If you want to understand how to become better allies to people with disabilities, then join us at Embracing All Abilities: Including People with Disabilities at Work.
The law on marital rape in India is archaic and fails to take women's consent into account. Here is why the marital rape exemption doesn't make sense.
The law on marital rape in India is still archaic and fails to take women’s consent fully into account. Here is why the marital rape exemption doesn’t make sense.
Statistics indicate that one out of every ten women who has ever been married, has been raped by a husband at least once, and sometimes many times over the years. But in many countries, marital rape is not yet a criminal offence and this exemption has been termed the ‘marital rape exemption’.
Let alone being a criminal offence, it is not recognized as a substantial or serious occurrence. Much of the marital rape does not get reported. The truth is, marital rape as a whole is quite understated.
Laws against rape are usually built on the belief that women are the property of men. That prior to her marriage, she was the property of her father, and that after her marriage, she became the property of her husband is the conception on which most laws are built on. What these do not take into account is the consent of the woman in domestic contours. Admittedly, laws have been changed during the course of many years, but certain foundations of those laws seem to be indefatigable.
Three major justifications for the ‘marital rape exemption’ can be sketched out. The first one is that the woman is the man’s property, and discounts all the rights of/for the woman. Yes, it is as if the woman alludes to her husband to use her as he pleases, when she gets married to him. That’s so nice of her, don’t you think?
The second rationale for justification is that marriage is an institution where two individuals, the man and the woman, unite together as one. But they unite together, into a single entity, which is the man. (Oh, but of course. You saw that coming! Of course, it had to be the man!)
The third rationale assumes that a woman’s consent – apparent consent- to marriage suffices to be consent for any manner or degree of sexual relation. This final third rationale bores the hell out of me, the question being whether marriage is a medium that enables men to release their sexual tension.
The first rationale is widely believed to be invalid or obsolete, but I believe that this is so only in theory. But I don’t see how it is obsolete, in current scenarios. There are still societies and families that are so backward, that they believe in training women right from an early age to suit the needs of the man to whom she will become the better half. Women are still seen as inanimate entities in many societies, by many people.
The second rationale is refuted by claiming that marriage is an institution built on equality. That doesn’t fool me though. If equality means that man is greater than woman, then that sounds just about right.
The third rationale is probably why marital rape is still understated and downplayed in many parts of the world.
What should be understood is that when a woman marries a man, she does not sign a contract of any kind. And marriage most certainly does not open her to sexual relations of any and all kinds, and definitely not against her consent. This third rationale assumes that the wife is always sexually available to the husband, which makes little sense.
What escapes my comprehension is what women mean to some men. What are they? Are they punching bags, to vent out one’s divergent energy on? Are they automobiles that can be taken for a ride, whenever and however the man pleases? Are they WiFi routers, to simply plug in whenever needed?
Hey Man! Your wife is not a thing.
Believe me, someday, when you try to plug in, you will get a shock, which will eviscerate you, physically and morally.
First published at the author’s blog.
Slogan pic via Shutterstock
Lackadaisical engineer. Student journalist. Football is love. Jam is ecstasy. Dogs: heaven. Reading = breathing. Madras is home. read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
What I loved was how there is so much in the movie of the SRK we have known, and also a totally new star. The gestures, the smile, the wit and the charisma are all too familiar, but you also witness a rawness, an edginess.
When a movie that got the entire nation in a twist – for the right and wrong reasons – hits the theatres, there is bound to be noise. From ‘I am going to watch it – first day first show’ to ‘Boycott the movie and make it a flop’, social media has been a furore of posts.
Let me get one thing straight here – I did not watch Pathaan to make a statement or to simply rebel as people would put it. I went to watch it for the sheer pleasure of witnessing my favourite superstar in all his glory being what he is best at being – his magnificent self. Because when it comes to screen presence, he burns it, melts it and then resurrects it as well like no other. Because when it comes to style and passion, he owns it like a boss. Because SRK is, in a way, my last connecting point to the girl that I once was. Though I have evolved into so many more things over the years, I don’t think I am ready to let go of that girl fully yet.
There is no elephant in the room really here because it’s a fact that Bollywood has a lot of cleaning up to do. Calling out on all the problematic aspects of the industry is important and in doing that, maintaining objectivity is also equally imperative. I went for Pathaan for entertainment and got more than I had hoped for. It is a clever, slick, witty, brilliantly packaged action movie that delivers what it promises to. Logic definitely goes flying out of the window at times and some scenes will make you go ‘kuch bhi’ , but the screenplay clearly reminds you that you knew all along what you were in for. The action sequences are lavish and someone like me who is not exactly a fan of this genre was also mind blown.
Recent footage of her coming out of an airport had comments preaching karma and its cruel ways, that Samantha "deserved her illness" because she filed for divorce.
Samantha Ruth Prabhu fell from being the public’s sweetheart to a villain overnight because she filed for divorce. The actress was struck with myositis post divorce, much to the joy of certain groups (read sexist) in our society.
A troll responded to Samantha’s tweet, “Women Rising!!” by adding to it “just to fall”. She replied, “Getting back up makes it all the more sweeter, my friend.”
Here’s another insensitive tweet by BuzZ Basket showing fake concern for her autoimmune disease. “Feeling sad for Samantha, she lost all her charm and glow. When everyone thought she came out of divorce strongly and her professional life was seeing heights, myositis hit her badly, making her weak again.” Samantha responded, “I pray you never have to go through months of treatment and medication like I did. And here’s some love from me to add to your glow.”
Please enter your email address