The male equivalent of marital rape

Men and women bring different things to the marital table. Thus, the relation is much more than same-sex civil partnership, it is complementary in nature.

Whereas man must provide provisioning and protection to his wife and their children, the wife in return must give him respect, nurture him, and provide him regular sex. Even today, after years of feminist progress, this remains the norm. While women have started earning, a major chunk of household finances are still managed by men. Most household works and child rearing are managed by women although too men have started to contribute their bit.

Those who scoff at this idea that wife must provide husband sex, should realize that sex is a very powerful motivation for men and most work hard to make themselves eligible for marriage. Those with little societal/ financial standing will find it very difficult to get married. Since marriage is where one is generally assured of regular sex, many work harder and improve their profile just to get married to the best woman he can afford for his level.

Today, women have started earning big time, but they still marry up a man who’s higher than her in social and financial status. So women still expect their men to be the primary caretaker of home. So, traditional marriage is not about equal partnership, it is complementary and synergic partnership. (I say traditional, because same-sex marriage is legally sanctioned in many parts of world, and the dynamics here alter radically).

So when a woman marries, she has already consented for sex with her husband as long as the marriage endures. Sounds sexist? Just because she says “yes”, doesn’t mean you stop asking? Just because it’s husband, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape?

If wife can withdraw sex, can husband withdraw provisioning? How will feminists feel about that? If marriage is like any other business partnership, if one renegades from mutually agreed terms, why can’t the other? If wife can sue her husband for having sex without her consent, can man sue her wife for theft for using his money without his consent?

Sounds crass? The very existence of rape laws itself implies that men and women are unequal by nature as it assumes that men can force themselves on women easily statistically. Lest you come up with examples where women are prosecuted for rape, rest assured its far and few in between and mostly in cases where the male is juvenile.

How easy is it for a man to get justice for being raped? Contrast this with what happens when a woman complains. A man is promptly arrested, denied easy bail on the strength of a complaint alone, with no corroborating evidence.

A careful look at feminist progress in laws makes it amply clear that they’re so designed that man’s part of marital duties are legally enforceable, remain effective after separation and even divorce. But women not only don’t have any legally-enforceable marital duties, they’re in fact rewarded when they break the relation for their own selfish reason such as wanting to live with a lover now.

Women not respecting marital vows are called empowered. Men not respecting those very vows that wife has long discarded are punished as harassers as in “financial harassment” of Domestic Violence Act.

What difference does the innocence of husband make when he’s charged with 498a, Domestic Violence Case today? Irrespective of his innocence, a man once accused has to face the music. Whereas in 498a, the burden of evidence has been placed on husband, the Domestic Violence Act surreptitiously removes the necessity of proving harassment to receive the maintenance and residence orders.

The net result is that the innocence of husband is of no consequence once the wife feels like not respecting her marital vows. The man is safe only as long as his wife is attracted to him. Once he loses her attraction, nothing can be done to save him from the nuclear weapons that feminists have handed her.


Propaganda surrounding rape in India

The ban on IndiasDaughter has attracted criticism from several quarters. Apart from the issue of freedom of press involved, the ban supposedly exposes India’s unwillingness to recognize its problems head-on. Many youngsters, whose understanding of the situation is almost entirely shaped by feminist sloganeering, fail to grasp the larger issues on hand.

Large number of rape cases

The moment we hear of a rape incident, we conjure images of a man/men brutalizing a hapless girl at knife-point or some equally gruesome scene.Going by the large numbers of rape cases registered, people invariably assume such scenarios in each of the reported case. However, this is but one of many instances that constitute rape from legal perspective.

Other scenarios include premarital sex with the promise of marriage if the man refuses to marry the woman later. Interestingly, a woman in relation with man for years (even live-in relation, for that matter) too can slap a rape case on him.

In other words, a woman can by retrospective withdrawal of consent turn consensual sex into rape case. In India, overwhelming percent of the rape charges are against a known man. So in most cases a mutually willing relation was later converted to rape charge by the woman (or by her parents) to absolve her guilt in public perception or to punish the man.

Rape charges are also filed with the intent of forcing an unwilling male-partner into marriage.If the man walks out of abusive relation, a vicious woman can file rape charges by retrospectively withdrawing consent. Many such charges are subsequently withdrawn if the man succumbs to marriage.

Nobody in right mind would have problem in adjudging that men who indulge in the demeaning act of rape should deserve harshest punishment. But are the above cases really rape? Can today’s sex become tomorrow’s rape? In legal parlance, such cases are termed ‘afterthought‘.

The existing laws make it very easy to foist false rape cases on any man without any checks. The man is considered guilty until proven innocent, in total contravention to the general presumption [innocent until proven guilty] in any other criminal charge. They’re defamed even before the trial begins, jailed and denied bail for long periods and their acquittal after long years isn’t as prominently covered as their implication was.

Consider an example of local politician wanting to remove an honest government officer from his region. The easiest way is to plant false rape case for all it takes is a willing woman.Since it takes years for the case to conclude, the officer is short-charged till such time. Of late, these cases have effectively become weapons to settle scores in rivalries.

Or as one episode of Saavdhan India showed: a tenant couple foists rape charges on their elderly landlord as they’re unable to pay rent and wish to blackmail him into giving huge amount in lieu of withdrawing case. The landlord is jailed and is denied bail repeatedly till few months. Although acquitted later, he commits suicide unable to bear the humiliation. This incident isn’t an outlier. Many rape cases are settled out of court, which is unthinkable if the woman in question was a genuine victim.

Back in 1950s or 60s, the assumption that no woman will lie on oath in this matter was probably valid, not today. However, the belief is being carried to this day. In this case Supreme Court judgment finds a man guilty of rape despite lack of corroborating evidence, on the strength of the girl’s testimony alone which was found clear and cogent. So all the girl needs to do to ruin a man is to be a convincing actress capable of withstanding cross-examination well without betraying her falsehood. Is it really unimaginable that a woman seeking revenge on a man can fake rape charges, act believably and inflict the most deadly legally available injury to him? Shouldn’t therefore circumstantial evidence attest the charges, to arrest misuse?

Unfortunately, many Indians still believe that women won’t approach police station unless genuinely aggrieved and it’s hard for them to get an FIR registered. On the contrary, there are occasions where despite the falsity and malafide motive of complaint being amply clear, the police are forced to register it as they fear being branded anti-women.

The misplaced clamour for instant justice

This is not to say that there are no genuine cases of rape, but false cases abound too. Hence the due course of law should be respected for every accused has full right to defend himself in the court of law.

Those demanding instant justice should understand how double-edged such a thing can become. Modern democracy survives on people’s faith on the system to protect them, so that they themselves are not forced to take law into their hands. Denying the falsely accused the normal course of trial and putting him to unnecessary humiliation and hardship to satiate public anger will only turn them into hard hearted criminals. Instant justice, without due diligence is the surest way to mobocracy which will shake our nation’s democratic foundation.

Why should Indians be bothered?

How do millions of Indians ‘know’ that US is a land of opportunities without once being there? How do we ‘know’ that Iraq is a war-torn without being there? Our perception, however inadequate or inaccurate, of other nations is formed almost entirely by media reports.

If a certain perception is allowed to float unchallenged, it in time becomes undeniable truth. Curiously, the west links rapes to psychology, and not to culture. Thus, it neatly pulls the issue out of public sphere (society) and places the problem where it truly belongs – private space(human psychology). It doesn’t allow media to paint their nations as insecure for women or vilify their men.

Indian women, the feminist types especially, should not confuse this issue with other areas where women are allegedly given step-motherly treatment. Rape, like murder, is a criminal act and derives motivation from darker recesses of mind and is not meant to be understood in conjunction with culture.

It has come to light that a German professor categorically denied internship to an Indian, on account of belonging to place with ‘rape culture’. Such incidents are bound to recur if Indians fail to act upon the onslaught of negative propaganda unleashed by likes of BBC’s documentary.