Rape in a patriarchal society - Page 2

Originally posted by: MOTHERHOOD

AnupaMaa was raped by Vanraj that night. Sexual intercourse without consent or mabipulated consent is rape. Vanraj manipulated AnupaMaa to have sex with him. He pretended he was making love to her. If he told her that he was sleeping with her only to impregnate her, do you think she would have consented?

I kind of agree to what the other poster wrote. I always thought this law in India is crooked and poses women as this fragile innocent piece and this law actually considers women as less intelligent. If you think again, being stupid is not the same as being raped. A man who ‘manipulated’ a woman to have sex with him with consent, basically fooled her. I always wondered woman should take this type of law personally and challenge it. In such case when a woman files a case of rape, basically shouldn’t they be rather mad at their own stupidity. And this law is not applicable in the opposite case. 🤔 It’d be a matter of ego or prestige to think men can even be ‘fooled’.

We dont have this type of silly law in other developed countries. Consent is a consent, no matter how it’s obtained. One shouldn’t be mad for being fooled.

Food for thought. Intriguing discussions.

Originally posted by: lalaland23

Sorry but that's incorrect. If a man has sex with a woman by promising to marry her but had no intention to keep that promise, it constitutes rape. It's only if he had the intention to keep the promise but later circumstances change and he doesn't want to marry her or they can't get married, he can't be held liable.

This is on the basis of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code -

90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception:

A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or Consent of insane person.: if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or Consent of child.: unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

So the same could be applied in the case of Vanraj and Anupama as well, since it was a misconception of fact by Anupama at the time and Vanraj was aware of the same. It does constitute marital rape.

'Rape' is something else , something much more cruel and painful than just 'being fooled' or "emotionally abused" , I think.......

There is a huge difference between 'being raped' and 'being fooled', If , according to any law, they are kept on the same page than that is wrong .....

Neither the women should be this fragile nor any woman should have the right to frame a innocent man .......such laws should be scrapped out

Originally posted by: Rudhita18

No dear , Anupmaa wasn't raped , There is nothing known as "manipulated consent" in the definition of "Rape" .......Anupamaa was never forced in anyway ...She had given her consent with all her consciousness, she wasn't a minor.....Neither she was drunk nor she was mentally disabled ....There are so many cases where a "guy" slept with a girl promising her that they will get married but later he deceived her .....In such cases there is no charge of "Rape" is being slapped on the convict untill and unless the victim is a minor , this is considered as fraud or blackmailing

So, yeah what Vanraj did was emotional abuse , blackmailing and fraud , she could have divorced Vanraj on these grounds .....but sorry no "Rape" as she was never FORCED......

P.S. you can search on google for the exact defination ....... you'll find it on Wiki .......

Suppose, person A serves person B poison saying it is holy water. Person B drinks the poison thinking it is holy water. Person B's thirst is quenched by drinking the poison. Person B is happy. After a while Person B dies of poisoing. In this case, A has murdered B even though B willingly drank the poison and was satisfied after drinking it. The above mentioned hypothetical situation is the same as the situation with AnuRaj.

I dont know much about Indian legal system, but in my country a consent earned through force, emotional manipulation, false promise is not considered a consent. Since it is almost impossible to prove in court, no women/men ever files a complaint in such a case but that does not diminish the brutality of the crime.

Originally posted by: MOTHERHOOD

Suppose, person A serves person B poison saying it is holy water. Person B drinks the poison thinking it is holy water. Person B's thirst is quenched by drinking the poison. Person B is happy. After a while Person B dies of poisoing. In this case, A has murdered B even though B willingly drank the poison and was satisfied after drinking it. The above mentioned hypothetical situation is the same as the situation with AnuRaj.

I dont know much about Indian legal system, but in my country a consent earned through force, emotional manipulation, false promise is not considered a consent. Since it is almost impossible to prove in court, no women/men ever files a complaint in such a case but that does not diminish the brutality of the crime.

Good example. But Mothethood, being cheated or manipulated is not death or end of the world na. It’s just harsh and might have deep impact on someone’s emotional front. Manipulation can be considered abuse, that can be termed as crime. But calling it rape IMO takes away the severity of the crime that the actual rape victims are subjected to.

Your example was good. Hadn’t thought this way before.

It's not at all easy to prove rape in such circumstances. Courts have very strict requirements of evidence in such cases, and it's actually very hard to prove, so most women can't misuse these type of laws. And in my opinion, it is necessary because consent always needs to be fully informed . I doubt we can compare rapes because of course one may seem more heinous, but we don't know to what extent it may affect a person who had sex with someone simply because they fooled them. Especially in India, where sex is considered a HUGE deal at any point and a huge taboo before marriage. And every woman may also deal with having faced the same situation differently.

So while the severity of punishment may differ based on how horrible the crime is, misinformed consent should be the same as lack of consent. That's there in all other laws, so why not in this case. Motherhood's example is a good analogy.

I don't think it's about women being weak as such, there are no rape laws applicable for men in the first place. That's the whole issue. Section 375 should be applied to both men and women, and be gender neutral, that would solve most of the issues in the first place.

For every woman who misuses the law, there are a 100 women who will never speak up about this happening to them due to reasons such as fear of society, family abandoning you, your character and virtue being questioned every time, police and courts making you relive the trauma even more, the case being dragged on forever etc. And against their husband? You'll hardly find people who will.

In my opinion, every law can be misused. Instead of scrapping the law itself, they should go by strict evidence and make it gender neutral because men can go through this too and it's very hard for them to speak up because of the ridicule they would go through, and how society expects men to be. And they should also have strict punishments for misusing the law so people think before filing false cases and diluting the seriousness of the crime as well as other women's statements.

This is what I feel, feel free to share your thoughts, it's a great discussion!

Originally posted by: MOTHERHOOD

Suppose, person A serves person B poison saying it is holy water. Person B drinks the poison thinking it is holy water. Person B's thirst is quenched by drinking the poison. Person B is happy. After a while Person B dies of poisoing. In this case, A has murdered B even though B willingly drank the poison and was satisfied after drinking it. The above mentioned hypothetical situation is the same as the situation with AnuRaj.

I dont know much about Indian legal system, but in my country a consent earned through force, emotional manipulation, false promise is not considered a consent. Since it is almost impossible to prove in court, no women/men ever files a complaint in such a case but that does not diminish the brutality of the crime.

Aapne sahi kaha we can't prove it in the court but chalo phir bhi Maan lete hai ki aapne kisi tarah prove kr bhi diya than also kya uss convict ko "rape convict" ke jaisa treat Krna kahi se bhi justified nhi hai .....Ek ladki ke nazariye se dekhoge to sahi hi lagega pr ek neutral way me dekho to samajh aayega ....

Maan lo ek convict "A" hai jisne aise hi dhoka diya ek victim A ko and ek convict B hai jisne "rape" kiya hai victim B ka .......Kya jo physical pain and mental trauma se Victim B gujar rahi thi aur gujar rahi hai , kya victim A ko bhi utna hi physical pain kabhi hua hoga ??, Kya kabhi uska "emotional suffering" kabhi victim B ke ke "mental trauma " ke barabar ho sakta hai?? ....NO na kabhi tha ,na hai ,na kabhi ho skta hai ...... To kya law ke dwara dono ko same pedastal pe rakhna sahi hai, NOT AT ALL

Now aap batao convict A ne kya utna hi cruel , brutal ,henious crime commit kiya hai jitna ki convict B ne kiya hoga , kya usne aapni victim utna hi physical and mental pain diya hoga jitna ki convict B ne diya hai ??....Nhi right, than dono ki punishment same kaise ?? Jb dono ki cruelty same nhi thi to dono ko punish krte vakt LAW same way me cruel kaise ho skti hai......kya ye Convict A ke against injustice nhi hoga ?( See main kisi criminal ko defend nhi kr rhi main sirf injustice ki baat kr rhi hu ,But when we are talking about justice hame sabka paksh dekhna hota hai , Crime crime hota hai lekin iska mtlb ye to nhi ki kisi chor ko phasi ki saza de doge , kyuki uska crime itna gruesome tha hi nhi ki use phasi di jaye) .....

Di , my point is that ki kisi convict ki punishment iss baat pe nirdharit hoti hai ki uska crime kitna brutal, henious tha .....jb dono ke case ke brutality me Jamin aasmaan ka antaar hai to dono ki treatment aur punishment me vahi difference kyu na ho ........

Didi, laws me flaws hote hai .....Ab 50 saal pehle jo law tha vahi aaj bhi follow Kiya jaaye ye sahi hai kya ....... society badalti hai , log badalte hai , logo ki soch badalti hai uske saath saath laws me bhi amendments hone chahiye Varna law kabhi bhi aapna prime motive serve kr hi nhi paayega ......Aadhi bheed ke liye JUSTICE sirf ek "Formality" , aur Aadhi bheed ke liye "jyadti" bn ke reh jaayegi .......

Di , agar aapko kahi bhi aisa laga ho ki maine aapse badtameezi se baat ki hai than I am SORRY 😔, Aap sb dono crimes ko ek jaisa bata rhe the , mujhe ye baat acchi nhi lag rhi thi ,agar jyada bol gayi to again I am sorry🥲

Originally posted by: lalaland23

For every woman who misuses the law, there are a 100 women who will never speak up about this happening to them due to reasons such as fear of society, family abandoning you, your character and virtue being questioned every time, police and courts making you relive the trauma even more, the case being dragged on forever etc. And against their husband? You'll hardly find people who will.

In my opinion, every law can be misused. Instead of scrapping the law itself, they should go by strict evidence and make it gender neutral because men can go through this too and it's very hard for them to speak up because of the ridicule they would go through, and how society expects men to be. And they should also have strict punishments for misusing the law so people think before filing false cases and diluting the seriousness of the crime as well as other women's statements.

This is what I feel, feel free to share your thoughts, it's a great discussion!

So , the same way both the convicts cant be punishned the same way as, whether you agree or not both the first convict's crime is nowhere as gruesome as the second one's would be .....

Vaise di yahi baat maine isse pehle vaale post me likhi thi , vaha aapko tag Krna tha galti se koi aur tag ho gayi 😅

Hi dear. What I'm trying to say in my post is that the law is the same but the degree of punishment for both will be very different. And the standard of evidence you need to prove is also very different. No one is saying both are equal, they are not. But both constitute rape. Now gang rape will have a much more severe punishment than a rape. Same way if rape was through misconception of fact, it is not consent and hence it is rape, but it won't be treated the same as a scenario where there was absolutely no consent or refusal of consent.

No one is putting them on equal pedestal. Both are different, the scenario B's victim is going through (based on the example you gave) deserves a much higher punishment but doesn't mean A doesn't deserve a punishment as well. Just that the victim of A will have more to prove to the court (believe me, it's not so easy especially for a woman) and also A will have a lesser punishment. If this law is not there, men can easily get consent from a woman by lying or cheating. If the woman would have never consented if she knew the truth how can it be real consent? This way many people can get away with it.

So rape is rape, but the severity and degree of it will vary, and also the standard of evidence which in my opinion is fair. The change that needs to be brought is that it be made gender neutral and strict provisions for misuse.

No one said they should be on the same pedestal. I don't think Motherhood or I ever said that both are equally gruesome or anything like that. I only said you can't evaluate how each person deals with something that happens to them. Scenario A could be very traumatizing for the victim as well.

What I said is that just because two things constitute rape, doesn't mean they are treated exactly the same. They are not. I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I agree with you that they are not at all equal dear. The law also doesn't treat it as equal.

And please don't apologise! We are having a friendly discussion here, no one is going to take anything personally :)