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.