Subscribe Now SMS Login About us
Renew Mobile Contact us
Awards Search Support us
E-Coupon Advertise Join us
Username   Password Forgot password?
24-Hour SMS Login   
COLUMNS
Politik pingat mengiringi politik wang
Unmasking the hornets
Apa itu ‘Islam Progresif’? (Bhgn 4)
A kerfuffle over Islam Hadhari

LETTERS
Don’t let foreign fund managers touch EPF
Dr M’s criteria for a leader...
Mahathir not a good Muslim to smear Anwar
Anwar should ignore Dr M
Harga minyak: Kesian sungguh rakyat
Review choice of incinerator partner
When does sex in marriage become rape?
Melayu tak maju: Tidak adil menuduh pemimpin
The long and short of Muslim dressing
Let’s not argue on peripheral religious differences

NEWS
Sack Samy Vellu, Keadilan tells Pak Lah
Some journalists disobeyed orders, says co-ordinator
Radzi: Money politics cases being investigated
Bird flu: Officials test dead birds found on oil platforms
Same old problems for domestic violence victims, says group
Police torch immigrant settlement at Sepang
Chin Peng’s memoirs in Chinese out soon
Tajem faction dismisses Masing’s weekend gathering
MAS, AirAsia get one-month deadline to map out cooperation
Murmurs against Anwar within PAS?

OPINION & FEATURES
Society's debt to the disappeared
Pacific War in M’sia, S’pore remembered (Part 2)
Anwar and the dangers of mediation

Sex a conjugal right
K Gan

I refer to the letter Ridiculous to criminalise marital rape.

Allow me to point out that in our society, as well as in many other civilised societies, non-consummation in marriage is good and sufficient grounds for annulment of the union.

A straightforward annulment. One does not even have to go through the trouble and complexities of applying for a divorce. If this is the legal position, where does the presumption stand that sex is not a conjugal right or obligation in marriage?

Politeness and prudishness in civil society do not permit the crude declaration of each partner's right to engage in sex with the other in marriage vows. However, this should not be mistakenly construed that sex is not required as part and parcel of marriage.

This conjugal right to sex covers both partners in the union and the wife is as entitled to apply for an annulment for the husband's refusal to consummate the marriage as the other way around.

If sex is legally a conjugal right then the notion of marital rape is clearly inconsistent with such a right and the imprudent result of overly aggressive feminists in Western societies and the desire of vote hungry lawmakers to accommodate them.

If indeed force is used by the husband to obtain non-consensual sex with his wife, then the use of such force is adequately covered by the Domestic Violence Act, without the need to introduce a dubious piece of legislation with deep detrimental implications to the institution of marriage.

The issue here is not about sex per se, but about mistreatment, abuse and violence perpetrated by one party on the other, which may occur not only in the matter of sex but also in any other activity in marriage. So why the need to single out sex?

For when we legalise the concept of marital rape, we open a can of worms, with implications extending far beyond the protection of women from domestic violence.

If wives can cry rape just because they are not in the mood, then it implies that they have the legal right to withhold sex at their whims and fancies.

As sex is a basic biological need, should we then allow the unfortunate husband, from whom sex has been unreasonably denied to legally fulfill his need elsewhere?

If such is the case then we must re-examine the whole institution of marriage from the legal, moral and cultural standpoint and indeed the very purpose of marriage itself.

Is not the purpose of marriage to provide a stable union for the production and bringing up of offspring?

Within this framework, the conjugal right to sex with one's spouse is logical and reasonable and the alienation of this right, is good and sufficient reason to end the union there and then.

If the core issue here is the better protection of women within marriage, then we should talk about strengthening the Domestic Violence Act or other appropriate means rather then criminalising sex between husband and wife.

By introducing an obnoxious piece of legislation such as marital rape, we may inadvertently open Pandora's box and weaken or destroy the institution of marriage.

HomeGo To Top Forward to your friend Email the editor Print Version
Marriage not a licence for martial rape
06:46pm Thu Sep 02, 2004
Marital rape not part of a healthy marriage
05:51pm Thu Sep 02, 2004
Outrageous to defend marital rape
01:11pm Mon Aug 30, 2004
Ridiculous to criminalise marital rape
04:51pm Thu Aug 26, 2004
Tiada beza rogol di luar atau dalam perkahwinan
02:28pm Wed Aug 25, 2004
Problems to proving marital rape
08:18am Fri Sep 12, 2003
Sex not a prerequisite in marriages
08:49am Thu Sep 11, 2003
Knotty problems to marital rape proposal
09:28am Wed Sep 10, 2003
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.