I am totally at one with the urgent need to protect wives from husbands who might assault or rape them, so I unequivocally support amendment to existing legislation to prosecute marital rape. In the same breath however, responsible and forward thinking legislative processes must contemplate unintended negative consequences that may result from well-intentioned laws, and be prepared for even the remotest possibility of a loophole that will cause undue injustice to the supposed offender as well.
It is necessary to consider all possibilities and views when shaping legislation so that any needed caveat to mitigate negative outcomes can be included. I invite you to consider this in the same way in which we are all rightfully appalled by all crime, especially murder, but we support civil society in their campaign to provoke thought and demand questions about unintended consequences when legislators sought to craft the anti-gang legislation in response to crime.
It is necessary to consider all possibilities and views when shaping legislation so that any needed caveat to mitigate negative outcomes can be included. I invite you to consider this in the same way in which we are all rightfully appalled by all crime, especially murder, but we support civil society in their campaign to provoke thought and demand questions about unintended consequences when legislators sought to craft the anti-gang legislation in response to crime.
In our attempt to discuss this matter, we should be careful not to instinctively assume that the presumption of sexual entitlement is an idea held by men alone. In the contract of marriage, BOTH PARTNERS are expected to, in a healthy, respectful and loving context, give themselves to each other sexually, support each other materially and emotionally, while working together to build a lasting family unit, the cornerstone of society.
It follows therefore, that in a healthy relationship, a man SHOULD NEITHER deprive his wife of material or emotional support nor healthy sexual fulfillment. In the same way, the woman should NOT deprive her husband of those same things. A marriage will go nowhere unless both partners are willing to recognize that their individual rights must be balanced against the interest of the unit. This is why it is absolutely crucial to enter this important arrangement with clarity of thought and singularity of purpose.
However, I am well aware that in an imperfect world, relationships do not always run a smooth course; therefore, where there is a breakdown of sorts and where either partner has lost trust, interest or has other factors that make sexual intercourse undesirable, then each person should have the right to withdraw or say no. Once a marriage reaches this point, it will require serious intervention for reconciliation or otherwise, the parties should separate to prevent resentment, possible violence and eventually forced sex.
Hence, I hold the view that if a man or woman, in a marriage, inflicts violence on the other or schemes or plots to murder the other, then the offending party should be prosecuted. In the same way, if a marriage has gotten to a point where there are issues that would genuinely cause a woman to deny sexual intercourse to her husband, and he resorts to force, violence or other means to violate her person without her consent, then he should be subject to prosecution for an offence, of rape, because the woman is not his property.
But, we should be careful to note, that there are and will be women who use and withhold sex from their husbands for multiple reasons that are unjustified; we must also bear in mind that a woman may also utilize the cry of rape to malign a partner for vengeance etc. So let us approach this subject with balance. A man should not simply say that his wife is his property, thus he has the right to take sex from her whether she is up to it or not; and at the same time a woman should not simply say, her body is her's alone so she can say no anytime she feels like. This hard line approach from either party is a recipe for disaster - not a pretext for rape of course, but grounds for a strange marriage.
Thus, the institution of marriage deserves a more balanced and thorough discussion on both sides so that we can arrive at the best position to uphold the individual rights of each person, while preserving the noble institution of marriage. As the legislators consider the law to be amended and as interest groups place their positions on the table, let us ensure that provision be made for either party to be protected from abuse, violence or forced sex, while also safeguarding against either party using the cry of rape frivolously.
Thus, the institution of marriage deserves a more balanced and thorough discussion on both sides so that we can arrive at the best position to uphold the individual rights of each person, while preserving the noble institution of marriage. As the legislators consider the law to be amended and as interest groups place their positions on the table, let us ensure that provision be made for either party to be protected from abuse, violence or forced sex, while also safeguarding against either party using the cry of rape frivolously.
