Marriage is more than just sex

A petition has been started to gather support for the repealing of Sections 375(4) and 376A(5) of the Singapore Penal Code; these are provisions in the law that grant immunities to marital rape under a specific set of circumstances. I have signed the petition because I, like the 1,355 other signees, believe that rape is rape. Marriage does not grant the right to abuse, whether it be physical, psychological or sexual, and this applies to both parties in a marriage.

On the other side are men who are so insecure about getting sex from their wives that they let their insecurities show. Who somehow believe that women will abuse the repealing by withholding sex from their husbands freely, and that may result in a divorce that will grant the women half of their assets. Who believes that repealing the laws is a 'complete capitulation of men in Singapore to women', will 'leave all married men in Singapore completely vulnerable', and that signing 'this petition under the prevailing conditions is almost akin to an unconditional surrender' that may leave you with no choice but 'to leave Singapore forever, just so you don’t end up on the business end of such laws'. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, I am talking about this article by author of The Lycan Times blog. Despite his insistence that abusive husbands should be punished, the credibility of that claim is undermined by his arguments and one critical omission of fact. Let's start with the latter.

A recently enacted Afghan law stipulates that 'wives must submit to the sexual advances of husbands, plus seek permission to leave their homes and find work except under extraordinary circumstances, and custody of children is solely vested with fathers and grandfathers'. The author contends that is not legalising marital rape. But he fails to mention, rather conveniently, that men can 'refuse to feed wives who deny them sex'. So a woman has two choices: allow their husbands to have their way, or starve. That is compulsion, and while technically is not an endorsement of marital rape, in practice it throws women's rights in Afghanistan, even if it only applies to 15% of their population, back to the Stone Age.

This is a critical omission, and one that will easily let you see how ridiculous that law is, and how weak the author's arguments are. But, more importantly, it betrays the insecurities that some men still feel. The author claims that should the laws be repealed, 'there is now no legal grounds left for the man to actually obtain sex from his wife'. This draws a couple of questions: why do we need legal justification for sex, and is sex the main reason for two persons to get married?

My answer to both questions is 'No'. Requiring legal justification for sex in marriage is ridiculous, and arguing that the marital rape immunity clauses remain in the Penal Code because of that is even worse. If legal grounds for sex is the only way a man can get to have sex with his wife (or vice-versa), there are bigger issues at play in that marriage. And if sex is the main reason to get married, then the 'institution of marriage' is doomed.

In a healthy marriage, I think it's natural for couples to show affection for each other in various ways, including sex. There is give and take, understanding and compromise, commitment and communication. The sex will follow. It is sad to read posts like these because it seems to imply that men are so concerned about sex that it will blind them enough to deprive women of their right to say no, or that their perception of Singaporean women is that they are sexual prudes who despise sex and will use it as a means of control and power.

Such suspicions and guardedness about gender politics is either unfounded, or are symptomatic of an abundance of unhealthy marriages and romantic relationships. I hope, for the sake of my countrymen and women, that it is not the latter.

Additional snarky comment: With people like that, we don't need same-sex marriage to devalue the institution of marriage. Heterosexual marriages can do that fine job by themselves, thank you very much.