Ever so often there is a recurring theme in Indian media when there is nothing else to report on - the discussion on "marital rape". here's an interesting article on this, which we will deconstruct and personally the author is against any law for marital rape BUT as this is a democracy and its all about choice - this can be an optional law and every woman who wants the protection of this law can say so before marriage or before she starts dating someone etc etc so that the other person will know that he is there only as a sex toy when the woman is in heat and not otherwise required. What the people who talk about "marital rape" forget is that there are various levels of intimacy and then there is sex and then there is rape.
now coming to the article the main points are:
1. its a woman's right - nobody is disputing it - any man who does not respect that is not worth keeping as a husband - just divorce and move on (the domestic violence act is sufficient for this)
2. "In fact, it is because we are a country still terribly hobbled by ignorance and custom that it becomes even more important to provide legal protection for the woman. Usha, our domestic help, would come to work at least once a week with a black eye. When asked why she did not complain, she would say, ‘Husbands can hit their wives, ma. It’s the norm’. It’s the same ‘norm’ that allows the husbands of many Ushas to rape them, without protection, each time they come home drunk." - so drunk and violence - then sex - so its domestic violence again - same point 1 - divorce with existing laws.
3. "Marriage in India is, among other things, a sexual contract because it gives the man implied consent to sex in perpetuity. It reinforces the man’s “ownership” rights over the wife. This denies the woman any agency over her own body, its sexuality and its reproductive function. Refusing to criminalise marital rape is to accept that sexual coercion against a woman, so long as it is within a marriage, will be endorsed by both government and society. If women are to wrest control of their lives, they have to have the right to say no to their husbands without being socially penalised for it. The myth of the ‘wifely duty’ and the ‘conjugal right’ must end because marital sex, as all sex, must be with mutual consent and pleasure." - nobody is denying it - its her right - same point 1 - same answer
4. Societies such as India that condemn and penalise sex outside of marriage often force men into marital relationships only for free access to physical consummation, which puts women under incredible sexual threat. A few years ago, newspapers carried the story of a 26-year-old woman who returned from a Bangkok honeymoon with serious injuries after her husband forced violent sex on her. This is far more common than one would like to think, and I know of more than one woman who has endured similar sexual abuse in marriage with no legal recourse. - the author can only think of "more than one" case - i havent heard of a single case in my entire relations or friends circle - so other than sensationalising the article and generalising something which is not true, there is nothing she has to offer - also again the example given is violence - same point 1 - same legal recourse - now i am wondering of the hundreds of millions who have had honeymoons with sex without violence - does either partner not want to have sex in their honeymoons?
5. final paras - "To say that the institution of marriage will be threatened by such a law is to either underestimate the very real affections, bonds and negotiations that hold good marriages together despite deep disagreements and differences, or to accept that sexual abuse and coercion is so common in marriages that no man dares risk such a law.
now coming to the article the main points are:
1. its a woman's right - nobody is disputing it - any man who does not respect that is not worth keeping as a husband - just divorce and move on (the domestic violence act is sufficient for this)
2. "In fact, it is because we are a country still terribly hobbled by ignorance and custom that it becomes even more important to provide legal protection for the woman. Usha, our domestic help, would come to work at least once a week with a black eye. When asked why she did not complain, she would say, ‘Husbands can hit their wives, ma. It’s the norm’. It’s the same ‘norm’ that allows the husbands of many Ushas to rape them, without protection, each time they come home drunk." - so drunk and violence - then sex - so its domestic violence again - same point 1 - divorce with existing laws.
3. "Marriage in India is, among other things, a sexual contract because it gives the man implied consent to sex in perpetuity. It reinforces the man’s “ownership” rights over the wife. This denies the woman any agency over her own body, its sexuality and its reproductive function. Refusing to criminalise marital rape is to accept that sexual coercion against a woman, so long as it is within a marriage, will be endorsed by both government and society. If women are to wrest control of their lives, they have to have the right to say no to their husbands without being socially penalised for it. The myth of the ‘wifely duty’ and the ‘conjugal right’ must end because marital sex, as all sex, must be with mutual consent and pleasure." - nobody is denying it - its her right - same point 1 - same answer
4. Societies such as India that condemn and penalise sex outside of marriage often force men into marital relationships only for free access to physical consummation, which puts women under incredible sexual threat. A few years ago, newspapers carried the story of a 26-year-old woman who returned from a Bangkok honeymoon with serious injuries after her husband forced violent sex on her. This is far more common than one would like to think, and I know of more than one woman who has endured similar sexual abuse in marriage with no legal recourse. - the author can only think of "more than one" case - i havent heard of a single case in my entire relations or friends circle - so other than sensationalising the article and generalising something which is not true, there is nothing she has to offer - also again the example given is violence - same point 1 - same legal recourse - now i am wondering of the hundreds of millions who have had honeymoons with sex without violence - does either partner not want to have sex in their honeymoons?
5. final paras - "To say that the institution of marriage will be threatened by such a law is to either underestimate the very real affections, bonds and negotiations that hold good marriages together despite deep disagreements and differences, or to accept that sexual abuse and coercion is so common in marriages that no man dares risk such a law.
When society makes theft or murder a punishable offence, it does so not because everyone is a potential thief or murderer but to protect everyone from the few thieves and murderers. Are these laws misused? Of course they are, all of them, and with sickening frequency. But nobody is asking for them to be thrown out, are they?" - this author is a real joke - no wife has in a fit of anger named her husband a thief or murderer (unless taking a cue from this they start doing so) BUT in a fit of anger they have misused the anti-dowry act and also the domestic violence act -these two acts have already done more damage than help in society - unleashing a marital rape act will only completely destroy the institution of marriage and society at large as without the institution of marriage it will be open season on relationships. this is a plain and simple debate of physical violence and on the first such instance the woman is free to walk out of the marriage/ relationship - period. maybe the debate should be on how the penalties/ sentences under the domestic violence act are to be increased so that no man will ever think of physically abusing a woman whether in or outside of marriage.
Posts
