Why the comparison between homosexuality and bestiality?

A very common argument raised by those protesting against the decriminalization of homosexuality runs something like this: “If you allow men to have sex with men on the principle that  what you do in the privacy of your home is no one’s business, what next? Sex with animals?” It surprises me that such logic isn’t automatically refuted by those who think for even five minutes. But to those who persist in this inane vein, here’s why it’s a foolish comparison.

Bestiality is different type of crime – namely cruelty to animals. Doing what you want in the privacy of your home doesn’t extend to the freedom of indulging in private abuse. So this particular crime has nothing to do with homosexuality which takes place in private between consenting adults.

Image Credit: nickjohnson

Homosexuality is natural!

Homosexuality is natural!

The whole “against the order of nature” is a specious argument. Those who indulge in it, should stop brushing their teeth for starters. And here’s the kicker – homosexuality is natural. Animals happily engage in gay sex without our prejudices against such unions.

And that gurgling sound you hear is this particular argument of the anti-gay crowd getting flushed down the toilet.

And here’s the last point – if a particular animal (say a cow) has a large enough vagina to not be affected whatsoever by a gentleman’s activities directed towards it, I see no reason for it to be illegal. I mean sure it’s not something I would do, but hey it takes all sorts! What’s the harm? The cow doesn’t care. Victimless crime. And I don’t think that victimless crimes should be crimes at all.

How do you feel about Article 377? Take the poll:

[poll id=”3″]

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (12)
  • You\'re an asshole (12)
  • Don\'t Agree but Interesting (4)

Comments

  1. I am all for the decriminalising of Homosexuality and completely agree with all your points – except one. The last one.
    About it not being illegal if the animal (the cow, in your example) seems not to feel any sexual violation.

    I dont have any logical arguments to support my view. In an extremely logical frame of mind, it may even seem possible for me to accept that if an animal doesnt feel violated, then there has been no crime.

    But somehow, it just FEELS wrong.

    Reply

    • Thomas Fogarty says:

      In reply to Anupa

      I struggle with the same issue. Why is bestiality illegal then? From a utilitarian viewpoint, there is no reason for it not to be. Then again, if you harm someone and it does nothing to them, is it still a crime? Im completely conflicted.

      Reply

      • In reply to Thomas Fogarty

        Well with regard to bestiality, there is the question of consent. An animal is not deemed to have the power of consent much like a child doesn’t have the same power. It doesn’t matter if a child wants to have sex with an adult, it’s still a crime due to the invalidity of consent.

        When discussing homosexuality however, it is presumed that we are talking about two adults with permission so that question is skirted entirely.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        what if you are going to kill the cow any way? this argument can continue going on for days…

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You thought for five minutes but you don’t really have an argument.

        For most people it’s OK to eat animals and carry out animal testing for the benefit of humanity WITHOUT consent. We destroy their habitats, put them in jails (also known as zoos) WITHOUT consent.

        Now that this argument is battered, what is your next argument?

        Know that homosexuality leads to Incest, Bestiality, Consensual Necrophilia to name a few.

        There are already top ranking advocates for Bestiality.

        Homosexuality was only the cap containing the can of worms. Now that society has opened it……

        Reply

      • In reply to Concerned Human

        Hey, we’re a hypocritical species! I don’t deny it. The fact of the matter is however, that most people eat animals and test on them DESPITE knowing it’s wrong. I’m one of those people. I know it’s more ethical to be a vegetarian, but I simply don’t have the willpower to resist.

        Same with destroying their habitats and putting them in zoos. We know it’s wrong. Just like we know bestiality is wrong.

        So I’m still not sure how homosexuality leads to bestiality. But yeah, there’s nothing wrong with incest: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2013/rights-and-freedoms/are-incest-laws-absurd.html/

        As far as necrophelia goes, I guess it would depend on who owns the corpse. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with it. Neither incest, nor necrophelia are hurting anyone.

        Bestiality however, hurts animals and so it’s wrong.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Concent does nothing to do with homosexuality or bestiality, is the mind of the person that makes the decision. The body only follows what the mind decides to do. A homosexual has a sexuality complex their minds are not normal. The most basic of all humans reason to exist is the survival of the species, if homosexual person is a normal person and everybody decides to become a homosexual the human species will become extinct. No homosexual couple can have children. Therefore there is little difference between a homosexual, bestiality, pedofile, all of these are people that have decided for themselves to have a físical relation outside of the human norm. The human norm is the one that allows the species to survive to exist.

        Reply

      • In reply to Silver

        By this logic, sex between old people beyond reproductive age is like bestiality and pedophilia. Also sex between infertile couples. Or oral sex. Or anal sex. Or sex with condoms and other contraceptives.

        All just like bestiality.

        Lol, wut?

        Reply

  2. Glad you blogged about this. I find this comparison so ridiculous Bhagwad :(

    Another one I heard is this would make little boys unsafe, and will put male children at risk of abuse by male relations! I think there is ignorance and we have some very enlightened religious and political leaders …

    Reply

    • In reply to indianhomemaker

      “Glad you blogged about this. I find this comparison so ridiculous Bhagwad”
      Its a rational comparison IHM, but perhaps a little too morally repugnant to those who fashion themselves as liberals, but are otherwise quite intolerant towards socially taboo-ed viewpoints.

      Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        Liberals are the ones who are probably least concerned about “socially taboo” viewpoints. Hence the word “liberal”.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Emphasise the ‘fashion themselves as’ part before the word ‘liberals’. I didn’t use the qualifying phrase for aesthetic appeal. There is a world of difference between those who ‘fashion themselves’ as liberals and the rare ones who are true blood liberals.
         
        You are not a liberal if you tolerate homosexuality because it falls within the context of socially approved and condoned ‘liberal values’. You are a liberal ONLY if you are able to question existing prejudices, including those topics declared taboo even among the pseudo-liberal fraternity. The seemingly unexpected conservatism when it comes to bestiality or any other social unapproved form of alternate sexuality serves a good way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        Well for your point to be valid, you have to show that the opposition to bestiality is rooted in “social taboos” instead of concerns for animal rights.

        But that’s going off topic. Shall we keep that for another day?

        Reply

  3. Ooops. I should have read this before commenting on your vegetarian post.

    I assure you my relationship with my bovine friend was consensual.

    Reply

  4. I got to know abt you from one of our common friend and i started (may be ended) in reading the most controversial topic. We are free enough to express our views, but there are some controversial topics and subjects which are quite fine to discuss with a bunch of freinds during the Weekend parties and i assume this is the one which can be carefully discussed, debated and then can be shared to few.

    The example in the blog really Sucks.. there may be some psychics, perverts doing all the obnoxious things but are we really intrested in those yucking topics? (Sorry to be bit rude). There are lot many topics and things which we need to really focus. Please refrain from writing the blogs related to Beastility, Child-prn and controversial and sensetive topics.

    Reply

  5. @Annonymous

    Dear Mr/Ms Anonymous,

    First of all, it is quite obvious that you have neither the courage nor the decency to come out in the open and name yourself while expressing your opinion.

    You say its fine to "discuss" controversial topics with a bunch of friends.. but not fine to write about them on a blog. Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?

    And the best part – you have the gall to suggest that the author of this personal blog write articles on topics that YOU think are more focus-worthy!

    Oh and yes – some of us ARE interested in "those yucking topics"!!

    Deal with it.

    Reply

  6. Dear Anonymous,

    I found your comments most fascinating.

    It was rather coincidental, too. You see, I was recently at a weekend party where we were discussing many yucking topics and your name came up.

    How? you ask?

    Well, I am one of those psychics of which you speak. And I have used my mental powers to look deep in your thoughts and let me tell you, you should be ashamed of yourself! I am disgusted. Those thoughts really suck. And I think I have ended reading your thoughts and comments.

    However, this blog will stay in my rss feed.

    Yours,
    the plasticgraduate

    Reply

  7. Natarajan says:

    I disagree with you ; homosexuality is as much a proof of degenerated individuals as is bestiality . The argument about consenting adults is that you assume that an animal is not consenting ; how would you know? Homosexuality and bestiality, canibalism or coprophagy are all in the same league

    Reply

    • In reply to Natarajan

      The question of whether or not an animal is consenting is moot because we’ll never know. The important point is that when it’s a human being involved, we DO know!

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Is consent really an issue if you want to do something to an animal? This includes eating them, having them as pets, riding them, having sex with them etc. Your argument sounds like if you want to do something to animals (in this case having sex), you need to get their consent first. Since an animal cannot give consent therefore you cannot have it. The problem is, to be consistent with this line of thinking one cannot do anything to an animal. Why discriminate between say, having sex with them and killing them or use them for transportation?

        Reply

      • In reply to Helmi

        I don’t remember saying that killing them and using them for transportation is ethical. In fact, I’ve expressed my views on this quite strongly here: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2009/rights-and-freedoms/animal-torture-im-a-nazi-and-so-are-you.html/

        Reply

  8. Paul Horn says:

    Total tripe Mr bhagwad. When my dog tries to get intimately acquainted with my leg while I water the lawn that sir is consent pure and simple!! If I just happen to accommodate the dog by dropping my pants how can you then argue that this is not consensual.

    Every argument for homosexuality is an argument for bestiality!!!

    Reply

    • In reply to Paul Horn

      Lol what? How can that be consent? And who is giving consent – you or your dog?

      Consent requires a mind capable of comprehending the meaning of the word and the resulting consequences. Your dog humping your leg means that your dog wants to hump your leg. Nothing more. And if you take that as consent to insert your penis into it, you sir are guilty of animal cruelty.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Your dog humping your leg means that your dog wants to hump your leg. Nothing more. And if you take that as consent to insert your penis into it, you sir are guilty of animal cruelty”.

        Dear Mr bhagwad have you not listened to one word I said? It was my Dog that decided to take advantage of a situation that did not require any coercion on my part. Therefore how can you argue that the dog was not consenting?

        I then went to say that if I decided to drop my pants my dog would not need a form of consent to insert his penis into my rectum. At no stage did I ever mention my desire to insert anything into my dog. Plesae read what I am saying.

        How can an action freely entered into by my pet (as sickening as the thought is) be animal cruelty??

        To competely anihilate the stupidity of your argument if I rescue a pig from the abbatoirs because I am in love with it what is the greater form of animal cruelty? The cruel death of a pig or a long life of comfort and care with someone that has deep feelings for the animal?

        I relaise this is all rather perverted but it highlights the insanity that homosexuality is normal. Not so long ago homosexuality was argued against on the same grouds that you argue against bestiality. This is of course the slippery slope progressives deride as irrelevant.

        How can you logically argue that homosexual relations are naturally superior to all other forms of sexual perversion. Every argument used to promote the homosexaul cause is an argument for every other type of perversion. Pure and unadulteratedly simple.

        Thank You for responding.

        Reply

      • In reply to Paul Horn

        “Therefore how can you argue that the dog was not consenting?”

        Consenting to what?

        “I then went to say that if I decided to drop my pants my dog would not need a form of consent to insert his penis into my rectum.”

        Let me know of one situation where a dog has inserted his penis into someone’s rectum and we’ll talk.

        “To competely anihilate the stupidity of your argument if I rescue a pig from the abbatoirs because I am in love with it what is the greater form of animal cruelty?”

        You are perfectly at liberty to love a pig. Just not at liberty to have sex with it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Consent requires a mind capable of comprehending the meaning of the word and the resulting consequences.”

        That is how consent is defined when it comes to making an agreement or a contract between two human adults.
         
        When it comes to animals, we have to get more subjective, considering its more limited cognition and communication faculties. Consent is essentially a communication of an explicit or implied agreement to do something or have something done. consent.
         
        If, as Paul Horn argues, a dog actively humps his leg and does not actually resist his attempt to escalate the situation – the ‘consent’ is pretty much explicit, if we interpret it from the dog’s perspective. Hence, in that context, bestiality CAN BE consensual – as repugnant it might be and as WRONG as the whole thing might FEEL. If consensual sex between two humans is nobody’s concern, the same rationale applies to consensual sexual activity between humans and animals.
         

        “I relaise this is all rather perverted but it highlights the insanity that homosexuality is normal.”

        You make it sound like what is perverted and what is normal, are dichotomous to each other.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        When it comes to animals, we have to get more subjective

        We don’t “get subjective” with little children many of whom (in my opinion) are even less capable of giving consent than a full grown pig for example.

        Till we have the technological ability to correctly ascertain whether or not an animal is consenting, it’s much simpler to just have a blanket law and err on the side of safety and proper treatment of the animal. This has nothing to do with irrelevant topics like “taboo” or being “repugnant”. Neither or those has any bearing to whether or not something has to be legal.

        It’s particularly relevant since an animal can not only give valid consent, it cannot even depose in a court. In this context, animals and little children are treated pretty much the same way.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “We don’t “get subjective” with little children many of whom (in my opinion) are even less capable of giving consent than a full grown pig for example.”

        Thats an illogical comparison. A pre-pubescent human child is neuro-biologically underdeveloped being of its species. A full grown, sexually mature animal is not. Besides interspecies sex is quite common in the animal world, so its not really any more unnatural as homosexuality is.
         

        “This has nothing to do with irrelevant topics like “taboo” or being “repugnant”. Neither or those has any bearing to whether or not something has to be legal.”

        It actually is. A lot of sexual offences are based on moral indignation against certain types of sexual activity or partnerships. While some of them, like homosexuality have come under debate, the Canonical concept of ‘statuatory rape’ is still in vogue and is rationalised prospectively as ‘good law’.
         

        “In this context, animals and little children are treated pretty much the same way.”

        The laws against child molestation and predation are based on the rationale that sexually undeveloped humans shouldn’t be ‘exposed’ to sexual activity.
         

        “It’s particularly relevant since an animal can not only give valid consent”

        As I argued before, animals CAN give valid and very explicit consent, in their terms. I have known a couple of cases where pet dogs would lick their owners’ genitalia – if that isn’t ‘consent’, I don’t know what is.
         
        The laws against beastiality isn’t up for debate because even among the so called ‘liberals’ – human to animal sex ‘feels’ wrong. Thats uncannily like the rage against homosexuality in feudal societies – which makes you wonder if pop-liberalism is just a more inclusive form of conservative conformism. Liberalism is going beyond your gut-level disgust for something. Personally as a completely heterosexual male, I find both homosexuality and zoophilia sexually repulsive – however, if I were to make accomodation for homosexuality on the grounds of individual liberty, I can’t be the hypocrite and jump around hoops to rationalise beastiality out of it.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        While a child might be underdeveloped, at one particular point in time we can easily draw a parallel between the mental states of a child and the animal. The laws extend special protection to those who are vulnerable such as mentally challenged individuals etc and animals along with children are (in theory at least) afforded the same considerations.

        The “unnatural” argument is illogical. I don’t think anyone is basing the laws on bestiality by calling it “unnatural”. In fact, I don’t even know what that word means…

        The laws against beastiality isn’t up for debate because even among the so called ‘liberals’ – human to animal sex ‘feels’ wrong.

        The problem is that we can’t make laws based on vague things like “feelings”. We need a set of precepts and derive the laws from there.

        “however, if I were to make accomodation for homosexuality on the grounds of individual liberty, I can’t be the hypocrite and jump around hoops to rationalise beastiality out of it.”

        And like I said, my opposition to the latter is grounded entirely on the premise of animal rights. If I can be 100% sure that an animal is consenting, I would seen no reason to avoid interspecies sex. I have frequently argued that incest should be perfectly legal even though I myself would not want to have sex with my mother.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “We need a set of precepts and derive the laws from there.”Of course! Laws rarely ever crop out of an ideological vacuum, there is always a percept behind it. However, a lot of the percepts that lead to the formation or existence of laws are always morally driven. And when morals come into play, what people ‘feel’ about a certain issue, is a determining factor.  Why do you think statuatory rape laws are in vogue in Anglophone countries? (or countries with a predominant Anglophone populace, like India)?

        Reply

  9. Firstly Mr bhagwad and Mr Lyngdoh thanks for your considered responses.

    Mr bhagwad your reply is overly concerned with legalities. This seems to be the standrard retort of the left in arguing the homosexual cause. What really constitutes consent Mr bhagwad? Is a Court of Law the repository of all consensual knowledge? They too are human and it is a shame that in our overly litigious, confused and politically correct society courts of law are required to itervene in what in times past acceptable human behavior would be judged by sensible cultural norms.

    For instance let’s take marriage Mr bhagwad. Are you married? Many times Mrs Horn is not in the mood if you know what I mean. 20 years of marriage will do that to you. However at times I do persist and manage to change her mind. On the odd (rare) occasion the reverse occurs. She is and I am not but she kows how to ring my bells so to speak. At what point does non consent become consent? There is no hateful rabid feminist reactionary demanding a thousand forms be filled out in triplicate and filed with the local feminist revolutionary council. Yet in their eyes rape has occurred. What I am trying to get at is that human consent is often no diffrent to animal consent – it’s all a matter of interpretation. This is the real world – not some Court of Law.

    To add to that argument animals are very effective in voicing their non consent. Female Dogs will go to ground and become very aggressive towards their male paramour. There is absolutely no question the female dog understands the exact intent of her male suitor. Male kangaroos are extremely brutal towards their female partner. She is harangued to exhaustion and virtually gang raped by an entire ‘mob’ of males.

    Anyway going further if homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality then why should sex be associated with marriage at all? I may have no interest of a sexual kind towards my dog but as an act of pure devotion I may wish to marry him / her. I mean I can choose a dog to be a pet without its consent so why can’t I marry it? Marriage is all about love now and not about serving the community so what difference does it make? This only confers greater benefits to the Dog.

    Also what about the case of one partner becoming mentally impaired through age or injury? Should the marriage be annuled on the basis that one partner is unable to provide ongoing consent to the partmership? Again try putting that on an old couple who have been married for over 50 years. No feminist would dare!

    So every argument you propose for promoting the homosexual cause is an argument for promoting every other form of sexual perversion. Sorry for putting it in such strong terms but your logic fails.

    Anyway gotta go my wife’s calling me. Sometimes a man has to lay back and think of England! Thank God for England.

    Have a Merry Christmas.

    Reply

    • In reply to Paul Horn

      In my mind, consent is valid as long as the woman voluntarily agrees without fear of bodily harm. Emotional threats are ok. There are reasons for this, but since I don’t want to divert from the topic, let’s just leave that here.

      To my knowledge, there’s no rational connection between marriage and sex.

      Honestly, I don’t care how “perverted” something seems. I have no issues with incest for example as long as it’s between consenting adults. The whole thing with bestiality is erring on the side of safety in the case of animals. One day when we have to tools to ensure that an animal is not being hurt, we can surely legalize bestiality!

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        <blockquote> “One day when we have to tools to ensure that an animal is not being hurt, we can surely legalize bestiality!”</blockquote>It looks like you didn’t focus on the portion where Horn talks about the explicitness of consent in the animal world.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        Since it’s pretty difficult to obtain hard evidence of what actually happened and who gave consent especially given the fact that an animal cannot be a witness in court, for now it’s easier to just err on the side of safety. One day perhaps when we are in a position to truly extract memories or have some other reliable means of ascertaining the truth without needing a witness, we can have different laws then.

        Much the same way that even if a child explicitly consents to have sex, it doesn’t matter. And regardless of future development, we can easily say that animals and humans of a particular age have much in common. As do mentally challenged individuals a well.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “The whole thing with bestiality is erring on the side of safety in the case of animals. One day when we have to tools to ensure that an animal is not being hurt, we can surely legalize bestiality!”

        In cases of bestiality where human females have sex with a male animal of another species, it is impossible to happen unless that male animal is sexually stimulated for the penetration. Would you still be unsure whether or not that animal was being hurt in spite of it actively participating in the sexual act?

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        Probably not. But since it’s not a good idea to have laws discriminating based on gender, we can’t have separate laws for men and women. Besides, if we continue to run with the idea of treating an animal like a child or a mentally handicapped person, then we see that consent given by them is invalid regardless of whether or not the adult is a man and woman.

        So, sure it’s a mess. But at least it’s a consistent mess.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “we can’t have separate laws for men and women.”

        But while handling cases of rape between a human male and a female, the laws are separate. In a case of rape, if penetration has been proven, can the male say that he did not consent to the sexual act? Whereas, once penetration has been proven, all that requires for the female to say is that she did not consent to term it as rape.

        By your logic, you are implying that in a sex act, only the female (of whatever species) is being hurt. Because in case of a sexual act between a human female and a male animal you say that the male animal is ‘probably not’ hurt. Whereas you are sure that a female animal is obviously hurt in a sexual act between a human male and a female animal.

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        Oh, a man can definitely say he was raped despite penetration. It’s a well known situation.

        I also never said that a female animal is “obviously” hurt. Only that there is a good likelihood of it being so. And since we treat animals as children or the mentally disabled, we err on the side of safety.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Of course anyone can say whatever they want. I’m not referring to the literal meaning of ‘saying’ here. I meant about how seriously would a man’s claim be taken if he complains of being raped if penetration has been proved.

        The article you have referred to talks about the technical issue of the male being underage which automatically implies non consent. – “Several widely publicized cases of female-on-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their underage students. Federal law states that the age of consent in the United States is 18 nationally, but may range from 16-18 within differing states. Under federal law, any sexual encounters between adults and minors under the age of consent is considered sexual assault.” Did you read this before referring the article?

        I’m talking about adult male rape victims. Not underage male rape victims.

        Also, the same article says that – “Cases like this one are often described as “unusual” or “uncommon.” In the case of a female being a victim of sexual assault, the male criminal could face up to a life sentence in prison, whereas the punishment for a female rapist is far less severe.”

        And you said that “we can’t have separate laws for men and women.” So why this difference?

        I wasn’t asking about whether or not female on male rapes happen. It appears that was what you were trying to show through the cited article. But my question was about the different handling of the two types of rapes which even the cited article acknowledges. What do you have to say about this? And before you provide any other article, I suggest that you read it up first too.

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        I think the link I’ve given is sufficient proof that rape of men is real, don’t you think so? It doesn’t just talk about boys below the age of consent but rape of full grown men as well.

        “And you said that “we can’t have separate laws for men and women.” So why this difference?”

        Just because there’s a difference doesn’t mean I favor it! All laws should be the same for both genders. The fact that a discrepancy exists means that the law still has a ways to go.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You are still not getting it. I never said rapes on males are not real. I asked you specifically about how seriously would such a case be accepted if a male complains of rape. And since you didn’t get what my question was, do read Akhim’s reply which explains it clearly.

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        I personally would treat the two equally. And like I mentioned in my reply to you, if the law doesn’t do the same then the law still has a ways to go.

        Akhim’s reply was directed towards you and not to me.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Did you read the last paragraph of my initial comment? I wrote –

        “I wasn’t asking about whether or not female on male rapes happen. It appears that was what you were trying to show through the cited article. But my question was about the different handling of the two types of rapes which even the cited article acknowledges.”

        And still you reply –

        “I think the link I’ve given is sufficient proof that rape of men is real, don’t you think so?”

        I already acknowledged what you were trying to show which was NOT what I was asking about. Please read the comments properly before replying.

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        I’ve read it well enough. Based on my response, I still think you’re making the false assumption that I’m happy with the laws as they are right now.

        Reply

      • In reply to Kamal

        ” In a case of rape, if penetration has been proven, can the male say that he did not consent to the sexual act? ”
        In the context of Indian legal system, when a person is born with a penis, he enters into a social contract that his consent to sex is a ‘general offer’ to the world at large (in contractual terms). Hence, whether you can prove that a male is forced to have sex against his will or consent, is irrelevant. Only men can rape in India and only women can be victims of sexual assault. You can thank the National Commission of Women for that. :)
         
        “Whereas, once penetration has been proven, all that requires for the female to say is that she did not consent to term it as rape.”
        Not really. Mistake of fact is a good defence, even in the Indian legal system, if the defence can prove that the man reasonably believed the sex was consensual. Such a defence would probably work in an appellate court, rather than the trial court (which is always too happy to convict). And the accused better hope its a woman judge, as male judges are under a social pressure to keep rape convictions high.
         
        However, given the paucity of quality rape defence lawyers in India – your presumption IS the de facto law of the land in India. Most ‘respectable’ defence lawyers do not defend rape accused, which leaves the option to the dregs whose idea of defending a rape accused is by claiming that the victim ‘asked for it’.

        Reply

Speak Your Mind

*