New law forbids 'marital rape'
-
Now as per the new law, so called 'maital-rape' is forbidden. extra-marital affair or infidelity is also forbidden. Both laws are opposing each other in making sense, aren't they ?
What could be the reason behind such new law ?
Is it because 'marital-rape' is possible to commit only for one spouse of male gender ?
Or is it because it will happen without fore-play and thus would cause pain ?
-
Ehhh, the word 'extra' makes a difference to 'marital'. Marital is basically relates to marriage. Meaning this new law prevents you from raping your husband/wife. Extra-marital refers to a married man/woman having a sexual relationship with another person who is not their husband/wife. So, they aren't really opposing each other.
-
They not opposing each other. Just social engineering. xD
I don't think it has anything to do with foreplay .... or getting all moist and juicy before sexual penetration. lol
-
hm... what I mean is, both the laws forbid the man from quenching his thirst at all cost. If marital-rape is forbidden, he should be allowed to go elsewhere. they don't want him to do that too.
-
Prostitution is legal in Singapore. As long as the girl is 18 and above and not on social visit pass. I think.
-
I believe they did it because of advocacy from female groups.
I am not so familiar with the details of this issue, but my concern is that it may jeopardize the sanctity of marriage..........Why not just use other types of law which are already existing......because to specifically say that there is a category of crime called marital rape, it is as if the sanctity of marriage is being reduced and compromised.
Because 2 people who are married.....are supposed to have intimacy.
Not to say that the husband can force an intimacy onto the wife, that is not what I am saying.
But in the case that the husband force an intimacy, isnt there already other existing laws which can cover it ? I am not sure what it is, maybe it is called assault, or sexual assault, or whatever it is.
To define a category called marital rape, it feels like the law is being too intrusive, it is invading people's bedrooms. And it is saying that in marriage, for intimacy you still need both people's consent (which is true), but if someone force it, then it is a type of crime which is specific and unique, which in my opinion, is not necessary. A crime is a crime. There is no need to define a crime within the boundaries of marriage.
Anyways I cannot talk and express myself very well. I hope you understand what I mean.
-
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
I believe they did it because of advocacy from female groups.
I am not so familiar with the details of this issue, but my concern is that it may jeopardize the sanctity of marriage..........Why not just use other types of law which are already existing......because to specifically say that there is a category of crime called marital rape, it is as if the sanctity of marriage is being reduced and compromised.
Because 2 people who are married.....are supposed to have intimacy.
Not to say that the husband can force an intimacy onto the wife, that is not what I am saying.
But in the case that the husband force an intimacy, isnt there already other existing laws which can cover it ? I am not sure what it is, maybe it is called assault, or sexual assault, or whatever it is.
To define a category called marital rape, it feels like the law is being too intrusive, it is invading people's bedrooms. And it is saying that in marriage, for intimacy you still need both people's consent (which is true), but if someone force it, then it is a type of crime which is specific and unique, which in my opinion, is not necessary. A crime is a crime. There is no need to define a crime within the boundaries of marriage.
Anyways I cannot talk and express myself very well. I hope you understand what I mean.
True that. -
Yup, veggie bao, right. It is like Mr Shanmugam coming to my bedroom and giving instructions :(
If such law is to be implemented, then there should also be a balance of law for men. There should be another new law giving right for divorce when sex is denied by the other spouse. This right should be as good as the right for divorce when the other spouse comits adultery. I mean, when one deny sex, the other should have right for divorce without paying maintenance and without lossing flat.
Am I right ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
They not opposing each other. Just social engineering. xD
I don't think it has anything to do with foreplay .... or getting all moist and juicy before sexual penetration. lol
At the end of each case, the judge, he or she becomes all moist and juicy........ -
What BS are you spreading here?
What chapter and section are you citing to justify your topic?
375.—(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —(a) without her consent; or(b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age, shall be guilty of an offence.[51/2007](4) No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) against his wife, who is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence —(a) his wife was living apart from him —(i) under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;(ii) under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;(iii) under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or(iv) under a written separation agreement;(b) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;(c) there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;(d) there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or(e) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.[51/2007](5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(b) for an act of penetration against his wife with her consent. -
Beta, not enforced yet. Such law is under consideration
-
oh my god, that means i am no longer protected from being raped by women now? women can rape me and go out and brag about it ler... so sad...
-
Originally posted by Taj.deen.84:
Beta, not enforced yet. Such law is under consideration
Under consideration where?
Bills introduced in parliament?
Or consideration by you?
If it's not law, then why your topic states "new law".
-
v.good.....lets continue with this nonsense and see more decline in marriages...
a world of complete singles....
hoo ray....
-
beta, see this: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/4608-proposed-marital-rape-law-welcomed.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss
Law minister gives green signal.
Well let them implement, but all that a man seek would seek is a permission to divorce upon denying access repeatedly to the spouse for pleasure. And such permission should be granted without holding the man responsible for any 'maintenance'.
-
Marital rape law has not been implemented yet, but Shanmugam has made public statements which are in favour of it, and seems to be positively inclined towards it. This has been covered in the newspaper several times.
Actually,
Shanmugam listened to female advocacy groups, and one of the other things they asked for, is the removal of the law which checks a rape victim's previous sexual track record (to see whether she is a good girl or not).
According to female advocacy groups, such kind of law is very intrusive and demeaning to women, and therefore they ask it to be removed. Shanmugam also agreed, and this has been some time ago. I dont know what is the status now, I think maybe the removal is already implemented but I am not sure.
Anyways, I do not oppose the removal of that law.
But,
Now they ask for marital rape law, which has not been implemented yet, and I am not aware about this, what their reasonings and philosophical considerations are.
Maybe they have good reasonings.
But I feel like there is a trade-off, and the trade-off is, it compromises the sanctity and privacy of marriage, and it actually almost assaults the whole concept of marriage. Not to mention it is also intrusive.
Another trade-off that can be seen is, it almost elevates the interests of women in such a way that it imbalances the relationship and create or designate them to be some kind of special party who is priviledged and protected above others. I believe this is wrong. A law should be just, and it should serve the overall needs of everyone in society. It should also be proportionate and common-sensical. What do we mean by this ? Well, just take a look above, somebody just said, what if the wife refuse to have sex for no good reason, can the husband sue for something.
And yet, there is no law which enable husbands to sue when wife refuse sex ?
So what happens if some male advocacy groups also write letters and petitions to Shanmugam and ask for a law which protects husbands' sexual needs ?
Actually we can see how ridiculous and frivolous this is.
So from this perspective we can see that sometimes advocacy groups will push for their own narrow interests but it is important that before a law is to be implemented, wide array of views must be considered first.
Besides, some of these advocacy groups may be a bit out of step with the mainstream society.
Dont we remember, last time Aware made school programmes which teach children that lesbianism is actually positive and natural, and then many parents objected to it when they found out and finally MOE asked the schools to cancel and pull out that programme from Aware.
That teaches us that advocacy groups usually are out ot step with the mainstream.
So again before this law is implemented, it is better to solicit more views from society.
-
Originally posted by Taj.deen.84:
Now as per the new law, so called 'maital-rape' is forbidden. extra-marital affair or infidelity is also forbidden. Both laws are opposing each other in making sense, aren't they ?
What could be the reason behind such new law ?
Is it because 'marital-rape' is possible to commit only for one spouse of male gender ?
Or is it because it will happen without fore-play and thus would cause pain ?
+1 for the women. Another reason to marry in SG -
Originally posted by Taj.deen.84:
Beta, not enforced yet. Such law is under consideration
The law is already set and can be used here anytime, although it is not legislated yet.
Spousal Rape Laws: 20 Years Laterfrom Victim Policy Pipeline
(Winter 1999/2000 Issue)Introduction
Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract."(1) In the late 1970's, feminists began efforts to change these laws. Currently, rape of a spouse is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (2).
The states used three different techniques for criminalizing spousal rape. The majority of states simply removed the marital rape exemption, without adding any other language. Other states replaced the exclusionary language with text specifying that marriage to the victim is not a defense. A few states created a separate offense of "spousal rape."
While spousal rape is now considered a crime, victims often have to overcome additional legal hurdles to prosecution not present for other victims of rape. These include time limits for reporting the offense, a requirement that force or threat of force be used by the offender, and the fact that some sexual assault offenses still preclude spousal victims.
Exemption Removed, No Language Added
The most common approach states took to eliminate the spousal rape exemption was to simply remove the language which provided it. Pennsylvania initially had a separate offense of spousal rape, which was a lower level offense than non-spousal rape. The law was repealed in 1995 to remove any language which indicated that the relationship between victim and offender was relevant, so that now in Pennsylvania "rape is rape."
Maine is another state which removed its exemption. During the legislative battle to change the law, one legislator even stated, "Any woman who claims she has been raped by her spouse has not been properly bedded." While the law has been revised, attitudes have been slower to change. Advocates report that many people still do not recognize spousal rape as rape.
Marriage Explicitly Excluded as a Defense
Several states have amended their laws to specify that marriage is not a defense to certain crimes. For example, the North Carolina law mentioned above was amended to read: "A person may be prosecuted under this Article whether or not the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense."(3) This law makes it clear that sexual offenses by spouses should be treated the same as sexual assault by others.
Another example is from Washington, D.C., where the law states that a person can be prosecuted for sexual assault against a spouse (4). Even though prior to the enactment of this law, the law did not differentiate between spousal rape and non-spousal rape, this approach was chosen as a way to address the societal presumption that rape can not happen in marriage.
Spousal Rape as a Separate Crime
In seven states, rape of a spouse is a separate crime from rape where the victim and offender are unmarried. For example, in West Virginia, spousal sexual assault is defined as unconsented sexual penetration or sexual intrusion of the perpetrator's spouse. In addition, the perpetrator must use forcible compulsion or a deadly weapon or inflict serious bodily injury upon anyone.(5) This offense is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for two to ten years. The same acts against a person who is not married to the perpetrator result in a sentence of ten to thirty-five years.
An example of a similar statute comes from California. (6) The offenses of rape and spousal rape mostly parallel each other, but with some differences (7). For instance, a person who commits non-spousal rape by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury may not be sentenced to probation or suspended sentence. (8)However, this prohibition does not apply to those who use the same means to commit spousal rape.
Additional Barriers for Spousal Rape Victims
Reporting Requirement
While all states recognize spousal rape as a crime, still, there are ways in which spousal rape is treated differently than non-spousal rape. One difference in some states is a reporting period which is shorter for spousal rape than for other crimes. In Illinois, "prosecution of a spouse of a victim under this subsection ...is barred unless the victim reported such offense to a law enforcement agency or the State's Attorney's office within 30 days after the offense was committed, except when the court finds good cause for the delay." (9)
Prior to 1993, California victims were required to report the offense to a peace officer or prosecutor within 90 days of the crime. In 1993, the state's law was amended to expand the reporting period to one year (as opposed to at least three years for non-spousal rape). (10) The amendment also broadened the professionals to whom the report could be made to include medical personnel, clergy, attorneys, shelter representatives, counselors, judicial officers, rape crisis agencies, and firefighters. The reporting requirement does not apply if the victim's allegation is corroborated by independent evidence that would be admissible during trial. A suggested reason for this and other restrictions on spousal rape victims is that the legislators are afraid people will make up stories of rape for use in a custody proceeding, or to harm their spouses (11).
Force or Threat Required
Another way that some states treat rape of a spouse is treated differently than non-spousal rape is the requirement that force or threat of force must be used by the spouse. For instance, in Tennessee, a person only commits rape or sexual battery of a spouse when the person is armed with a weapon or credible decoy, causes serious bodily injury to the victim, or when the spouses live separate apart and one of them has filed for a divorce or separation. (12) Similarly, in Nevada, marriage is a defense to sexual assault of a spouse except where "the assault was committed by force or by the threat of force." (13) In contrast, many non-spousal sexual assault laws refer to lack of consent, rather than the use of force.
Offenses Precluded for Spouses
Still, in many states, there are some offenses which are unavailable to victims who are married to the offender (14). In some, offenses which involve sexual acts other than penetration are precluded for spouses. For example, in Kansas, sexual battery consists of "the intentional touching of the person of another who is 16 or more years of age, who is not the spouse of the offender and who does not consent thereto, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the offender or another." (15) In Ohio, the offense of "sexual battery" does not apply to a spouse, and the offense of "rape" by the use of a drug or intoxicant which impairs the victim's ability to resist only applies to a spouse who is living separate and apart from the victim. (16)
Conclusion
The states made progress in the past 20 years toward eliminating exemptions for sex offenders who are married to their victims. However, differences in the treatment of rape of a spouse from that of non-spousal rape remain. These include: reporting requirements, requirements that the offender use force or threat of force, and the fact that some offenses contain exemptions for spouses. States may want to consider the status of their spousal rape laws and amend them to create protections for victims of spousal rape equal to those for other victims of sexual assault.
Thanks to the following people for giving time and lending expertise to the development of this article: Nancy Lemon of the Boalt Hall School of Law and the California Alliance Aganst Domestic Violence; Nancy Hoffman of the West Virginia Foundation for Rape Information; Denise Snyder of the Washington, D.C. Rape Crisis Center; Marty McIntyre of the Sexual Assault Crisis Center of Lewiston; and Deanna Ferraino of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape.