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