Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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?
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.
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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?
It does affect for the divorce proceedings. The affidavits would have to include the reasons for filing a divorce proceedings.
-
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..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
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..
Actually you're very right. Haha =) -
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.
-
In principle, the govt should criminalise marital rape.Maybe it can be called forced marital sex.But such act might be difficult to proof in court.
-
Yamizi:
Yes, grievous hurt is another example. But again, why are we shying away from calling the incident rape? Not just outrage of modesty, not just grievous hurt, but rape. If rape is not the same as grievous hurt outside of marriage, why does this change within marriage? The law should reflect what things are. Forced sex is rape, and someone who forces sex on someone should be formally censured by criminal law as a rapist. Marriage has no bearing on the question.
A raped wife can already divorce the husband for the incident. This was brought up in Parliament in 2004. So taking away immunity from criminal law for marital rape does not affect the divorce proceeding. It just means that proper criminal proceedings can also be taken, in addition to divorce proceedings. It means recognising that rape is more than just "a reason to divorce someone". It is worse than something like "adultery" or "irreconcilable differences". It is sexual violence, which cannot be tolerated in a decent society, and which should be addressed with criminal punishment and a criminal record.
I know that wives were traditionally seen as property of their husbands. That view is wrong, and the law needs to change.
-
Is spousal abuse already a separate punishable offence under the law?
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
Yamizi:
Yes, grievous hurt is another example. But again, why are we shying away from calling the incident rape? Not just outrage of modesty, not just grievous hurt, but rape. If rape is not the same as grievous hurt outside of marriage, why does this change within marriage? The law should reflect what things are. Forced sex is rape, and someone who forces sex on someone should be formally censured by criminal law as a rapist. Marriage has no bearing on the question.
A raped wife can already divorce the husband for the incident. This was brought up in Parliament in 2004. So taking away immunity from criminal law for marital rape does not affect the divorce proceeding. It just means that proper criminal proceedings can also be taken, in addition to divorce proceedings. It means recognising that rape is more than just "a reason to divorce someone". It is worse than something like "adultery" or "irreconcilable differences". It is sexual violence, which cannot be tolerated in a decent society, and which should be addressed with criminal punishment and a criminal record.
I know that wives were traditionally seen as property of their husbands. That view is wrong, and the law needs to change.
What I mean that it can affect is that an alledged rape was mock up in order to take the husband's assets. But of course you would have disagree on this point.Anyway, I'm not here to debate, if you're really so fervent about this, you can consider writing into the Ministry of Law to voice your concern. =)
-
Indeed, I have written to my MPs, and my first post was actually including a URL for those who are interested in taking action to access to find out how to work to change the law. It's been moderated though. If anyone is interested PM me and I will end you the website.
-
Glass, you're welcome. Unlike some people here, I'm not about to let petty leglislature complications like one of the sexists mentioned get in the way of real justice. As we can see there are many un-sexist people here who understand the real meaning of justice, like Dinky, Kuali etc.
Only the sexists think martial rape is can be resolved acceptably by going for a divorce and dealing with it thru the assorted CIVIL law proceedings. Rape is a CRIME, it shouldn't be dealt with in the capacity of a civil proceeding, but as a criminal offence, even if the victim is married to the accused. All that bullsh1t about "oh there is many ways of seeking redress" is nonsense from people who obviously are not in the know and have had no experience of any sort with victims of martial rape. They don't want all your petty legal wrangles or loopholes. They want justice, in the form of a law that charges the person who hurt them in court with EXACTLY what they did, not "assault" or "spousal abuse" or anything else. Those people raped, thats what they should be charged with. Some people love calling a spade by all sorts of fancy names, I say, call a spade a spade. And just because I called them out on their sexism, they claim I "fail justice" but then those same morons wouldn't know justice if it walked up to them and punched them in their f*cking balls.
Glass, drop me a PM and send me the website. Thanks =)
-
overrated laws
female rights too much already
equal rights becoming women climbing over men riao
-
Giving rape victims an avenue of justice is letting women climb over men. Seriously we all know who the real sexists are here.
-
Well..a Texas Oil man once said before....If he had 'brought' the eclusive rights to a piece of land/seabed..He jolly well have the complete exclusive lawful drilling rights to drill it whenever he wants..Lolz..
-
What is 'Justice' to you guys ?
Maritial Rape ? lol.. man i hope i will never encounter this kind of problem.
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
Indeed, I have written to my MPs, and my first post was actually including a URL for those who are interested in taking action to access to find out how to work to change the law. It's been moderated though. If anyone is interested PM me and I will end you the website.
PM me link also. thanks.
-
Sure.. why not?.. we already have the woman's charter and Singaporean court is already well-known to side with woman. It'll be just another law...
Bottom line is.. they have to get married first for them to have a chance to use this against their husbands. Good luck.
-
Sex within marriage is a conjugal duty both parties in the marriage contract. If you want to change the terms of the contract in Singapore, fine...but also remove the presupposition that the wife should be entitled to half of the husband's assets should the marriage break down. Men are required to pay alimony at divorce, why not the woman? If the wife earns more than the husband, he should be able to claim alimony. If the woman contributed less financially to the marriage, she cannot expect to claim half of the marital assets. If you want a modern interpretation of marriage, then let's go all the way and demand complete equality. Recognize pre-nuptial agreements in Singapore and abolish the age-old concept that the husband is expected to provide for the family.
-
as i said. lol there's no such thing as sexual equality la. all bullcrap.
the truth is simply this. everyone just wants to look out for their own interest, so who can rightly say that anything is equal?
the person who is on the left side thinks the person in the centre is too much on the right. tts the major flaw in 4justice's judgement.
-
oxford mushroom: I agree with you that maintenance laws should not assume the man should pay the woman. However, I think that unpaid labour within the marriage, as well as sacrifices of individual earning capacity for the financial welfare of the overall partnership, should be taken into account when distributing assets. For many couples in the older generations where gender roles were extremely rigid, in practice this will often mean men will end up paying more maintenance.
To me however, all this is separate from the issue of marital rape. Nobody is entitled to use another person's body sexually without their consent. It is violence. Nobody should see "submitting to violence" as a "conjugal duty". Violence is always unacceptable. We already recognised that women and men cannot hit their spouses; why does this change when the beating is with a sexual organ instead of a fist?
dumbdumb: if violence by one category of person against another is not recognised for what it is, that is basically saying violence by the first category against the second category is okay. That means there is a hierarchy, the first category of people is allowed to dominate the second. There is nothing ambiguous about whether that is inequality or not.
-
Originally posted by gigabyte14:
overrated laws
female rights too much already
equal rights becoming women climbing over men riao
yesh yeash... -
Originally posted by gigabyte14:
overrated laws
female rights too much already
equal rights becoming women climbing over men riao
if u want to climb on top of me, i dun mind. You do the pumping work and i relax. -
Sex is base on agreement and consent, whether as stranger or maritial relationship, unless both side are committed, otherwise it is an offence to intrude into individual privacy. And sad to say that usually guys have the higher urge to commit non consent sex and in the end, get themselve into trouble. Remember the quote "See me can, touch me not"
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
oxford mushroom: I agree with you that maintenance laws should not assume the man should pay the woman. However, I think that unpaid labour within the marriage, as well as sacrifices of individual earning capacity for the financial welfare of the overall partnership, should be taken into account when distributing assets. For many couples in the older generations where gender roles were extremely rigid, in practice this will often mean men will end up paying more maintenance.
To me however, all this is separate from the issue of marital rape. Nobody is entitled to use another person's body sexually without their consent. It is violence. Nobody should see "submitting to violence" as a "conjugal duty". Violence is always unacceptable. We already recognised that women and men cannot hit their spouses; why does this change when the beating is with a sexual organ instead of a fist?
It is a long-held common law concept that marriage is a contract that confers conjugal rights. As early as in 1736, Hale (History of the pleas of the Crown) stated
""But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract."
-
This legal principle can be changed in line with changes in societal and cultural norms. It is for Singaporeans to decide if marital rape should be criminalized today. I would support such a move only as part of a wider reform of marital laws that confer greater equality to both gender. As long as we hold archaic ideas of spousal responsibility and place undue and inequitable demands on the husband, I cannot support a change in the legal principle. And I do not think Singapore society will support it either.