Legalising Rape By Both Spouses

[Grover]

Women raping men ? what a joke.

Something like that happened to me once. She was strong enough to hold me down and ride me on top. Embarrasing to admit it - I guess I was out of shape at the time.

You might of been out of shape, but still very sexy.

[MiG16]

You have my support khun MiG... I am not sure if Tropo realizes you are Thai.

Hopefully you'll become one of the law makers one day. Hope you'll succeed in making this society more just in the future.

meadish..thankyou so much and the the member who pointed out tropo not being male...maybe that was my mistake in assuming comments like that would come from a man. i apologise for making that (implied) generalisation. if tropo is a woman, then its even more disappointing to hear such views.

anyhow...I know given the right kind of support, and such simple things as information, it makes a huge difference to people's lives and the way they think/react and behave.

despite not being a lawmaker, i know i can make a difference, and am glad that I have been able to do so, yes in my own small way, and even though i cant change the way some of you think....doesnt mean i will stop

also want to add that its not only about thailand.....

[Cpt_M0ney_Sh0t]

And as for "Living in a Man's World" as it was put earlier by another poster. I agree the laws here in Thailand are certainly male dominated. However any historian will tell you Freedom is never Free. If Thai women want equal rights bad enough they will have to stand up and fight for them like their sisters abroad. No body is just going to give someone their freedom... it must be earned, often fought for, bleed for, died for even. Thai women apparently aren't ready for that yet. Though one day perhaps, but obviously not today. I guess they need to be more willing to stand up against their parents before they are ready to tackle political change.

Just interested - when in history did men stand up and fight , bleed & die for their rights? I'm not talking race or religion or class fights here, just as you aren't about women, I'm talking when did men as a gender have to fight to get their rights? Never, as far as I know. Somebody "just gave them their freedom". Funny that.

Also, how do you know Thai women aren't ready for this yet? Have you done a survey? Research? Or are you just generalising?

This thread isn't about women's rights or feminism. It's about the fundamental basic human right not to be subjected to rape, particularly by someone you are married to - or rather, the fact that Thai lawmakers seem to think this scenario is OK. It's not OK for anyone to be raped - man or woman.

I understand the sensitive nature of topic and your latent hostility to anyone whom you feel is defending violence against women. I however am not. As for men defending or fighting for their rights....please this is by far the most primal struggle of man kind. From the very beginning we have fought first against nature and the elements just to simply survive. Going back to our beginning as we took the role of the hunter gatherer. Is eating a right? Do you have to earn the right not to starve to death? Then it was and then it was men winning the right for his people to live and prosper. Men fought, against nature, hostile environments, illness and most harshly, each other to earn his freedom to prosper and grow. And we still do.

Like it or not, Truth is not always a pleasure to behold, but it is no less the Truth. Freedom is not free, anyone, man or woman, who is being oppressed, will not know it with out having earned it.

Now weather or not Thai women as a group have started fighting against this type of inequity, I would bet they have, have they fought hard and or smart enough for it....well I'll let that judgment to be made by the individual beholders. For me it's pretty much a mote point, though I wish them luck and may the Goddess bless their struggle and see that it bear fruit more palatable that it has thus far.

Please don't make me out to be a militant feminist. I'm not. I don't even think I'd class myself as a feminist, per se. I just have this annoying trait that forces me to challenge bs when I hear (read) it, be it from man or woman. And I still think you're talking bs. Going back to prehistory, hunter gatherers - oh, c'mon. First of all, pre history means just that "before written documentation". Yes, a lot has been gleaned from cave drawings & remains, but you cannot tell me as a certainty that men suffered & challenged the elements to find the food while the women sat & filed their nails (or the prehistoric equivalent)

And as for freedom having to be fought for, when did you last have to fight against oppression (as a man, not any other factors which may or may not affect you)? As a woman, I haven't. The suffragettes did my fighting for me 100 years ago. I am in the enviable position now of not really having to regard my gender as regards my rights or what I am entitled to. I read that in the last US election an alarming amount of women didn't even bother to vote, such is the complacency of those who have had their rights won for them & don't need to bother now. Women, as a gender, have had those rights for perhaps a century, men since prehistory.

I have no latent hostility towards you, I just think in this instance you're talking bs. And being extremely patronising; the Goddess??? OMG!

Sorry, LL. I've taken this terribly and, as I said before, I know this topic has nothing to do with feminism - it's my annoying trait again. Sorry!

Firstly you allow your latent militant feminism push you to ill thought out conclusions. I said Goddess because I meant Goddess, I'm Wiccan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca ). I was not being condescending as you so insecurely jumped to assume.

Secondly, What I described in my last post was the most simple and basic of universal gender rolls. Man = Provider, Protector, Leader of Men, Head of Household. Woman = Nurturer, child rearing, Home making, reminder of conscience, comforter, keeper of women's mysteries (yes, even after scores of millenia, you wonderful creatures still elude or simple comprehension)

Taken in proper context and adjusted slightly for time and place these time tested rolls are a beautiful thing. However you needn't look far to see what happens when they are abused as what obviously is happening here in Thailand with woman's leagle rights against rape.

I am not arguing the ethics of weather it is right or wrong that Thai women will need to stand up for themselves and fight for their rights. No, I'm simply pointing out a fact, as ugly as it may be it is a fact none the less. For if not nothing will change.

[faranggl]

jbowman, for the first time since I've been on TV, I agree with you 100%. Thank you for making your posts. Tropo, what are you on? Anything that happens in the bedroom of a married couple is OK? Rape isn't a physically (or mentally) violent act? Rape is "forcible or fraudulent sexual intercourse". Nobody, man or woman, should have to endure rape, even if they are married to the rapist (yes, strong, but isn't that the word for one who rapes?). Most rape victims have to endure their horrific ordeal once; if you are married to your abuser, you have to endure it whenever pleases them. You think that's OK? Systematic abuse by someone who is supposed to love you? Constant degradation that you cannot escape from & have no legal recourse against, thanks to some idiot lawmaker?

And saying that "now the woman can legally rape the man", so we're equal is OK? Well, that's a huge consolation. I somehow can't imagine a woman who is being raped by her husband wanting to take her revenge in that way. I can't imagine her wanting to be anywhere near him. I can't believe in the 21st century there are still people who think like you, Tropo.

November Rain, I have to agree with you. I was thinking that if I were a woman and my husband had aids and possibly unpopular at other sex venues, I would not want to have sex with him either. Even if he was just drunk and smelly and smacked me around just a little, I might not want to do my duty with him. To some guys that may seem kind of fussy though. Also, as far as men being raped in general, a dose of viagra slipped into their drink might set them up for an unpleasant experience. My guess is that there are not many Thai women involved in politics and the judiciary in Thailand. To bad.

[Scott]

I haven't read through everything, but I think if it's legal then it's not really rape.

[cdnvic]

I haven't read through everything, but I think if it's legal then it's not really rape.

I think if you are on the recieving end of being physically forced to have sex against your will, you may change your mind about that.

[bendix]

Firstly you allow your latent militant feminism push you to ill thought out conclusions. I said Goddess because I meant Goddess, I'm Wiccan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca ). I was not being condescending as you so insecurely jumped to assume.

Secondly, What I described in my last post was the most simple and basic of universal gender rolls. Man = Provider, Protector, Leader of Men, Head of Household. Woman = Nurturer, child rearing, Home making, reminder of conscience, comforter, keeper of women's mysteries (yes, even after scores of millenia, you wonderful creatures still elude or simple comprehension)

Taken in proper context and adjusted slightly for time and place these time tested rolls are a beautiful thing. However you needn't look far to see what happens when they are abused as what obviously is happening here in Thailand with woman's leagle rights against rape.

I am not arguing the ethics of weather it is right or wrong that Thai women will need to stand up for themselves and fight for their rights. No, I'm simply pointing out a fact, as ugly as it may be it is a fact none the less. For if not nothing will change.

Am I the only person who sees the irony of someone calling himself Cpt_Money_Shot discussing gender rights?

[Scott]

I am not disputing the idea that rape is repugnant. I am talking about what is defined as rape, and I believe that rape is a legal definition. Therefore, to "rape" someone requires that it be done in a method that is illegal, i.e., statutory rape, which may be with consent, but because of the 'victim' being underage is still considered rape.

Surely, holding a gun to someone's head is against the law--regardless of whether it was to have sex with your wife or not.

[November Rain]

Am I the only person who sees the irony of someone calling himself Cpt_Money_Shot discussing gender rights?

Thank you, Bendix

[November Rain]

I am not disputing the idea that rape is repugnant. I am talking about what is defined as rape, and I believe that rape is a legal definition. Therefore, to "rape" someone requires that it be done in a method that is illegal, i.e., statutory rape, which may be with consent, but because of the 'victim' being underage is still considered rape.

Surely, holding a gun to someone's head is against the law--regardless of whether it was to have sex with your wife or not.

Rape is defined by my dictionary (Concise Oxford Dictionary) as "forcible or fraudulent sexual intercourse esp. imposed on woman; forcible sodomy"

You don't need to hold a gun to someone's head to rape them. You don't need to threaten their life. You "merely" need to have sexual intercourse with them against their will. This can be done within the confines of a relationship. And I'm sure, the vast majority of times it happens within a relationship it is never reported. Maybe that's why many people on this thread have trouble believing that rape within marriage is rape at all. It is. It leaves the victim with the same feeling of degradation & worthlessness & guilt & helplessness. The worst part is, as I stated before, that if you are married to your rapist, you are forced to endure this whenever they feel like it.

[cdnvic]

I'm shocked that this whole topic needs any debate at all.

[phibunmike]

I haven't read through everything, but I think if it's legal then it's not really rape.

I think if you are on the recieving end of being physically forced to have sex against your will, you may change your mind about that.

I agree.

By the way, the New Oxford English Dictionary differentiates between the verb (the act of forcing sex) and the noun (the crime). So by their definition, if A rapes B, it may or may not be rape. But I think in whatever legal jurisdiction you reside, we understand what rape is...

[Scott]

November Rain, I think we are talking about apples and oranges here. My point isn't to try to condone in any way the making of people do anything against their will. It's a legal point that I am making. That point is that it isn't rape unless the law recognizes it as rape.

Since the law is written the way that it is, the recourse may be to use some other law to effect an arrest. If they hold you against your will, use a weapon, detain you etc. There may be other means.

And yes, we all know that most people are too intimidated to use these.

What the Thai legal system has done is, of course, completely senseless.

[November Rain]

My apologies, Scott. I think you are correct that I didn't understand the point you were making.

[TAWP]

November Rain, I think we are talking about apples and oranges here. My point isn't to try to condone in any way the making of people do anything against their will. It's a legal point that I am making. That point is that it isn't rape unless the law recognizes it as rape.

Since the law is written the way that it is, the recourse may be to use some other law to effect an arrest. If they hold you against your will, use a weapon, detain you etc. There may be other means.

And yes, we all know that most people are too intimidated to use these.

What the Thai legal system has done is, of course, completely senseless.

Well Scott, you are incorrect.

The act in itself, nomatter the legal status, is called rape. The definition is in the dictionarys.

The legal definition isn't important when labeling the act in itself, only when determening if the person can be charged for the act or not.

Even if it was legal to stab your wife, and you did, would it not be called a 'stabbing' by the sole reason that it was legal in the country you currently resided in? Or what should it be called?

What should rape be called if we for some reason didn't have the dictionarys to back us up on this one? "I had some nice forced penetration with my crying wife last night. It was great."

And don't miss that most of us will always call the acts based on the legal system in our homecountries, nomatter if it's legal here or not.

[MiG16]

even if you want to debate the lgality of rape....just a note to point out that 185 countries who are members of the united nations have signed the convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (discrimination includes a number of issues, and yes violence against women features prominently. this includes rape, martial or otherwise) Id say that would include all countries represented by thaivsa members)

also when talking about rape, there usually is no distinction made , nor any disputes that it does include your partner, be it husband legally married to you or not. however it seems the wording used in thai, atleast under the 1997 constitution penal code on rape, translated covers only rape outside of marriage. as said...i havent had a look at this proposed draft....but on the whole what a ridiculous idea.

[Acquiesce]

You have my support khun MiG... I am not sure if Tropo realizes you are Thai.

Hopefully you'll become one of the law makers one day. Hope you'll succeed in making this society more just in the future.

meadish..thankyou so much and the the member who pointed out tropo not being male...maybe that was my mistake in assuming comments like that would come from a man. i apologise for making that (implied) generalisation. if tropo is a woman, then its even more disappointing to hear such views.

Sorry MIG16, i should have been clearer, Tropo is male but just not a man.

Cheers.