XiSd Tay on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 9:33 am 

While in principle I agree that a men should not force a women, ie: his spouse to have sex, but then enacting a law against that will open it to abuse by the spouse if things turn bad later on.

Its a very complicate issue as far as sex between spouses are concern and to define unwilling sex as being rape is unacceptable. Most women are ‘cold’ and ‘unwilling’ whenever it comes to sex. Some women are not easilly aroused and some though willing are shy to admit it.

So say then whenever if I asked for sex from my wife and she says NO (although she would allow it, just out of shyness), should I proceed or not proceed? What if without the use of violent force I proceed to undress her and she resisted slightly but we still managed to have sex, is that rape?

Lets also say that for the purpose of discussion, I have a ‘cold’ wife, not interested in sex at all, whenever I wanetd sex, she says NO. And if the law were enacted, I would be charged for rape everytime I proceeded to have sex with her (without violent force causing hurt) as long as it is against her will?

I think there are already adequate laws guarding the interest of the women and need no more. For example, if a husband uses violent force on the wife , he can be charged for causing hurt although not rape.

If any laws were to be enacted to protect the wife against rape, then I submit that the consideration of VIOLENT FORCE CAUSING HURT and not just minimal force must be one of the criteria for the charge to stand. A wife’s refusal or unwillingness to have sex SHOULD NOT be a lone consideration, as in crimminal rape cases.

I cannot imagine being charged everytime I have sex with my wife just because she’s not in a good and giving mode.

Anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 10:00 am 

It opens up men to blackmail AFTER THE WILLING FACT IS DONE. Smart men won’t marry, just sleep around outside.

Anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 10:30 am 

Anyone remember a Singaporean man married a much younger Indonesian woman who lived apart from the husband. She beat the living daylight out of her own children. And guess what? In the pretext of “reconciliation”, she came back and DEMANDED SEX from her fearful husband who did it UNWILLINGLY fearing that rape threat after the fact.

Well, he complied and as he expected, she threatened to put him away on a rape charge. The terrified Singapore man reacted violently, threw her out of the window. IT BECAME FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

In subsequent court proceedings, the dead woman’s own mother testified that her daughter is a connivving, wicked, vicious woman of improbable and unpredictable temper, pleaded the case for the accused. Even the children of the dead woman hated their mother in court proceeding testimony. The charge was reduced to manslaughter. That man is still in jail -serving a 7 year sentence.

Where was AWARE and those hypocrties of women’s rights then? The silence was erie as the graveyard of the deceased was.

The issue of marital rape is playing with fire – it can burn one, burn both and in the above true case, it burn the family. Any disatisfied wife in marital relationship can divorce and then man still enjoy financial security for herself and her family and some would NOT hesitate because it involved his own children. If she remarries, it is FURTHER BONUS.

Is this NOT ENOUGH??? Or perhaps some women wants to sleep around, don’t want to divorce and keep her “husband” on dog’s lease of marital rape whilst she has SEX ON DEMAND from both ends?

Anonymous on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 10:34 am 

Any disatisfied wife in marital relationship can divorce and then man still enjoy financial security for herself and her family and some would NOT hesitate because it involved his own children. If she remarries, it is FURTHER BONUS

should read as

Any disatisfied wife in marital relationship can divorce and then woman still enjoy financial security for herself and her shared children and some men would NOT hesitate to provide continued financial support because it involved his own children. If she remarries, it is FURTHER BONUS whilst the man is still under continued burden.

Liang Chau Wei on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:25 am 

enough GCBs in Singapore already, we should just do away with all these stupid things like women charter, not add one more to it

Keith Richard Radford Jr on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:40 pm 

Should churches or our federal government be held libel for the murder of sex offenders?
Sex laws have been built on misconceptions and myth.
The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined like some virus steaming from Draconian/Islamic radical view that sex offenders should be executed. I have seen for myself, video taken in another country where a sex offender was placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok because the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere to the delight of these very strange people who think such sad thoughts. The heritage of the act is in its self a brutal throwback to violent uneducated people who are so obsessed with any sex they can find & the only way to deal with this kind of “hierarchy” of historic hysteria. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration used to make animals less threatening which clearly explains the atmosphere we have made for our selves.
Anyway we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for some nations we are still warring with, selling weapons too, {think!} while other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don’t know or want to simply because they don’t know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force. Is that supposed to include mutilations? In my humble opinion that alone are terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies.
The truth about the sex offender registry will come out soon enough. When it does, People will see how the use of the registry was created, and by exactly who and why and the devastation it has created and the worthlessness of the use of it. It’s origin in the Jim Crow hanging laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not play god and we can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem since the numbers increasing to include the children they purport to protect.
It’s a ruse designed by people who are getting rich off the doctoring, castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have gone wild. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Digging around in someone’s genitalia because you want what a weaker nation? Can’t you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! Why don’t we just indiscriminately kill people we don’t know? That is statically the next sex offender, because over 90% of all new offences are committed by someone “not” on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model this is really worthless.
So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it will be no time at all before the federal government will be held liable for their deaths through federal court.
In a nation where a statement may have a double or triple meaning and our entire linage can be traced through mud, guts, and beer it’s nice once in a while to get the picture of what is meant instead of what some thinks someone may have implied being translated by greed. So it is from the trenches to the hill. Remember the game where someone says something in someone’s ear then passes it the same way to the next; the person advocating such destructive laws are the ones who need to be section 8 by simple brake down of the issue not the sex offenders.

LWL on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 9:34 am 

Marriage in itself is a union created under law and accordingly it provides benefits and protections to the parties that choose to exercise this privilege.

To seek to remove what is presently legislated by law for one party without a reciprocal limitation of benefit to the other will not receive the support from the vast majority.

If at all this effort hopes to succeed, it would be sensible to link it to a gradual outlawing of the Women’s Charter, which is another set of legislation that has been made redundant with the changing times.

Support for the campaign would instantly increase many folds.

Anonymous on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:50 am 

Look no further than biological truth – young girls and boys in school uniform kissing and groping each other on public transport in full public view. IT IS EVIDENCE OF ANIMAL INSTINCT. Old men visiting Geylang is NO less disrectable as female corporate executives paying for the pleasures of toy boys.

Cry wolves of marital rapes look stupidly hyppocritical of realities – dwelling on false presumption that male are necessarily predatory of animal instincts. The converse of it is patently true.

The female underworld boss of Chongging has 16 lovers at her sexual command. Female teachers raped puberty-aged school boys. Wives stripped husband to check for leakages on return from overseas business trips – something unsual??? They want it for themselves fearing that their errant husband might have shared!!

People are living with medieval thinking and notions of reality. In teh true world of “bedroom sports”, men complained that women past their forties are not wolves in bed and voracious tigress – unheard of??? Women raped men in marriage as much as men raped women in marriage if “rape” ever exist marital relationships.

In matters of the mind and animal instincts, how do the law decides whose mind comes first before animal instincts AFTER THE DEED? Or is it animal instincts came first and the mind “changed” of dissatisfied performance so to lever the husband to concede to outside lovers i.e. I shall stray with the blessing of the law and you shall be handcuffed of sexual blackmail of total submission by the same law!!

In practical realities, when the wife cry rape and the police and law believes in the woman’s story, the ONUS AT LAW IS SUBTLY SHIFTED ON TO THE MAN TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE when criminal laws in all jurisdiction says the accused is innocent until proven guilty and he is NOT guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.

How does “reasonable doubt” stands IN FACT AND IN LAW when the woman demanded sex after a marital fight and used it as a weapon of revenge and the man already hanged by the law WHICH ASSUMED HE IS ALREADY GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENCE because the police and the law assumed the wife story is true???

Only insane mind and insane law legislated sex in legalised sexual relationship like marriage when animal instinct made both unknown and impossible to distinguish predator in “bedroom sports” in voluntary wrestling?

It is fringe fanatics living on abysmal edge of manipulation.

anonymous on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 11:26 am 

At last the world is slowly (fast) but inevitably moving toward enlightenment and true liberation in thought, where thinking replaces blind following.

There will indeed be no more living in the dark ages.

anonymous on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 11:44 am 

While the campaign protects genuinely meek and good women, it at the same time does not take into consideration the fact that many women with wicket hearts would be given a blank cheque too. and many meek men with good hearts but natural libido will be unjustly penalised. Where is the equality and justice then?

I prefer the status quo, with every case taken on it’s own merits and not under the convenient blanket of ‘rape’.

Essentially, it is but a case of physical abuse and should thus be justly treated as such and on a case by case basis according to the circumstances of each case.

Anonymous on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:15 pm 

When you cannot define and capture “morality” at law with any reasonable precision, how can any sane mind then defined in statutory law application the “morality” of sex within the “moral” or “immoral” sexual relationship inside any marriage other than a crude way of “fitting fact to law” perversion of law judgment practices?

Fitting facts to law is often achieved by ignoring the relevant facts and, instead, biasedly relying on irrelevant considerations to determine a legal judgment.

MORE Importanly One & All... IS... on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 10:30 am 

HAVE WE… The LARGER And GREATER Lower and Lowest Strata of our society been ‘poliltically-raped’ of…

1. Voting rights due to GRCs… and which old man ‘island’ said GRC was to tackle the racial spread in constituencies!!!…

2. He does have a point ther… but then… has this become an Animal Farm thing too!!!???…

3. ET CETERA… ET CETERA… ET CETERA…

btan on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 6:33 pm 

Please do not blindly support a cause in which we do not know what will be the likely outcome.

In trying to protect women who have been abused (which I think is the more important factor), we also have to take care not to victimise our men as well.

The case of the husband tying up and beating the wife, don’t you think that the beating is worse than the sex part??

Fortunately, the law is sufficient for a women to protect herself from abuse by the husband and is usually pro-woman already.

As mentioned by a poster here, you guys are playing with fire if you support this law.

anonymous on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 8:38 pm 

With more and more schooling teenagers and young people engaging in coition as a casual activity, it being the ultimate expression of sexual behaviour in today’s society, it is important to decouple old concepts of the mind from new realities. Specifically, the focus should not be on the erotic acts per se, but rather on the intention and circumstances of the situations.

Today, it is no longer only males who are sexual ‘offenders’. Both sexes consensually indulge in the same area of activity. Thus girls and women can be as delinquent as boys and men in thought and action, though boys and men are arguably more aggresive in their sexual expression.

Thus, a husband forcing coition on the hostile wife is purely an act of physical abuse and the focus should be on such abusive intent, regardless of the motivation, which can be taken into consideration only for purposes of mitigation.

As a further advocate for de-coupling the sexual (discriminatory, ‘moral’) aspect of conventional thought from the underlying reality of things, consider the hypothetical case of a woman who willingly and repeatedly offers herself say, to be thoroughly manhandled by a man whom she likes or ‘loves’, but who does not have the same or any long-term liking or love for her. In such a case, the ‘culprit’ is clearly the woman, who in her own action, willingly allows such abuse. Then, would such abuse become not abuse as long as the woman is willingly at fault?

On the other hand, a mere touch by any other man can be used by the very same woman against a man whom she has intention of fixing?

Thus, archaic ideas and concepts must take a back seat with the march of time

someone sad for singapore on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 6:11 am 

Very hard case to bring forward to.

Many wives don’t like having sex with husbands.

This law would only bring the divorce rate higher, as husbands would just go to geylang to solve the problem.