Published On:Monday, October 25, 2010 originally posted August 17, 2009[1]
By RUPERT MISSICK Jr
Chief Reporter
rmissick@tribunemedia.net
A disturbing window is opening into the minds of Bahamians who oppose the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act which would totally ban marital rape in the Bahamas.
It appears that men who balk at the idea believe that it is acceptable to force themselves on wives unwilling or unable to have sex. It seems they are willing to abandon the traditional role of husbands as protector and provider and don the mantle of predator.
Women who oppose this amendment either believe that being raped is an acceptable aspect of married life, an inevitability, like having to complain about your husband dropping his shirt onto the bedroom floor after he comes home from work or believe that they have no right to their own feelings as it relates to their sexual or reproductive life.
This is what it boils down to. There are no nuances. There are no shades of grey. There is no room left for interpretation. The bill seeks to give married women the same rights as their single counterparts, the ability to see their rapist brought to justice even if he is the man she married.
Those who oppose this bill believe that if he so chooses, a man should be able to "take sex", by force if need be, from the "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh." I will throughout this article refer to opponents of this bill as proponents of marital rape because like people of my generation say, "That's real talk."
It's been disheartening listening to radio shows over the past few weeks as the debate on this bill continues. Our men have come across as brutes and our women steeped in a victimology that is inexplicable in this modern age. People have butchered, misinterpreted and misquoted the Bible to, as they see it, defend the right of a man to his wife's body. Even the radio show hosts, who should know better, defend would be rapists and postulate that the bill is being pushed by a cabal of vindictive women or a hidden homosexual agenda.
I was also disappointed listening to the recent Senate contribution that Allyson Maynard Gibson made on this matter. After listing what she described as "black and white or clearly defined areas about which there is little or no disagreement" where it would be obvious that a man has raped his wife, like doping, drugging, threatening her at gunpoint or beating her to have sex, etcetera, she suggested that "concerns arise when we are confronted with the tremendous grey areas that inevitably exist in the context of a marriage."
The good senator suggests that these grey areas may include whether the wife was really saying no, whether the husband was forcing or trying to convince his wife to have sex. She also asserts that there should be consideration as to what was the wife's motive for making the allegation of rape against her husband. The amendment, she says, should also take into consideration the children and who will support the family if the husband is sent to jail.
One can only assume Mrs Maynard-Gibson was playing the role of devil's advocate because the answers to these questions are quite direct and (as I said before) there are no shades of grey.
Complaint
First of all we will rightly assume that in the case of marital rape it will be the wife making the complaint to the police so regardless of what the husband thinks, the wife knows if she was "really saying no."
She also will be painfully aware of whether she was being "convinced" or "forced" into having sex. As for the motivation behind the wife making the allegation in the first place, as with rape cases involving people who are not married, it is up to the courts to make that determination.
As for the children and who will support the family if the husband is sent to jail, surely these are matters the man should consider before he commits such a heinous act. These should not be hindrances to a victim making a complaint. Rape laws, which Mrs Maynard-Gibson marched and fought to see enforced in this country, exist for the victims of rape and do not nor should not include consideration for any other party.
Mrs Maynard-Gibson is a successful, well educated and prominent Bahamian woman. There are many women in our society would be happy to be as blessed as she is. Women in her position should take care not to offer proponents of marital rape any excuse, which they have done over this past week, to say "see even a woman of no less esteem than Allyson Maynard-Gibson has had reason to question this amendment."
In the Bahamas marital rape can only be recognised if the couple is separated or in the process of getting a divorce. If they are married and there has been no separation, spousal rape cannot occur under Bahamian law.
One of the more persistent objections to the proposed amendment is the idea that removing the ability of a man to rape his wife would severely damage the institution of marriage in the Bahamas.
Those stupid enough to make this argument chose to ignore the fact that the rape itself is severely damaging to the institution of marriage.
In a "Your Say" published in this newspaper on Wednesday, August 12, a writer by the name of "E.V" suggested that the amendment would destroy the family, because it would force a man to sweetheart or look for satisfaction elsewhere.
"When this happens and the woman files for a divorce on the grounds that the man was 'sweethearting', the courts would not consider that it was the woman who initiated the whole thing by using her body as a weapon and depriving her husband of his rights. This same man then has to pay alimony and other expenses. Why? Because he simply wanted to have sex with the woman God gave him to have sex with."
This argument is so ignorant, backward, demonic and ridiculous that if it were not repeated so many times and by so many different people it would hardly warrant a response.
If the alternative to raping the mother of your children is "seeking satisfaction elsewhere" I hardly see a problem. But there are more measured and intelligent solutions. If a husband is sexually frustrated in his marriage he can suggest counselling, or perhaps talk to his wife and ask her why she no longer seems interested in having sex. Even a trip to her personal physician may be in order.
In any event, in the "Your Say" E.V. presents himself as one seeking to preserve manhood. However, E.V. wasn't man enough to have his name printed which leads me to respect his opinion even less.
Former president of the Bar Association, Wayne Munroe while he was a panelist on Star 106.5's talk Show Generation X suggested that the amendment would be abused by vindictive Bahamian women, who, he seems to suggest, are widespread through the country.
Mr Munroe was quoted in another daily as saying: "The problem that this creates is this: All you need is for there to be dysfunction in a household and a woman to be upset at a man -- and rape does not require any trauma -- and she calls the police and says my husband raped me. You would be arrested and you would be the subject of domestic orders. And it will be your word against hers as to whether she said 'no.'"
Divorce
Amendment or no amendment, if your marriage is so bad that forcing yourself on your wife is the only way you can have sex with her, you need to get a divorce. Also, if your wife is so vindictive that having sex with her feels like playing a game of Russian roulette because you don't know when she'll decide to unjustly accuse you of rape, you need to get a divorce.
Nothing is more damaging to the institution of marriage than two people who no longer want to be or who have no business being together, living in a tumultuous household creating a poisonous environment for them and their children.
Barrington Brennen, who has been a marriage and family therapist for the past 15 years has been agitating for a law like this for over a decade.
He told The Tribune that unfortunately the response to the proposed amendment is revealing a deep seated belief that women are still property.
He pointed out that it is religious rather than secular people who have the biggest problem with this amendment. These people Mr Brennen said, resort to misusing scripture in order to "brain wash" those who are ignorant.
He highlighted the case of a Bahamian woman who, after undergoing a painful surgical procedure told her husband she was unable to have sex.
This woman's husband forced himself on her and through his wife's pain, pleading and tears completed the sexual act.
Opposition or support for this act will not divide homes, but will separate real Bahamian men from the animals they may call brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins and friends.
I have a very "traditional" view of manhood which may become even more "traditional" if I'm lucky enough to be a father one day.
A man should be protector, provider, a nurturer, loving and a lover.
You cannot love or be loved through force, through contempt, or through violence.
I sincerely hope that the public debate on this bill is simply just some social experiment or maybe even a political distraction and the government will have this legislation passed regardless of the nonsense out there. They have a moral and humanitarian obligation to do so.
If they fail to do this it will certainly be unforgivable and Bahamian women and all true Bahamian men who love their women should remind them harshly of their failure in 2012.
Not passing this bill will mean that men will be able to be punished for raping acquaintances, relatives, girlfriends, prostitutes, strippers and strangers, but not their wives.
It is funny how these men, and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word, believe that a complete stranger or prostitute should have more rights than the women they swore before God to love and cherish until death.[Tribune]
No comments:
Post a Comment