"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips

***

On marital rape (because I was asked about it, and this was easier than writing yet another essay); people fight harder for their interests than for others' rights:


Me: in short, I don't think it's a big problem,

it may result in men being screwed

and it may also result in women being screwed (because formerly women ignorant of the law might report rape and then the man would be nailed for something else like sexual assault, but now knowing the law they might not bother)

LDPVTP: oh. hmm
not keen on the principle that rape = violence = bad?

Me: rape = violence = bad
but marital rape is not unpunished

it's like how it's bad to cane your children
but smacking should be allowed

so laws to end 'child abuse' may be too broad and parents who smack
their kids may go to jail for child abuse

LDPVTP: mmm
the NUS law lecturer who was one of the panelists at the seminar said that punishments for sexual assault and other marital rape-related offences are not commensurate with the punishment for rape

Me: okay. well, again,
the question is how much of a problem this is?
hearing the activists you'd think it was huge

it's a cost benefit analysis
who will benefit?
who will be hurt directly?
who will be hurt indirectly?

the last may be the biggest category

but the purpose of activism is not always to make the world a better place
but to make you feel better about yourself by protesting

LDPVTP: sure
i'm sure you also know that doing things out of self-interest is not intrinsically evil

Me: no it's not. but the road to hell is paved with good intentions

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

LDPVTP: i think, where the benefits and costs are not yet measurable, i would go for something that would bring obvious benefits, and then get whacked by the costs that come with it. rather than dither. but this is a personality trait and not any principle in particular.

Me: but are the benefits measurable?

how many wives get raped?
1?

LDPVTP: oh dear. numbers.

Me: you need numbers to calibrate these things
unless your intent is purely symbolic
in which case - for the sake of symbolism you screw people

bastiat wrote on the visible vs the invisible

you see the victim of corporate malfesance and you award him insane damages
however the costs are passed on to other consumers, who are unseen
so in the end you're screwing more people

anyway I don't feel very strongly about this
just have slight misgivings

and am bemused that it's another storm in a teacup
but that's how activism works: by making everything look like the end of the world

the question is the lack of hard data
but bear in mind that 20-40% of rape accusations are false
and that unlike other crimes, sexual crimes and especially rape are not trialed fairly
the man is screwed

despite feminist nonsense that is how the world works
because we live in a sexist society

anyway it's telling that you don't see the no to rape activists kicking up a fuss about an even more egregious shortfall in our law

men cannot be raped in singapore
wives can nominally not be raped
but in practice what happens is similar to cases of normal rape

why don't you see the notorape people going on about how men are poor victims?
you can see the ideological agenda here

LDPVTP: there are men who are victims also lah

Me: yes but notorape doesn't focus on that
"notorape" should be renamed "notofemalerape"

LDPVTP: hmmmm
i will think on it

Me: meanwhile the feminists can call me a misogynist. I don't care

LDPVTP: actually
for your point on driving more women to underreport,
that would only be if they went from not knowing the existence of the marital rape law to partially comprehending it
in the sense of not knowing that there are certain exemptions to it

Me: how many of the wives do you think will read the FAQ thoroughly? it's only in one question which is easily missed. and it seems to be missed elsewhere in the publicity material

most people don't get in-depth understandings of issues. they just get a surface understanding

it's like this muslim girl who told me there were 7 pillars of Islam
and didn't believe me at first when I told her there were 5

just think about the anti-377A-repeal movement
how many of them are truly versed in all the arguments and justifications?
I tell you 90% are just "eee, gays are scary" or "we must protect the children!"

LDPVTP: damn sad.

Me: life is a vale of tears

I'm also cautious about saying how many husbands might be wrongly accused, because I
simply don't have proper figures
even my hypothetical RA would not be able to dig them up

false rape accusations are a very neglected area of scholarship
for ideological reasons

but if you hold to the principle that:
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
then you should have cause for pause
especially given the bias in this area of sex crimes

in prison sex criminals are at the bottom of the hierarchy
(and child sex criminals at the bottom of THAT hierarchy)


Addendum:

I was pointed to one video from the Q&A of the seminar, in which the law of "Sexual assault by penetration" (Section 376 of the Penal Code) was discussed.

Although it seems a woman can theoretically be convicted of sexual penetration if she forces a man to sexually penetrate her vagina or anus with a part of his body other than his penis, the issue of a woman forcing a man to sexually penetrate her vagina or anus with his penis is STILL not considered rape (or sexual penetration, as the case might be).

In other words, a woman raping a man in the "traditional" way will still not be guilty of rape or sexual penetration, and my suggestion that the movement be renamed NoToFemaleRape still stands (there're other sexual permutations but I won't bother considering them as my main objection still stands).

(Some might pick on the terminological niceties, but I don't think NoToSexualPenetration rolls off the tongue well)


I also note that the question about whether a female raping her husband should be criminalised was answered with an answer of "in principle, yes, of course". In principle, I support criminalising marital rape too, but procedural complications give me cause for doubt.


Terence Goh:

Mr Wang,

"After we take away the rape immunity, the husband would just be the same position as the boyfriend.

No one is complaining that boyfriends face a terrible risk of girlfriends framing them for rape. "

There is nothing important enough at stake in a casual relationship for the girlfriend to use rape as a tool.

For wives who want a divorce, it is different. Threatening to report the husband for rape can be used as a bargaining chip for custody of the kids, alimony, split of assets, etc. Even if the husband is not guilty, the thought of being involved in a police case, potential lawsuit, legal fees, possibility of being found guilty, social stigma, maybe losing his job is enough to make him agree to demands. I am not talking about clear cut cases like the one you were involved in but about those that are hard to disprove. The wife could tell the police that her husband raped her as punishment after telling him of her extramarital affair. Any way to disprove this? The police can't say the wife is lying either.

The malicious wife can also use entrapment - bluff her husband she wants to play rough.

I agree that the law needs to be changed to protect the innocent but this should include the husbands too.