Blog Header

AWARE hosts No To Rape opinion piece

The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), which endorses No To Rape, has very kindly published a short opinion piece on marital immunity for rape penned by Jolene Tan, a core member of the No To Rape team. Do check it out!

p.s. Don’t forget to tune in to Channel News Asia today, at 8.30pm, to catch an episode of Get Rea! focusing on marital rape. If you can’t make it, don’t fret – there will be repeat broadcasts later this week.

Be Sociable, Share!

This entry was posted on Monday, September 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “AWARE hosts No To Rape opinion piece”

  1. Concerned says:

    I am a man, I am talking for both men and women because my family and lineage would consist of both. It is the SELFISH who talks for their own sex. Prof. Ho Peng Kee is worth respecting for making such a decision, if he is a dirty politician he would just appease the ladies and win votes. He stepped into a minefield just like Baroness Deech who are selfless and make humane decisions rather than selfish ones. (Dirty politicians would make popular laws for the future generations to decay in it, just to win votes.)

    With the laws of many countries biased and skewed towards females and knowing the inherent nature of women, men would one day live the lives of the black widow (spider).

    For those who argues for marital rape law, I hope your family and lineage would live the type of lives that you are fighting for. Please think before you stand to be counted on such an important issue.

  2. admin says:

    Dear Concerned

    Thank you for your feedback.

    Removing a provision of the law that specifically legitimises sexual violence against women by their husband is not “biased and skewed towards females” – it is extending to married women the legal protection that every human being (female or male) deserves.

    We disagree that “the inherent nature of women” requires the law to offer less than full protection against marital rape. We do however, agree that everyone should think about this important issue, and hope that they reach the conclusion that violence is always unacceptable, including when committed by a spouse.

    Best regards

    No To Rape team

  3. Concerned says:

    The “biased and skewed towards females” refers to existing laws favouring females and does not refer to the removal of this provision.

    Removing the proposed provision would enable ‘bad’ wives to abuse the law against their husbands.

    Your proposal could result in the following scenarios:
    A husband asked to have sex with the wife, she feigns a headache and says “NO” therefore not consenting. The husband proceeds to penetrate her. The wife can then abuse this law to accuse him of rape.
    OR if the law is written fairly for both sexes:
    A wife asked to have sex with the husband, he feigns a headache and says “NO” therefore not consenting. The wife proceeds to vaginate him, The husband can then abuse the law(if society is not biased and skewed towards females), the husband can then abuse the imaginary law to accuse her of rape.

    I hope society can be more understanding and less selfish and focus their attention in really protecting the weak regardless of gender. If this petition is successful, mounting one’s wife would be like a male black widow risking his life to inseminate her. I hope the petitioner would not like his or her future generations to live the life of the black widow based on his folly today in calling for the repeal.

    I also hope that the Prime Minister you are petitioning is level headed too.

  4. admin says:

    Dear Concerned

    This campaign is only concerned with the specific provisions of the Penal Code relating to marital immunity for rape.

    In both of the scenarios you describe, where a wife or husband has said “no” to having sex at that point of time, a spouse who continues to force themselves onto them commits sexual violence, and should be held to account for their acts. If someone says “No” for any reason, whether they have a real headache or are feigning one, that is a clear indication of non-consent. We would not consider a rape complaint in such circumstances to be an “abuse” of the law.

    No To Rape strongly condemns sexual violence by any person (of any gender) against any other person (of any gender). The current petition focuses on certain specific provisions of the law, but that should not be taken to mean we think that all other provisions are ideal as they stand. We suggest you read the FAQ for more information: http://www.NoToRape.com/FAQ

    Best regards

    No To Rape team

  5. Siliconsurfer says:

    It is very unfortunate that our world has feminists. They consistently show themselves to be ignorant of human society and culture; seek to change them to suit their selfish interests to the detriment of family, children and society while masquerading as the humanitarians and messiahs of progressive society.

    They fail to understand and choose to ignore that in human society a woman has given implicit consent to sex with her husband when she enters into a marriage.

    They, for some inexplicable reason, choose to see husbands and wives as “equal” partners in a marriage split fight right down 50/50, ignoring human nature all together by disregarding the fact that men are the active sexual partners in a marriage and women the passive ones, not two “equally” participating halves.

    They fail to realize that the dynamics in sexual intercourse is not the coming together of two equal hemispheres to make a sphere, nor that of two right hands coming together for a handshake but the interplay of active and passive roles like the swirling commas in the symbol of the Tao. The penis and the vagina, the active and the passive, two very “unequal” parts coming together.

    As the sexual basis is two ”unequal” parts coming together to make a whole, any attempt to “equalize” them will change the sexual equation beyond recognition, beyond repair.

    A “No to Rape” law in marriage means that the passiveness and implicitness from the wife in matrimonial sex is gone. In its place would be a potentially antagonistic sexual partner fully empowered by the law to wreak devastation on her husband if she were merely to cry “rape” after the fact. The most intimate act of passion that is sacrosanct in a marriage would become fraught with anxiety and mistrust. I dare say such anxiety and mistrust would not even be present if the husband pays for a prostitute and then proceeds to have the world of his time with her.

    The prostitute cannot cry “rape” by her paying customer yet the wife can, by her husband who shares life and property, and raises a family with her under the same roof. She can even stake her claim on all of his material assets if he dies without a will. No prostitute can lay such a claim on her customer if he died of his exertions on her.

    Do you see the cruel irony in this? Can you imagine the damage to the institution of marriage that such a law would cause in Singapore?

    Such a law and such a scenario would afflict all marriages in Singapore. And all for what? Just in case a husband sexually abuses his wife. Yet laws governing physical abuse already exist to protect abused wives. A woman can decide to divorce her abusive husband too. Why enact such a law then, which exacts such a toll far and wide on all marriages, simply to catch the errant few when there are already other legal avenues available?

Leave a Reply