On the verge of becoming a Zinda Laash but saved by marriage.

Why do some ‘rape victims’ fight to get married to their ‘rapists’? 

1. Unfortunately ‘rape’ in legal terms is also used to describe consensual sex if the woman was promised marriage to get her to consent. The term here should be ‘cheating’ or ‘breach of trust’ not rape or sexual assault. In such ‘rape cases’ a ‘rape-victim’ might demand that the ‘rapist’ keeps his promise and marries her.

[This is one of the many reasons why child sexual abuse, sexual assaults, acquaintance rape (marital rape or date rape), sexual harassment and street sexual harassment should be clearly defined.]

2. The women perhaps feel that being married to someone who cheated them and clearly does not wish to marry them (probably someone they don’t love, like, respect or believe they would be happy with), is a ‘respectable’ thing to do.


Because, patriarchal societies allow (or tolerate) premarital sex for men. If these men intend to marry the women they have sex with, they are said to ‘respect’ them. All good women in patriarchal societies are expected to strive to earn Men’s (and everybody’s) Respect.

3. Marriage by any man is seen as the only way a dishonored woman can be redeemed.

And they fear that no other man would marry them (since they are not sexually inexperienced anymore) and they see Getting Married and Staying Married as their life purpose.

Would you call this a case of Cheating or of Rape?

“Singh had promised to marry her and so she agreed to sexual relations, as a result of which she found she had been impregnated.

She alleged that they had even married in a temple. However, subsequently, his parents were not prepared to accept her as a daughter-in-law ….

“She assumed he had no intention to marry her and hence initiated criminal prosecution against him,” the court noted. She filed a rape case under section 376 of Indian Penal Code against him and he was arrested by the Goregaon police. But Singh’s counsel said he had infact taken steps to marry her. He had on January 4, three weeks before her complaint, filed an application for registration of the marriage.” [Intention to marry ‘rape victim’ gets man bail]

Somebody asked in a comment: Why is this cheating? Couldn’t the man just change his mind about marrying the woman?

If the man promised marriage to get consent, he knew the power of the ‘promise to marry’, he obviously also knew how breaking that promise could affect the woman. [More here: Link]

If she needed that promise, she probably did not think that it was hypocritical and demeaning to women, to value sexual inexperience in women. A broken promise could force her to fight a fight she didn’t believe in, or was incapable of fighting or simply didn’t want to fight. The man in the case above, had committed a crime against Patriarchy and he was allowed to make patriarchal amends and thus turn a dishonorable act into a sacred one.


Would you describe his ‘dishonorable act’ as Rape?

The woman perhaps genuinely feared that she was on verge of becoming a Zinda Laash [Zinda Laash]. Many Indian women (and men) believe women should have only one sexual relationship, and that should be with the man they marry (preferably only after they are married to him). Indian women are denied education, freedom and opportunities; and are warned (and protected) against premarital sex. If the partners turn out to be abusive, incompatible or unwilling to marry them, they are warned, they would be ruined. [No second chances for an Indian daughter.] Suicide, stigma, social boycott, shifting to another place, marrying someone who doesn’t know about the ‘dishonor’, and honor killings have been the traditional methods for dealing with such ‘broken promises’.

So, the woman (and even the man) probably did not think she had the option of ending the relationship, claiming child support (if applicable) and moving on. Chances are that the man (and his parents) saw the broken promise as ‘ruining her life’ but also realised that they could get away with it.

So there can be no doubt that the man should have been held accountable. If he promised marriage in return of premarital sex, perhaps he should have been punished for Cheating. Maybe he could have been asked to keep his word. I agree that Consensual sex on false promise is cheating: HC.

But would you say he raped her?

Consensual sex, just because the woman was inexperienced (a virgin) should not be seen as Rape. This trivializes rape. This is also why many Indians confuse Rape with Sex. [How does an average Indian define Rape, Child Abuse and Consensual Sex?]


It is dangerous to allow marriages to make sexual assaults alright. [Five rapists in Patna want to marry gangrape victim.]

Another case:

Man raped girl on promise of marriage, gets 10-year jail

“The court said that after maintaining physical relations with the Muslim girl for over two years, Deepak Dogra refused to marry her. Moreover, to save himself from legal punishment, he went through “farce of marriage ceremony” despite knowing that it was neither lawful nor valid.”

Zinda Laash translates to ‘a living corpse’ or a lifeless person. Would you call a Rape Survivor a Zinda Laash?

Related Posts:

Would you call a Rape Survivor a Zinda Laash?
When a rape victim chooses her life over her ‘Honor’.
What do dented-painted women and disco-going protesters understand about a rape victim’s loss of honor?
How does an average Indian define Rape, Child Abuse and Consensual Sex?
Irresponsible girls who throw away their lives while in throes of lust for the completely wrong person…


43 thoughts on “On the verge of becoming a Zinda Laash but saved by marriage.

  1. These are delicate issues and need to be treated sensitively by the authorities/law.
    The element of common sense takes a back seat over age old dictats simply because there arent enough sensible people out there to put forth an idea.

    A well articulated article IHM.


  2. I wouldn’t call it rape or cheating. He changed his mind/broke his promise, but it is well within is rights to do so. It might make him a jerk (depending on the situation), but not a criminal.

    The above situation is awful. Why would two people who’re obviously going to hate each others’ guts want to get married?


    • Agree. An adult who makes a decision to sleep with a partner based on a promise should know full well that promises can also be broken. I don’t think it’s cheating as such, unless one partner lied/ omitted something that hug2ely impacts their ability of fulfilling the promise, like being already married. Only then can we say that the ‘promise’ was made with malicious intents, with the knowledge that it was false.

      If this is not the case and we still call breaking a promise ‘cheating’, then we are saying people should not be allowed to change their mind. What if he genuinely meant his promise but then grew out of love and didn’t wan’t the relationship anymore? If we don’t account for people changing their minds, then are we not just as bad as those saying ‘get married and stay married’?


  3. The definition of rape is messed up in India and other patriarchal societies. Having sex with a woman against her consent is rape (any kind of sex or forcing her by threats of murder etc). Willing sex with false promises is not rape, it is something else. But then, according to patriarchy, women are dumb creatures, incapable of making their own decisions and do not know what they want.


    • It is rape not only against her consent, also without her consent, especially if she is unable to give consent, as in the Steubenville case, that is, not saying NO is not enough; she must actually say YES.


      • The finer details differ by jurisdiction. A sleeping or unconscious person is unable to consent and unable to protest, so having sex with someone in such a state is considered rape in most jurisdictions. On the other hand, it is rare that explicit consent is requires. Implicit consent is often assumed to be given if a person is adult, awake and yet give no indication that they don’t want sex. That is, an absent of protest is often sufficient, and of course active participation is always sufficient.

        Here in Norway, (fairly typical for western european law) for example, you are guilty of rape if you use violence, or if you use threaths in order to force or pressure a person into having sex, and also if the person is unable to consent. But having sex with an adult who is awake and yet offers zero protest is legal, even if the person never explicitly consents. The lack of protest by itself is considered implicit consent. (presumably if you didn’t want sex, you’d ask the person to stop)

        It’s pretty rare that partners explicitly *ask* eachother if sex is wanted, implicit consent is the most common.


        • On the other hand, it is rare that explicit consent is requires

          This is true, but it is not because a lack of protest is automatically assumed to be implicit consent! .

          In most jurisdictions, an active communication of consent is required. However, this consent does not necessarily have to be verbal, and may comprise of gestures, actions and so forth.

          The Indian legal definition of ‘consent’, for example is

          “[an] unequivocal voluntary agreement when the person by words, gestures or any form of non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific act”.

          The same explanation goes on to say:

          […]a person who does not actively resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity[…]

          This corresponding Canadian definition is detailed in Section 273.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code :

          273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.”

          The Code goes further in subsection 2:

          Where belief in consent not a defence:

          273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271 , 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
          (a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s
          (i) self-induced intoxication, or
          (ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or
          (b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

          Therefore, in the Canadian system, like the Indian one, it is not enough that the complainant refrained from saying no. Instead, the accused person must take ‘reasonable steps’ to ascertain that consent was indeed granted, and if s/he does not do so, the legal liability is theirs to bear.

          Most other jurisdictions provide equivalent clauses.

          In cases where the complainant and accused are already in a sexual relationship, it is often considered reasonable that the accused person takes a lack of a clear NO to be an indication of consent. This is the only reason explicit verbal consent is generally not required between sexual partners, and the fact that such consent is often not essential should not be construed to mean that a mere lack of protest always equals consent; in many jurisdictions, it does not.

          It’s a fine point, but is absolutely crucial in rape prosecutions, and worth noting in any case.


        • @praveen: The *finer* points obviously differ by jurisdiction – but for this discussion those hardly matters. If I propose to you today, and later tonight we have consentual sex — that sex does not magically post-fact change status to “rape” if I (or you) for whatever reason break off the engagement.


  4. Pingback: Husband’s property | In My Sandals

  5. There are several distinct problems here, it’s all messy only if one does not clearly separate them. Rape is forcing someone into having sex by using physical force, or threaths. Since he did neither, he is clearly not guilty of rape. Sex with consent, is not rape. Not even if the person *later* (for whatever reason) regrets consenting.

    Second, promising to marry someone, then bailing out, is disappointing, but it is clearly not rape, and it should also not be a criminal thing to do. It is possible to have good intentions, yet to later change your mind because of any number of reasons. A promise to marry someone, should always be seen as a statement of *intention* and not as a legally binding obligation to do so. Pressuring people into marrying, if they no longer wish to marry, is a horrible thing to do, and not something a society should support or enforce with laws.

    Third, in some societies many people see a woman as having lesser worth if she’s got a sexual history. This is a pity, and the pain that these women experience, is real. However the guy in the story is not responsible for this. The blame for this sad state of affairs lie entirely with those people silly enough to think that a womans worth is determined by the whether or not she’s had intercourse.

    A lot of irrelevant stuff is too often brought up in rape-trials. This goes both ways and is a total mess. A persons sexual history, is not relevant but is often brought up. If a person was a virgin or not, is irrelevant, but is often brought up. If a person was married or not, is irrelevant but again — is often brought up. Here they bring up the question of *why* the woman consented. Again, this is not relevant for the question of rape or not. If you promise a prostitute money, and she agrees to sleep with you, then that sex is not rape. If you later fail to pay as agreed, then this is fraud, and as such illegal — however it is still *fraud* and not *rape* the two things are completely distinct.


    • I absolutely agree. This reminds me of a case from Pakistan that was a running joke on the internet a few years ago: a man was found having sexual intercourse with a goat–the village council made him marry the goat!


    • The blame for this sad state of affairs lie entirely with those people silly enough to think that a womans worth is determined by the whether or not she’s had intercourse.


      I don’t see why blaming the third-party is seen as a solution to this.


  6. “So there can be no doubt that the man should have been held accountable. If he promised marriage in return of premarital sex, perhaps he should have been punished for Cheating. Maybe he could have been asked to keep his word.”

    This is chivalry in its worst form. I assume the girl was an adult. For Christ’s sake, women do not need to be babied up nor do men owe protection, guidance, marriage or anything else to random women.

    Clearly, he was a cheat and a douche but laws can not have remedies for being wound up with a-holes.


    • I agree actually. The woman gave consent and we should assume she is capable of weighing up possibility and consequences of a broken promise in this case. Breaking a promise in terms of relationships or changing your mind cannot be criminalised. I absolutely do not agree with “Maybe he could have been asked to keep his word.”.. why? Why should we make people marry if they don’t want to? He didn’t rape her, she consented, for whatever reason. Beyond that, why should the law interfere in their relationship?

      He might have been a jerk and might have broken her heart, but unless we agree with patriarchy or unless he had sex with her without consent, this should not be a legal crime.


  7. there’s just SO much wrong here!
    First the guy lies to the girl, promises to marry her just to have sex with her. Then, the girl acts like she had sex with him just cos he promised to marry her and not cos she wanted to have sex with him as well!! What about the idea drilled into us that we MUST be married in order to have sex that people lie and cheat their way into pre-marital sex? If you’re going to have sex before marriage, why can’t you just be honest about it? Jeez!


    • You assume malicious intent where quite possibly none existed. Even well-meaning people do change their opinions every now and then, thus it’s perfectly possible that at the point where the man said he’d marry the woman, he had every intention of doing so, only later he changed his mind for whatever reason.


  8. So there can be no doubt that the man should have been held accountable. If he promised marriage in return of premarital sex, perhaps he should have been punished for Cheating. Maybe he could have been asked to keep his word. I agree that Consensual sex on false promise is cheating: HC.

    I disagree completely. You may choose to call this ‘fraud’, but in my opinion, it certainly does not rise to the level of criminality.

    A verbal promise to marry someone cannot be (or at least, should not be) construed as a legally binding contract. If the woman did not want to face the situation of him going back on his promise, she should simply not have had sex! There are attendant risks to having sexual intercourse with another person, both biological and social, and one must assume that adults who consent to the act are aware of them.
    I can, to some extent, empathize with a woman stuck in such a situation, but I cannot agree with the idea that she is entitled to any sort of legal remedy (let alone criminal remedy) for having put her trust in the wrong person.

    Not only that, I believe it is fallacious to assume malicious intentions behind the acts of every person who has sexual intercourse with a woman after promising marriage, but later refuses to go ahead with the latter. Relationships fail for many reasons. If person X wants to marry person Y today, and tells them so, this does not necessarily mean that they would want to do the same thing tomorrow. It is entirely plausible that person X was being truthful when he made the promise, but has changed his mind now. You cannot penalize people for changing their minds about something so intensely personal.

    Keeping one’s word is a nice thing to do, but people are usually not legally bound to do so, unless such legal liability is established beforehand, with the consent of both parties. I don’t see why this general principle should be turned on its head in the case of premarital sex.

    As for launching an entire rape prosecution against someone who went back on a promise of marriage, I believe it is a travesty of the worst kind, on every possible level. It is damaging to real victims of rape, it is damaging to public faith in the legal system, and it is a horrible, horrible injustice to the person being dubbed a ‘rapist’, when he has done nothing of the sort.


    • Fully agree with this and I also made the point about not assuming malicious intent in an earlier comment. Lying about your marital status/ identity might be cheating, promising to marry and changing your mind is not. Everyone should have the right to end a relationship, otherwise we just open them up to abuse. Should we charge all women with fraud too if they break up with their boyfriends/ fiancés? Why the special treatment for men’s promises to marry?

      If she consented based on whatever reason, then she must be held responsible for that consent. There is a legal age of consent in place and we must assume that someone above that age is capable of calculating the risks for themselves.


    • Also, it could be considered binding, if there was explicit and verbal contract that you have sex with me and I will marry you. If it was just, I will marry you, and then the sex happened, no matter how much that promise influenced the girl’s decision, it can not be binding, since nothing was explicitly exchanged or promised to be exchanged in return of that promise.


      • Also, it could be considered binding, if there was explicit and verbal contract that you have sex with me and I will marry you

        Actually, I don’t see that as sufficient either.

        Most parties must also consent to the penalties for not going ahead with it. Would it result in a simple ‘cutting off’, so to speak? Legal action? Criminal prosecution? Apart from the expected actions, the remedies available to each party against the non-fulfillment of those expectations should be clear too.


  9. “Unfortunately ‘rape’ in legal terms is also used to describe consensual sex if the woman was promised marriage to get her to consent.”

    It is the girls who are to be blamed if they carry a mindset of getting into a physical relationship with a boy (or bf) ONLY if they promise to marry. PROMISE! Isn’t it a common thing to see a mother getting her toddler to finish up a glass of milk by promising a toy in exchange? Only that, in such a case, the toddler dislikes the milk. But in a physical relationship, both the partners mutually enjoy the act (with mutual consent).

    ‘Promise’ is a fascinating word too close to the hearts of those who doggedly believe in the proverbial (and religious) ‘pran jaaye par vachan na jaaye’ nonsense.

    “Many Indian women (and men) believe women should have only one sexual relationship, and that should be with the man they marry (preferably only after they are married to him).”

    The concept of marriage is an extension of the ‘promise’ nonsense whereby each spouse is expected to be ‘loyal’ to the other. Unless concepts like monogamy or monoandry are linked to specific genes, it is obvious that humans may (and do) get sexually attracted to multiple people. What makes a person to expect that his or her spouse should not get sexually involved with another person? As long as a couple are in a normal marriage, how does it affect one if the other spouse is having sex with someone else? Laws against adultery and polygamy/polyandry are just forms of protection against jealousy which is masked by things like marriage, loyalty and promise.

    If a person expects his or her spouse to be loyal and keep their ‘promise’ as per their marriage, it is not much different from the mindset of a person consenting to sex after a promise to marry.


  10. A side-effect of classifying a couple breaking up after they had had sex as rape is that this reinforces the Indian cultural belief that women only want to have sex with their husbands or with men who would eventually become their husbands.


    • Yes. And the narrative is worse than that. The narrative is actually more like: All men want sex with all women at all times and no woman want sex with any man at any time. Instead, sex is something that women have, and men want. The women thus bargain and try to “sell” their sex for the highest possible price.

      In a sense, in this view, all women are prostitutes. They have sex as an exchange, gaining marriage while giving up their virginity. Similarly, in this view, men could never be sexually abused or raped by a woman – since they are assumed to always want it there couldn’t conceivably be a lack of consent in this direction.


  11. The whole concept of “sex” is so taboo for men and women alike more so in conventional families and then the added connection of “honor” linked with women and also sometimes the sexual orientation of men,makes it a very multi-layered and complicated situation.
    Sex even when forced in a committed relationship will be seen differently from ‘rape” because women are still seen as property owned by their men and women raped then are referred to as “zinda laash” .
    it is shameful indeed that this is how we view our women and crime against them.


  12. I think the answer lies in helping this woman get on with her life, get skills, find a job, reclaim her ‘lost respect’. It is not easy to be this woman. Many of us might be initially shocked at “Why would she want to marry him??” But then many of us have an education, a means of supporting ourselves, awareness, and reasonable privileges. I think we need to send a strong message to society by showing them that this woman’s life is by no means over, she’s not ‘damaged goods’, she can live, be productive, marry later (someone else) if she chooses, etc. We can do this by encouraging the underprivileged in our own lives to make better choices, and by giving them a hand out of oppression.

    The woman who became our ‘servant’ (I cringe at that word now even though we freely used it as kids) served us almost all her life. In a way, she became my mom’s best friend, her trusted confidant as she listened and sympathized with all of my mother’s woes. This woman had 2 daughters. The older one had (consensual) sex with someone who later dumped her. My mother refused to let her and her sister drop out of school. She paid their school fees and bought their uniforms. We routinely gave away our old clothes and books to the girls. We played ‘hide and seek’, ‘land and water’ with them. The older one became a typist and later learnt to use the computer and now works as a filing clerk. She is married to someone else and has a daughter. The younger one became a teacher. Change is possible. My mother showed me what one person is capable of changing.


  13. Completely agree with some of the commentators above who say verbal consent is just not legally binding, and is not sufficient to criminally prosecute the guy.

    It is also not possible to label the guy as a ‘cheat’ or ‘rapist’. The girl in question has given consent (whether lured by the promise of marriage or not), and the law presumes she was of sufficient intellect and maturity to have given it. Although I do pity with the girl. Its also not possible to be judgmental about the guy without listening to his side of the story.

    This whole episode appears to suggest that girl can withdraw consent at a later date, and the guy can be prosecuted for it. Seems like a ridiculous way to invoke the provisions of the law.


    • The issue is not if the statement is verbal or not. Verbal agreements are exactly as binding as other agreements, the main difference is that it’s harder to prove to a court exactly what was agreed.

      The issue is that an intention to marry someone, is not generally intended as an enforcable *promise* to do so, but more like a statement of intent. Also, even if there *was* an actual promise, written on paper and signed by both, in the presence of credible witnesses — breaking this contract would be “breach of contract” – or if intentional then “fraud” — there are no circumstances where breaking such a contract could be considered rape.


      • Willful, or even malicious breach of contract does not necessarily amount to fraud (which, unlike a breach of contract, is a crime).

        It could be seen as fraud in certain cases, but I am not convinced those circumstances actually exist here.


  14. The man did not rape her.. He broke up with her. Its completely unjustified to criminalize the partner for breaking up after having sex.
    The problem is having consensual sex is still a taboo for many women too..I have seen sooo many of my friends judging other women’s pre marital sexual relations and labeling them as characterless and announcing ‘Aww, who will marry them??’ Its really frustrating to find 24-25 yr old women say such things.. What women really need to understand is sex or no sex, a relationship may not end up into a marriage or rather breakup for various reasons.. and pre marital sex is a personal choice and a woman can also chose to have pre marital sex . it cannot in anyway prevent a women from moving on …


  15. It’s great surprise for me that a women call herself as feminist wrote this post. I am sorry, but I have seen many feminists who don’t accept the concept you told. They consider what you mentioned as cheating or something in your post as rape. Actually, I am thinking write a post on this issue. Anyway thanks for writing this post.


    • “I am sorry, but I have seen many feminists who don’t accept the concept you told. ”

      How does it matter to what IHM is saying? We’re all individuals. Do you think all ‘feminists’ have to agree and say the same thing? I’m sure you call yourself a man. Do all men agree with you on everything?


    • The problem is that while many women claim to be feminists, some interpret it solely as “getting the better deal for women”. Most people on this page who call themselves feminists, myself included, believe in equal rights for men and women, meaning equal shares of work, equal responsibilities for their own choices. And that also means that a grown-up woman, who consents to have sex with a guy, should just take responsibility for this choice instead of claiming rape otherwards.

      Others think that being a feminist means to make sure the woman has a comfortable life no matter what, which is probably what you were referring to. I wouldn’t put it beneath such people to encourage the woman in filing a rape case just so she can milk the occasion for all that it’s worth. I personally find it outright despicable to criminalize a person merely because he or she changed his mind about a relationship. Unfortunately, as long as such confusing laws exist, people will try to use them to their own advantage.


    • Ravi, it’s not just IHM who considers this as cheating and not rape. If you go over the comments, you will find a lot of feminists who do not consider this as rape. So when you say that “many feminists don’t accept the concept you told”, it could be due to one of two reasons
      1. Either you have discussed this topic with mostly extreme feminists in which case you would have been repeatedly subjected to these arguments
      2. Or you may have tried to use this example to trivialize the sufferings of rape victims by making blanket statements like “Most rape cases are false” or “most women cry rape after being caught having sex” in which case feminists would have descended on you with nuclear fury

      Either way, it’s nice that we haven’t totally disappointed you 🙂


      • Agree with Carvaka that feminists can think differently and IHM is not obligated to mimic someone else.
        Also many people (men and women) I’ve met seem to think a feminist is someone who hates men and will bend the rules if they suit women. The truth is there are many kinds of feminists, and perhaps a few do think this way. I’m not obligated to follow them.
        I believe in equal rights for all – regardless of gender, race, economic status, orientation, age, or ability. We need to see feminism as a subset of a larger equality paradigm. A more humanitarian society is good for all of us, not just some of us.


  16. The problem here (from what I can discern) is as follows. Man promises eternal happiness to a woman in exchange of sex (this is not a new phenomenon), girl agrees, they have sex, man in question gets what he wants and then bails, girl is presumably left with no future.

    This, by definition, is not rape. It’s a sad, sad situation, but it’s not rape. She came to the decision much like everyone else who has sex comes to a decision, but this decision was made on a false promise by someone who had absolutely no intention of seeing it through.

    Is this her fault? Absolutely not. The guy in question is an absolute jerk. How was she to know that he was possibly only in this for the sex and had no intention to get married? If there is anything he can be held accountable for, it’s a complete breach of trust.

    The possible reason why this is classified as rape is because consensual sex for a woman before marriage is never considered. If it happens, it’s because she’s either a) a prostitute or b) raped. Furthermore, even though the above situation probably happens a LOT in India, premarital sex and its various pitfalls are almost never discussed in our society. So nobody really knows what to do if a man or woman in a relationship acts like a jerk. There is no one to stand by and tell someone who’s been in such a relationship that things will be okay. That, coupled with the idea that women who have had sex with someone other than their husband are ruined, makes for a situation where people are backed into a corner. There are no resources for them to turn to, no middle ground for them to reach. It’s either, get married, or stay ruined.

    When the prevailing mindset is such that you only have two extremes and no neutral solution, who can blame someone for panicking and crying “rape”? The person in question probably saw it as their only option to lead a decent life free of stigma.

    The definition of rape definitely needs some work. Possibly in legal writing, but the societal mindset needs to change, no questions asked.


  17. Hello, Shishir here. First, this post is a very neatly pressed writ. Sustaining on that, I would like to ask you a question in the most general of senses. Would you decree to the establishment of the “rape” crisis in India on the factual that we are( or atleast the society of the country have lighted it in the most confucian of ways) men driven in social convention, thus led by a whim that men consider women in the likes of a sexual toy? If so, since you have brought the issue up, how would you solve this enigma our people face? Many thanks to you, keep posting.


  18. Pingback: Girls morally bound not to have sex before marriage, says fast track court judge | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  19. Pingback: ‘I’m now thoroughly convinced that the entire concept of virginity is used to control female sexuality.’ | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s