Comments on: Singapore’s law encourages men to rape their wives

By: Lamont Wolfe

Lamont Wolfe — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:01:23 +0000

40klutlkg9nddzui

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:02:03 +0000

What a cheap way to draw traffic.

There is no marital immunity the way you say it. Battery, sexual assault are still criminal charges

By: Mickey

Mickey — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:26:10 +0000

So what’s the quickest route to Singapore?

By: IntoTheWild: When you want something in life, you just gotta reach out and grab it. » Blog Archive » are we living in the 21st century?

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:08:53 +0000

[...] Singapore’s law encourages men to rape their wives I just read AFP’s report on the failed attempt to repeal s377A (the act that criminalizes sex between two men) and this was what the Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, has to say: “While homosexuals have a place in society… repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life,” Ho said. [...]

By: Ob

Ob — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:31:45 +0000

Non-consensual penetration? That brings rather interesting images to my mind involving strap ons, ropes, and some back door action.

(The sad thing is, p0rn exists depicting the above. Those dastardly Japanese. :cool:)

Perhaps more rigorous terminology would be along the order of ‘Penetration and/or -Envelopment-’. On this topic, is it true that men can have involuntary erections regardless of whether they were aroused? Since it would be rather difficult for Non-Consensual Envelopment to take place if Little Brother was scared of some Non-Consensual Envelopment. I would not know, I have not been raped before.

Maybe if she drugged the guy with some Viagra and sleeping pills before binding him with multiple cast iron Yale locks and chains to a bed or ceiling suspension and then threatened to burn his childhood comic books since there’s no way a female can possibly overcome the overwhelming male physique.

I guess she could also whip him a little for good measure, I dunno, be creative for your poontang.

Also, I feel this is a given, but worth saying:

Regardless of all that is said and done, let us please not forget that at the end of the day that as men, spoiling women a little is well and fine, and in fact, rather fun and fulfilling.

That said, know your limits and when to say no. If you find that she’s stabbing you in the back, take that as a signal that you need to overhaul your dating procedures and emergency protocol. -Those- emergencies.

In my humble opinion, if more of us remembered this we would hardly have a need to quibble about these laws. Also, if a guy ever gets -Raped- by a woman, he has much MUCH greater issues to worry about. Trust me on that.

Not that that’s even remotely possible.

In short, women can have their cake and eat it (If it doesn’t break their diet; have to keep up the eye candy now).

By: Jol

Jol — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:31:48 +0000

If the evidence is insufficient there should be an acquittal. The fact is, more guilty men are likely to be exculpated (precisely because proof is so difficult) than innocent men are likely to be convicted. The question here is solely whether you think husbands should have BLANKET IMMUNITY, REGARDLESS of the evidence.

I also agree that non-consensual penetration of either gender by either gender should be considered rape.

By: siauderman

siauderman — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:23:48 +0000

well jol then tell me how you’d prevent abuse of a marital rape criminalization statute by a spiteful wife who “regrets the morning after”. where there are no witnesses present it’s not particularly easy for a man to offer even “reasonable doubt”. being a woman, of course, you wouldn’t mind all of that. probably very good for you to keep men docile, isn’t it?

in any case it’s not very fair for the penal code to say that only men can rape women. but still. i digress.

By: Jol

Jol — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:42:06 +0000

Also, when you continually deride women as dumb, irrational, delusive about our own aspirations and emotions, and mercenary, this outrage when other people regard you as misogynist is just bizarre.

By: Jol

Jol — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:18:20 +0000

The problem is, when you frame it in terms of a loss of “rights”, even if you mean legal rather than moral rights, you do suggest that there is a loss of something beneficial to men that should be counted against the removal of the exemption in the ledger. I would contend that it should not be considered on a cost-benefit analysis at all. We should not feel that it is even the slightest bit an encroachment on someone else that they cannot commit rape. If you think something that men possess is reduced by not being able to rape their wives, to avoid the suggestion that this reduction is a negative factor in removing the exemption, isn’t the more appropriate word “privilege”, not “rights”?

By: Agagooga

Agagooga — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:52:17 +0000

This is a ridiculous witch hunt.

I never said that men have a moral right to rape their wives. I was pointing out that the analogy with gay rights is wrong because granting gays rights does not reduce the rights of anyone else, not that it is wrong because it is right to rape your wife.

Similarly, pointing out that emancipating slaves reduces the rights of their masters while allowing Blacks to sing spirituals at home does not reduce the rights of anyone else (assuming no one hears them) does not amount to endorsing slavery.

Even if your cause is just and correct, using incorrect, misleading or fallacious arguments does no one any favours - least of all the cause itself.

If you could put aside your conviction that I am a misogynist for one second perhaps you would be able to see that you are just going on a roll and unloading your entire baggage of preconceptions on me.