Should marital rape be legal?

[William]

Should marital rape be legal?

In Thailand, the Ministry of Justice says the answer is "yes":

Commentary: Draft law legalises rape - by both spouses

Sanitsuda Ekachai, Assistant Editor, Bangkok Post Should husbands be allowed to rape their wives? Yes, says the Justice Ministry. And for the sake of gender equality, the Justice Ministry will allow the wives to rape their husbands, too. Don't laugh. That is exactly what the Justice Ministry says in its draft amendment of the law regarding rape.
According to the draft, rape and sexual offences will be punishable with a jail term from four to 20 years and a fine of 8,000 to 40,000 baht _ unless it involves marital partners.

This draft is the ministry's response to years of pressure from human rights groups to redress gender violence and inequality in Thai law. It ends up being farcical because of the ministry's mechanical approach to justice and its refusal to tackle the heart of the matter, which is the oppression of women.

The Justice Ministry's draft amendments to the rape and divorce laws was criticised in the National Legislative Assembly last week and a sub-committee has been set up to revise the proposed amendments. For although the amendments would bring several improvements to the current laws on sexual violence and divorce, continuing to endorse marital rape is totally unacceptable.

At present, the law does not protect wives from rape by their husbands. By defining women as the only victims of rape and sexual offence, the law does not protect homosexuals, either.

Meanwhile, the laws on divorce and marital compensation support men's sexual promiscuity; it allows the husbands to use adultery as grounds for divorce, but not for the wives.

To sue for divorce, the wife must prove that her husband financially supports and publicly honours another woman as wife. Proving the husband's unfaithfulness alone will not suffice.

The attempts by women's rights advocacy groups to change these oppressive laws goes back years. In 2002, their effort was shot down by the Council of State, the government's legal arm, which argued that the change would undermine the basis of marital relationship.

The same thing happened with the effort to amend the divorce law so wives and husbands could both use adultery equally as grounds for divorce.

In a mind-boggling rationale which challenges the constitutional principle of gender equality, the council argued that the crime of having a choo or lover, applies only to married women. So, the husband can divorce his wife for having a choo, but the wife cannot.

Apparently, the Justice Ministry is trying to undo the damage done by the Council of State. Citing the gender equality mandate, it proposed the legal amendments which will allow wives and husbands to equally sue for divorce on grounds of adultery. Both can also sue the lovers of their spouses for compensation.

In a commendable move, the draft amendment of the rape law will also protect homosexuals from rape and sexual harassment.

But instead of getting rid of the wording in the rape law which endorses marital rape, the Justice Ministry simply made it equal for the husbands and wives to rape their spouses.

So much for its mechanical definition of gender equality.

The cultural violence of patriarchy has caused many symptoms of gender discrimination which aim to keep women subservient and inferior to men. But they all stem from the same root: the belief that women are mere objects belonging to men, first to their fathers, then to their husbands and, in their old age, to their sons. That their main duty is to serve them. As wives, they then must submit to their husband's sexual will. This violent sexism is sanctified in the marital rape law.

The attempts to fix sexist laws on divorce, family name, quota system and whatnot are all laudable. But they are only dealing with the symptoms of patriarchy. That is why we must do away with the marital rape law. For we must tackle the heart of women's oppression if we really want to bring the patriarchal system down.

[Email the author: sanitsudae (at) bangkokpost.co.th]

[AntRobertson]

Oh. Dear. Lord...

This draft is the ministry's response to years of pressure from human rights groups to redress gender violence and inequality in Thai law

One step forward, several thousand stumbles back.

[ChiangMai noon]

^
This is a spoof article right.

[AntRobertson]

This is a spoof article right

Much as I'd hope it is, sadly I think not.

But then again I can't honestly say I'm genuinely surprised either should it be legit. Just the type of 'truth is stranger than fiction' I've come to expect from the Thai 'legal' system.

[William]

I read this article on the Bangkok Post website today. At the time of reading it I did think to myself that not even Thailand could be this cavemanish. However, unless (a) the author is way off mark, or (b) the Bangkok Post website has been hacked, it would appear there may be some semblence of truth/fact to this...

[blackgang]

I think it is OK, what ya got against it??
I find it quite a pleasure to awaken and find that my wife or someone elses is doing the nasty to me.
I can't see why anyone would complain, unless she was a 200KG whale, then her ass should be drug off to jail, unless she has the money in hand to shut my mouth.

[ChiangMai noon]

I think that you are missing the point Blakgang.
The law allows me to rape my force myself on my wife while we are still married wether or not she consents.

it's a fukking disgrace.

[Thetyim]

I need more details to formulate an opinion.

Firstly, does the husband choose the orifice to penetrate or is it as the discretion of the wife ?

Secondly, if the husband has AIDS does she still have to comply ?

[dirtydog]

Well blackgang lets hope she dont meet you

[stroller]

After one pays a life-long barfine sort of thing to get married, one may expect to get one's leg over now and then, I'd think.

[ChiangMai noon]

fuk me.
What an enlightened forum of abusers we have here.

[Thetyim]

fuk me

Sorry, I'm old fashioned, you will have to marry me first

[blackgang]

Well blackgang lets hope she dont meet you

Jawsus Christ Dog,,where ya ever dig that thing up at, around the waterfront I bet..

And Yes CMN, you should be able to if she refuses to do her "wifely duty" when ever you are ready or she should have to run out and acquire a suitable replacement for you to get rid of the stress and anxiety that such a thing has happened..

[William]

Good to see that "Issues" takes its threads seriously.

Move to Lounge Mods?

[stroller]

To be serious, it obviously isn't right, and as a response to pressure by human rights groups it's a joke.
But then, male privileges are so deeply ingrained, that the lawmakers don't even see the irony.

And, joking aside, isn't the sin-sod tradition contributing to the perception that the husband has certain 'rights' over his wife?

[ChiangMai noon]

^
yes and we all think that sinsot is a wonderful and enlightened idea.

Jeez, agree with the crap when it suits you.

And Yes CMN, you should be able to if she refuses to do her "wifely duty" when ever you are ready or she should have to run out and acquire a suitable replacement for you to get rid of the stress and anxiety that such a thing has happened..

I really do hope that you are joking.

Anyway, I actually find the thought of sex stressful and should be handsomely compenstaed with 2 weeks of none every time I am forced to perform.

[Little Chuchok]

^he's pissed CMn.

[stroller]

Jeez, agree with the crap when it suits you.

What "crap"? Suits me for what?

And who's drunk, 'lil Chu - blackgang or CMN?

[Little Chuchok]

You drinking laukow all day strolly...unless something has changed in the last couple of hours.

[ChiangMai noon]

And who's drunk, 'lil Chu - blackgang or CMN?

Not me.
Haven't had a drink in over a month.
That's exactly 25 years less than Blackgang.

[stroller]

^
Oh well, must be me then...

I still see things from different perspectives.
I respect the sinsot. It makes sense in Thai society.

But from a Western perspective, since we are talking about human rights in marriage and stuff, it may be seen as something which confirms and perpetuates inequality.

And in a strictly legal sense, it isn't that far fetched to deduct certain 'rights' from the payment.

As pointed out already, it isn't all that long ago that 'rape' within marriage wasn't regarded as unjustified in Western societies - it changed during my lifetime.
One of the achievements of these decrepit feminists and the abhorrent PC-crowd.
Rather proud I was part of it in the 80s.

[ChiangMai noon]

As pointed out already, it isn't all that long ago that 'rape' within marriage wasn't regarded as unjustified in Western societies - it changed during my lifetime.

Not sure if it was considered so much justified as very difficult to prosecute.

[stroller]

It was embedded in the law as a 'right', though the law was already out of date by the mores of the time.

[dirtydog]

Hey look, if we got to pay for these birds then we should be able to shag them whenever we want, aint none of this later dear if we paid like a million baht for the bitch.....

[dirtydog]

and aint none of that, "It hurts up there" shite either, they want the dosh they got to do the dirty deed