Anger Over Proposed Change To R_ape Laws

[Dakhar]

and about 3 times in a year it is.

[a2396]

I, personally, don't see this is a humorous moment. But then maybe some people find the idea of an HIV infected husband forcing himself on his wife or a child rapist being allowed to marry his victim to avoid punishment funny.

I think couples who are involved in unprotected sex should check for STD's for both themselves and thier partners. If one refuses, I would wonder why. If a spouse suspects thier partner (with HIV), they should have a right to demand an HIV test. If the partner refuses, they should not be required to have sex and thus protected by law. As for the issue of marital rape, it is a fuzzy issue. If there is violence involved and It is likely that rape involves some sort of violence or force. Such should be covered by existing law. Wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation. The problem lies with abusive husbands and unresponsive wives. Sorting out who is at fault in such cases is probably not going to be solved by a marital rape law.

[jbowman1993]

New rape laws pass assembly

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) yesterday passed a bill that removes any loopholes for a man or a woman to escape being charged with the crime of rape.

When the draft law is enacted, a woman can face rape charges and a husband can be punished for sexually violating his wife.

To the outrage of women's rights activists, current laws define a rapist as a person who rapes a woman who is not his wife thus tacitly granting impunity to a husband who rapes his wife.

"The courts need not worry that there will be lots of rape complaints filed by wives against her husband. Normally, a woman will be very cautious about making such a move," NLA member Kanchana Silapa-archa said.

The bill is being drafted to amend criminal laws.

In the bill, the definition of rape has also changed to a broader scope to cover female offenders too. Many NLA members insisted there was evidence that a female could rape a male. The definition is also broad enough to convict homosexual rapists.

Under current laws, no female defendant can appear before the courts to face rape charges.

The bill has prescribed a jail term of up to 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of Bt40,000 for a convicted rapist.

Following a heated debate, the NLA passed the bill with 118 votes, five against, and four abstentions. The move was warmly received. "In the past, there have been so many husbands who've raped their wives and gone unpunished," Thammasat University law lec-turer Dr Matalak Seramethakul said.

She was among academics and women's right activists who have long demanded that the legal definition of a rapist be revised.

Natee Teerarojjanapongs, director of the Thai Political Gay Group, said many gay men were raped by women, who were known as Fag Hags.

The term refers to women who associate mostly and exclusively with gay men either because they like their company or are secretly sexually attracted to gay men.

"After the rape takes place, these women demand that the gay men marry them to show responsibility. Some gay men agree to the demand," he said.

Prapasri Osathanon

from The Nation (21 June 2007)

[jbowman1993]

They are doing something positive, and fixing a loophole that many have called to be closed, including many on this forum. I imagine this will generate no discussion whatsoever, because it doesn't concern bargirls, double pricing, airport bashing, or the coup. Prove me wrong.

[quiksilva]

Anyone who has to resort to raping their wife must be an absolute failure as a man.

Well said.

I think this goes to show that whilst Thailand may falter at times they can take steps in the right direction.

This is truly great news for the country, lets hope that there will be more news stories like this to come.

[sibeymai]

Firstly and above all, I have no problem with the spirit of the law being equality for both sexes and equal protection under the law.

However, what equality of protection exists in the legislation to prevent males being falsely accused of rape by vexatious or conniving wives ?

If after a wife claims rape a major object of proof is medical evidence (as it is), such evidence could easily be obtained by the wife during consensual sex. Therefore the ability for a wife to claim rape is unfairly biased in the woman's favour.

Due to the ease with which women can make false rape claims courts usually insist on the presence of substantial and indisputable evidence (medical evidence alone does not constitute indisputable evidence) before convicting, which unfortunately means a percentage of offenders are found not guilty through lack of evidence.

Conversely though, a percentage of falsely accused men will be convicted because they can not satisfactorily establish their innocence over the presence of medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence.

My point here is that the percentage of falsely accused men who will be found guilty will greatly exceed the number of falsely accused women ever found guilty.

Unfortunately, sending innocent men to prison will not compensate for the number of guilty men not convicted. This same problem with the law also exists in western countries. Unfortunately, no country has found a workable solution and western laws remain biased in favour of women.

It is this bias whereby men can easily be falsely accused which I believe men have a justifiable objection to. The penalty for a proven false rape accusation should be no less than equal to the penalty for rape itself.

[Lucifer]

If my Thai g/f has sex with me while I am asleep, is that rape? It's one of her hobbies

Thats probably because she can't tell when you're makeing love to her and when you're asleep.

[Jai Dee]

NLA approves landmark bill against marital rape

Under the terms of a new legal provision of the Thai Penal Code, a husband no longer can physically abuse his wife, nor engage in involuntary sexual relations against his spouse's will.

Thailand's National Legislative Assembly (NLA) on Wednesday approved an amendment providing that a marital rape is now subject to a maximum jail term of 20 years.

The Thai Penal Code Section 276 currently exempts punishment for a husband who has an sexual intercourse with his wife against her will, an understanding which is widely seen as gender discrimination against women.

There have been many attempts to change this legal provision, but Wednesday's NLA action represents the first time that a wife's rightful willingness will be protected by the Thai Penal Code.

Following promulgation of the amended Section 276, a marital rapist will face a minimum jail term of four years, up to a maximum 20 year incarceration, or a minumum fine of Bt8,000 up to Bt40,000, or both.

The amendment was proposed by the Cabinet and prominent NLA member and law lecturer Prof. Dr. Bovaronsak Uwanno. NLA members engaged in a hot debate on the proposal before voting with 118 in favour and 5 votes against the measure.

Source: TNA - 21 June 2007

[StateSix]

I, personally, don't see this is a humorous moment. But then maybe some people find the idea of an HIV infected husband forcing himself on his wife or a child rapist being allowed to marry his victim to avoid punishment funny.

I think couples who are involved in unprotected sex should check for STD's for both themselves and thier partners. If one refuses, I would wonder why. If a spouse suspects thier partner (with HIV), they should have a right to demand an HIV test. If the partner refuses, they should not be required to have sex and thus protected by law. As for the issue of marital rape, it is a fuzzy issue. If there is violence involved and It is likely that rape involves some sort of violence or force. Such should be covered by existing law. Wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation. The problem lies with abusive husbands and unresponsive wives. Sorting out who is at fault in such cases is probably not going to be solved by a marital rape law.

Marital rape is not a fuzzy issue. If one partner refuses sex, and the other one does it anyway, it is non consensual sex - rape. Why do you say wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation? It is her body and if she does not want to have sex with her husband then that is her right. Do you think the husband has some sort of right to have sex just because they are married?

[jbowman1993]

I think combining the new article about closing the rape loophole with the old article over the old furver will create some confusion. They are not exactly the same topic.

At least, the topic title might be changed to reflect the up to date legislation

Edited June 21, 2007 by jbowman1993

[DamianMavis]

I, personally, don't see this is a humorous moment. But then maybe some people find the idea of an HIV infected husband forcing himself on his wife or a child rapist being allowed to marry his victim to avoid punishment funny.

I think couples who are involved in unprotected sex should check for STD's for both themselves and thier partners. If one refuses, I would wonder why. If a spouse suspects thier partner (with HIV), they should have a right to demand an HIV test. If the partner refuses, they should not be required to have sex and thus protected by law. As for the issue of marital rape, it is a fuzzy issue. If there is violence involved and It is likely that rape involves some sort of violence or force. Such should be covered by existing law. Wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation. The problem lies with abusive husbands and unresponsive wives. Sorting out who is at fault in such cases is probably not going to be solved by a marital rape law.

Marital rape is not a fuzzy issue. If one partner refuses sex, and the other one does it anyway, it is non consensual sex - rape. Why do you say wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation? It is her body and if she does not want to have sex with her husband then that is her right. Do you think the husband has some sort of right to have sex just because they are married?

Its a fuzzy issue to me because if for instance MY future wife didnt want to have sex regularly than I would get a divorce faster than you can blink, forced sex would never enter my mind, but divorce would instantly be my answer. It's her right to refuse, but that is also her right to end the marriage, hence the fuzzyness and complications. In my opinion. I can't imagine being in a relationship where sex was an issue though (I've never aksed for it and cant imagine having to and thus cant imagine being refused, it just always kind of happens)..... boggles my mind, my Japanese woman is way hungrier than I am, Im always just trying to keep her happy! We get into problems if I dont.... and I don't blame her.

Damian

[sibeymai]

I second DamianMavis....refusal would lead to a very quick divorce.

As a friend related a discussion on this topic with his girlfriend (future wife).....

GF: "Is sex important to you ?"

BF: "Is breathing important to you ?" (not meant as a threat)

They fully understood each each other before they married.

[jumnien]

Natee Teerarojjanapongs, director of the Thai Political Gay Group, said many gay men were raped by women, who were known as Fag Hags.

The term refers to women who associate mostly and exclusively with gay men either because they like their company or are secretly sexually attracted to gay men.

While the Nation is often a source of amusement, they've really outdone themselves today! Oh my, these Fag Hags must be brought to justice!

[sbk]

Natee Teerarojjanapongs, director of the Thai Political Gay Group, said many gay men were raped by women, who were known as Fag Hags.

The term refers to women who associate mostly and exclusively with gay men either because they like their company or are secretly sexually attracted to gay men.

While the Nation is often a source of amusement, they've really outdone themselves today! Oh my, these Fag Hags must be brought to justice!

Well, mdeland, I doubted you, thought you made that ridiculous quote up. I thought, what an imagination he has!

Well, sorry, I guess it is Natee who is the imaginative one here.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/21...es_30037430.php

[StateSix]

I, personally, don't see this is a humorous moment. But then maybe some people find the idea of an HIV infected husband forcing himself on his wife or a child rapist being allowed to marry his victim to avoid punishment funny.

I think couples who are involved in unprotected sex should check for STD's for both themselves and thier partners. If one refuses, I would wonder why. If a spouse suspects thier partner (with HIV), they should have a right to demand an HIV test. If the partner refuses, they should not be required to have sex and thus protected by law. As for the issue of marital rape, it is a fuzzy issue. If there is violence involved and It is likely that rape involves some sort of violence or force. Such should be covered by existing law. Wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation. The problem lies with abusive husbands and unresponsive wives. Sorting out who is at fault in such cases is probably not going to be solved by a marital rape law.

Marital rape is not a fuzzy issue. If one partner refuses sex, and the other one does it anyway, it is non consensual sex - rape. Why do you say wives refusing sex on a regular basis is a complicated situation? It is her body and if she does not want to have sex with her husband then that is her right. Do you think the husband has some sort of right to have sex just because they are married?

IIts a fuzzy issue to me because if for instance MY future wife didnt want to have sex regularly than I would get a divorce faster than you can blink, forced sex would never enter my mind, but divorce would instantly be my answer. It's her right to refuse, but that is also her right to end the marriage, hence the fuzzyness and complications. In my opinion. I can't imagine being in a relationship where sex was an issue though (I've never aksed for it and cant imagine having to and thus cant imagine being refused, it just always kind of happens)..... boggles my mind, my Japanese woman is way hungrier than I am, Im always just trying to keep her happy! We get into problems if I dont.... and I don't blame her.

Damian

I agree that refusal to have sex could be grounds for divorce, but it is not grounds to rape which is how I interpreted a3296s post.

If my wife didnt want to have sex with me regularly I would be looking at myself first - am I doing it right? Should I shower more often?

[highdiver]

this is a great day for thailand.

a proper amendment to the loop hole in the law.

Well done to the goverment and the assembly.

and to all the first posters that were quick to critisize... som nam na.