A Wife is not a Personal Sex Slave – Marriage Myths Debunked

She’s not a slave. She’s not a prostitute. She’s an EQUAL partner with all of her rights intact
She’s not a slave. She’s not a prostitute. She’s an EQUAL partner with all of her rights intact

I’m still astonished at the number of people who feel that a husband is entitled to sex with his wife regardless of her wishes. I think it’s obvious from the language that these individuals view their life partner as a glorified prostitute (that I banned this guy later for abusive language just shows the degrading way people view women in general).

I think this arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage means. Many men seem to think that marriage is a contract where a man takes care of a woman, provides for her needs, shares half of everything he has with her…and in return he gets sex whenever he wants. This is not conjecture on my part. I’ve spoken to many men and heard this argument not just on my blog, but from many people who you expect will know better. If you view marriage this way, then a wife is indeed a prostitute. With the big difference of course that it’s illegal to rape a prostitute! From this perspective, a wife has even fewer legal rights in India in this matter than their sisters who work the streets.

For the most part, such people make up these arguments devoid of any legal proof. They assume the nature of marriage based on some half understood fantasy, sometimes bolstering their argument by references to “the good ol’ days” when the evil feminists weren’t around to demand uncomfortable stuff like equal rights etc. So let’s debunk some marriage myths.

Myth 1: Marriage is to “Take Care of the Woman”

To my mind, this is the biggest marriage myth in India. Many people of both genders view marriage as a support system for a woman as she transitions from the care of her parents to that of her husband. For this, she needs to fulfill her duties, one of which is on-demand sex.

Fact

The reality is that marriage is a contract between equals. Whatever personal equation exists between a husband and wife has no legal bearing. A man can privately agree to care for a woman in exchange for something or nothing. That’s his choice and whatever arrangement they work out has no force of law. Whether the woman takes care of the house, produces babies, or sits at home doing nothing is between her and her partner. The law assumes no such default maintenance. Consequently, the woman maintains all of her legal rights including the right to her own body. It’s a different matter that it’s an enduring shame and a huge blot on the Indian legal system that marital rape is legal here in stark contradiction to every other civilized country on the planet.

Myth 2: A Wife is a Glorified Prostitute

In this fantasy, a wife has to pay her husband back for the “help” given to her by providing sex on demand – amongst other things. According to them, a wife who doesn’t cooperate is breaking a trade agreement!

Fact

A marriage has no “trade agreement” and no “give and take” from a legal point of view. Of course in any relationship the two individuals have to compromise and come to an agreement about how they’re going to live together, but this is strictly between them – between two individuals and has nothing to do with the government. A wife is not obliged to give anything to her husband that she doesn’t want to.

Myth 3: Marriage and Sex are interlinked

This mindset feels that marriage is the only place to have safe sex. Women “save themselves up” for their husband (the reverse need not be true!) and sex is the defining feature of any marriage. A safe haven for the man’s sexual needs. She’s basically a repository for his seed.

Fact

There is no legal link between marriage and sex. You can have sex without getting married and you can get married without having sex. Of course, if one party wants to have sex and the other refuses to do so, they can get a divorce. But the Indian legal system is beginning to realize that reasons for divorce are irrelevant. The court or the government doesn’t want to hear about your internal squabbles and problems. You want a divorce? Fine, here take it and go. Don’t regale us with your reasons for why you want to get divorced. Again, this concept hasn’t fully gained maturity in India unlike other civilized countries which list “irretrievable breakdown” as the only reason for a divorce. It doesn’t matter why the marriage is broken. Lack of sex, personal issues, adultery, or whatever the hell. The courts are not interested.

But these myths seem to be very persistent in India – and not just amongst the men. Even women are brainwashed into thinking that they can’t be self sufficient and need to lean on a man for financial support – and their worth as a person is so low that they need to “hook” the man via sex and without it, they have nothing.

First and foremost we need archaic Indian laws to catch up with the rest of the modern world. Marital rape is rape. We don’t need flimsy distinctions between the two.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (18)
  • You're an asshole (5)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (3)

80 thoughts on “A Wife is not a Personal Sex Slave – Marriage Myths Debunked”

  1. All very fair and valid points. I think people at least in India are not mature enough to understand these. But before bringing up these points there is a simple question that needs to be asked.

    What is the use of marriage itself?

    If two people of the opposite genders or even of the same gender like each other, they may start living together. They may or may not have sex with each other. They may or may not care or support each other. They may or may not even live together. And the day they are done with each other, they may simply go their separate ways.

    So what is the need of things like marriage and divorce which ultimately waste a huge amount of precious time of the courts? There would not be any issue of marital rape without marriage. Rape would be rape.

    Which makes me ask you, why did you marry?

    Reply

    • In reply to Ansh

      I feel that marriage allows us to legally associate one person with another. The nature of that association can be anything and is usually not the state’s business. For example, my “association” with my wife allowed me to go with her to the US as a dependent on her visa.

      But that wasn’t why we got married. We got married because one day she wanted to take leave from her office to take me to the dentist and it was easier for her to tell her boss that she was taking her husband instead of her boyfriend!

      It has other benefits as well. For example, unless the two of us were married we wouldn’t have been allowed to create a joint account. So many legal functions are served by this concept of marriage. Inheritance after death is also simplified I guess…

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        What two people do with each other should be nobody’s business. So I think the concept of marriage serves no purpose.

        Entering the US as a dependent on your wife’s visa underlines the assumption that in a marriage, the couple are dependent on each other. But you have yourself rubbished this assumption in your post. Logically, you should be against the concept of dependency on a spouse’s visa. Are you?

        A visit to the dentist is probably the funniest reason I have ever heard for someone to marry. Though being funny, it is completely valid. But what I dont understand is that your wife was reluctant to tell your boss that she was taking her boyfriend. And she was reluctant because? Was she afraid of being judged? I think the dependent visa sounds as a more valid reason for you to marry.

        And nobody can stop you from opening a joint account with someone without marrying the person concerned. I hope that wasnt one of the reasons for you to marry.

        And your last sentence about inheritance is another issue that appears illogical. Should a person have any right upon any sort of property which they have not earned themselves? Would like to know your views on this.

        Note: I want to make it perfectly clear that I completely agree with the points you made in this post. I’m only debating you on the concept of marriage which according to you is a legal contract. And I wanted to ask your personal example just for the cause of the debate and not to mock you. If you feel that the tone of my comments is improper or personal do let me know.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        I think the idea of “dependency” in a visa shouldn’t be taken literally. After all, I can still work on an L2 and need not be dependent in the real sense of the word. For visa purposes, the word “dependent” probably implies that my residency is dependent on my spouse, not actual dependence. That makes sense no?

        My wife wasn’t reluctant to tell her boss. She did tell her boss. But the Indian workplace is such that leave is not granted easily if you tell your boss you’re taking your boyfriend to the dentist. So in order to get leave, we got married :)

        The joint account thing I just found out a few days ago. The bank representative asked us for a notarized copy of our marriage certificate and when I asked her why, she said that only certain people can open a joint account together. I didn’t bother checking whether or not she was telling the truth, but what reason would she have to lie?

        No, I don’t think a person should have an inherent (good use of the word btw!) right to property. I just said it makes things easier. In principle it can surely be done away with.

        All this of course assumes there are no children – because then the concepts of joint custody etc have to be worked out, though the legal framework is still in the process of being fleshed out in cases where the parents are not married. In time, I’m sure even having a kid will be irrelevant to the concept of marriage itself.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        If the bank were private (all banks in the US are private), then don’t they have a right to deny certain applicants for a joint bank account or in your case ask for a notarized copy of your marriage certificate?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I had a joint account with my ex, no questions asked. I suppose this depends on the country.

        I personally feel that we should do away with such archaic rules and completely take away any reason for marriage.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fem

        Yeah, there’s no need to give any reason either for a marriage or for a divorce. But I still feel we need the ability to legally associate one person with another – like Visas for example.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        @Ansh, your question can be answered without getting into specifics that you find funny or illogical. There are legal, social and personal reasons for marriage. The day people can have relationships with the exact same advantages as a marriage provides, there will be no reason to marry. But I think psychologically and logistically, this day will never come. Rituals play a huge role in our psychology and sometimes solidify commitment. That effect won’t go away. A lot of people find meaning and stability in the label and symbolism. They find something so real that marriage to them is not just a legal title.

        Reply

      • In reply to Aditya

        Aditya, why cant people have the same advantages as a marriage provides? If you intend to bring in the aspect of society into it, I’ll not be acknowledging it within the dimensions of these comments here as bhagwad himself doesnt recognize the validity of society.

        Secondly, even if marriages solidify commitment, then why should anyone want to ensure commitment by way of marriage? Break of commitment or cheating should not be a crime as per the logic of bhagwad.

        If two people are committed, fine. The day they dont feel committed, they just move apart. Why to bring in marriage?

        According to bhagwad, a marriage is only a legal contract.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        @Ansh, Whatever be the views of the author of the post, my points were meant to stand on their own. And what marriage means to a person will always be the sole opinion of that person. No logic can negate that feeling. Whatever be my views or anybody else’s views, all I wished to say is that certain people will always value marriage, and enough people will do so that it will always exist.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        What difference is there between a person’s residency being dependent on the spouse than actual dependence. Even if it is just residency, there is the assumption of dependence. No?

        So just because your boss had narrow minded and patriachal views about a girl having a boyfriend, you both decided better to get married and get his acceptance than tell him how it was? Doesn’t really match with your views from your earlier posts.

        Going by the type of logically thinking person that you are, it is expected of you to question the lady at the bank about why it was necessary to provide a proof of marriage to open a joint account. Do you usually accept what anyone tells you so blindly? What if someone told you that it is essential for a woman to write off her property to her husband and in-laws? Wouldnt your logically thinking mind question the motive?

        The truth is that two people do not need to be married in order to open a joint account in a bank. So even if you did so unknowingly, that is no reason to get married. I’m still waiting for you to give me some solid reasons about the use of marriage.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        I think I’ve already told you that my wife had mentioned our relationship before. Since we didn’t care whether we were married or not and it cost us nothing, we got married to get easier leave. Just a practical decision.

        ICICI is a private bank. If they say they have some rules about a joint account or whatever, I won’t question them. If I don’t like the rules I won’t open a bank account there! The motive was irrelevant to me because it wasn’t a big deal.

        As far as the visa thing goes, I don’t understand what you’re asking. The fact of the matter is that without being married both she and I would not have gone to the US and come back. That is a benefit – why wouldn’t we avail of it?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You talk of going to the US together and coming back being a married couple as a benefit. In other words, is this rule of being able to go overseas as a married couple some permanent law of nature which can only be benefitted from?

        Does that mean unmarried people cannot go overseas? Even if two people in a relationship want to visit another country cannot do so untill they are married? Isnt the government thus forcing two people to get married in order to avail that benefit?

        Or do you mean to say that two people can get married, get a visa, go abroad, come back and get a divorce? Doesnt this itself make such a rule simply ridiculous? And even more so this reason to get married ridiculous too?

        And yes, something doesnt stop being illogical just because it is not a big deal for you. Getting married may be the biggest deal for someone if that is the option one is forced to take in order to go abroad, for example.

        Suppose a man marries a woman and she starts living in his house. Being his house, he makes his own rules like she must have sex with him daily. She doesnt like this rule and refuses, but he rapes her. But would this become irrelevent if this isnt a big deal for her and she is happy just being in the house? No it wouldnt.

        A person should have the right to visit any country (as long as that person is capable enough) instead of determining who is he married to.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        No. I’m asking you if anything illogical should be accepted blindly just because there can be some benefits derived from it.

        And, can anything wrong be acceptable just because it is not a big deal for someone?

        To make my question simpler, suppose I’m pursuing a certain educational stream and I intend to do a doctorate in the same subject from the highest government institute. My batchmate and friend (who happens to be a girl) also wants to do the same. But we both will be simultaneously allowed admission to the doctorate only if we both are married to each other. Will that be justified? Or should we just marry in order to avail the benefit?

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        “No. I’m asking you if anything illogical should be accepted blindly just because there can be some benefits derived from it.”

        Oh sure, why not? As long as there are no negative effects, I will surely accept something if it benefits me!

        “And, can anything wrong be acceptable just because it is not a big deal for someone?”

        If we’re talking about a criminal offence like murder or rape, then no. It doesn’t matter if a person finds rape “acceptable” since it’s a crime not just against a person but against the state. If it’s not a crime, then it’s up to each person to find it either acceptable or not acceptable no?

        To answer your question, is the educational institution in question a private one? If so, they have every right to put forth whatever conditions they want. If it’s a government institution then I will have a problem with it. Of course, I will protest and shout and blog about how bad it is for the private institution to have such a stupid rule and that people must not go there etc. But at the end of the day it’s their property and their rules. There is no legal case to be made.

        As for whether or not you want to get married to enter it…that’s up to you no?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        How is a rape a crime against the state? Please explain.

        Since you have a problem with governments imposing conditions such as in the example I gave, then isn’t the spouse dependent visa example one that is enforced by governments? But you dont seem to have a problem with it.

        To marry or not to marry should be up to oneself. But isnt it wrong if getting married becomes a prerequisite for certain things? Which is same as saying, getting married or not is entirely up to you. But if you decide not to marry, you are not going out of this country with the other person.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        “How is a rape a crime against the state? Please explain.”

        That’s just the way we define criminal offences. This is the reason why it doesn’t matter if a woman forgives her rapist.

        As for visas, let me put it this way. You’re a country. You want to attract the best talent. Now you know that if you don’t allow people to bring their spouses, most people are not going to be willing to come to your country and stay there. So you allow their spouses to come too.

        Your wording is a bit strange. It’s not as if countries don’t allow individuals to come in! It’s just that they allow the spouses too. So I’m not really sure what we’re arguing over.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You haven’t explained how a rape is a crime against the state. Even in your earlier post, you have merely stated that it is a crime against the state. You haven’t explained why.

        As regarding the visa issue, its not as if countries dont allow individuals to come in but it is also not that countries are so desperate to attract talented immigrants that they are ready to bear the consequenses of having extra immigrants in the name of spouses.

        To try to make my question clear once again, suppose a couple are living in a relationship with everything same as being a married couple but without actually marrying. Then if one of them shifts to another country (assuming that country is wanting to use that person’s services) will that country allow the other partner to accompany too? According to the law, no. So doesnt it mean that marriage is merely a legal contract between the two people? As you have said in the past, yes, right? So, in other words, doesnt that automatically mean that the married couple are interdependent on each other? Not just dependent by residency. Isnt that the assumption?

        And thus, a married person has to be legally responsible for their partner’s actions in a foreign country. Specially for the financial support for the spouse. So, in other words, a marriage legally requires such a person to financially support the spouse.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        “Even in your earlier post, you have merely stated that it is a crime against the state. You haven’t explained why.”

        I’ve just said it’s defined that way. Why is that not good enough? Personally I think it’s a good definition because it denies criminals an escape outlet by “persuading” the victim to not file a case or whatever.

        “but it is also not that countries are so desperate to attract talented immigrants that they are ready to bear the consequenses of having extra immigrants in the name of spouses.”

        I’m pretty sure they are.

        “Then if one of them shifts to another country (assuming that country is wanting to use that person’s services) will that country allow the other partner to accompany too? According to the law, no.”

        According to most countries’ laws, yes!

        “So, in other words, doesnt that automatically mean that the married couple are interdependent on each other? Not just dependent by residency. Isnt that the assumption?”

        I’m sorry, I don’t understand…

        “And thus, a married person has to be legally responsible for their partner’s actions in a foreign country. Specially for the financial support for the spouse. So, in other words, a marriage legally requires such a person to financially support the spouse.”

        Again, sorry I don’t understand. I’m not aware of any document that says a partner is legally responsible for their spouse’s actions in another country! Nor are they required to financially support them. Can you show me the laws that say so?

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        Ansh,

        You don’t make sense. When a couple gets married and the wife moves into her husband’s house, she does so because she wants to and her husband wants her to. They both want to live together and so agree to this arrangement. This does not give the husband the right to have sex with his wife if she doesn’t want to even if he is paying for the house, the food she eats and the clothes she wears .

        Reply

      • In reply to Sraboney

        Sraboney, I think my comments seem to have portrayed that I support marital rape. No. I was simply giving a hypothetical example about what if the wife who has been raped by her husband keeps quiet because of the (irrational) fear of any consequences of a divorce.

        I gave the example to debate bhagwad’s view that a private body or institution can have laws of their own. Likewise, a person can make laws for what goes on inside his home. No? It is his property and his rules.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ansh

        I think this point has already been answered. Criminal law is defined in such a way that crimes are committed not just against the person but against the state as well. Which is why they are tried with a public prosecutor and not by the victim’s personal attorney.

        Reply

  2. Bhagwad, you hit the nail on the head on the “not a sex slave” issue….. Im proud to let everyone know that youve been in my class sometime ago……keep up the honest writing

    Reply

  3. What do you mean?

    an Islamic marriage specifically stipulates that the man “help his wife” financially (but the wife is not required to give his husband a dime) that there is intimate relations (ie there must be at least the OPPORTUNITY of consumation at least at one point during the marriage in order to make it a valid marriage). I see your point, however on the “paying the husband” back for sex.

    But I mean if a specific religion, ie Hinduism, defines marriage as such, who are we to say otherwise? Marriages are religious ceremonies. There are always civil unions (if the country recognizes them, as it is a soverign nations right not to).

    Reply

    • In reply to Western Point of View

      Civil procedures cannot contradict criminal procedures. So even though India has a different civil code for each religion, if the court decides that a criminal law is being violated, that is not protected under any kind of individual civil law.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        But what is the civil criminal occurences? I mean for a religious marriage in Islam, if the opportunity for consumation doesn’t occur, the marriage itself is void. Also, if either of the spouses (husband or wife) doesn’t “put out” that is grounds for a divorce. In the US, annulling a marriage is actually different than a divorce. if either spouse doesn’t “put out” the marriage is actually grounds for annullment.

        Also, AFTER a divorce, if a spouse relies on the other for certain finances, that spouse is eligible to a decent alimony.

        Marriages should not even be recognized by governing officials in secular nations. Religious nations are different. However, if, say a bank, denies a person for a joint account based on lack of marriage, isn’t it their right to do so if the bank is a privately owned firm?

        Reply

      • In reply to Western Point of View

        I agree. One day we can move towards derocognizing marriages in general. But humans tend to live with a long term partner. And when it comes to things like Visas etc, not allowing one person to tag along with the other will just mean that the majority of people will simply refuse to relocate. So it’s in a government’s best interests to allow a “partner” to come with a person. From this angle at least, the idea of a legal long term partner makes sense.

        Reply

  4. “Fine, here take it and go. Don’t regale us with your reasons for why you want to get divorced. Again, this concept hasn’t fully gained maturity in India unlike other civilized countries which list “irretrievable breakdown” as the only reason for a divorce. It doesn’t matter why the marriage is broken.”

    Thats the ‘No Fault Theory of Divorce’, which is practiced among Muslims, as well as in my tribal society. You simply declare that you’re no longer a couple and thats it – no court intervention necessary (which I suppose, goes against the traditional desi sentiments when it comes to the sanctity of marriage). In a case of ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Theory’ (IrBM), a divorce is granted ONLY after the court is satisfied that the marriage is beyond repair and there is no point trying to keep the couple together. It is not, as some people believe, a ‘take it an go’ divorce; it is granted only after the court hears out both parties in several spaced out sessions and is *very strongly* convinced that the petition warrants a divorce. Read the judgement in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (search google for the page in India Kanoon) to see how IrBM works.

    Reply

    • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

      I’m interested in what the laws should be. Not what they are. If we go by the latter, then marital rape is legal and we all know it’s wrong.

      Divorce should be a “take it and go” framework. That is what it will come to one day – and that can’t happen soon enough.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You’re off the track.

        I was merely clarifying your misconception that ‘No Fault’ divorces are the same as irretrivable breakdown of marriage divorces. They are totally different concepts.

        Don’t get mixed up, what you want is a no fault divorce, which you think is called irretrivable breakdown of marriage. The latter is a contested divorce.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. Here are a couple of interesting resources to get you started:

        http://huangnocelaw.com/content/new-york-adopts-no-fault-%E2%80%9Cirretrievable-breakdown%E2%80%9D-grounds-divorce

        http://www.divorceny.com/category/no-fault-irretrievable-breakdown/

        Most US states have pretty much the same definition. To quote yet another source:

        An action for a No-Fault divorce may be maintained where the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months.

        And yet again:

        For purposes of no-fault divorce, states use various terms to describe the basic concept of marital breakdown, including irreconcilable differences, incompatibility, insupportability, and irretrievable breakdown.

        So yeah, they’re used in exactly the same context. I don’t know what legal document you’re referring to and would be grateful if you point me to one demonstrating the specific difference you’re trying to cite.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “So yeah, they’re used in exactly the same context.”

        You haven’t provided any legal resource. From what it looks like, the article might well have been typed by an outsourced ‘legal content writer’ from India, who otherwise has no credentials in law. Besides, just because something is published in a blog doesn’t make it an authoritative resource.
         
        There is a chasm of procedural differences between a ‘take it and go’ divorce (the no fault theory) and an IrBM divorce; that doesn’t require a degree in law to understand.
         
        In IrBM divorce, as explained in the Matrimonial Causes Act (UK) AND also, ‘Hindu Law’ by BM Gandhi (a legal author), the divorce is granted after one or more of the fault grounds has been proved on a preponderance of probabilities OR the couple lived seperately for so long that the marriage is for all purposes, dead. The UK laws stipulate a minimum of 2 years of ‘desertion’ for this effect. Hence the use of the terms ‘irretrivable’ AND ‘breakdown’. You can also refer to para 4 of the leading case, Swaraj Garg v KM Garg (Delhi HC, 1978) to understand this point.
         
        A no-questions-asked approach is taken when the divorce is a no-fault one, where either or both the parties can make a petition for divorce without assigning any reason or explaining the matrimonial ’cause’ that made them take the step. Since retrival of a marriage is of no concern here, the question of the marriage being ‘irretrivable’ does not arise. In India, it is only Muslims AND some tribals who have the customary legal rights to no fault divorce.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        You haven’t provided any legal resource.

        Neither have you. And I’ve given you more than one source. In fact, there are thousands all over the web. It’ll be nice if you did a bit of homework first. It’s not difficult you know…

        UK law is specifically lagging in this regard where the fact of irretrievable breakdown has to be proved – so it’s hardly surprising that you seek to reference it. Fortunately it’s not the only country in the world and your attempts to present it as universal fact have not gone unnoticed.

        So ask yourself this – do you want to benchmark yourself against the best, or the worst countries?

        Oh, one other thing. Kindly keep the discussion clean. Be polite, and don’t make ad hominems. As long as you stay respectful and polite, I will allow this discussion to continue. Otherwise don’t bother commenting.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Neither have you.”

        Actually, I have. I made a contention that the laws in India mandates men to provide for their wives, with references to statuatory provisions AND relevant cases. For some reason or other, you choose to keep shouting ‘citation, citation!’ instead of trying to actually look up the sources I have referred to; which is to be frank, irritating and rude.
         

        “UK law is specifically lagging in this regard where the fact of irretrievable breakdown has to be proved – so it’s hardly surprising that you seek to reference it. “

        The definition of what constitutes an irretrivable breakdown of a marriage IS based on the logical interpretation of the words used and IS independant of the legal context. The reason I provided the reference is because it is what you asked for – A CITATION, without which you seem to be unable to figure things out.
         
        The dictionary meaning of irretrivable IS ‘not able to be retrieved or put right’. It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out the implication – if can’t be ‘put right’, then it is ‘broken’ – which implies that there is a fault.
         

        “Fortunately it’s not the only country in the world and your attempts to present it as universal fact have not gone unnoticed.”

        We are discussing the validity of the definitions, not a comparative study of the legal systems. This sort of red herring – pulling the discussion out of the context is why I’m loath to give you a citation.
         

        “So ask yourself this – do you want to benchmark yourself against the best, or the worst countries?”

        Laws are contextual to the society that they are made for and hence, a comparison between distinct legal systems across the world – to declare a system ‘best’ is utterly absurd. Only someone with a weak grasp of jurisprudence AND is out of sync with social realities would make such a point. And thats a critique, not an ad-hominem.
         

        “Be polite, and don’t make ad hominems.”

        A sarcastic critique of the validity of your arguments OR the quality of your reasoning is NOT ad-hominem. Go and read the definition of what ad-hominem is and then compare, AND see if you can demonstrate that I, your opponent is trying to counter the argument by attacking you.
         
        If you feel personally slighted because you cannot logically refute an argument, it is by no means, an ad-hominem.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        “For some reason or other, you choose to keep shouting ‘citation, citation!’”

        I’m looking for actual quotes to back up your assertions.

        “Laws are contextual to the society “

        No – human rights are human rights. It doesn’t matter what the cultural context is. As long as people living in the various countries belong to the homo sapiens species, all laws regarding human rights need to be the same. In my opinion, this is the end goal of modern civilization.

        if can’t be ‘put right’, then it is ‘broken’ – which implies that there is a fault.

        Citation please. This is just wrong. Sometimes bad things happen and no one is at fault. You’ve chosen to present just one country and ignore the way the system is better implemented in other places. My point is simply that we must benchmark ourselves against to the most progressive legal systems in the world, and not against inferior less progressive ones.

        If you feel personally slighted because you cannot logically refute an argument, it is by no means, an ad-hominem.

        The fact of the matter is that you know nothing about me. Hence any comment directed towards me is personal and also irrelevant (unless my blog post is a person blog post). These are not welcome on my blog. If you can’t adhere to my rules, please find another space to air your views. They will not be welcome here.

        And unfortunately for you, I get to decide what I consider rude. And if you keep being rude, you will be banned. Take it whichever way you wish. For further information, read this: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2013/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-of-expression-of-course-i-can-block-you-out.html/

        You’ve been warned.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “I’m looking for actual quotes to back up your assertions.”

        The quotes are available in the statutes I referred to, that make a man duty bound to financially provide for his wife – if she is unable to do ‘maintain’ herself. This creates a socio-legal impression that marriage is a value exchange where a man offers a part of his resource for her sexual availability.
         

        “No – human rights are human rights. It doesn’t matter what the cultural context is. “

        The popular perception of what constitutes human rights is very subjective and culturally contextual. For the average Chinese farmer, his ‘right’ to food and safe shelter is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the pedagogical right to freedom of speech. Similarly, the UN declared human right to ‘marry and form a family’ assumes that marriage is a universal homo-sapien norm – which it is not. The collision between human rights and their cultural context is a social debate that you seem to be left out of.
         

        “This is just wrong. Sometimes bad things happen and no one is at fault.”

        We aren’t discussing the justification of the concept of IrBM, but the procedural and legal distinction between an IrBM and no-fault divorce. If you believe IrBM would ‘rescue’ couples stuck in bad marriages, just have a look at the ‘Marriage Laws Amendment Bill, 2010’. What YOU WANT for a married couple where neither party is at fault, is a ‘no fault’ divorce AND THATS what you should be pushing for, not IrBM.
         

        “Citation please.”

        Ha ha! The sentence you highlighted is my own argument where I interpreted WHY the concept of IrBM implies a fault-ground divorce, using dictionary meanings of the relevant words and logically interpreting them in the context of the argument. Thats not a quotation or a factual proposition and hence, not the context that requires a citation.
         

        ” My point is simply that we must benchmark ourselves against to the most progressive legal systems in the world, and not against inferior less progressive ones.”

        Thats absurd. Legal systems are quasi-political institutions, not computer programs. You can’t reasonable benchmark and validate its ‘progressiveness’, given that progressiveness is an abstract sociological concept. No offence, but you’re way over your head with this remark.
         

        “The fact of the matter is that you know nothing about me. Hence any comment directed towards me is personal and also irrelevant”

        If you debate poorly in the comments section and I point out that you debated poorly – it doesn’t come under the heading of ‘things I don’t know about you’ and doesn’t qualify as a personal attack – even if you are an ultra-sensitive bloke who can’t stand critique.
         

        “And unfortunately for you, I get to decide what I consider rude.”

        Indeed. It is your blog, you get to be the bully. AFTER you ban me, which of course you will, since you can’t argue or debate, take a moment to learn the ABCs of debating. Learn to differentiate between the contexts where you ask for a citation and where you respond to an argument with a counter argument.
        http://www.library.american.edu/tutorial/citation3.html
         
        Also, if you feel brave enough to spout opinions in a public fora like the internet, learn how to be strong enough to defend them when others strongly disagree.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        if she is unable to do ‘maintain’ herself.

        And vice versa. If not, show me the actual quotation.

        The collision between human rights and their cultural context is a social debate that you seem to be left out of.

        Some basic human rights are universal. This is the basic principle of modern civilization. The goal is to make all basic laws all over the world the same.

        just have a look at the ‘Marriage Laws Amendment Bill, 2010′

        You persist in referencing primitive Indian marriage laws. Hadn’t we already settled this?

        progressiveness is an abstract sociological concept

        It’s hardly abstract given that it’s defined as adherence to human rights.

        As for the rest of your attacks, last warning before I mark you as spam. If you feel I debate poorly, identify the specific statement and refute the actual statement if you can. Stick to the strict arguments and don’t mention me personally again. I like to keep my blog clean.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “And vice versa.”

        Nop, there is no ‘vice versa’ about it. The implications in the statutes, as well as the case laws in India is quite explicit – it is the man who is duty bound to provide for his wife.
         
        Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 specifically states that “…a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time.”
         
        Section 37(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 states that, “…the husband shall secure to the wife for her maintenance and support, if necessary, by a charge on the husband’ s property…”
         
        Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code also makes provision for imprisonment of a husband who ‘fails to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself’.
         
        Of course, some uninformed people choose to argue that section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes a provision that you’d call ‘vice versa’. However, when it comes to actual application of such a statuatory provision, the court allows a husband to get maintenance only if he is physically or mentally handicapped AND the wife earns enough to support both of them. Which we know, is a VERY realistic scenario in the Hindu context, where women with middle class or higher incomes marry paraplegics.
         

        “If not, show me the actual quotation.”

        Now, since we’re done with that, a little suggestion – when someone makes the effort to provide a citation for a point they make, do make the reciprocal courtesy of looking up the reference online – and NOT ask for exact quotations, unless absolutely necessary. Also, it is rude to keep countering with ‘citations, citations’ if you don’t bother looking up the citations provided.
         

        ” If you feel I debate poorly, identify the specific statement and refute the actual statement if you can. “

        One of the most glaring signs of poor debating skills is when one steadfastly refuses to look up the citations provided and still keeps muttering ‘citations, citations’; while saying something like ‘vice versa’ that makes it glaringly obvious that he didn’t bother to actually look up the citations provided.
         

        “I like to keep my blog clean.”

        Pardon my obtrusiveness, but how does your highness define ‘clean’? Is it something like the Hindu concept of a woman’s purity?

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        Thank you for the citations. See, that wasn’t difficult was it? Now, let’s look at three things:

        1. Special marriage act: “the husband shall secure to the wife…as, having regard to her own property, if any, her husband’ s property and ability, it may seem to the court to be just.

        Right, there you have a huge legal hole big enough to drive a truck through. What is “just” is not defined. A court can well take the view that a husband supporting a wife is not “just”. This is an example of very poor lawmaking (not surprising).

        2. Hindu Marriage act – The whole concept of having separate marriages for religions is flawed in the first place. We can at least be thankful that these differences are only restricted to civil law and criminal law.

        3. I have repeatedly mentioned that a greater focus of my blog is what the law should be. That Indian law is primitive and idiotic is obvious to anyone looking at the state of marital rape in India.

        Which brings us back round to my main point – do you really want to be guided by backward braindead laws, or do you want to seek inspiration from well crafted laws, the best in class around the world? Laws that respect human rights and gender equality?

        “and NOT ask for exact quotations, unless absolutely necessary.”

        I disagree. I (and others) have neither the time nor the inclination to pore through voluminous references without specificity. If you have some quotation in mind, it’s far easier for you to provide the relevant references (as you have finally done). Don’t just throw out links and general bills/laws. No one is going to do your research for you.

        Hopefully you will keep this in mind the next time you are asked to provide citations. Remember that this is the only instance you have actually bothered to provide a quote which in my opinion, is the least you can do.

        “how does your highness define ‘clean’?”

        That right there is an example of what I don’t consider clean. You want to know what clean is? Stick to the topic, talk to me as if I am a disembodied voice. As if each time you’re responding to another person. In short, talk about the statement, not about the person making it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        ” The whole concept of having separate marriages for religions is flawed in the first place.”

        Not really – if you understand that not only different religions, but different cultures across the territory of India understand the concept of marriage and family in their own value perspectives. Hence, it would be grossly unethical to have a single marriage and divorce code to represent everyone.
         

        “A court can well take the view that a husband supporting a wife is not “just”. This is an example of very poor lawmaking (not surprising).”

        Judicial discretion is a part and parcel of the common law system given the range of human experiences that is beyond the foresight of statutes. Hence the wide leeway given to the courts. However, it is very rare that the court in India declares that a husband supporting the wife is unjust – I have seen even rickshawallas earning barely 3000 bucks a month forced to eke out a maintenance of over rs. 1500 a month – even when the wife for all practical purposes, deserted him.
         

        “…do you really want to be guided by backward braindead laws”

        Fortunately, I am not ‘guided by’ brain dead Hindu laws, so you might want to strike off the ‘you’ part off it. As it happens, we are perhaps the only ‘modern civilisation’ where live-ins, rather than marriage, is the traditional norm.
         

        “or do you want to seek inspiration from well crafted laws, the best in class around the world? Laws that respect human rights and gender equality?”

        I think I know which legal system this sales pep is for. I’d like to be proven wrong.
         

        “Remember that this is the only instance you have actually bothered to provide a quote which in my opinion, is the least you can do.”

        Thats really obtrusive and condescending. If you ask for citations, expect citations, DON’T demand quotations. Thats the most that you can expect from a good spirited reader. This is a blog and commenting system is supposed to be a leisurely activity, not a courtroom trial. Demanding that your readers provide citations and proofs for every single argument they make, without any appreciation reeks of an entitled condescension towards your readers. If this is the kind of discourteous attitude that you feel entitled to, I REFUSE to furnish any further citations.

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        If you make a statement, you need to be prepared to back it up. I expect it only as far as you expect me to take you seriously. Recollect how in an earlier comment I had not only given you links to show that Irretrievable Breakdown and No fault are the same thing, I also gave you two or three quotations. I’m not setting any standards here that I don’t adhere to myself.

        Anyway, this entire thing has gone off track. The title of the post has to do with marital rape. In my opinion, the only relevant point you’ve made is that there’s no need for rape to be treated as a separate offence, which I think is really interesting. I might think about it and write about it some day.

        But given the fact that rape already is a criminal offence, I see no logical reason why we need a separate vocabulary for “marital rape”. That, to my mind is the bridge that you need to cross.

        Reply

  5. Excellent post. I still can’t believe that marital rape is not considered a crime. Completely archaic, indeed. It gives the message to women that once they are married, the husband can legally do whatever he wants to her, that she in unequal to him, that he legally has power over her.

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Please read POCSO Act and news regarding it where women have been charged for rapping minor boys. Taking consent by threat or blackmailing is not consent. Three days ago, a woman was arrested from Jamshedpur by Delhi police who forced a minor to have sex by threatening him to frame him in false rape case. If such acts is rape in case of minor, then why not in case of major?? What if wife will use same technique?? Will It amount to rape of husband by wife? Or only wife can be rapped?

        Reply

  6. Bhagwad divorce are not easy to get they are very difficult even with wife not having sex first the person has do prove that he is not impotent second to criminalize marital rape would need to change various marriage laws . Criminalizing marital rape would mean wife is not needed to have sex with husband thus making it impossible for husband to get divorce. There are other alternatives instead of criminalize rape the wife can file divorce and just leave.Who will give alimony if the husband goes to jail.

    Reply

    • In reply to indian

      “There are other alternatives instead of criminalize rape the wife can file divorce and just leave.Who will give alimony if the husband goes to jail.”

      I disagree. While I don’t subscribe to the idea that marital rape should be added as yet another class of rape, I don’t think it should be free from criminal persecution. It should be persecuted, subject to the same safeguards and due process as any other class of Offences Against the Human Body under the IPC.
       
      Also, to remove the socio-economic prejudices that criminalising marital rape could impose on men of the lower and lower middle socio-economic class – provisions like no-fault divorce (NOT IrBM, ACTUAL no-fault) and indemnity from maintenance payments should be introduced along with criminalising marital rape. This would help reduce the prevalence of married incels, which is very common in India – with both men and women stuck with sexually disinterested partners, a strong socio-legal pressure against bigamy (or adultery) and no easy way out of such a marriage.

      Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        The whole idea is that marital rape isn’t another class of rape. It’s just “rape”, period. While you make an interesting point about rape already being covered under various other sections like abuse etc, as long as rape itself is a separate criminal offence, there’s no reason for marital rape to not be treated just like any other case of rape.

        My whole point is that we don’t need a separate vocabulary to talk about rape within marriage.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “The whole idea is that marital rape isn’t another class of rape. It’s just “rape”, period. “

        Rape is not a unidimensional crime under the common law systems. In the UK for instance, the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 has several classes within the definition of rape – of varying degrees of culpability. The punishment for marital rape under this statute for instance, is pretty much the same as punishment for the relevant offences of battery and assault, if charged under the Indian Penal Code. While not the perfect legal system, compared to some European countries – the UK laws relating to sexual offences are far more just and unambiguous than many of the sexual offence laws in the US states.
         

        “…as long as rape itself is a separate criminal offence, there’s no reason for marital rape to not be treated just like any other case of rape.”

        If you understand the background and the socio-moral context behind the creation of rape as a seperate and special crime (as opposed to similar nature of crimes, such as disfigurement or grievious hurt), the concept of marital rape withing this context would make no logical sense. Ask yourself – why is rape seen as a far more heinous, grievious and newsworthy crime than say, manslaugter?
         
        If someone attacks a man (or a woman) and breaks their limbs to make them permanently handicapped, the maximum punishment for the crime would be seven years. If a man sleeps with a woman who is drunk and she decides it is rape, the victimisation might not be as violative and traumatic as losing one’s limb – yet the minimum punishment faced by the man would be seven years. Why?

        Reply

      • In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh

        I agree that there are many different classes of rapes. But they usually relate to concrete circumstances. For example:

        1. Rape of a minor
        2. Rape by a police official (abuse of authority)
        3. Gang rape
        4. Rape with a weapon etc…

        What we don’t have is:

        1. Rape by a boyfriend
        2. Rape by a colleague
        3. Etc etc.

        So the divisions within the crime of rape relate to the actual situations – they tend to have nothing to do with the relation between the rapist and the victim except of situation where the rapist abuses his/her authority. From this perspective, there’s no rational division to have marital rape as a separate offence.

        The other questions you’ve raised are extremely interesting. I had pretty much written about this five years ago: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2009/philosophy/rape-women-mens-psychology.html/

        But given the legal status of rape, I see no reason why marital rape has to be a separate crime when the circumstances do not justify it.

        Reply

  7. Hi Bhaghvad,

    Firstly, visiting your blog for the first time today and LOVE it.

    I can totally identify with your reasons to get married. I do also think that it is but a legal contract and I would have been totally secure with my boyfriend of 8 years even if we hadn’t married. Marriage just made a lot of things easier and convenient.

    Like you said, people at work simply wouldn’t understand my need to take leaves when the bf was visiting. But now that I’m married, all I have to say is “inlaws visiting, can’t stretch today” and no questions are asked.

    I always have problems explaining why I got married, because honestly, marriage has not changed a thing for me except of course my parents and inlaws don’t give us angry stares if we walk into a room together and shut the door after us. :) But on a more serious note, I really wouldn’t be able to tell. I just knew that I wanted to get married because it makes a lot of things easier, especially when you are living in India.

    Reply

  8. Bhagwat, I hope you enjoy being a “mangina” — good luck keeping any woman. You don’t understand the basic impulses of a woman – she loves being “owned” — someone to take decisions on her behalf. Give a bunch of women to run something and it will turn into a disaster. They need men much more than they’ll admit.

    Now I also don’t agree that a wife is a slave – she’s a PARTNER in her own right — and she owns her husband’s body as much as the latter owns hers…if you thought that sex gives pleasure to only men, you must be having an awfully tiny dick and know nothing of female sexuality which is far more demanding. Once you turn a woman really on, she wants sex very badly and can leave scratch and bite marks on male body — a pity you didn’t get to experience that part if you’re not a virgin still.

    I’ve been married for 3 years and have a rocking sex life….the concept of marital rape is absurd…yes, a woman can file for divorce if there is PHYSICAL ABUSE…that’s not the same as a man wanting sex. Now a good man is always understanding of a woman’s needs..he will never force her to do it when she’s not in the mood. Same goes with a woman..many a times I’ve not been in the mood and she was craving it so badly…you see…

    Noone is defending monsters who abuse their wives and hit them often for sadistic pleasure…but tell you what, sometimes you do have to hit her if she’s really going out of line. From my experience, she was once being mean to my parents and little sister which was a huge betrayal because I was always nice to her parents. I needed to arrest that evil in the bud so I did hit her that day…not hard enough to make permanent injuries but enough to send a strong message….

    Any marriage where there is no sex…should lead to a divorce except for manginas like you who can’t raise their voice and let women wear pants in a relationship. In fact, the Supreme Court of recognizes the husband’s right to have sex with his wife.

    Now ban me fucking spineless fucker

    Reply

    • In reply to Chauvinist man

      Lol that’s all i gotta say. I agree, a man has to wear the pant’s in the relationship. This is why I hate feminism–it turns men into little pansies as well. A man should just be a man–sweaty, dirty, hairy and ready to give out pleasure to a point where he ends up with bite marks (in my case a bloody lip from being bitten). A man’s gotta be a man. You being betrayed that way when she acted out to your family and what you did was totally cool. There is a difference between being an abusive partner and simply laying down the law.

      Men are men, women are women. People gotta learn to deal with it.

      Sorry I just saw this post and totally agree.

      Reply

  9. May I ask you the following questions sir?

    What do you think the duties of a wife are in a marriage? Duties that she is bound by, not what she can choose to do, when she feels like it and ignore when she feels like it? What is your list of such responsibilities?

    If a man had property, wealth and income before marriage, should the law force him to share any of these with his ex-wife after a divorce, specially given your odd definition of what marriage is? specially if she has been a rotten wife during their married years?

    Do you believe that a man should be forced to pay alimony to support his ex-wife, even if she decides not to get a job indefinitely?

    Should a man be forced to support kids that he had with a woman who lied that she was on birth control and had sex with him?

    Should a woman be jailed if she fails to abide by child custodial relationships after a marriage has ended?

    Should a man be allowed to stop child support payments if he is not able to get visitation rights to his kids after divorce?

    Now tell me, why does the law put all these responsibilities on a MAN just for being married, even after the marriage has broken up? Where do these responsibilities come from good sir?

    And then you argue that a woman has no duty to give sex to a man? and marriage and sex are not related?
    This is brilliant. Put all the responsibilities on the man, but give him none of the rights.

    Well, women who feel this way, have a choice. DO NOT MARRY. SEE IF ANYBODY CARES. And men who feel this way, are really “not men at all”, they are “brainwashed white knights” for the “extreme feminist” agenda, who have sacrificed their manhood for the few scraps of approval from “misandrist” women.

    BTW, do not visit my blog. it will drive you crazy, if you buy into the insane notion that “men and women are equal”. My husband provides me with a comfortable life, earns a lot of money and in return I keep his home clean and inviting and yes, I am going to say this

    “I enjoy giving him sex, whenever, however and wherever he wants. I am proud to be “his slut”. He has earned it in spades.

    I believe in traditional gender roles and celebrate them. I take them one step further and I would not trade my husband for any other man, specially a person like you sir, no offense to you. I would never be happy with a “girl friend”, I need a real man in my life, not someone who begs me for sex, whom I can manipulate into doing the dishes, laundry, cooking and cleaning after he has come home after a hard day’s work and then divorce him when I tire of him and walk away with half his money and his kids.

    I would rather that my husband, take me passionately and leave me quivering after an orgasm.

    Reply

    • In reply to Desi Daasi

      In my opinion, the “duties” of a wife which she can’t opt out of are the responsibility to declare her marital status on tax forms, to declare it on visa applications etc…

      I think these are the only “duties” a wife (and any spouse) has, don’t you think?

      You like your husband to take sex without asking. Good for you. I don’t want you to be unhappy. No one is stopping either you or anyone else from being as submissive as you want. It’s a free country. Knock yourself out.

      The problem arises when you try and force others into being a certain way even if they don’t want to.

      Reply

    • In reply to Desi Daasi

      Dear Desi Daasi,

      Consent needn’t be spoken. It needn’t be verbal. You’re obviously very much in consent with your husband’s behaviour.

      Even when a couple play domination games with each other, even when one person roughly grabs the other and takes her – none of this is necessarily fundamentally non-consensual.

      It sounds like your husband isn’t the type to slap you and rape you. He isn’t forcing you unwillingly, thrusting into you while you writhe in pain and anguish at the brute invasion of your body against every feeling you have.

      So what you’re talking about is a type of communication preference. Bhagwad is not necessarily saying every couple needs to talk about permission. (At least, this is what I think he is saying). But he does say that a man ought not rape his wife.

      The problem comes if you are saying that all women should accept their husband’s approaches at any time. And they should try to see it as a positive even if it feels negative, and like rape. Now that’s really messed up. I don’t think that’s what you’re saying at all.

      Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading your take on this.

      Reply

Leave a Comment