Monday, 20 July 2009

You Can Put Lipstick On A Pig - It's Still Rape!!

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig... no matter how you dress-up marital rape, it's still one of the most degrading and vile forms of abuse... and in this case, abuse of the one you supposedly love and vowed to protect until death do you part.

OK - it's not my intention to 'jump on the bandwagon'. There's enough press coverage and media to ensure that every living and breathing warm body in Singapore is aware of the recent debate on this issue and the awareness campaign associated with it. The intent of my writing here, is to highlight a very ugly side to this whole affair which I've noticed recently.

Firstly, background for my readers outside of Singapore... I've drawn your attention to the debate over the last couple of years in relation to the repeal or retentyion of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code (the remaining legislation that criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men) - this law is still in force.

At the same time that the debate on the retention or repeal of 377A was a 'hot topic' (when the Penal Code came under review two years ago), MPs and civil society groups had also asked for a revision to Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Penal Code (in relation to marital rape). The statute (that has been around since colonial days) was modified to offer protection to a married woman who has applied for divorce or has taken out a protection order against her husband.

In effect, this still grants immunity to many husbands who force their wives to have sex with them.

The latest campaign - "No To Rape" - is calling for marital rape to be treated in the same way as other forms of rape under the law... to most people across the globe, the answer is - "of course, why shouldn't it be?"

Now you have the background, let me share my disturbing observations today. There are a couple of well known forums in SG which seem to attract some very 'dubious' personalities with very strong feelings on this (and many other) issues - in one particular unnamed forum, there are many comments and posts that are completely against this intiative (this can be found after scrolling through the numerous 'hate' topics). They seem to suggest that it is a man's right to have sex with their wife whenever they so please... they go as far as to say things like "if the law is repealed, it will cause me to visit brothels or have extra-marital affairs" and "If marital rape is not allowed, then this should be clearly stated in a wedding contract" (comments have been paraphrased)... I am left speechless by this twisted logic... I am only touching on the commentary, as I blatantly refuse to republish any of the other posts - they are just downright offensive!! I find this very disturbing indeed.

My point is this - marital rape is abuse of the worst kind. It should be criminally punished with the strongest sentences that the courts can deliver. The gutless and deviant behaviour cannot and must not be tolerated. I was going to say that this is a "no brainer" - but members of the aforesaid forums have proven me wrong - they obviously have "no brains", but still feel comfortable spouting such irrational nonsense.

I urge all of my readers to join the awareness campaign, sign up for the petition and say "No To Rape"!!!

http://www.notorape.com/

http://www.we-are-aware.sg/2009/07/14/no-to-rape-campaign/

_________________________________________________

5 comments:

solo bear said...

Hi Pete,

I hold a different view.

I feel that this is part of a wider plan to deconstruct the family.

Family Busters on the loose again-

In any case, how do you define "no consent" on part of wife, such that it constitutes "rape"?

Anonymous said...

@ Solo Bear,

Had a look at the site, and found the mention of 'Public Prosecutor vs N' somewhat convincing. That case seems pretty much rape, no?

I also had a look at your family busters link, and am not convinced that you're not throwing the baby out of the bathwater here. Your vitriol at the organisers and supporters seems to unnecessarily displace the strength of the cause. Instead of debasing the cause completely, maybe you can recommend stringently adhering to only the support of this cause, but not their other agendas (imagined or otherwise).

Unless you can suggest a better solution to addressing what seems an obvious criminal offence, such as in the case of PP v N? I think it's important because the permutations of PPvN abound, even if it's beyond your imaginaion that a husband is capable of such an aggrieved offence towards his 'loved one'. (Actually, I don't think anyone ever goes into a marriage predicting sexual abuse.)

Don't know. Just a thought.

solo bear said...

Anon
>>
Had a look at the site, and found the mention of 'Public Prosecutor vs N' somewhat convincing. That case seems pretty much rape, no?
>>

So because of this one case you want to throw the foundation of marriage out. Isn't this throwing the baby out of the bathwater?

>>
Unless you can suggest a better solution to addressing what seems an obvious criminal offence, such as in the case of PP v N?
>>

Battery, abuse, illegally holding someone against her will!

Obviously in the case above, there is hardly any love left. A phone bill could lead to this? It is quite obvious that their marriage is already on the rocks. It could well be that the wife is using this case to get a divorce.

Your idea that the husband "loves" his wife is misplaced. I don't see any love left. Any loving husband wouldn't do that to wife.

If you want to stop domestic abuse, let's address that.

AussiePete said...

Hi Solo Bear... thanks as always - I've always respected your viewpoint... in this case, I disagree with your position (to the most part). Having said that and after reading your linked article, I find your logic (although like I said i cannot agree with it all) is at least well thought out, and I know that you speak from the heart. It is this type of writing that will spark and encourage positive debate (as opposed to the forum that I have alluded to).

Anonymous - thanks also for your input - I agree whole heartedly and the intention of my article here is in support of the cause. One should not be blind-sided by 'conspiracy' theories and perceived hidden agendas. Having said that, I am completely in support of healthy debate - this is what brings about positive change through awareness in any society.

Thanks again to the both of you.

Anonymous said...

Hey Solo,

I'm sure the foundation of marriage doesn't simply hinge on the individual's access to his/her partner's sexual bits 24/7, right? If indeed 'loved ones' are incapable of committing heinous rape such as PP v N, then where's the harm in abolishing the immunity? The really good people who uphold more honorable concepts of marriage will invariably be safe and secure. So in a way, doesn't this movement at least suggests to make marriage more rigorous?

I don't know. I find the preoccupation with false claims a bit muddy. There're other ways to be sexually vengeful, I suppose. If the website were right (choke full of info, thanks Pete!), then wives can already file for oral/ anal rape which is not covered by the immunity, without having to consider the technicalities of what non-consent means, etc.

Lastly, I contine to apostrophize loved-ones because that conception is hard to determine universally as well, even for me. The legal reporting doesn't state if N didn't love his wife anymore, and can't arbitrarily determine it based on what either one of us thinks. Love in bondage and abuse aren't unheard of, but I think there should be limits--in this case, if it's rape then a definite no-no.

Anyway, that's all for this. Thanks for the reply. And more props to Pete for the space and highlight of the campaign. Wish I could support it.