're just here making noise, i don't think you're even serious about your cause. you want to see change? you need to convince people, that your cause is right and just, which means you need to earn our respect, and our empathy
now, to us, you're just barking like a mad dog begging to be put down. continue what you're doing, ya? i'm sure we'll see a change in... maybe another 80 years, after when you're dead and gone, and someone else nicer comes along to fight for the victims.
It's ok. When guys come here and go "oh cannot because the hypothetical non-existing victims are guys too", that's making noise already.
Who needs your respect and empathy? People like Dinky are the ones who matter anyway, not the male chauvanists. you pass a law, and whether the male chauvanists like it or not, they will be subjected to it anyway.
If the change happens in less than 80 years, I'm going to lol and rub it in your face. Sux to be you.
Amazing how sgforums got so many idiots who set themselves up to be pwned badly
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
It's ok. When guys come here and go "oh cannot because the hypothetical non-existing victims are guys too", that's making noise already.
Who needs your respect and empathy? People like Dinky are the ones who matter anyway, not the male chauvanists. you pass a law, and whether the male chauvanists like it or not, they will be subjected to it anyway.
If the change happens in less than 80 years, I'm going to lol and rub it in your face. Sux to be you.
Amazing how sgforums got so many idiots who set themselves up to be pwned badly
you're welcome to. if there's any change, i'm very certain, it's not because of you.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
you're welcome to. if there's any change, i'm very certain, it's not because of you.
Don't worry. As long as the people who actually benefit know who's contributed, who cares what the ignorant think? Funny that for someone "not bothering to read" you feel a compulsive need to keep replying. Last word syndrome? Ok you can have it. Go ahead and have the last word. You have my permission. -
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Don't worry. As long as the people who actually benefit know who's contributed, who cares what the ignorant think? Funny that for someone "not bothering to read" you feel a compulsive need to keep replying. Last word syndrome? Ok you can have it. Go ahead and have the last word. You have my permission.past traumatic experience, what's your excuse for being a jerk?
-
hey not point argueing " fall justice who use bad languages when she cant use evidence to back up her/him cause?
u still havent quote me, which sentence i make is MCP or sexist. show it and prove it. it u cant, shut up and go to school.
-
as long we you dont agree with " fall justice" u r sexist and MCP.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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".
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
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
- Seduce a rich guy
- Marry him
- Refuse to have sex with him no matter what; if he tries to force himself onto you, threaten to sue him for maritial rape
- Hire PI to monitor him
- Guy can't stand it anymore and have sex with another woman
- File for divorce with evidence of infidelity
- Be entitled to half of his assets
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
Guide for Gals to Get Rich
- Seduce a rich guy
- Marry him
- Refuse to have sex with him no matter what; if he tries to force himself onto you, threaten to sue him for maritial rape
- Hire PI to monitor him
- Guy can't stand it anymore and have sex with another woman
- File for divorce with evidence of infidelity
- Be entitled to half of his assets
hurray for equality of the sexes. somehow don't feel so equal hor?
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
Guide for Gals to Get Rich
- Seduce a rich guy
- Marry him
- Refuse to have sex with him no matter what; if he tries to force himself onto you, threaten to sue him for maritial rape
- Hire PI to monitor him
- Guy can't stand it anymore and have sex with another woman
- File for divorce with evidence of infidelity
- Be entitled to half of his assets
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 $$$.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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.
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.
-
after the rape, the husband go slp that time, use fatum's favourite method lo..
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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.
-
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?