PDA

View Full Version : Entitlement to sex


Faithless
01-24-2005, 05:38 PM
Is either gender entitled to sex?

Furore over marital rape: It should be seen as a criminal offence (http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004b/9m.html)
by Prema Devaraj
Aliran Monthly, Vol 24 (2004): Issue 9

MARITAL RAPE: A VIOLENT ACT

Given the marked increase in violent crimes including sexual abuse and domestic violence, Suhakam (the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) recently submitted a report to the Parliamentary Select Committee proposing amendments to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Although not specifically mentioned as such, the issue of marital rape was subsequently highlighted in the press, stirring up a hornet’s nest. Religious intellectuals and others described Suhakam’s suggestions as going against Islam and ruining the marriage institution (Mingguan Malaysia, 21 Aug 2004). In response, Suhakam commissioner Prof Hamdan Adnan stood firm and defended Suhakam’s recommendations. “Rape is violent and cruel and indeed should not happen between a husband and wife” (NST 24 Aug 2004).

The call for the recognition of marital rape is not new. The Anti-Rape Task Force representing Women’s Centre for Change, Sisters in Islam, Women’s Aid Organisation, All Women Action Society and Protect and Save the Children submitted a memorandum in September 2003 to the Attorney General’s chambers, the Ministry of Women and Family Development and members of Parliament which, among other things, called for marital rape to be recognized as an offence. Their frequent dealings with women who had been abused sexually by their husbands have spurred women’s groups to push for legislation against marital rape.

Discussions in the press show that there is some acknowledgement that sexual abuse of a wife by her husband does indeed occur; however, the phrase ‘marital rape’ and the suggestion that it should be made an offence under the Penal Code has evoked a strong negative response from some quarters. Some of the arguments used by individuals who oppose not only the criminalization of marital rape, but the concept itself, are discussed below.

1. The rights of a husband in a marriage

It is often believed that once a woman is married, she is her husband’s property and the marriage contract is an entitlement to sex. Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th Century England wrote:

“ The husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”

Perak Mufti Dr Harussani Zakaria would seem to support this same thinking when he was recently quoted as saying that the act of a husband forcing his wife to have sex with him cannot be construed as rape and as a wrongdoing in Islam:

“A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrant) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible for his wife (23 Aug 2004, The Star).

Comment: There is a huge difference between having consensual sexual intercourse with a spouse and raping a spouse. Sexual intercourse between consenting spouses does not entail abuse, violence and force. Rape on the other hand occurs where consent is absent and often, coercion (both physical and mental) prevails. One must consider to what extent a spouse can claim conjugal rights. In terms of conjugal rights, while some may argue that sexual intercourse between husband and wife jima’ is a religious duty and that the wife must submit, others have argued that the husband should perform jima’ with adab (courtesy). All religions value human dignity and life. None of them condone the use of force or cruelty in a marriage; however narrow interpretations of religious texts have often been used to justify the oppression of women. This has to stop.

2. Existing laws and sufficient

Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association deputy president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar felt that existing laws were sufficient to tackle the issue. Religious Adviser to the Prime Minister Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Othman was reported as saying that Islamic Family laws already gave Muslim wives an appropriate remedy (NST 23Aug 2004). He said that a Muslim wife could turn to the Syariah Court if she is dissatisfied or treated with cruelty and demand a divorce.

Comment: There is no specific provision on marital rape in either the Islamic Family Law Enactments or the Penal Code. Although a woman may lodge a complaint of ill treatment against her husband in the Syariah Court, how likely would a complaint of ‘forced sex with one’s husband’ be interpreted as ill treatment or sufficient grounds for divorce? Furthermore, suggesting that a woman should demand a divorce implies that the offence is a merely a marital offence and not a criminal one.

As for the Penal Code, Section 375 states clearly, the circumstances that define rape. However if the act of sexual intercourse between a man and his wife falls under any of these circumstances set out in S.375, the man is protected from being charged with raping his wife due to the exception clause in S.375. Women’s groups have called for the removal of this exception clause so that the marriage institution will no longer protect husbands who sexually abuse or rape their wives. One might argue that marital rape could come under the purview of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) 1994 which also includes in the definitions of domestic violence “ (c) compelling the victim by force or threat to engage in any conduct or act, sexual or otherwise, from which the victim has a right to abstain”. The problem with the DVA is that in order to prosecute a person, it has to be a crime under one of the provisions of the Penal Code. Because marital rape is not recognized in the Penal code, forced sexual relations with a husband becomes an act from which a wife has no right to abstain. And so, there is no legal protection for women on this matter, be they Muslim or non-Muslim wives.

3. The relationship between a man and his wife is a family issue

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil reportedly said “ Marital rape is a family issue and as Muslims we have to look at the matter this, way, studying it from all aspects and not pointing fingers” (NST 24 Aug 2004). A letter in NST (6 Sept 2004) entitled “Do not meddle with the family” suggests that “some things are beyond legislation and best left to the conscience of man himself”.

Comment: When a person is assaulted or abused, it is no less a crime when the perpetrator is a family member. Violence within the family cannot be considered a family matter. The DVA is an example of a legislation that deals with violence/abuse in a domestic situation. Domestic violence (or child abuse for that matter) is no longer considered a private family issue. It is an act of violence that society does not tolerate. Marital rape should also be seen in the same light.

4. Legislation would lead to extra-marital affairs

A letter to the press (NST 25 Aug 2004) suggested, if wives have the right to say “no” to their husbands, then the husbands would be “faced with the dilemma of either committing marital rape or the matrimonial offence of adultery in seeking sexual release with another woman”.

Comment: Once again women are held responsible for men’s actions. Marital rape is often trivialized as an issue of a man wanting sex and the woman being difficult and forcing the poor sex-starved husband to compel his wife to have sex. Marital rape is not about sexual release. It is a violent act. It is to do with the abuse of power and the domination of a wife. It has been said that one marriage partner can make the other miserable, but can’t make the other unfaithful. Adultery is about choice and the adulterer must take full responsibility for his/her actions.

5. Marital rape is a Western idea

There are those who argue that marital rape is a western concept and designed to disrupt the family unit. Perak Mufti Datuk Seri Dr Harussani Zakaria was reported to have said that Suhakam’s proposal came about as a result of Western influences, adding that Western society felt guilty over the way its men had treated women in the past and that was why it strove to give women additional rights now (NST 23 Aug 2004).

Comment: It makes no difference what the origins of the phrase ‘marital rape’ are. The point is that this form of abuse occurs throughout the world irrespective of culture, religion or ethnic background. That we learn from and share our experiences with women from different parts of the world, does not negate the issue. It is also high time we stop blaming the West for everything we disagree with.

Resistance to recognizing marital rape (let alone criminalizing it) is not unexpected. Proponents of the DVA know only too well that it took them more than 10 years to get the Act passed. Recognition is just the first step towards accessing justice for marital rape victims. From the experience with the DVA, we know that legislation alone will not make the problem disappear; however it will send a very strong message to society that violence in the home (including the sexual abuse of a wife) is a crime and a public matter. It cannot be tolerated or condoned. In addition to legislation, greater public awareness on this issue and support systems for women in these circumstances are urgently needed.

As a signatory to the Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), albeit with some reservations, Malaysia is morally obliged to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women, whether Muslim or non Muslim. The existing legislation on rape discriminates against women who are raped by their husbands. They have no legal protection. An AFP article Asia divided over the issue of marital rape (NST, 28 Aug 2004) lists Australia, Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, Philippines and South Korea in a growing list of Asian countries that recognize rape in a marriage. More recently, Indonesia has joined this list. Perhaps one day soon, Malaysia will have the courage to do the same.

Now e-mail us and tell us what you think. Your comments might be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly.

sOKaLiBoY
01-24-2005, 05:54 PM
i'd say no. it is and always should be a mutual thing. one should not be awarded sex just because they are a man or woman.

truMp
01-24-2005, 08:01 PM
Touchy, touchy. It would have to really depend on the culture.

Napoleon Chynamite
01-24-2005, 08:30 PM
Since I've been in the business of citing Stand-Up Comedy bits lately, I remember that one time when Chris Rock was talking about divorce, and he was saying something like "Why is it that when women complain to the judge they always talk about what they are accustomed to? When you go to a restaurant, you get accustomed to eating. When you live, you aren't eating anymore, they don't owe you a steak. But they still get the alimony anyway. What about what men are accustomed to? Yeah your honor, I'm used to fucking her 3 times a week. So she can have the alimony...but I want some pussy payments." Anyways, thought that was amusing although perhaps not all too appropriate.

deez nuts
01-25-2005, 06:58 AM
Since I've been in the business of citing Stand-Up Comedy bits lately, I remember that one time when Chris Rock was talking about divorce, and he was saying something like "Why is it that when women complain to the judge they always talk about what they are accustomed to? When you go to a restaurant, you get accustomed to eating. When you live, you aren't eating anymore, they don't owe you a steak. But they still get the alimony anyway. What about what men are accustomed to? Yeah your honor, I'm used to fucking her 3 times a week. So she can have the alimony...but I want some pussy payments." Anyways, thought that was amusing although perhaps not all too appropriate.


i would also like to add: 'be a man."

mrazntre
01-25-2005, 04:27 PM
I love topics like these because this is where I can really foray into the psychosis of human kind.

If a man needs/desires sex from his wife, but his wife is resistant in giving him sex, then the man should cease and desist. Simple as that. Now, after stopping his sexual advances towards his wife, he should then seek out a woman that will satisfy his sexual needs and desires. Simple as that. This is rational thought in that he sought out his wife to do the things that married people do and if she rejects and neglects such action, then he has the right to make a substitution in order to fulfill his libido.

It's like sports. The woman complains of headaches, she then goes on the IL. For the duration of the IL she cannot go back into the game for 5 games and a substitution is called. This might be another player on the team or a call up

Case closed.


To paraphrase: If your wife doesn't want to have sex, leave her be and go fuck someone else.

applehead
01-25-2005, 06:26 PM
It is often believed that once a woman is married, she is her husband’s property and the marriage contract is an entitlement to sex. Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice in 17th Century England wrote:

“ The husband cannot be guilty of rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”
well i don't know how anyone
can think that rape is okay between husband and wife.

also very surprised that the word "rape" (as in forcing sexual relations)
was even part of the english language
in the 17th century.

mrazntre
01-25-2005, 08:33 PM
wat would you prefer them to use?


"unwelcome patty cake?"

Faithless
01-25-2005, 09:51 PM
...
To paraphrase: If your wife doesn't want to have sex, leave her be and go fuck someone else.
Or he can go fuck himself. :tongue:

Balthus Dire
01-25-2005, 09:57 PM
Some cultures allow more than one wife and in that circumstance "mrazntre" is right, the husband can "bone" the other wives if one wife isn't "in the mood". Well, I've always wondered whether it was possible to consider rape between a married couple, but I guess it is!

applehead
01-26-2005, 07:06 AM
wat would you prefer them to use?


"unwelcome patty cake?"
LOL
i mean that rape must have been pretty
out in the open for them to be using
the word rape at all.
i mean in the 1600's, i would've
thought it was more hush hush
and no one ever talked about it.

AliBabaIncorporated
01-26-2005, 07:43 AM
Although not specifically mentioned as such, the issue of marital rape was subsequently highlighted in the press, stirring up a hornet’s nest.
Lemme guess, the "hornets" wanted four witnesses to the rape and the wife gets caned if she can't prove her case? Pathetic, even Indonesia has clearer laws on this topic than us (even if you can get off being charged there by paying the judge and the cops).

asvenus
01-26-2005, 01:05 PM
well even in this so called bastion of western liberation (the UK) marital rape was not recognised until 1991 and then still not made statutory until 1994 (RvR pretty disturbing case)..so there you go...
what is disturbing is the notion that women inherently are male property and therefore should remain sexually available at all times. this is exacerbated in marriage, where the popular myth reigns that once a woman is married she foregoes the right to say no to anything her husband demands as depicted in marriage vows etc
it is outrageous to even consider that rape is not possible within marriage, although these attitudes are far from rare and perpetuate the commonly held view that rape is not really an act of violence against women and rarely happens anyway

and matthew hale...grrr *goes red in the face* dont even get me started on this piece if misogynistic shit...

nonamerasian
01-26-2005, 03:28 PM
Of course there is such a thing as marital rape, but is there also a marital "implied consent"?

This guy wrote a paper about a fantasy he has of sticking his cock into his sleeping wife's mouth hoping that she'd wake up and finish him off.

He was particularly worried about the fantasy because he was raped when he was younger.

The columnist of the paper wrote that the husband's fantasy is worrisome because of his past, however, acting upon it is "not necessarily rape" because there is a certain implied consent that can be taken for granted in longterm relationships.

He didn't give the guy the green light to act out his fantasy, suggesting that he talk about this with his wife beforehand and make sure she'd be consensual.

But do you guys think it would have been rape if the husband had acted under the shield of implied consent without asking his wife beforehand?

Where's the line between implied consent and rape?

Do you believe there is even an implied consent in relationships?

VV o n g B a
01-26-2005, 03:45 PM
Of course there is such a thing as marital rape, but is there also a marital "implied consent"?good question... i've wondered if it was illegal to slip ur wife some type of female aphrodisiac w/o her knowledge...

nola
01-26-2005, 06:36 PM
Domestic violence is now being taken more seriously and is prosecuted more often because it's being compared to a public crime. Marital rape should be considered the same as non-private sphere rape, that is, "no means no". She would have said no to waking up with a cock in her mouth.

We get back to the issue of public vs. private and the more women's private sphere is considered public the more safety and rights women will have.

asvenus
01-27-2005, 11:49 AM
in the UK there is alot of rhetoric around extending the arm of the law into the home to prtoect women and children but thats unfortunately where it stops, as many police and other CJS agents still retain the attitude that the home is a 'private' domain and a mans 'castle', also much of the legal provisions still stipulate that a woman who has been abused must bring a writ under civil law' rather than 'criminal law', basically meaning that prosecution can be dropped, resulting in many charges being dropped and majority of abusers going free..reforms are on thing but as you pointed out without attitude changes, nothing will change

nola
01-27-2005, 11:57 AM
Fortunately the US is going the other direction. In Florida domestic violence law is extreme. If you argue loudly with your wife you can go to jail.

BigLew
01-27-2005, 01:07 PM
If you argue loudly with your wife you can go to jail.And that is a good thing???

nola
01-27-2005, 01:25 PM
No, that's it's too extreme in Florida. Domestic violence prosecution should be somewhere between asvenus' UK and Florida. I know someone who's friend was in jail for arguing loudly with his girlfriend. I felt bad for him. I heard alot of men are in jail there for domestic violence and oftentimes it seemed unfair.

A.R.A.M.
01-27-2005, 01:29 PM
Fortunately the US is going the other direction. In Florida domestic violence law is extreme. If you argue loudly with your wife you can go to jail.

What? That's a little extreme, isn't it? I am a supporter of laws against domestic violence, but this isn't physical violence.

And what if the woman is yelling at the man? Can she be carted off to jail? Or is arguing loudly only something that men are penalized for?

nola
01-27-2005, 01:40 PM
See my post above yours.

EVERYTHING in Florida is retro and this includes their looking at women as frail creatures that need to be protected.

nonamerasian
03-08-2005, 08:51 AM
I never knew there was such a disparity between stranger rape and spousal rape in the States.

Rape is rape, for better or worse
Cherre Stoneham
Opinion Columnist
March 02, 2005

I once heard someone say that when a stranger rapes a woman, she has to live with a frightening memory. But when her husband rapes her, she has to live with the rapist.

It's the year 2005 and spousal rape is still being looked at as a lesser degree of rape. Rape is rape: it doesn't matter who does it or what form of rape it is.

Back in 1979, spousal rape in California was prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. But on July 5, 1993, spousal rape finally became a crime in all 50 states, according to the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.

But in some states, spousal rape can be exempt from prosecution when a wife is most vulnerable -- mentally or physically impaired, unconscious or asleep.

A 49-year-old Arizona woman was beaten and raped last September by her husband from midnight to sunrise. If this weren't a spousal rape, the perpetrator would have been sentenced to up to 14 years in prison. Since the rapist was the woman's husband, he may be sentenced to only 1 1/2 years or be given no prison time at all.

If a wife refuses to have sex with her husband, that doesn't mean that she deserves to be raped. Wives are not their husbands' property.

More than one out of every seven married women have been raped by their spouses. Spousal rape is a reality. And it's a crime.

Research indicates that spousal rape victims are more likely to be raped multiple times when compared with stranger- and acquaintance-rape victims. Women who experience spousal rape suffer long-lasting physical and psychological injuries that are as severe or more severe than stranger-rape victims.

In California, the period to report spousal rape is one year. Any other type of rape can be reported up to three years afterward. Also, a person who commits spousal rape can just be sentenced to probation or have their sentence suspended. For non-spousal rape, a person cannot be sentenced to probation.

"No" means "no," regardless of when or to whom it is said. A wife may refuse to sleep with her husband because she is tired, sick, menstruating, pregnant, just not in the mood or for any other reason. Rape can be a brutal and humiliating experience for the victim. Marital sex is supposed to be loving and kind, not vicious and disrespectful.

Researchers who have spoken with these husbands conclude that they rape their wives in order to express anger or reinforce their power, dominance or control over them.

Then there are those silly stereotypes, such as women enjoying forced sex, women saying "no" when they really mean "yes," it being a wife's duty to have sex or a woman being a bad wife by not having sex against her will.

Since a wife has had consensual sex with her husband before, then she must understand that she can never say "no." Her husband is no longer a stranger.

It's time that spousal rape is taken more seriously. Rape victims need to be assured that the law will stand behind them and protect them.

A husband's role is to love, cherish and protect his wife, not to become her enemy.

http://www.orion-online.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/02/42251b82a403e

deez nuts
03-08-2005, 09:08 AM
there's no entitlement to sex when you're married.

however, you are entitled to get it somewhere else if you're not getting it, not getting enough of it and/or not getting it when you want it at home. it all depends on if you want to pursue this option.

kimpossible
03-08-2005, 10:19 AM
I think there is an entitlement of sorts when you get married but it's mixed in there with a lot of responsibilities and vows. It's not really something that stands up on its own once you extract from the framework of the responsibilities towards your mate plus the vows you took.

"Forsaking all others" to me means your sex comes from one source period so you both have to be accommodating. It's not fair to take those vows and then withhold sex from your partner. That's not what the deal is about. Marriage is about building that lifetime relationship and like it or not, sex has a good deal to do with it. Take it away, and you're basically roommates or siblings. I think consent is implied once you're legally married or declare yourselves a formation of family but that implied consent must be treated with respect.

To me, abuse is a separate issue and not at all grey area. Most abuse has an identifiable pattern and permeates all aspects of the relationship. Where you have sexual abuse, you usually have physical abuse, emotionall, verbal, financial. What I would really like to disentangle is the issue of men wanting sex more often then their wives (and wives wanting more sex than their husbands give to them) and abusers who use rape as part of their overall domestic reign of terror.

YuheiCarreau
03-08-2005, 11:22 AM
I dunno, I've never been married but it seems that most married people have been sort of cajoled into having sex at a time when they didn't really want to (although it seems that the only time men don't want it is when the couple is trying to conceive, and that makes them feel pressured). I think it's wrong to say that a husband or wife is obligated to have sex whenever the other person wants it, but it's probably fair to say that marriage makes it so that the person who wants sex doesn't always have to go home unsatisfied. Does that make sense?