Singapore to Criminalize Marital Rape from Jan 1, 2020

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019...from-jan-1-2020

How can husbands protect themselves from false rape charges? Ask his wife to sign a consent form every time he wants sex?

Put some form of agreement in the pre-nup?

Signing a consent form is not enough. She could say she was coerced to sign or too intoxicated to understand what she signed. Better videotape her declaring that she is sound mind and signing out of her own free will.

Wouldn't that kill the mood? But seriously how is the court going to know what happened in the bedroom? It's the wife's word against her husband. Even if no force was used she could say she was coerced with threats.

Nowadays many young men are shying away from marriage. Will a marital rape law make it worse?


This post has been edited by kluseng: Dec 29 2019, 08:19 PM

If the relationship progressed to the point where there's marital rape or that the wife is going for false accusations, then that relationship is already toxic and unsustainable anyways.

False accusations shouldn't affect the law, as its designed to combat rape, not fictional accusations

Generally, the law presumes that an agreement made between wife and husband is not intended to create legal relations especially if they are living in the same room.

Just videotape her signing the form will have no use because she can cry in the police station that in the middle of the session, she decided not to continue with it but her husband still forcing himself on her and her husband slapping her face very badly until she does not dare to fight back. (after that she can ask any guys to slap on her face badly before lodging a police report and request for a body check-up in a hospital. You are as good as dead.

This post has been edited by uamcy: Dec 29 2019, 10:32 PM

RIP to the men who marry in Singapore that do not have a prenuptial agreement.
I can foresee this law being abused to extract as much resources and used as a manipulation weapon against men.

Do people seriously think the standard of evidence for rape is just "oh the woman said it was rape while crying so that must be it".

Holy shit the statements in this thread are ridiculous. What reality do you people live in?

The basis of law is presumption of innocence until proven guilty. People get off on rape charges even when there is physical evidence present, and people in here think a woman's word is enough for conviction, LOL.

False rape allegations are serious and can destroy men and women's lives even without any evidence. Not from the courts but the public court of opinion.

Why would the public court of opinion would be enough to supersede the actual courts?

And criminalising marital rape will change this how?

You think only after that can people falsely accuse others of rape or abuse?

Grow a braincell or two mate.

Yes, with your dna, her crying testimony, and some slapping wound, you are as good as dead.

If its molest case, the woman's word alone is enough if she can cry profusely in the court and explaining how you molested her.



This post has been edited by uamcy: Dec 30 2019, 12:25 AM

Agreed in an ideal world, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
When you read the news of loud modern feminist going into position of power that make bias decisions around the world. It becomes super scary.
Whether it is criminalized or not false rape accusations will still be there.
With Singapore criminalizing it, it incentives women to make false rape allegation to get what they want. Whether be monetary gain, ego or playing victim mentality.

An extreme example:


So who's gonna give back his precious almost 3 decades for serving behind bars being falsely accused of rape?

Edit:
On a brighter side of things.
#MeToo and the justice system: complaints up, but convictions down

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/...onvictions-down

This post has been edited by Fanvil1534: Dec 30 2019, 12:40 AM

Singapore is following the trend of rabid Western feminism to make laws which emasculates men and give spiteful women a means of gaming the system. A marital rape law is not necessary when the majority of wives can flog off their husbands' request for sex with an excuse. If force is used to procure sex it can be covered under domestic violence law.

A marital rape law destroys the sanctity of sex between married couples. What is the point of taking a vow to have sex only exclusively with each other when the wife can legally refuse sex with her husband? It turns the husband into a beggar for sex. Of course a wife can always refuse sex for whatever reason but it should not be enshrined as a legal right which emboldens her to abuse her husband by refusing sex forever.

In most cases bringing a charge of rape is enough to destroy a man. It does not matter if he can defend himself successfully. His career, income, reputation and funds are destroyed in a false rape charge. But even if the accusation is proven to be false the law does not go after the false accuser. The person falsely accused is expected to get remedy by taking civil action but most will be so gutted financially and emotionally that they won't do it. Besides, if the women has nothing you get nothing from a civil action.

To be fair if there is a marital rape law the penalty for false accusation should be as severe as the penalty for a successful rape conviction. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the law will do nothing to mete out justice to a false rape accuser because she is a woman who can wear a short skirt and cry in court.

This post has been edited by KennyKB: Dec 30 2019, 08:57 AM

Hmmm....in future...people dont wanna married

Mostly become cheongster

No need for betting. Just show us the proof, thank you. The same argument can be thrown at you on how the woman could be destroyed by rape, so let's see how you could be a fair and impartial judge in the light of these events.

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 10:32 AM

What about:

"With Singapore not criminalising it, it incentivises men to rape their wives and then not be charged for it, because it isn't a crime."

How would you address this as well? The "incentivise" argument seemed to work for both ways.

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 10:35 AM

If force is used to procure sex women are protected by domestic violence law. Why do they need a rape law which incentivise spiteful women to make false rape accusations?

So let me get this straight. This existence of this new law will incentivise spiteful women, but before this law ever existed, marital rape has never really existed as all, all well thanks to the domestic violence law?

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 10:57 AM

In a normal rape case one can gather proof like DNA on private parts and the presence of the man at the specific place and time where the rape allegedly occurred. There may also be witnesses. Tell me what sort of proof can be accepted in a marital rape case? DNA on her private part when sex with his wife is not a crime? That he happened to be in the same bedroom with her is incriminating? Were there any witnesses when he was having sex with his wife? There is no proof of marital rape except her word against his. When it comes before a court the man is disadvantaged because he can't wear a skirt and he can't elicit sympathy by crying in court. This is why a marital rape law is useless except for women to use as a weapon against a husband she wants to destroy.

Good point, so whatever happens to the husbands that WANTED to rape without consequences, and LIED about the consent as well? Do you not see this is as equally one-sided as well? Whoever said that only the women could lie?

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 11:03 AM

There is no such thing as rape in marriage. There is consensual sex and forced sex. Sex is a right between married couples. Being able to bring a charge of rape against a spouse means sex is no longer a right, it becomes a privilege. With this law a married couple is no longer husband and wife, they are house mates.

Hang in there a minute. Why would you think there is absolutely no such thing as a non-consensual sex in a marriage? Do you really think there's absolutely no such thing as the concept of marital rape? Why should sex ever be a "right" in the first place, especially one that could easily be done without consent, i.e. rape? And why would the title of a husband and wife automatically provide that automatic right?

Do both husbands and wife both lost their psychological autonomy of their bodies all of a sudden after marriage? "Oh well, now I'm married to you, I can't object even if you fucked me even when I don't want it?"

What kind of flawed logic is that? In what MAGICAL way that the marriage provides this sexual "right" that you keep harping about?

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 11:14 AM

In a marriage a couple vows to have sex EXCLUSIVELY with each other. What is the meaning of this vow if she can legally deny him sex after marriage? If he has no right to have sex with his wife do you agree that he should have the right to get sex outside? Are you for open marriages?

Yeah, the word is exclusively, NOT unquestionably. And the question would be how would psychological autonomy of the body disappear after a marriage? In what magical or scientific way that marriage does that?

In addition, why should marriage based on the idea of sex alone? Whatever happened to love, respect, and understanding? Do those things don't come into play as well when you marry someone? Is it really hard to have sex with your wife only when she agrees with it?

And how the does that actually means open marriage? You're all over the place dude, stay in place.

This post has been edited by Hoka Nobasho: Dec 30 2019, 11:26 AM

Prenups in our area of the world generally unenforceable IINM.

How does psychological autonomy disappear when wives can refuse sex to their husbands with any excuse they want? Just because there is no marital rape law doesn't mean wives have to agree to sex all the time. Just ask any husband. I never said this psychological autonomy thing; you were the one who brought this up. You are asking me to answer some nonsense which you threw up?

You are all over the place here. This discussion is about sex in marriage, not the philosophy of marriage.

If sex becomes a privilege that a husband must beg for then the concept of exclusivity is untenable and this calls for non-exclusive sex or open marriage. Get it?

To make it easier for you to understand say you have a contract to obtain an essential goods exclusively from one supplier. If that supplier refuses to supply you the goods or does it in a very unpredictable manner can you still keep to the exclusive contract?

This post has been edited by KennyKB: Dec 30 2019, 02:45 PM

The law says it's legal for married couples to have sex. But it does not mean that you can rape your wife because raping is a criminal offense. So consent is part of the jurisprudence.

A contract will automatically void if one of the terms is breaking the law. You cannot put in the contract like "you can force yourself on your wife even without her consent"

Consent in body language? Or words? Or written? Or in video? Which one holds up if a case is brought to court?

At the heart of the issue is that sex is no longer a right in marriage but a privilege which can be legally withheld by a wife. Women used to use sex to lure men into marriage. This approach won't work anymore.

Singapore's birthrate is already very low. They don't need this law to discourage young men from getting married.

That's why I said, molest and marital rape cases are very dangerous to a man. First, the victim just has to cry in the police station for the police to put you inside lock up and then eventually to charge you in the court.

The most credible evidence is video/eye-witness.

Singapore is predominantly Chinese and in the majority of Chinese couples the wife is the gatekeeper to sex. If she doesn't want sex it's not going to happen. There is no need to make a very unnecessary law when there is no need for it just to please radical feminists. How many men in Spore dare to force their wives for sex? It would better to have a law to discourage wives from withholding sex unreasonably from her husband.

Besides having to beg his wife for sex the govt has put a loaded gun on the table which his wife can pick up and use if she chooses. She doesn't even have to make an excuse to avoid sex. All she has to do it point at the loaded gun.

In the West feminists have pushed through so many laws which emasculate men and with family courts which are totally biased to women marriage has become high risk low gain for men and low risk high gain for women. It is hardly surprising that many Western men are not interested in marriage.

Must sign form and make video as evidence.