also, with around 18 women out of the 85 members of parliament, you’d think that at least one of them might raise an objection to the continuing subjugation of women within marriage.

and another thing.

perhaps it’s just because i’m a law student and i’m anal about these things and therefore i like reading statutes and finding out weird and wonderful laws that still exist, and also criticising them.

other people who aren’t all that interested in law probably have no idea that such an exception exists. and the only people who’d know about it are the victims themselves, who aren’t exactly going to campaign to remove it due to the traumatic and adversarial way in which many rape trials are handled - if they even get to a trial.

i mean, a woman who has been raped by her husband might be turned away at the police station when she’s drummed up enough courage to actually go and report it because ‘oh, you can’t be raped by your husband. and anyway, it’s not rape. it’s your husband’s right to have sex with you, forced or not’.

she goes away feeling violated, not just by the husband, but the system. and it probably creates a psychological feeling of guilt, that she deserves it and that there is nothing wrong in her husband forcing her to have sex with him even if she really doesn’t want to.

i’m all for sexual equality and sexual freedom. if women want to have sex with various people, they shouldn’t feel disenfranchised or demeaned by their choice to do so. on the other hand, if women do not want to have sex, their decision should be respected and honoured and they shouldn’t be made to feel like prudes, much less be forced into sexual situations that they have no desire to be in.

and, just to go off on a slight tangent, i think that women are as capable of raping men and men are of raping women. to think otherwise is underestimating the female sex, as well as implicitly undermining our abilities and capabilities. we might not have a penis, but who said you need a penis to sexually assault someone?

i think both men and women in singapore need to start becoming more interested in feminist theory and realise that it’s less about bra-burning and unshaved legs than it is about self-realization and mutual respect between and amongst the sexes.

maybe then, then there may begin some real recognition of the changed status of women in singapore - that we’re not just female bodies, that we’re not just childbearing vessels, that we’re not merely this strange and other sex to be owned.

-+-+-+-+-+-

UPDATE

it’s not very well-written since i basically ctrl-ced and ctrl-ved parts of my last entry, and also it was done in a fit of anger.

but the important thing is that i’ve submitted my feedback to the ministry of home affairs:

the consultation paper on the proposed changes to the marital rape section of the penal code (S374 (4) and (5) of the amended penal code) purports to have made the amendments in response to the ‘changed status of women and the evolving nature of a marital relationship’.

if the status of women in singapore is such that a man can rape a women subject to those very limited exceptions, then women clearly have no rights over their body once they have entered into and remain in a marital relationship.

the amendments do nothing to reflect the changed status of women in singapore, and it does not truly reflect the reality of marital relationships.

i would urge you to abolish the marital rape exception instead of merely amending it, because no man who commits rape ought to feel as if he can get away with it, especially not within a marriage.

please make your thoughts known to them, lest they assume that the singaporean public are pleased as punch about what they’re doing. let your voice be heard, before you become silent through submission.

send them your comments about the amendments here.