India not to criminalise marital rape

[Levina]

I think peoples in here ignored a basic point in the OP.
Current laws in our constitution is enough to protect the womens from any type of torture from their families.This is not about the laws but about its implementation and awareness.
In rural areas and in that sense majority of women in the Indian households is not aware about their rights and laws.And What is the use of stockpiling the amendments
like this ?Suppose if we implement this law
our govt establshments cant ensure the prevention of case at this level of public awarness .And some guys pointed out its ptotherside of misuse.
Women can torture a six feet man if he hias clear heart and innocent behaviour ,but a short ,slim guy can torture his wife if he has cruel mentality.
We need awarness program and effective implementation .

I have quoted both sides of the story in my first post in this thread. Frankly speaking such stories should be posted in forum where the majority of members 're women, many have their side of the story to post. Its then that you will realize how grave the situation is.

The issue is people view rape by stranger differently from the rape by someone the victim knows.
Historically the definition of rape is, an act of forcing s*x by a male assailant on a woman....who is NOT his wife.
This definition of rape still hasn't changed!!
Another issue is as the level of intimacy between the victim and the perpetrator increases the perception of seriousness of the assault decreases. In short, consent is presumed in a marriage; a wife is husband's property. And ergo spousal rape is acceptable.
And trust me marital rapes 're very difficult to prove because
1) Within a married couple "love-making" is somewhat regular and it would be difficult to try to make a case against your spouse.
2) Chances of misuse of consensual rape role play 're also high.

The government's reasoning behind not accepting marital rape as rape is preposterous to say the least. IMO, they don't want to accept spousal rape as rape because it is extremely difficult to prove it, the jurors would struggle to convict.

Dowry deaths were sad but Govt provided a strict law to "Protect" women, and they themselves have turned it into Extortion Racket.

Big up Women Empowerment.

In India, a married man commits suicide every 9 minutes (Section 498a), and a woman is raped every 20 minutes. Why do you think the latter is highlighted by local and international media, while the former seems to be largely ignored? - Quora

That's quora.com!!!

 

[jamahir]

It is a crime against humanity to let you open your mouth. Roop Kanwar was not brainwashed. You are brainwashed mullah.

that is correct... she wasn't brainwashed... why are you back-tracking on your statement??

that point of mine was just in reaction to your statement that she volunteered to be burned with her dead husband, in which case you could call this a suicide and wash your hands off it.

no, she was murdered by her village and her in-laws, which i have detailed in my previous post... and the result of the case ( `Sati' and the verdict )...

A Special Court acquits all the 11 accused in the Roop Kanwar case, thereby dealing a blow to the women's organisations that fought hard to get a law against sati in place.

The "sati sthal" in 1987 guarded by Rajput youth brandishing swords.

funny that rajasthan courts acquits murders of roop kanwar but keep harassing salman khan for the genuine mistake of hunting a deer.

Frankly speaking such stories should be posted in forum where the majority of members 're women

not necessary... some men can be more sympathetic to the female cause than many females.

but if you look at ivan's post at ( India not to criminalise marital rape | Page 8 ), not only will you see a moralistic way of looking at things ( "Considering the fact that most of our sisters" ) but also is seen a immature refusal to see the facts and this immaturity is generally either peer-to-peer nonsense knowledge or poisons given by misogynist mothers.

 

[magudi]

Hey,
Isn't that essentially the nature of every law in the IPC which can be used under false accusation towards litigation. Everything from theft to murder have the potential to be misused, but that doesn't justify us not protecting womens rights, especially in the calous way the minister spoke about it in context of sacrement of marriage in India.

@ayesha.a In this day and age marital rape or even a hint of possibility of marital abuse needs protection, I was under the impression that Modi'ji government will be a progressive about these issues and take proactive steps to ensure protection of women, but this step seems backward and absurd.

I absolutely detest the idea that marital rape wouldn't be defined to be a punishable criminal offense. PM should look into this and revert the stand. One of the steps is to write to the PMO,, it is as simple as writing on the forum to bring visibility to the issue.

That's too much to ask for they maybe economically liberal but socially conservative.

 

[monitor]

My wife my property i will take care how much stress she can take to fulfill my desire why somebody bother . secondly it is utterly shameful to talk husband wife matter .how some respectful man woman will feel complaining without my consent my husband sex with me if they have adolescent children.

 

[jamahir]

My wife my property i will take care how much stress she can take to fulfill my desire why somebody bother.

spoken like a true reactionary tableeghi !!!

when the islam you claim to adhere to, gives her the right to choose you by her own will and without her the consent of her parents, it also gives her the right to divorce you if you treat her like a slave.

 

[Koovie]

My wife my property

So your wife has become a thing now?

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

it was indeed a crime because islam does not permit the bondage of a person by another person, so it was double the crime.

however, cases of the "invaders" giving proper legal rights to local ladies in exchange of relationship... slavery, i think not.

Is that supposed to be Funny ?? BS propaganda.

Quran : 24:32

And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

Quran 24:33

But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess [slaves] - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.


LOL at your "proper legal rights" which resulted in Jauhar and Sati.

hence the communist ideal... "a world where governments have fallen, militaries have been disbanded and people rule themselves".

Name ONE communist/socialist govt. who has disbanded the military

Yes, proving marital rape is difficult. But guess what, framing a husband on false charges of marital rape is even more difficult. So why not have the law in place? Maybe not a single case of marital rape will be succesfully prosecuted. But having the law at least makes it clear that just because you can get away with it, does not make it OK to do something.

I'm sure you know a few other crimes that are difficult to prove, but are nonetheless, crimes.

Since marriage constitutes Consent, Rape is not possible.

So since there is no legal rape, there cannot be a law making it criminal.

Success in prosecution has NOTHING to do with it.

No. Rape is forcing someone to have sex with you against her will, the relation does not matter.

Marriage constitutes consent so its not Rape.

Nope, my parents fell in love and married abroad...

I don't give a $hit.

Most ridiculous comment ever!
Made by the guy who defends marital rape.

Made by the guy who considers women property.

 

[jamahir]

Is that supposed to be Funny ?? BS propaganda.

i read in some thread asking mods to allow quran quotes with full/beginning understanding of the context of the verse, and not doing so should result in ban.

@haviZsultan @Irfan Baloch @Horus @waz @Jf Thunder please see if my interpretations below are valid or need to be modified.

Quran : 24:32

And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

i can say this... the verse propagates discouragement for the initial muslims in keeping of slaves and in the liberation of current slaves, and how better to achieve this than marry them with full islami wedding rights and duties accorded or adhered.

Quran 24:33

But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess [slaves] - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

i can say this... the verse is meant for males and females at various points.

1. the first line is for the male, who is advised against wedding until he finds his economic condition good enough to satisfy a decent mahr pledge during the wedding procedure and good enough to satisfy a decent married-life conditions for his new wife.

2. the second line ( "and those who seek" ) is either marry the slaves ( thereby releasing them ) or making them business partners ( thereby releasing them )... this verse is for both male and female.

3. the third line ( "do not compel" ) and the fourth, is essentially warning against pimping of slave girls.

LOL at your "proper legal rights" which resulted in Jauhar and Sati.

what a foolish and laughable assertion !!!

it was not the muslim conquerors who forced those ladies into jauhar and sati... it was the hindu kings and courtiers who saw "honor" in murdering the females of the palace or those connected to the main soldiery.

Name ONE communist/socialist govt. who has disbanded the military

i said "communist world", yes?? that means the communist revolution must defend itself from capitalist aggression and spread the ideas until some means brought more and more world peoples into the socialist sphere until the entire humanity at last becomes communist.

 

[anonymus]

I seriously don't understand what the fuss is about ,or the problem that gelded men and Feminazis have in general.

I do not have time to waste to go through a sorry pile of shїt that this thread must have become since that champak @jamahir is participating in it, but I would try to drill some sense in head of terminally retarded forum members here.

Marital rape is an unprovable crime. Any Rape in which act of having sexual intercourse is not contested in court, but consent is; it is nearly impossible to prove an act of rape as that case becomes "He Said, She said" type. This "unprovability" is there in any relation where fücking is expected.

When a Wife will visit a police station complaining that she has been raped, how would an investigating officer and prosecuter prove that the sex between husband and wife has been non-consensual?

Husband and Wife are supposed to fück each other, so having sex does not prove anything here.

Wifey have bruises: Have you bumpkins never heard of BDSM! Some gals ( probably majority) love to be treated roughly.


There is no fücking way on this planet ,barring confession or in camera recording, that marital rape could be proved. The whole prosecution of any rape case, anywhere in the world, is based on simple logic that ,if a girl walks into a hospital claiming she has been raped, and semen of rapist or lubricant is found inside vagina of that girl which belong to someone with which she is not supposed to have sex ( Husband, or confirmed boyfriend), it is assumed that she is not lying about not consenting for sex.

In case of marital rape ,unless you belong to school of thought which believes that Women never lies, there is no fücking way that you could be sure that whether it is a Rape, or a scorned ex using court to settle scores.Criminalizing Marital rape would add one more law to long list of Feminazi laws.

If someone has novel ideas about "How to establish consent or absence of it in case of marital sex?" , I am all ears. Just remember that I have no tolerance for dumb and idiotic "Women never Lies" kind of defence.


And @SarthakGanguly @Tridibans and other people associated with RSS/BJP: Ask people you know who are higher up in BJP's hierarchy to send their anchors to TV shows with proper argument. Arguing like a 5 year old about "how criminalizing Martial rape is bad for Indian culture" when they could easily argue on line of "Legal unsustainability of claim of lack of consent", is outright stupid. They are playing into hands of their detractors.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

i read in some thread asking mods to allow quran quotes with full/beginning understanding of the context of the verse, and not doing so should result in ban.

@haviZsultan @Irfan Baloch @Horus @waz @Jf Thunder please see if my interpretations below are valid or need to be modified.

i can say this... the verse propagates discouragement for the initial muslims in keeping of slaves and in the liberation of current slaves, and how better to achieve this than marry them with full islami wedding rights and duties accorded or adhered.

i can say this... the verse is meant for males and females at various points.

1. the first line is for the male, who is advised against wedding until he finds his economic condition good enough to satisfy a decent mahr pledge during the wedding procedure and good enough to satisfy a decent married-life conditions for his new wife.

2. the second line ( "and those who seek" ) is either marry the slaves ( thereby releasing them ) or making them business partners ( thereby releasing them )... this verse is for both male and female.

3. the third line ( "do not compel" ) and the fourth, is essentially warning against pimping of slave girls.

Your "interpretation" is not required. It is already translated into english and anyone with half a brain can understand what it says and what it implies and how it makes owning slaves legal and acceptable.

Do you mistaken the rest of us for illiterate arab Bedouins ?

what a foolish and laughable assertion !!!

it was not the muslim conquerors who forced those ladies into jauhar and sati... it was the hindu kings and courtiers who saw "honor" in murdering the females of the palace or those connected to the main soldiery.

The Hindu kings and courtiers were dead when Jauhar happened.... ...... that is why Jauhar happened in the first place. Same is true for Sati, it happens with the "hindu king" is dead and no one can "force" a Queen to kill herself.

Sati peaked in India during islamic invasion and was dominant among the ruling and warrior class. It had everything to do with escaping Rape and Slavery and not providing more bodies to the "Hindu Kush" while they were being transported to Arabia or Persia.

i said "communist world", yes?? that means the communist revolution must defend itself from capitalist aggression and spread the ideas until some means brought more and more world peoples into the socialist sphere until the entire humanity at last becomes communist.

So you do want a military and you do want world domination ........... only instead of an islamic world domination, you want to disguise it as Islamo-communist world domination. What a clown.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I seriously don't understand what the fuss is about or the problem that gelded men and Feminazis have in general.

I do not have time to waste to go through a sorry pile of shїt that this thread must have become since that champak @jamahir is participating in it, but I would try to drill some sense in head of terminally retarded forum members here.

Marital rape is an unprovable crime. Any Rape in which act of having sexual intercourse is not contested in court, but consent is; it is nearly impossible to prove an act of rape as that case becomes "He Said, She said" type. This "unprovability" is there in any relation where fücking is expected.

When a Wife will visit a police station complaining that she has been raped, how would an investigating officer and prosecuter prove that the sex between husband and wife has been non-consensual?

Husband and Wife are supposed to fück each other, so having sex does not prove anything here.

Wifey have bruises: Have you bumpkins never heard of BDSM. Some gals ( probably majority) love to be treated roughly.


There is no fücking way on this planet ,barring confession, that marital rape could be proved. The whole prosecution of any rape case, anywhere in the world, is based on simple logic that ,if a girl walks into a hospital claiming she has been raped, and semen of rapist or lubricant is found inside vagina of that girl which belong to someone with which she is not supposed to have sex ( Husband, or confirmed boyfriend), it is assumed that she is not lying about not consenting for sex.

In case of marital rape ,unless you belong to school of thought which believes that Women never lies, there is no fücking way that you could be sure that whether it is a Rape, or a scorned ex using court to settle scores.Criminalizing Marital rape would add one more law to long list of Feminazi laws.

If someone has novel ideas about "How to establish consent or absence of it in case of marital sex?" , I am all ears. Just remember that I have no tolerance for dumb and idiotic "Women never Lies" kind of defence.


And @SarthakGanguly @Tridibans and other people associated with RSS/BJP: Ask people you know who are higher up in BJP's hierarchy to send their anchors to TV shows with proper argument. Arguing like a 5 year old about "how criminalizing Martial rape is bad for Indian culture" when they could easily argue on line of "Legal unsustainability of claim of lack of consent", is outright stupid. They are playing into hands of their detractors.

Personally not interested at all in this stupid slugfest. Even if Rajnikanth wants it, it can't be legalized. For now at least. With truth serums, it just may.

 

[jamahir]

Your "interpretation" is not required. It is already translated into english and anyone with half a brain can understand what it says and what it implies and how it makes owning slaves legal and acceptable.

there is enough non-prose in those verses to make a interpretation necessary... i don't see what you are trying to prove by quoting those verses as is.

The Hindu kings and courtiers were dead when Jauhar happened.... ...... that is why Jauhar happened in the first place. Same is true for Sati, it happens with the "hindu king" is dead and no one can "force" a Queen to kill herself.

my posts on the roop kanwar sati case in this very thread ( which you don't mention ) shows how sati ( and jauhar ) can be achieved...

India not to criminalise marital rape | Page 6
India not to criminalise marital rape | Page 9

Sati peaked in India during islamic invasion and was dominant among the ruling and warrior class. It had everything to do with escaping Rape and Slavery and not providing more bodies to the "Hindu Kush" while they were being transported to Arabia or Persia.

first you said sati and jauhar were caused by the muslim conquerors and now you shift words... lovely.

it is not about slavery... would jauhar happen if the conqueror was hindu??

stop foisting your cultural weakness upon muslims.

 

[SanjeevaniButi]

there is enough non-prose in those verses to make a interpretation necessary... i don't see what you are trying to prove by quoting those verses as is.

I am trying to disprove your drivel that slavery and pimping of slaves were not acceptable in islam. It was acceptable.

my posts on the roop kanwar sati case on this very thread ( which you don't mention ) shows how sati ( and jauhar ) can be achieved...

India not to criminalise marital rape | Page 6
India not to criminalise marital rape | Page 9

Roop Kanwar was not a Queen, so its irrelevant. Roop Kanwar May or may-not have committed Sati. Your evidence showed it was NOT Sati, but murder.

first you said sati and jauhar were caused by the muslim conquerors and now you shift words... lovely.

it is not about slavery... would jauhar happen if the conqueror was hindu?? this is all about not accepting adoption of islam or even being within its protection.

stop foisting your cultural weakness upon muslims.

I am not responsible for you limited intelligence. There has been NO shifting from me.

Sati was a RARE phenomena before islamic invasion. It peaked during islamic invasion as Facts speak for itself.

There is no evidence of Jauhar during hindu conquest.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

My wife my property

Our culture is different. You may not fit well in this thread. We try to treat women better, preferably as human beings. We genuine do get ashamed by incidences of rape. We go to the streets, brave tear gas and protest against the Government and force them to take prompt action. Quite unlike the silent, invisible 'vast peaceful majority' of you guys.

I wrote this because your views don't resonate with ours, and hence is a waste of both your and our time.

 

[jamahir]

I am trying to disprove your drivel that slavery and pimping of slaves were not acceptable in islam. It was acceptable.

islam does not accept slavery, is what i showed... did you read my interpretation?? remember, not many can interpret.

Roop Kanwar was not a Queen, so its irrelevant. Roop Kanwar May or may-not have committed Sati.

such callous disregard for human life.

Your evidence showed it was NOT Sati, but murder.

sati == murder.

that is what i showed.

Sati was a RARE phenomena before islamic invasion. It peaked during islamic invasion as Facts speak for itself.

according to history, the british governor general of india in 1829, abolished sati in bengal in that year... the proper nawab of bengal, siraj ud daulah, had died in 1757... so why was sati being practiced 70 years after the death of siraj??

There is no evidence of Jauhar during hindu conquest.

exactly... this was extreme racism against muslims where the hindu harmed themselves... what a tragi-comedy.

Our culture is different. You may not fit well in this thread. We try to treat women better, preferably as human beings. We genuine do get ashamed by incidences of rape. We go to the streets, brave tear gas and protest against the Government and force them to take prompt action. Quite unlike the silent, invisible 'vast peaceful majority' of you guys.

I wrote this because your views don't resonate with ours, and hence is a waste of both your and our time.

and here i am, talking about sati... and this thread has many indian members venting against feminists and what not.