India not to criminalise marital rape

[Bitter Melon]

Melon why so bitter?

It is medicinal and therapeutic.

 

[SamantK]

I was for criminalising marital rape but reading arguments especially by @anonymus and other posters, I think that this is just sham.

Every law is based on what is considered proof and what is not, this law if put in place will add some more lakhs of cases which will remain pending with no conclusion because no one can define what proof will be accepted - will it be his say or her say?

Curse MSM to not show these logical arguments and mislead and fuel feminism to an extreme level.

 

[jaatram]

There is a huge demonstration on Jantar Mantar today to scrap 498A by the victims from all over India. Main stream media is not even covering it. people are trending #PurushAyoug and #Scrap498a

I was for criminalising marital rape but reading arguments especially by @anonymus and other posters, I think that this is just sham.

Every law is based on what is considered proof and what is not, this law if put in place will add some more lakhs of cases which will remain pending with no conclusion because no one can define what proof will be accepted - will it be his say or her say?

Curse MSM to not show these logical arguments and mislead and fuel feminism to an extreme level.

If a Guy breaks up with his GF, GF can file a rape case
If a live in relationship ends, your partner can file a rape case.
If parents of the girl are against your relationship but you elope, girl's parents can file kidnap and rape.
If a man refuse sex, it result in mental torture ground for divorce.

If a man wants to end a marriage
If wife is not happy with her in-laws
Or if a wife has an extra marital affair and gets caught
she can slap a case on her husband and his family under Domestic violence act, 498a, 125, rape.

 

[Levina]

Is it? Why not stay in your own houses and just be fcuk buddies then? Have your own individuality, freedom, and me, mine, myself attitude stuck up ones ***.
.

Marriage = free pass??? Is it???
Did I read it right???

You need to re-educate yourself on comprehension

Really??
Well you said marriages 've just one purpose, and I replied this "So you mean unwed couples would literally be making out at traffic signals and in front of paan shops all the time if there's no marriage???".

quite an interesting debate on this topic, it's a shame though NDTV didn't uploaded second part of this debate. Talk of free media.
@levina @thesolar65 @wolfschanzze

Watched it!
This is what the discussion was about...
1) The onus of saving a family lies on the women. So what if she gets violated in the process?
2) India & Pakistan have atleast one thing in common now. Lol
3) Not many get convicted under Domestic violence law and 498A. 1684/37206 (4.5%) is the conviction rate of dowry deaths.
4) SC: "Women 're more unsafe in their marital home than on streets".
5) The domestic violence law is not gender neutral, men 're not protected by law.

Thanks for posting the video.

 

[Bitter Melon]

Marriage = free pass??? Is it???
Did I read it right???

It is a free pass. I do not know of women and men in marriages who sign documents every time they do it to indicate their willingness. Have you?

Really??
Well you said marriages 've just one purpose, and I replied this "So you mean unwed couples would literally be making out at traffic signals and in front of paan shops all the time if there's no marriage???".

Again comprehension issues. I did not say marriages have one purpose. I said marriage is a sexual union. It has many many other purposes too such as raising a family, forming the building block of the society, etc. etc., but they are subsequent and secondary to the primary function of being partners to one another, sexual partners.

I asked if marriages were meant for sharing rents and underwriting a woman's shopping expenses since feminists are under an assumption that men are born for such. Whether unwed couples would be literally making it out at traffic signals and in front of paan shops depends on the society again. There are societies which would permit that, aka nude beaches where pretty much every thing happens in public, married or unmarried.

 

[jaatram]

Watched it!
This is what the discussion was about...
1) The onus of saving a family lies on the women. So what if she gets violated in the process?
2) India & Pakistan have atleast one thing in common now. Lol
3) Not many get convicted under Domestic violence law and 498A. 1684/37206 (4.5%) is the conviction rate of dowry deaths.
4) SC: "Women 're more unsafe in their marital home than on streets".
5) The domestic violence law is not gender neutral, men 're not protected by law.

Thanks for posting the video.

1) So, the husband and in-Laws must surrender to whims and fancies of the girl and keep her happy no matter at what cost or else she will file a case under 498A,
2) That's NDTV narrative they can't digest anything if they don't bring in Pakistan for comparison. Ignore it.
3) There was a psychiatrists on the panel who told that majority of her cases are husbands and their parents.
4) Women are as unsafe as they are in their Paternal home than on streets
5) True that, a Man recorded 72 hours of how his wife beats him, even the anchor mocked that and tried hard to dismiss it.

There was a reason why I said NDTV didn't uploaded the second part of the debate. That's freedom of expression for you when it comes to talking about Men's right.

 

[anonymus]

I was for criminalising marital rape but reading arguments especially by @anonymus and other posters, I think that this is just sham.

Every law is based on what is considered proof and what is not, this law if put in place will add some more lakhs of cases which will remain pending with no conclusion because no one can define what proof will be accepted - will it be his say or her say?

Curse MSM to not show these logical arguments and mislead and fuel feminism to an extreme level.

Indian MSM is run by Leftist-Liberal-Feminist Cabal. You cannot count upon MSM to ever make a logical argument, if it goes against their ideology.

Similar was the case with Delhi rape one. Morons in Indian media engaged in self hate to such an extent that countries where Raping is a cottage industry had the gumption to make documentaries on "Indian Rape culture".

As many people have commented before, Large portion of Indian population ,especially English speaking one, has a deep seated inferiority complex. I usually make very good and sound argument on most of topics, but it is people like Burka dutt who have the microphone , and these kind of people are bloody wanabee whites. They are bereft of independent thinking and depend on drowning all voices that are in opposition to them.

To make matter worse is low aptitude of most of people who call them Right wingers. They could practically own these leftist MSM idiots ,if they do their homework properly. I have always believed that "moral bankrupcy" is matched and complemented by "intellectual bankrupcy" of Right. Right wing need better platform, but above it need people who could exploit that platform.

Winning debates on PDF is of no value. I post here because I like hostile environment. It is debating and owning Femnazis in MSM ,preferably international, which would halt this psychological colonization.

 

[Levina]

It is a free pass.

That's what it means to you.

I do not know of women and men in marriages who sign documents every time they do it to indicate their willingness. Have you?

Lol
Either you're a man or you're a tromper.
Well there 're many who 're willing, and who dont really need a "marriage" to about it.

Again comprehension issues. I did not say marriages have one purpose.

You're contradicting yourself.

I said marriage is a sexual union.

well,officially yes.

but they are subsequent and secondary to the primary function of being partners to one another, sexual partners.

I did not deny it.
Your problem is that you're not able to differentiate between LM for purpose and LM for pleasure, in both the cases there should be mutual consent of partners.

I asked if marriages were meant for sharing rents and underwriting a woman's shopping expenses since feminists are under an assumption that men are born for such.

Well if they can share rents then they can obviously share shopping expenses too. What a stupid question!!! Lolzz

Whether unwed couples would be literally making it out at traffic signals and in front of paan shops depends on the society again. There are societies which would permit that, aka nude beaches where pretty much every thing happens in public, married or unmarried.

You talk as if unwed couples in India dont indulge in it. Are you so naïf???
We're off topic, I think we should stick to spousal rapes.

1) So, the husband and in-Laws must surrender to whims and fancies of the girl and keep her happy no matter at what cost or else she will file a case under 498A,

Nobody said that.
Kavita Krishnan made it clear that they wanted the law to be gender neutral.

3) There was a psychiatrists on the panel who told that majority of her cases are husbands and their parents.

She said "mere paas bahut saare men aate hai". When the anchor asked her "dont women visit you?". She said yes.

4) Women are as unsafe as they are in their Paternal home than on streets

Ostensibly around ppl whom she knows.

5) True that, a Man recorded 72 hours of how his wife beats him, even the anchor mocked that and tried hard to dismiss it.

But the million dollar question is "how many women beat their husbands??".
Every one supports Nirbhaya because she was unmarried, but the woman who faces similar situation in her marriage doesn't get any support, because the society expects her to put up with it. Unfortunate!
Just FYI- The number of women sexually assaulted by their husbands is 40 times the number of women attacked by men they don't know.
I'm not expecting anyone to take this number seriously. However, it would be wrong to assume that there is marital rape in all marriages.

There was a reason why I said NDTV didn't uploaded the second part of the debate. That's freedom of expression for you when it comes to talking about Men's right.

You know my opinion on this. I told you that the government's reticence to bring a spousal rape law means rape within marriage is not explicitly acknowledged.
Look at the conviction rate...

 

[jaatram]

Nobody said that.
Kavita Krishnan made it clear that they wanted the law to be gender neutral.


She said "mere paas bahut saare men aate hai". When the anchor asked her "dont women visit you?". She said yes.


Ostensibly around ppl whom she knows.


But the million dollar question is "how many women beat their husbands??".
Every one supports Nirbhaya because she was unmarried, but the woman who faces similar situation in her marriage doesn't get any support, because the society expects her to put up with it. Unfortunate!
Just FYI- The number of women sexually assaulted by their husbands is 40 times the number of women attacked by men they don't know.
I'm not expecting anyone to take this number seriously. However, it would be wrong to assume that there is marital rape in all marriages.

You know my opinion on this. I told you that the government's reticence to bring a spousal rape law means rape within marriage is not explicitly acknowledged.
Look at the conviction rate...
View attachment 218702

1) What Kavita Krishnan said was nothing but a lip service, As we are discussing this topic there is a protest on at jantar mantar going on against Misuse of 498A. How many feminists groups joined it? Almost Zero, Heck its not even getting mention on main stream media.

2) Who is denying that women are not suffering in marriages? but does that mean men don't suffer? You tell me how many wives would be p!ssed off if a guy go out for drinks with his friends? Why does she call him up every five minutes, does being married means a guy has to follow a time table set by his wife? Why does the husband has to prove his loyalty when wife questions his fidelity when he has to work overtime? Doesn't this infringe upon Men's free will?


3) But the million dollar question is "how many women beat their husbands??".

Does that mean we must overlook this?

No offence but bringing in Nirbhaya Case in marital debate is real below the belt and dishonest, are you trying to suggest 75% of men does what those b@stards did to Nirbhaya? or married women are gangrape by their husband?

If you remember the female victim in the video she said she was being beaten by her husband and her in laws, its and open and shut case of domestic violence but she was adamant on marital rape? One has to divorce physical and sexual abuse because unlike single women, married women have others law to protect them from their husbands and inlaws. When denial of sex amount to mental torture, why can't forced sex be covered under it too?

4) So a women is well within her rights to deny her husband sex just because she is mad at him for not toeing her diktats is right?

 

[Levina]

1) What Kavita Krishnan said was nothing but a lip service, As we are discussing this topic there is a protest on at jantar mantar going on against Misuse of 498A. How many feminists groups joined it? Almost Zero, Heck its not even getting mention on main stream media.

Then how did you come to know about it??

2) Who is denying that women are not suffering in marriages? but does that mean men don't suffer? You tell me how many wives would be p!ssed off if a guy go out for drinks with his friends? Why does she call him up every five minutes, does being married means a guy has to follow a time table set by his wife? Why does the husband has to prove his loyalty when wife questions his fidelity when he has to work overtime? Doesn't this infringe upon Men's free will?

Now who doesn't know that drinking, especially binge drinking, is perilous?

No offence but bringing in Nirbhaya Case in marital debate is real below the belt and dishonest, are you trying to suggest 75% of men does what those b@stards did to Nirbhaya? or married women are gangrape by their husband?

Either you've not watched the beginning of the video or you could not comprehend what that victim had to say.
Her experience was similar to Nirbhaya's case, albeit it was not a rod but a blunt object.

If you remember the female victim in the video she said she was being beaten by her husband and her in laws, its and open and shut case of domestic violence but she was adamant on marital rape?

Watch it again.

4) So a women is well within her rights to deny her husband sex just because she is mad at him for not toeing her diktats is right?

Frankly speaking there's a difference between how men and women perceive LM. I don't want to discuss this part because I fear I'll be judged.

 

[Nicky G]

What every Indian should know about marital rape

A good read over all, but let me quote the pertinent part - the show referenced in 'We the People':

To understand why the sudden hype around marital rape we need to go back to the debate and what Barkha stresses so much in the discussion. She pointed out to the fact that parliamentary committee headed by Venkaiah Naidu didn’t think India was ready to accept marital rape as a criminal provision in-spite of Verma Committee recommendation.

Now if you remember that Verma Committee was formed after the Delhi Gang rape in Dec 2012 and it prepared a massive report of 637 pages within one month time to recommend ways to tackle crime against women. Issue is after Delhi rape the media that showed our streets as unsafe for women and showed how they were harassed on streets to bring cruel laws against men and termed some cities as unsafe, is now showing a different picture that our homes are in fact not safe and husbands are the rapists and abusers. This clearly shows how media like NDTV creates biased view by their yellow journalism. Barkha who conveniently showed our city streets as unsafe for women is now showing the husbands in bed rooms as rapists.

Point is why is this focus on marital rape today. After Arnesh Kumar judgement by SC, police arrests in matrimonial disputes have been restricted. Now simply on 498a accusation innocent husbands and their family members can’t be arrested. This is set to restrict the feminist business of legal terrorism to a large extent. This is the reason marital rape needed to be a separate section so that such terrorism can continue. Feminists are not willing to use the existing provisions because rape includes severe shame to the accused’ family the way once dowry accusation used to be. Unless this severe shame is brought back in matrimonial disputes no family will shell out bigger amounts to these terrorists. Today it is dowry case that is a norm in every divorce, tomorrow it will be rape. Now imagine anyone falsely accused by these laws, how difficult his life will be.

We also see some men talking about 3000 years of patriarchy but they couldn’t response properly to the fact why make suicide have always been much higher to that of women’s? When we speak about patriarchy we see completely opposite things happening in a show hosted by a woman where the men’s side of story is not shown with importance and certain portions were also edited. This is what the real myth about patriarchy is.

This is the feeling conveyed in the discussion as well when Barkha in her show tried to show the plight of one girl as the plight of every other Indian woman. When Deepika Bhardwaj showed that wife’s denial to sex can create havoc in husband’s mind Barkha stressed that husband can go for divorce but she completely ignored that in India husbands are not given divorce easily. In all such cases the husband still needs to pay alimony to his wife and proving cruelty might take years for him and he may lose his precious youth. Also the same logic is applicable to the wife who might have faced sexual overdose from husband. If husband need to be happy with divorce after being raped (remember sex without consent is rape) or for having no sex for months then why shouldn’t the wife? Feminists however, still wants the same to have one more specific criminal section only for women ignoring the male victims.

One argument given by feminists in all such cases is how cases of such male abuse do you see to even have a section for men? Reiterating Barkha my reply goes to them, when there is no section to report such crimes against men then how do you conclude that men do NOT need any section to report violence?

 

[jaatram]

Then how did you come to know about it??


Now who doesn't know that drinking, especially binge drinking, is perilous?


Either you've not watched the beginning of the video or you could not comprehend what that victim had to say.
Her experience was similar to Nirbhaya's case, albeit it was not a rod but a blunt object.


Watch it again.


Frankly speaking there's a difference between how men and women perceive LM. I don't want to discuss this part because I fear I'll be judged.

1) from twitter

2) you changed the goal post.

3) that's physical abuse, unnatural sex there are already laws for that.

4) I concede your point.

Anyway this discussion has been dragged on for far too long.

 

[ayesha.a]

But you did not say that.Good job protecting your fellow indians
Yes i am a secular but trollers should be treated harshly on PDF.

And I gave you the reason why. Did you not read the rest of the sentence? Is it that difficult to understand?

@ayesha.a ji, are you familiar with Pakistan's Hudood Laws?
Can you please tell them,we don't have a Sharia Witness system.

Why the fVuck are you asking me about Pakistan's hudood laws? Whatever you want to tell them, you can tell them directly, you don't need me as a messenger.

 

[wolfschanzze]

And I gave you the reason why. Did you not read the rest of the sentence? Is it that difficult to understand?


Why the fVuck are you asking me about Pakistan's hudood laws? Whatever you want to tell them, you can tell them directly, you don't need me as a messenger.

Ok LoL, no need to get upset, i was merely asking

 

[magudi]

Govt plans amendments in dowry harassment law | Zee News


phuckkk hindu male govirnamant at it again