Agagooga :For full equality, I support the removal of wife maintenance provisions.

Aaron Ng :Agagooga,
Alternatively, we should introduce husband maintenance provisions.

I’m not too sure I agree with you both. Can I propose that maintenance be given to the partner who is less well-off? This would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Naturally the partner who has to look after the children (or more children than the other) should be given more, again subject to evaluation. Gender shouldn’t be factored in as a criterion.

MansVoice :I disagree that marital rape immunity should be removed but I do not condone criminal acts either. If a man commits domestic abuse, he should be punished. Period.

Problem is, MansVoice, how do you propose to reconcile both of those notions? Sex shouldn’t be forced on either partner, period. Why not we remove the immunity and then make it criminal for women to rape men (latter idea brought up by daniel, Jol and siaoderman)? In this way, rape in all its forms (male-on-female, female-on-male) is criminalised, and sex remains the joyful activity it was meant to be.

With the laws of many countries biased and skewed towards females and knowing the inherent nature of women, men would one day live the lives of the black widow (spider).

For those who argues for marital rape law, I hope your family and lineage would live the type of lives that you are fighting for. Please think before you stand to be counted on such an important issue.

Imagine we live in Redland, where grievous bodily hurt is an offence but for some strange reason, murder isn’t. Now imagine that X twists off Y’s testacles and leaves him to bleed to death. X will be charged with GBH, but not murder. If that a just outcome for Y? I doubt so.

In case you think my analogy is flawed, i should direct you to PP v. N, [1994] 3 Sing. L.R. 369. A husband tied his wife up, stripped her naked, and forcibly violated her multiple times. If the couple had not been married, the husband would’ve gotten 10 years for rape. However, even though the husband behaved like an animal, Yong CJ’s hands were tied. He could only give him a maximum sentence of 18 months- a pittance compared to the arguably deserved 10 years.

This is why the “marital rape is still covered by other offences” argument is only superfically convincing, and actually falls apart under scrutiny.

As for the evidential problems, don’t courts face the same issues when dealing with typical rape cases? And don’t they cope fine? If a marital rape case comes before the court, the marriage can count as circumstantial evidence that the husband reasonably believed consent was given, and can at least defend himself under s. 79 of the Penal Code. Lest you think wives will be able to get away with scurrilous accusations, be advised that if the court finds that she’s doing this just to vex her husband, it will reflect *very badly on *her reputation- arguably worse than for the husband. That in itself should suffice to deter vexatious litigation, while achieving justice for women who truly deserve protection.

Last but not least, i also think that rape should cover male victims of female predators. This could assuage Agagooga’s fear of men losing their rights, and also more accurately protect men in the face of women’s increasing empowerment.