Before we even try to understand this, we need to understand the legal definition of rape. Recent sexual assault law proposes to include many crimes and make them gender neutral. But Indian govt. has also decided that ‘Rape’ per se will be gender biased. It is decided that there will be a specific mention about ‘Only men can commit rape’ in the new laws.
The above statement may seem very logical to most of us unless we take a deeper look into our definition of ‘rape’.
IPC 375 defines the crime ‘Rape’ as follows –
“A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:—….”
So this specifically says only a man can be accused of rape for any sexual intercourse, no matter whether a woman has raped another woman (remember Pinky Pramanik case, Pinky went scot free because she was a female. When as a nation we demand LGBT rights, we keep a blind eye on such people raping someone from same sex) or the woman wanted to have sex and later term it as rape or got extreme pleasure out of it or forced the man to have sex with her (that is why this definition is gender biased).
This definition further adds different scenarios that can be termed as rape. My notes in brackets –
First— Against her will
Second – Without her consent
(so a man’s consent doesn’t matter, it also presumes that a man always want sex and a woman sometime gives her consent but never wants it before the man does. This also presumes women don’t express their sexual desires; all their desires are driven by men. So this condition says men are the drivers of any sexual intercourse and women only follow them or in other words Indian women have no expression. This definition created by champions of women causes considers women as less than human being without any emotion or sexual desire that otherwise women from all other countries possess. In a way this definition undermines our women. [and you thought feminists are actually working in favour of women?])
Third— With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
(So this point considers that men are criminals and they can have sex by threatening someone and a woman can never do that. As men are physically stronger compared to women it is construed that they can threaten women like this. But does that mean every man in India is physically stronger compared to any woman in India? Does that mean there is no woman who is capable of threatening any man to have sex? These criminals are saved by this law.)
Fourth—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married
(So this is for insane women. Insane, because she doesn’t even know who her husband is. Problem is, what happens when the man is insane and the woman is not? Or what happens when the woman knows very well with whom she is sleeping with but the man is drunk or may be mentally unbalanced. Still the man will be called a rapist.)
Fifth— With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe¬fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
(Oh, so women are considered as very stupid here and men as intelligent. Else, how come only men stupefy women and women can’t. Another point drafted by so called women’s groups, undermining our women. Do you still think these groups work in favour of women?).
Sixth— With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
(So there was no need of recent govt. directive that sex from 16 years is legal. It is already legal. Point is what happens when the boy is under 16 and the woman is above 18. Well as nation we demand death penalty for the boy).
I know that some of the knowledgeable readers will say that any unnatural sex is covered under IPC 377 so let’s look into that –
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”
So penetration is key point here. How can a woman penetrate into a man? Oh there are many ways, but let’s consider a case where the woman wanted sex with an unwilling man. He may be tired or may just not be interested in that woman (don’t you think there are handsome hunks around or don’t you know those ugly fat ladies). What happens when such a woman forces a man on her? Still that will be considered as offence done by the man.
I remember a recent case from Aundh, Pune where a mother of a four year old boy caught their 19 year old maid having ‘unnatural sex’ with the boy. When the mother caught the maid, the maid had his penis in her mouth. Well, our newspapers reported this as ‘Unnatural Sex’ but if you read the IPC 377 definition of unnatural sex given above, there was no intercourse involved. Whether it will be termed as carnal intercourse we will come to know later but this is not rape under our gender biased laws. What is even horrifying is the maid has slapped the father of the boy with a rape charge now.
We never come to know about this case as these cases are always suppressed by the mainstream media. Men who are assaulted by women, feel it shameful to come forward and openly admit because of the social expectation of them to be a protector and not a victim. I don’t know how many such cases remain unreported every year but even if there are very few, then those victims don’t have any legal remedy today. The four year old boy who doesn’t know anything about life, will never get justice or will never expect any justice only because he is a boy.
The intensity and severity of any crime can’t be determined by one incidence as we have seen in women related laws recently. One severe gang rape forced our govt. to change a lot of unrelated laws as if all those crimes are the biggest problems in India. While we were busy in those protests fuelled by the feminists, our enemies sneaked in and as a result we have blasts claiming 13 lives in Hyderabad recently.
Now let’s consider what feminists think that a gender neutral rape law can be detrimental to the justice for the rape victims. Their main concern is that if this law is gender neutral then even the accused will slap a rape charge against the victim. (we have seen that in DV cases where even most violent women file DV case against their husbands and get away with reward).
Before we analyze this danger as projected by the feminists, we need to understand how the rape case trials are conducted.
Key to any rape conviction is the consent clause. That is why we see many consensual sex cases termed as rape later on. That is why we see even live-in relations are termed as rape (…NCRB data says 75% of rape cases are false in India).
In rape cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused unlike on any other criminal case where the burden of proof is on the accuser. So here the accused needs to prove that he has not raped the victim / she has given consent / or it was natural relation / or there was no cause of action for him etc.
The prosecution tries to gather evidence of the crime to disprove the case of accused by medical examination of the victim BUT the victim can deny any such medical examination (CrPC 164A). Also please note that mere absence of spermatozoa on the victims body is not a valid point to consider that the rape accusation is false.
Now what the believers of gender biased rape law says, if it is made gender neutral then every accused will file a counter case on the victim herself as saying she has raped him.
Sounds funny? Well, you will not feel the same if you go back to our definition of rape where I have shown that each and every point that can term a sexual relation as rape, can be potentially inflicted by a woman on a man as well.
Also what these feminists forget to mention in all their protests against gender neutral laws, is that anyone filing a false criminal complaint needs to prove the same else he will be punished (well not so much if a woman files a false 498a, DV or rape case). So even if our laws are made gender neutral that doesn’t mean a man filing a false case will be able to prove the consent or even prove that the conditions were adverse to him and he was raped when his allegation are false.
This is why we find that advocates who say IPC 377 that talks about ‘carnal intercourse’ takes care of all such unnatural cases forget one point – a tired man can be forced to have sex by his wife, a man not interested in a woman may be forced to have sex with her or a boy may be sexually exploited by his maid or his female relatives but these people should never expect justice unless our rape laws are gender neutral or at least the definition of IPC 377 is changed.
Women have molestation, sexual harassment laws in their favour too that can deal with offences that does not involve so called ‘intercourse’ but a man / boy doesn’t have anything. IPC 377 protects a man or a woman from other men but this section NEVER protects a man from a nymphomaniac woman.
We have many cases in the west where men were reportedly raped by women and those women were punished. Since in India this is not even recognized as crime, we are yet to see men / boys coming forward and reporting such crime. As a nation if we fail to recognize this as a crime, then many men and boys will have to end their lives without even seeking justice or reporting the crime and that is why we need all our laws and specifically this law to be gender neutral. Else many mother will lose their sons, their husbands, their brothers and feminist groups claiming these suicides as mere ‘farmer suicide’ (in a recent national debate, one leading feminist leader termed 64000+ suicide of married men as” farmer’s suicide”).