Only "Yes" Means "Yes": Criminalise Marital Rape
-
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.)
-
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.Are you sure you're not posting nonsense?
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh, dear me, I am seeing stars!
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
lol ...
-
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...
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
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. -
Originally posted by LifeIsBeautiful:
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? -
Originally posted by LifeIsBeautiful:
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 ????
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.Originally posted by parn: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).
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine: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.
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine: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.
Originally posted by Kuali Baba: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.
Originally posted by PRP: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.
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.
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:and that doesn't mean that i don't feel that rape victims need protection.
Originally posted by dumbdumb!: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.Originally posted by yamizi: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.
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 even where the evidence is overwhelming as to be taken outside of this process, so that it is not considered rape?
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?
Originally posted by 4Justice: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 4Justice: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.
-
Eh...I have a question. How about those real rape?
Marital Rape can go court and complain, but Real Rape only go court and get shamed.
-
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
The punishment for rapist is very harsh.
-
Originally posted by Glasscastlezine:
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.
Oh .. so it's like... your body is saying " YEsss.. Yesss..." but the mouth says " Nooo... Noooo...." ?
We the know.. that .. for a female to have sex.. without vaginal lubrication.. also can .
But for the males.... it's not likely for male to have sex when his sex organ is not erected lah.........
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Technically .. those methods only work when the man is sexually aroused...
That isn't true for c***rings and Viagra. I won't delve into how but it is possible for women to commit rape.