“Instituting the idea of marital rape raises the specter of a man going for long periods without sex even though he’s married!”

“I mean what’s the point then, right?”

Quoting Bhagwad Jal Park.

Here’s more,

“The true motive behind the opposition to marital rape might just be the resistance to a woman’s sexual autonomy. Men and even women are brought up with the idea that marriage is a license to have sex whenever the man wants. And that by refusing it, the woman is not doing her “duty”. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that sex is not something that women enjoy. That they only do it for children and after that they don’t want it anymore. Instituting the idea of marital rape raises the specter of a man going for long periods without sex even though he’s married! I mean what’s the point then, right?

I now understand what the government meant when it said they were “protecting marriage”. What they they’re defending is not marriage per se, but the warped idea of marriage that Indians have. For them, marriage is just a license to have socially accepted sex. Allowing women to say “no” takes that away from them. In the future, they might *gasp* actually have to try and be nice to the woman, make her feel wanted, and be romantic. You can’t treat her like dirt and still exercise a god given right to use her body when you want.

And that sense of entitlement is probably the true reason for this resistance.”

Read, Like and Share the post here – The Huge Opposition to Marital Rape Laws is Shocking 

Here’s another quote:

“Criminalizing marital rape is a no brainer. There’s no need for even the phrase “marital rape” to exist. We don’t have “marital murder” after all.”

Related Posts:
Making Marital Rape a legal offence is the fastest way to make it clear that Rape means forced sex, not lost Virginity or Honor.

Forcible sex with wife doesn’t amount to marital rape: Court

For Victims and Survivors of Marital Rapes.

Where Consensual Sex is Rape, and Forced Sex a legal right.

“Girls should be married at 16, so that they don’t need to go elsewhere for their sexual needs. This way rapes will not occur.”

Who will benefit from criminalising sexual assaults within marriages?

Where Consensual Sex is Rape, and Forced Sex a legal right.

Is it women-friendly to call Consensual Sex ‘Rape’ and Forced Sex a legal right? It makes no sense unless we see a woman’s virginity (and bodies and  sexuality) as something that rightfully belongs to her husband, in laws and the society. Who benefits from this kind of mindset?

The government has now brought in an ordinance to introduce stricter penalties for crimes against women Patriarchy, instead of implementing recomendations made by Justice Verma Committee. [Do read more here]

1. Why is it that the Indian law makers believe that Indian men must be given the legal right to rape their wives?

Do they see a sexual assault as loss of honor/virginity/purity or as a criminal assault? If a sexual assault is seen as a criminal assault, then why is it treated different from any other violent assault?

When it is not a legal right to beat, cheat, treat cruelly or burn-alive a spouse – then what makes the government hesitate in acknowledging that forced sex with a spouse (or anybody) should not be seen as a husband’s (or anybody’s) legal right?

2. The same logic makes it legal for Indian men to rape fifteen year old girls if they are married to the minors. [link]

And here’s what makes the patriarchal hypocrisy so obvious:

3. Consensual sex between 16 to 18 years old unmarried teenagers is being seen as rape. Who do you think benefits from criminalising consensual sex between 16- 18 year olds? [link]

This is NOT what the Verma Committee recommended.

Women’s groups reject ordinance on rape laws, urge President not to sign it [Link] Do watch the video here. http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/fromndtv/263810

Related Posts:

1. Making Marital Rape a legal offence is the fastest way to make it clear that Rape means forced sex, not lost Virginity or Honor.

2. Who benefits from criminalizing consensual teenage sex?

3. “Here’s why I think the society should not obsess over a woman’s virginity.”

4. ‘Bill seeks to let 12-yr-olds have non-penetrative sex’. Does it really?

5. Pregnant at fifteen? No moral issues. Unmarried and pregnant at fifteen. Degeneration of society.

Forcible sex with wife doesn’t amount to marital rape: Court

Why is ‘forcible sex’ or ‘lack of consent’ not rape? What purpose does protecting any rapist (married to the rape victim or not) serve?

Forcible sex with wife doesn’t amount to marital rape: Court

“Defence counsel rightly argued that IPC does not recognise any such concept of martial rape. If complainant was a legally-wedded wife of accused, the sexual intercourse with her by accused would not constitute offence of rape even if it was by force or against her wishes,” the court said.

…rest of the alleged offences, including those of causing hurt, criminal intimidation and theft, for which the accused was charge-sheeted, were triable by a magistrate.

And then what does this news report mean?

Priest gets jail for forced sex with wife

AMBALA: A local court on Friday sentenced a temple priest to one-year imprisonment for having forced sex with his wife.

The police had registered a case under sections 376 A (forced intercourse with wife), 323 (causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC against the priest on May 11, 2011, at the Ambala Cantt police station on the complaint of Gurdev Kaur.

In her complaint to the police, 36-year-old Kaur had alleged that her husband Shivpuri, 44, not only had forced sex with her but also threatened to kill her.

Police had registered a case after conducting an inquiry and on the basis of the medical report of the woman, which had confirmed “forced sexual intercourse”.

Around 14 persons, including the doctor, who had examined Kaur, were presented before the court as witnesses during the trial.

Kaur’s advocate Khushi Ram said that in cases of forced intercourse with wife, maximum punishment a court can order is of two years.

“The court sentenced Shivpuri to one year prison as no cruelty or violence was reported by the victim,” added Khushi Ram.

It also seems that hurting, being cruel or threatening to kill a spouse are seen as legal offences, but raping them is not. So it’s possible that rape is not seen as a cruel or hurtful act.