Log in

No account? Create an account
Marital rape is not a crime? 
5th-Dec-2007 10:49 am
Read this first.


Why marital rape is not a crime
I REFER to the article, 'Rape is rape, so husbands should not have immunity" by Dr Andy Ho (ST, Oct 2).

To remove bias, 'rape' here means only 'non-consensual sex', with no overtone.

Dr Ho rebuts arguments for 'marital rape is not a crime'.

One: A woman's consent to marriage implies her lifelong consent to sex. Rebuttal: Lifelong consent becomes a 'legal fiction' when the husband turns into a violent stranger. Comment: The law makes no such exception, and no supporting argument is offered for this assertion.

Two: Marriage is a private intimacy, into which the law should thus not intrude. Rebuttal: Marriage as a private intimacy wrongly presumes the interests of husband and wife are aligned. Comment: Neither 'private' nor 'intimacy' presumes interests are aligned.

Three: Making marital rape a crime will poison reconciliation. Rebuttal: Marital rape already poisons reconciliation. Comment: Many marital rape victims do 'forgive and forget', and reconcile.

Four: Making marital rape a crime makes wives more likely to falsely accuse husbands. Rebuttal: England and Ireland have made marital rape a crime, without increasing false accusations. Comment: Dr Ho has a counter-example.

Dr Ho argues for 'marital rape should be a crime'.

One: Almost all aspects of women's legal subordination to men have been rejected. Comment: A traffic sign saying 'No entry - except ambulances' will insist on the exception.

Two: 'Rape is rape, so the marital rape exception should be completely erased.' Comment: The marital rape exception is built into the law. Insisting the exception be removed does not entail it should be.

Three: Marital rape harms the victim more than does stranger rape, which is a crime. Comment: First, harm may not be a sufficient reason here. Husbands also have duties to wives that strangers do not. Second, the alleged greater harms of betrayal, entrapment and isolation likely presume marital sex must be consensual, rendering the argument circular.

Four: 'Why does the system then deny her what she considers to be in her best interest?' That is, if a wife considers it in her best interest that marital rape is a crime, then marital rape should be a crime. Comment: First, the law must consider the general interest, not that of just one party. Second, wives do not dictate the law.

In summary, we have a case for 'marital rape is not a crime', and none for 'marital rape should be a crime'.

Lau Kwong Fook

... yes, that's right. Apparently we women sign up to keep our legs open and our vaginas wet 24-7 when we get married.

Seriously WTF?!
5th-Dec-2007 03:45 am (UTC)
That's just plain wrong. Martial rape is a crime, or it should be.
5th-Dec-2007 04:53 am (UTC)
i second that
5th-Dec-2007 04:18 pm (UTC)
Thirded. Just because you're married it does NOT mean you get automatic consent for anything. I Still have to ask my wife if I can use her computer to watch anime.
5th-Dec-2007 03:47 am (UTC)
Religious law is not the same as state law in many nations. This so called doctor is an idiot to not recognize the distinction. Not everyone will live under religious law -- and that includes married types.

Oh -- http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm

Only took me a second to find.
5th-Dec-2007 04:53 am (UTC)
Not to meantion that religious law is biased based on that particular religion
5th-Dec-2007 02:58 pm (UTC)
Exactly. Most nations recognize that they risk isolating themselves from the world by making laws based on single religions.

Hell, even India made dowry illegal (It's still widely practiced, but illegal).
5th-Dec-2007 09:40 am (UTC)
This so-called argument is srsly fucked up >_>" Rape is rape as long as it's non-consensual. Mo matter what the sexes or ages or whether it's between a married couple, it's still rape, PERIOD.

5th-Dec-2007 04:49 pm (UTC)
Apparently we women sign up to keep our legs open and our vaginas wet 24-7 when we get married.

It's in the fine print. Didn't you read that?

Seriously, though, this is BS. Rape is rape. It doesn't matter who it's from. Forced is forced, non-consensual is non-consensual.
7th-Dec-2007 03:11 am (UTC)
I'll have you know that I did read the marriage cert very VERY carefully before I signed it and there were no clauses dictating how much sex I am legally bound to provide. XP

... looks like some people need to return from the Dark Ages and wake up to the Age of Human Rights.
5th-Dec-2007 05:50 pm (UTC)
Like wise, rape is rape.

5th-Dec-2007 10:30 pm (UTC)
I never even realised marital rape wasn't a crime. Sheesh. And oral sex is.

I don't know. I really don't know. And my mother gets upset with me when i tell her i'm still not interested in returning to the motherland.

"What's so bad about Singapore?!"
6th-Dec-2007 01:15 am (UTC)
Oral sex that does not lead to penetrative sex is illegal.

Take in consideration that prostitution is legal here too.

Unfortunately too many people here are just blind... or don't want to care, cuz if they do, they won't be able to stand it. The predominant attitude is of indifference.
6th-Dec-2007 01:37 pm (UTC)
Indifference, or being kept in check by fear. It's been a long time since i've been in Singapore and it sounds like it's changed (can't believe i just said that), but there's still this latent fear of the gah-men, the idea that you can't get far by voicing your opinion because they'll have you for it (probably true?)
7th-Dec-2007 03:18 am (UTC)
I have found a lot of the change rather superficial, since much of it has been initiated by government (or government influenced) bodies. Take the arts for example: the government has had to actively push and create a lot of fanfare to promote the arts. It's great, but it's still going to take several generations to really have it ingrained in the people's psyche that the arts should not necessarily be viewed only from a monetary-opportunity-cost standpoint.

As for the fear, I doubt it will ever go away... not until the vast majority start realising they have nothing to lose by expressing themselves. Things would have to have reached a really shitty point for the common man for that to happen.
13th-Dec-2007 03:42 am (UTC)
Actually... I think you'll find that the law stands that it is a crime. There is little reason to get riled up about it. If opinions were never challenged we'd end up as a subservient sheep (i.e. Women would be inferior to their husbands, kids would have to listen to everything their parents say, rock music would be forbidden, etc)

Yes Singapore has changed! People are challengingly popular opinion. The letter to ST by the author is a sterling example. Be ready to accept disagreements to your opinions just as you disagree with others.

Just thought I'd throw in my two bits just coz

This page was loaded May 24th 2019, 4:11 am GMT.