I'm currently engaged in an online debate on the topic of marital rape. The debate is centred around the fact that a few people have decided to get a petition signed to make marital rape in Singapore a crime. The debate is getting particularly interesting because it's now getting personal. I have officially been accused of being obessed with the topic of "rape," at the expense of marriage.
Before I go into a rant, let's start with the fact that this debate is taking place in Singapore and in an online forum as opposed to being placed on the streeets or even in parliament.
Why is it interesting that the debate is taking place in Singapore? Well, it's down to the fact that Singapore has a proud tradition of being a pioner in Asia and even on the global stage when it comes to the area of promoting the rights and welfare of women. Modern Singaporean women have more opportunities to 'get ahead' in life than many of their Asian counterparts in terms of education and career. As my mother says, "When you're a Singaporean woman with a Caucasian husband, you can say with some pride that it's because you genuinely want to be with him rather than because it's an economic necessity." (I may beg to differ but she has a point)
Singapore has a set of laws specially designed to help women. Although I do think the Women's Charter screws men in many ways, it's overall effect has been beneficial to society as a whole.
So, it's actually quite astounding that a country that has done so much to advance the rights of women continues to accept the justification of 'marital-rape.' I've argued before that the Women's Charter disadvantages men because it places the sole responsability of providing for the family on the man. Getting married is a financial comittment and even if you get rid of her through divorce, you still pay and pay and pay. Why should men bother with marriage?
Well, now I have my answer - if I get married, I can force myself on my better half and do what ever I want to because we're married and since we're married, I can't be persecuted for rape.
If I sound strange in the portrayal of this situation, that's because it is. Rape, as everyone should know is a violent crime. Contrary to what the porn mags may tell you, rape is not an excercise of sexual passion but an excercise of violence and power. Look at war situations and you'll find that rape cases rise. Bosnia was a good example. You had one group trying to 'ethnically cleanse' another and what better way to dehumanise a group of humans than rape their women? Darfour is another example of where rape is use as a tool in 'ethnic cleansing.'
Even in economically and socially stable countrie, instances of rape usually start out in the hospital with the victim recieving medical treatment for their injuries. Someone from the "Keep Marital Rape Legal" crowd tried to point out to me that not all rapes are violent. You don't have to beat her up to force her - just drug her. But if you've studied simple biology, you'll realise that even if a woman is drugged and unconcious when the act is being done to her, she'll know in the morning. In crudest gynacological terms - an unlubricated vagina will tear if forciblly pennetrated.
Do I need to even go into emotional trauma that rape victims go through to drive home the point that rape is a repugnant crime? I put it this way, it's a well known fact that in prisons (those nice places for the best society has to offer), rappist rank as the lowest of the low - if you feel like roughing someone up - the rappist is fair game. What does it tell you about the nature of the crime when even the lowest of the low regard you as gutter trash?
So why haven't we made "marital - rape," the crime that it is. Rape is rape but thanks to some legal querk, we now have a situation in SIngapore where a man can happily force himself on his wife as an when he likes. And there is deafening silence from the Fundimentalist Christian groups who campaigned so vigerously to keep consensual homosexual sex illegal.
I haven't heard of Professors Thio Su-Mien and Li-An standing up in public forums to address this issue, which is a shame because they have the power to create public awarness. Like them or not, they make headlines. Forgive me for being cynical but I cannot see how it is "moral" for one party to force itself onto another causing great physical and emotional damage but it's "immoral" and against mainstream values for two consenting adults to share intimacy in the privacy of their own bedroom?
A few have tried to argue that marriage implies that consent is automically implied. Erm, I'm not sure how they worked that one out. A woman, they argue has conjugal duties to perform in the marriage. I mean, why else would you want to get married to someone that you have no desire to sleep with? I remember my stepfather reminding me that the best sex a man can experience is when he's in a loving marriage.
But that still does not justify the violence that is involved in the rape. At best a woman can report that she's been physically assaulted but not rapped. But if this was a real justification for keeping marital rape legal, why don't we apply it across the board - I mean, why bother with rape when you can be charged with assault?
A wife who witholds sex from her husband fails in her conjugal duties to the marriage. It is unreasonable for anyone to be in a marriage if they're not having sex with their spouse. I remember my sister telling me, when Gina decided to no longer have sex with me - "Funny you can have sex with everyone except the person you should be having it with."
What can a bloke do if the wife refuses to give it at home? As my sister pointed out, you can get your nookie elsewhere. There are enough sham marriages around to show that there are couples that do have sex with everyone else except each other.
Alternatively, there's medical treatment. There are recognised medical and psychological conditions that prevent a woman from having sex. These are best treated by psychologist and gynacologist.
Then there's divorce. We've established that if a woman consistenly withholds sex, she's in breach of her conjugal duties. This is unreasonable behaviour and recognised as grounds for divorce.
Not all of these options are great but they are options. There is no justification for a man to force himself onto a woman without her consent, even if that particular woman happens to be his wife.
By insisting on the fact that marital rape be treated as a crime, I was actually accused of not understanding the fundimental nature of marriage. What exactly is the fundimental nature of marriage?
It may be hard coming from a divorced man but I believe marriage is about two people wanting to be together for a mutual benefit. I think this remains true even in this day and age of dual income families. Yes, once in a while you can expect couples to quarell - people are individualistic and from time-to-time you should expect the desire to "be ME" colliding. But by and large, people enter the compromise of marriage because they feel they get more benefits.
So if this is marriage, isn't the act of forcing yourself onto a woman against her consent a violation of marriage? Marriage can be irritating and frustrating but it should not be damaging. A woman who witholds sex is irritating and frustrating but not damaging. Rapping a woman on the other hand is. So, why do we even consider marriage as a protection from rape when the act of rape is in itself the worst type of violation of the spirit of marriage.
Geen opmerkingen
Een reactie posten