Why is it illegal to beat your wife but legal to rape her?
Posted in Sexuality, Social Commentary by mathialee on July 5, 2009
In Singapore, it is illegal to beat your wife
it is illegal to hold her against her will
But it is not illegal to forcefully have sex with her when she refuses to.
That’s rape. Marital rape is not recognised by the law, unless the couple is seperated.
Why?
If you can’t think of a reason why either,
Sign the petition here http://www.notorape.com/
24 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
[...] This post was Twitted by eliasttw [...]
violence leaves marks, relatively ‘easy’ to ‘prove’
marital rape, unless violent, is relatively difficult to prove imo.
and lets face it, when a woman crys rape, even if the guy says otherwise(rem the case of this tv presenter some yrs back? the name slipped my mind), the woman gets the ‘upper hand’ so to say.
not that i condone it mind you, its just another way to look at things i suppose.
K: at 7:25am July 5
This petition is nonsense. If wife said I do to a marriage vow that typically includes the phrase ‘to have and to hold’, how can she turn around and call it rape? However, under separation scenario,vow is annulled. Hence, situation is non comparable. That said, it does not mean that violence or disrespect is condoned.
E: at 8:11am July 5
Just because a woman says ‘I do’ to her husband, that does not give him the right to pin her down and force himself on her – sex doesn’t come as an automatically given right just because a couple is married. We’re not talking about women grudgingly saying yes when they don’t really want to – that would be ridiculous if the woman cries rape – but about instances when violence is perpetuated against women, even if the bruises stay hidden. Uttering the words ‘to have and to hold’ does not make it okay for a man to rape his wife.
K: at 10:52pm July 5
E, I can’t agree more with you. ‘Pin down’ and ‘force’ speaks of violence and disrespect which is not condoned. However, that is called abuse/domestic violence for which there are other laws to deal with that.
Rape is something quite different and not possible wiithin the bounds of marital vow. Vow = Consent given for better or for worse. How are you going to prove marital rape anyway? Put a camera is everyone’s bedroom?
Mathia Lee at 11:21pm July 5
k, Rape is sex without consent. If i empty my husband’s bank account despite him not consenting, should this be legal since he also vowed to take care of me? based on moral grounds there might be room for argument whether or not a wife is right to deny her husband, but once she does withdraw consent, it is a seperate matter for a husband to … force her. You can’t legally kill a murderer on your own, even if a court would eventually sentence him to death. How can a husband be right in forcefully enforcing a vow?
As for enforcement, yes its tough, but that’s no excuse for doing away with the law. Date rape is equally tough to prove. Theft of a parent’s money by a child is also tough to prove. Yet these are recognised as crimes under the law
I am not married but still like to offer some opinions on this.
Firstly, I will state that RAPE in any form, if found guilty, should be treated the same way by the law or courts. And although marital rape is not criminalised, the courts and judges have every right to apply (and i believe they will) the relevant laws of rape to each individual case if it is being brought up to the legal system.
However, marital rape is complicated. At first look, it is easy to say “the husband is a bastard.” or “Is sex all he thinks about that he forces himself on the wife?”
But, a case of marital rape of “the husband who always go out and get drunk and when back home will demand sex from the wife and gets violent if she refuses to” is different from a case of “wife refuses to have sex for 2 years after giving birth and Husband, having stayed faithful to her for that period, could not take it anymore and forces himself on her.”
Before you go “Wow, are you trying to justify rape?” Nope, that is why my statement in the first paragraphs.
I am trying to say marital rape is complicated because of MITIGATING factors.
Depending on how you see it, SEX is a big part of a marriage. I mean there are many things involved in a marriage of course, Love, committments etc… but no one has ever denied and I do not think anyone will win any battles to fight for the right of a sexless marriage. SEX is not the only thing in a marriage but IT IS a big part of a marriage.
So, imagine the 2nd case I talked about where the wife refuses to have sex with the husband for 2 years and the husband eventually “raped” her having stayed faithful to her for this period of time. Should we then treat this husband the same way we treat the husband in the first case where he is perpertually drunk and a violent one at that.
Also importantly, how should the law and courts treat these 2 husbands? Look at them and say “Look I Do not care that your wife is not giving you sex for 2 years. You are the same bastard as that first husband. You go to jail.” Would that be the “right” thing to do or can I say, it is then not that straightforward in these “marital rape” cases?
I would like to conclude that I am not advocating that marital rape should be ignored. Contrary, I would think that marital rape, though not officially in the records, is dealt with on a case by case basis in the courts. And I think that is the best way because a marital rape is not as straightforward as a normal rape case. It involves 2 people who has given their vows before God. And as low class as it may seem, unfortunately (or fortunately :>), sex will always be a part of that vow, hidden somewhere.
“And although marital rape is not criminalised, the courts and judges have every right to apply (and i believe they will) the relevant laws of rape to each individual case if it is being brought up to the legal system.”
“marital rape, though not officially in the records, is dealt with on a case by case basis in the courts”
unfortunately NOT. The law makes an explicit exception for “rape” withing marriage.
The main focus with rape is not the sex; it’s the LACK of consent, or in the case or marital rape , the expressed dissent
Hi Mathia,
my focus was also not on the sex part. My focus was on that LACK OF CONSENT for sex in a marriage, while we termed it “marital rape” must be looked at from a number of mitigating factors as I mentioned in first post above.
Sections 375 (”Rape”) and 376A (”Sexual penetration of minor under 16″) share similar marital rape immunity:
No man shall be guilty of an offence under [relevant 375 or 376A subsections], if his wife is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence –
his wife was living apart from him –
under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;
under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;
under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or
under a written separation agreement;
his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;
there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;
there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or
his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.
http://www.notorape.com/faq/
The UN committee asked what was stopping authorities from creating a specific law to tackle domestic violence and criminalise marital rape.
THE United Nations (UN) has stepped into the Singapore family home, and would like to see changes.
Marital rape, domestic violence and mail-order brides, for example, are fresh talking points in Singapore’s record on women’s issues over the last six years.
This emerged after a UN committee scrutinised the third report from Singapore on its compliance with the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw). The report was presented in New York on Wednesday by a Singapore delegation led by Minister of State (Community Development, Youth and Sports) Yu-Foo Yee Shoon.
The UN committee noted that spousal violence was the most widespread form of violence.
While praising Singapore’s networked system of domestic violence coordinators, the committee asked what was stopping authorities from creating a specific law to tackle domestic violence and criminalise marital rape.
There was concern in particular over the plight of mail-order brides who might be “at the mercy of abusive husbands”.
Responding on the issue of domestic violence, a delegate said Singapore encourages counselling for victims and perpetrators, and the number of cases had dropped despite a growing population. The Women’s Charter now also covers domestic violence.
Foreign brides enjoy the same rights under the Charter, including access to shelters and most women understood their rights, said a delegate. Still, Singapore plans to do more by distributing information brochures on marriage at marriage registries and in the women’s home countries.
In the area of marital rape, the Republic is moving to abolish absolute marital immunity, but in a “calibrated” manner as its society “was conservative”, said the Cedaw report.
The committee also revived an issue unresolved since 2001, when Singapore last came before it: Sharia law. Due to provisions for the Muslim community, Singapore maintains its reservations to parts of Cedaw, mainly those pertaining to family and marriage.
A Singapore delegate explained that, for example, Sharia inheritance laws are unequal because men bore greater responsibilities for supporting family members.
While citing examples of progress in eliminating discrimination, such as male and female civil servants being given equal medical benefits, Mrs Yu-Foo recognised Singapore could do more — such as having more women in politics, narrowing the gender wage gap and couples sharing household responsibilities.
The committee noted Singapore’s progress in the areas of health and elderly care, among others.
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/articles/203745.asp
What’s the point in creating a law that is un-enforceable?
I thought we are into doing away with un-enforceable law (e.g. S377A)?
The way forward is education.
Compare % of the older, less educated generation of women to the younger, more educated generation of women who suffered marital rape and violence…
The less educated think they have no choice…
The educated ones know what actions to take…
Why get fixated on a solution (i.e. using/creating new laws) that does not work well?
if your married, rape doesn’t exist. your wife is there not just for emotional aspects, but for physical. you can’t marry someone and then refuse to have sex. sex is a part of marriage by not only law right but by religious right if your one of those freaks… so if your married, you have the right to sex with your wife. if my wife said no and i needed it, i have a right to penetrate her, and i would do so. not only would i, but id get off on it.
‘me’ was obviously joking: “so if your married, you have the right to sex with your wife”. What’s the (legal) position if you’re not married then?
Sex is not, was not, and never will be, a right.
So that abused wives have an avenue for redress
It’s not un-enforceable.
If a husband hits a wife, she can charge him for assualt.
If a husband hits and rapes a wife, she should be able to charge him for both assault AND rape, and the sentence ought to reflect the difference in the severity of the abuse. Currently, there is no difference. In such a scenario, proving is not going to be too difficult.
Enforceability should also take into account loopholes and abuse of the law.
Physical bashing is quite easy to prove and enforced, no doubt about it.
But if the husband hits the wife and demanded sex, and the wife consents out of fear of abuse, then the husband can only be charged with assault, right?
Once abusive husbands get to know of a few such cases, they will simply make use of the loopholes in the law. So, you think proving is so easy?
What about the wife abusing the law – cry rape when there isn’t?
Rape while under influence from alcohol, medication, etc. Plenty of grounds to play the law, don’t you think?
As if our government/legal resources are not already stretched. In terms of practicality, the status quo (although not a perfect solution) gives less headache than drafting and enforcing the new laws.
The way forward is still education – for women to know their rights.
By the way, you should also address a rather glaring issue…
If the relationship of the husband and wife has reached such a point that the wife can cry rape, then why hasn’t the wife left? Why stick around waiting for trouble?
But if the husband hits the wife and demanded sex, and the wife consents out of fear of abuse, then the husband can only be charged with assault, right?
Under the current law:
Rape
375. —(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —
(3) Whoever —
(a) in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection (1) —
(i) voluntarily causes hurt to the woman or to any other person; or
(ii) puts her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person; or
If applied to marital rape, the same definitions should apply. All I’m saying is that we should make marriage an irrelevant consideration when considering “rape”.
What about the wife abusing the law – cry rape when there isn’t?
The same problems apply to current rape laws — this is no excuse. It’s the duty of the courts to determine who is committing rape and who is committing perjury.
Rape while under influence from alcohol, medication, etc. Plenty of grounds to play the law, don’t you think
Again, under rape laws, this is no excuse for committing rape.
The way forward is still education – for women to know their rights.
Legislation is the way the State and Society expresses its recognition of the various Rights we have as humans
If the relationship of the husband and wife has reached such a point that the wife can cry rape, then why hasn’t the wife left? Why stick around waiting for trouble?
Stupidity , or other conditions we might not understand, is not a reason for not having a particular law. Furthermore, many wives remain out of fear, out of financial dependence, due to social stigma, for their kids etc etc.
==============================================================================
Rape
375. —(1) Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis —
(a) without her consent; or
(b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age,
shall be guilty of an offence.
[51/2007]
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a man who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
[51/2007]
(3) Whoever —
(a) in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence under subsection (1) —
(i) voluntarily causes hurt to the woman or to any other person; or
(ii) puts her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person; or
(b) commits an offence under subsection (1) with a woman under 14 years of age without her consent,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes.
[51/2007]
(4) No man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) against his wife, who is not under 13 years of age, except where at the time of the offence —
(a) his wife was living apart from him —
(i) under an interim judgment of divorce not made final or a decree nisi for divorce not made absolute;
(ii) under an interim judgment of nullity not made final or a decree nisi for nullity not made absolute;
(iii) under a judgment or decree of judicial separation; or
(iv) under a written separation agreement;
(b) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded;
(c) there was in force a court injunction to the effect of restraining him from having sexual intercourse with his wife;
(d) there was in force a protection order under section 65 or an expedited order under section 66 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) made against him for the benefit of his wife; or
(e) his wife was living apart from him and proceedings have been commenced for the protection order or expedited order referred to in paragraph (d), and such proceedings have not been terminated or concluded.
[51/2007]
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no man shall be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(b) for an act of penetration against his wife with her consent.
[51/2007]
[UK SOA 2003, s. 1; SPC 1985 Ed., s. 375 (repealed); SPC 1985 Ed., s. 376 (repealed); Indian PC 1860, s. 375; Malaysia PC 2006 Ed., s. 375]
Yes yes… The definitions are all there. But you didn’t address the issue of enforcement and implementation.
Because there is marriage and that the husband and wife stays under one roof, the proving and the abuse of law for marital rape is not as simple as standard rape cases.
You will also need another policy to increase our limited legal resources in order to tackle the trickier issues pertaining to the abuse of marital rape law.
In addition, the more legislation we have on family matters, the more strains there will be within the family. This is one hypothetical scenario my evil mind can think of…
Husband and wife had consenting sex. One day, they quarrelled. In the heat of the moment, wife says “If you don’t do this/that, I will complain marital rape”. From then on husband becomes fearful. Eventually, seeing how difficult life is at home, husband wants divorce, but wife says “Don’t talk about divorce or I will complain marital rape”.
Very convenient “tool” to use, isn’t it?
————————————————————————–
Below you will realize why I emphasize on education…
If the relationship of the husband and wife has reached such a point that the wife can cry rape, then why hasn’t the wife left? Why stick around waiting for trouble?
Stupidity, or other conditions we might not understand, is not a reason for not having a particular law. Furthermore, many wives remain out of fear, out of financial dependence, due to social stigma, for their kids etc etc.
If it is “stupidity”…”fear”… then educations helps. Are we even doing enough to address this “stupidity” and “fear”? If not, having a marital rape law does nothing, but it will definitely make our Ang Moh friends in the UN quite happy.
If it is “other conditions we might not understand”… then shouldn’t there be some research into this??? How can we take any form of effective action, when we lack understanding???
If it is “out of financial dependence”… you charge the husband with rape, he goes to jail, wife and kids starve. Remember that unlike our Ang Moh friends, Singapore does not have their kind of welfare system. So you can have a marital rape law, but you may get few reports of real cases… But you may possibly get more cases where wife “cries wolf”.
If it is “social stigma”… nowadays we see even old couples divorce because the wife stayed married until the children become independent. With education, there will be less of social stigma.
I totally agree with you that education is important
THis is not an issue of EITHER education or legislation. BOTH is necessary.
For legislation, as with any legislation, all the details and provisions as you have expressed your concern about will need to be addressed. It is true that in Singapore and many countries, sexual crimes is one of the most difficult to prove, especially when no violence is involved, or no witnesses are present. Still, the laws remain.
One question remain… This is more like a “cost-benefit-analysis” kind of concept.
In the Singapore context, will the new legislation create more problems than it seeks to deter/protect?
Sometimes people mix up “detecting more problems” with “creating more problems”.
For a lot of routine health issues, eg. certain specific cancers, in the first few years of starting a screening program, it always will seem like as if the incidence of the cancer is on a rise, when actually, you are simply getting better at detecting them.
Burying our head like an ostrich to pretend we have no problems is not exactly addressing them.
Exactly. LOL.
[...] to Headspace for some really interesting excerpts from an academic article on marital rape, and Mathia Lee for the lively discussion in the [...]
Respect & to be respected, perhaps it is a 2 mutually ways path to tick for long term or ideal partnership. We are surely not like beasts afterall, or do we? And we humankind have thoughts’ bubbles thus making what’s the world today. Should we tame/calm our own mindset which is within one’s ownself. What/who are you or what/who is me rather? One is just a drop in an ocean & by knowing/understanding/realising that tiny little-drop, the vast ocean is thus settled!
mathialee said, on July 5, 2009 at 11:23 pm
k, Rape is sex without consent.
>>
Me:
That is the CENTRAL POINT of the whole issue in “rape in marriage”, isn’t it? Because with marriage comes BLANKET CONSENT to sex from both parties. This is the universally accepted practice and it cuts across ALL CULTURES AND ALL TIME.
So by introducing rape in marriage, are you not tampering with the institution of marriage and family? There really is NO OTHER relationship in this world where this blanket consent exists. Take it away and you have taken an important component of marriage.
Are not the notorapers destroying the concept of marriage and family?
As for domestic violence, if that is what you want to address, we can address it directly. Why bust the concept of marriage and family?
Solo Bear,
You brought up the issue of grey areas in your blog. I think that essentially sums up the concerns of those who would argue against the marital rape law in two simple words.
The grey areas will destroy the institution of marriage and family.
Sadly, the ostriches are blind to grey colours.
Marriage is consent, where there is no explicit dissent.
By your argument, divorce ought to be banned as well.
By your argument, I can empty my husbands bank account , sell the house, and use the money to buy a ridiculous diamond ring while we starve of the street, and i can’t be sued for theft (by the way in Sg, a husband successfully charged a wife for theft when she emptied his bank account by using his PIN)
[...] the points that struck me, listening to the speakers, ( in addition to my previous discussion here: http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/why-is-it-illegal-to-beat-your-wife-but-legal-to-rape-her/). The following is reported as I have heard it. I may have heard wrongly or misunderstood certain [...]