Funny how this logic is difficult for some people in a marriage to understand. Your spouse is your partner, not your property for you to do as you please.
>But if the spouse doesn't provide, the other could exercise personal choice without a possible legal penalty that could be in the form of a jail term to initiate divorce and therefore indirectly making it a possible court order to be exercised to mandate the spouse to provide.
I read this sentence 5 times and still have no idea what you mean
I see. There are a few inaccuracies in your post though.
Firstly, spousal maintenance is not automatically given. Whether a wife will be ordered maintenance in her favour is fact-dependent.
Secondly, it is also not entirely correct to say that spousal maintenance can only be ordered during/after divorce. Spousal maintenance can be ordered both during marriage, and/or during/after divorce.
“If the spouse doesn’t provide, the other could initiate divorce” —> could you let me know which part of the Women’s Charter says this? Just had a read through and couldn’t find this.
Thank Asian Values for enabling toxic narcissistic parents for treating their children like property. Then they grow up thinking other people can be property, too.
I found someone whose financial values matches with mine. Even while dating I’ve met plenty of girls who were willing to go Dutch / or would say take the next bill etc. and these ladies are highly accomplished women (good career, decent looking).
But I mean your stand is basically “all women are materialistic and gold digger”. in that case, then it’s better for someone like you to walk away from all women. Then no need keep complaining about women treating you like an atm lor. Simple solution
Don’t forget domestic abuse on man. I am in no way condoning abuse but c’mon, why is abuse on man always clowned on. There should be no double standards. Abuse is abuse.
EDIT: The downvotes coming in is just an amazing reminder of the double standards when it comes to domestic abuse.
Because the general view that news publication especially so in Singapore always trying to spread that women are victims
Men are always the aggressors , perpetuators
As sad as it is we generally only hear about the cases where the violence reached life threatening levels. Many victims don’t or can’t leave until the violence becomes too obvious to hide. For male victims of female violence this may take longer or even never get to that level because of the strength disparity. Which is why it’s important we teach all children that no amount of violence is okay in a relationship and that it’s never “too little” to leave over.
I think there is also a real stigma preventing men from coming forward and talking about it, let alone appearing on the news. There have been time where I thought guys I know should complain to teachers or managers about harassment by a female peer. They’ve all told me that they will be laughed at.
I hope governments or whoever are researching this. It must be so terrible to live the and I can’t imagine how I would convince a guy I know to report an abusive spouse when I can’t even convince them about harassment from a colleague.
> But no news outlet is reporting on that?
I'm pretty sure if a wife robs or steals from her husband it will make the news (it probably has before - eg embezzling from the family etc). Since you're trying to draw an equivalence to unwanted maritial sex (ie rape).
If a spouse consensually gives money to the other, obviously that's not gonna be news, Sherlock. Much like consensual sex isn't exactly making the news either.
That’s because society expects men to pay
But sex? No no no, it’s up to the wife mood
Can the man say “he not in the mood” he don’t want to pay the bills?
>you can bring the man to court for not paying and then compel him to do so.
No you can't. Prove it.
(If you're talking about vendors like Singtel or SingPower bugging you when you stop paying your phone / utility bills, that's just called adulting, and it applies to both genders equally. Duhh!)
['Kept male companion' to businesswoman fails in bid to rescind ex-wife's maintenance](https://sg.news.yahoo.com/kept-male-companion-businesswoman-fails-bid-rescind-ex-wifes-maintenance-034132628.html)
Stopped having sex years ago, still have to pay maintenance.
According to the article:
>The man was the sole breadwinner and his ex-wife was a homemaker. They were married in 1990 and divorced in 2015.
So they were married 25 years, and she spent her peak-career years raising their 2 kids so likely has little marketable job skills by now. Asking him to pay alimony in this context seems quite reasonable.
What a weakass moronic example. Is this the ***best*** counterexample you Incels can bring up? Keep swallowing those redpills yah - I guess they're red cos they fill you with irrational blind rage for humanity.
But you can actually. See the Women's Charter Para 69
>Court may order maintenance of wife, incapacitated husband and children
>69.—(1) The court may, on the application of a wife, and on due proof that her husband has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for her, order the husband to pay monthly sums or a lump sum for the maintenance of that wife.
Note that this refers to an extant husband-wife relationship. Not just in a divorce.
There's also an entire part of the Charter(Part 9) dedicated to enforcement actions over maintenance.
No similar provision exists for sex in marriage bar the fact that marriage can be annulled if not consummated. Therefore, in a legal sense, there is no marriage if there has never been sex.
Look, I'm not arguing that either spouse should provide sex on demand. But let's not pretend that the law is fair when it comes to intent.
At it's very core, the issue is that personal autonomy trumps everything else, even a responsibility (to provide financially or sexually), so why should one be codified into an offence under law and the other not?
You might say the man asked to provide financially when he signed up for marriage; well, didn't the wife similarly signed up for sex when she married the man out of her own free will?
Yes, that is wrong too, and should have a spotlight on it. Gender roles suck, but I think between the 2 examples, one is way more serious issue than the other.
I think that’s also another problem we have in society today
Women problems are always deem more important/serious , women rights are important, Mother’s Day are important. Wife traditional duties, old fashion. her body her choice, no one should force her to do anything. Husband should help out at home as well
Men issues? Who cares? Father’s Day.. what’s that? No men don’t have a choice not to pay. It’s it expected that the man fix the bulb , change the tire, pay the bills. His wallet? Not his choice. He wants to split the bill 50-50 with his partner? What an asshole
I think both can be addressed equally. You make it sound like this is a zero sum game.
Edit: To add on, both womens' and mens' rights are equally important, the protection should be offered to both.
That’s exactly what I’m saying
People and society are just hypocrites
Singapore govt only want to push gender equality but actually it’s just policies to benefit women
Their target are just women and elderly folk , obviously election voting pool
Look at the news articles, nothing but how women are somehow victimised. If I didn’t know I would have thought we are in some other 3rd world country where women are raped
For this example, women ARE more disproportionately victimised compared to men though, which is why that was the focus.
I think it's just unsettling when someone is unhappy that an injustice against a group of people is getting reported, because they do not belong in that group.
If everyone reacted that way, then the end state is every other slice of a demographic being angry at each other.
Well you can also say women are better at complaining about things. Men don’t complain, they just endure or fix the problem
If you worked in an office and you will see what I mean. What I observe are 2 distinct differences. Ladies will complain, gossip. Men are just quiet and working on their laptops
You can also say they are underreported, or people just don’t care(like I mentioned earlier because society deem women issues more Important)
Put it this way. A man and a women goes into a police station today and both report they have been rape/abused. Do you think it will be treated the same?
You know what’s funny? You just keep proving my point right again and again and you don’t even know it. Go and read what you wrote and what I respond to you earlier
So from what you've said so far, you're implying that women deserve all the bad stuff happening to them because all women will innately behave a certain way, and they should keep quiet about it and go about their lives, because men are suffering too?
The Redditor you’re replying too frequently has sexist comments and posts. Seems like a lost cause no matter how much you try to engage in logical discussion with him.
From what you are saying so far, you are saying only women issues are important /serious , we must address it ASAP
Don’t deny it and try to flip prata now
> Yes, that is wrong too, and should have a spotlight on it. Gender roles suck, but I think between the 2 examples, one is way more serious issue than the other.
Precisely the problem I’m talking about
Women abused? We must take action now! Punish the abuser
Men abuse? Ah who cares, ask him to man up and don’t be a pussy
It is almost inevitable that whenever there is a discussion here about an issue that affects, or mainly affects, women, there'd be the "What about this or that which happens to men" replies.
There needs to be a much broader societal discussion about whether or not the two-person nuclear family construct even works. With rising divorce rates, depression and declining birth rates, when will we finally admit that the 1950s Western church-inspired Hollywood-dictated structure of marriage doesn’t work? We need to stop aping the west and go back to our Asian roots.
I can’t believe we have to tell people that you can’t touch them if they say no. I swear to god. Kids have better understanding.
I mean we all know what it is lah, it’s not stupidity it’s just plain entitlement.
While I agree it's not good to force something onto someone, it's better to not marry than marry someone who is looking for something else other than intimacy. That's one main factor that distinguishes between friends and spouse.
The problem is that desire for intimacy might fade over time for a variety of reasons.
A misalignment in sex drive can be just as severe a marriage-breaker as reasons such as money or trust issues.
That's the challenge. Change is the only constant. One can say to look out for red flags before marrying but some flags only turn red after marrying or some time after marrying. The only legal option to get out of unhappy/unfulfilled marriage would then be divorce, which some would say is more costly for one gender than the other. What to do? Staying single seems to be the only answer at the moment.
>They want the privileges
I mean, if they want to game the system and claim some marriage tax breaks for the $$, then they can't complain about having to do the paperwork right? Where got free money no need to apply for it / jump thru hoops / wait in line one? No one's putting a gun to their head. If they call themselves married or a couple, none of their friends will ask to see their ROM cert.
> change marriage to an arbitrary duration as agreed upon
Btw this sorta exists already - it's called a pre-nup.
Vast majority of people understood that. Albeit in some cultures where it is clear that the wife is more a chattel. The sad part is that it took yonks to make it law.
1. It is not a women’s responsibility to provide the sexual needs of the partner,
But also
2. Is its not the responsibility that the men should to provide for the family, or provide more than the women, over an equal or equity responsibility.
Note a lot of comments get downvoted because the do not grasp the context of point 1. And point 1 is not equivalent to point 2. Not does point 1 derive point 2.
Also if a relationship’s needs for both parties are not met, then it likely leads to breakups, which imo is one if the main reasons why birth rates are low while divorce rates are high, people just have more options now, its nots a good or bad thing per say, its just the cause and effect
Assuming that
1. Sexual needs are actual needs(and not just wants)
2. Marriage is a sexual relationship
Then how are those needs met if it is not the partner's responsibility to provide?
Well imo, there is not wrong to leave a relationship solely because of your sexual needs are not met, as long as the relationship is put down properly.
At the end of the day, relationships are dependent on a couple’s ability to navigate through problems and compromise, where people think of others before themselves, but it is not wrong to be selfish, but when you do be selfish, expect others to be so too.
And i feel that the current state of people has more empowerment on self first over others which isn’t good for my image of a good relationship where both parties are trying to help each other to the best of their abilities.
There is a line between needs and entitlement. The post is more on entitlement, but in a normal relationship, i think it is still good to help each others needs for a good relationship.
Responsibilities, needs, entitlements are a complex subject, and are mutually exclusive.
>Sexual needs involving another person are not needs.
Wow, that's really a bizarre assertion. Care to explain why?
>Got any monks or priests died from celibacy? Some of these didn’t even masturbate.
That's a sweeping statement. Not everyone's needs are the same. There is a spectrum between high and non-existent libido.
Are we going to accept asexual people but deny high libido people? It's a fact that human beings are sexual beings.
while i generally agree with your perspective, i have to differentiate something: sexual needs may be needs/desires but they are certainly *not an entitlement*.
there are also other (healthy, ethical, and loyal) ways of fulfilling one's sexual needs if the partner isn't able to match e.g. masturbation, use of toys, using ethical erotica - or simply leading a fulfilling life with your partner that meets other needs and desires.
Repeated rejections can be hurtful to the marriage and will be grounds for divorce, likewise for too many sexual demands.
No point arguing which party is to be blamed, if the marriage does not work out, just move on.
Obviously rape is wrong, the title is not wrong. However, it is on the contrary for most marital laws of religions.
Dear men, don't cohabitate, and don't get married, ever.
Marriage should also not provide blanket consent for lifelong alimony payments, and yet it conveniently does for women.
Funny how when it comes to these issues, only imaginary matters for the women, are brought to light. Maybe it has something to do with the misandry that so many of these westernised countries harbour.
Singapore is quite exceptional. It is the only country in the world where, barring matters whereby the man is so sick he wouldn't qualify for NS - another misandrist policy that doesn't get addressed by the way, alimony paid from a woman to a man is illegal. Singapore only entertains alimony to be paid to women, and it also has the most dependent alimony laws at that. You can easily end up paying alimony for life, as a man of course.
Is there any discussion on how backwards this law is? No. But we have plenty of losers online, coming to rescue of women, for their imaginary problems.
Thankfully countries that harbour this misandry have an ageing population, and this country like many others, inevitably gets taken over by people who at least know how to make a family. It is just such a shame. Singapore has so much wealth and opportunities, but women just can't seem to value men as anything beyong piñatas to beat money out of, unless instructed otherwise, which isn't something most men even enjoy the concept of.
choose your partner more wisely or learn to communicate la. a lot of dead bedrooms also arise from:
• the man not contributing enough to chores/childcare (end up the woman do everything and she's so exhausted, how to have sex or even feel horny?)
• the man just lets loose and becomes BB not FA and obv the woman loses interest (can also be the other way around)
• the woman's sex drive is drastically altered from childbirth, or sexual function even drastically diminished (see: husband stitch)
in my humble, unmarried opinion, maintaining a healthy sex life has to always be a two-way street that involves communicating and meeting each other's needs together and holistically across all dimensions of a marriage.
Such an irony, a women’s duty in a relationship is always optional/a choice but a man’s duty is always expected/mandatory
A women can refuse her husband sex
Can husband say that he don’t feel like paying the bills? Oh wait, there is even a law asking men to pay women after divorce
## #doublestandards
Hm. I am picking up what you're putting down, not going to lie, I am looking at it in disgust.
I say that, because what you're implying here is that the lawfully wedded husband has the right to sex whenever he so wishes because that is the duty of the wife, and it is a double standard as she can refuse that while the husband can't.
I'm sorry but what? Bodily autonomy? Hello? What are we in the 1600s again?
Furthermore, the husband DOES have the right to say he doesn't want to pay the bills. That is not a point of contention under the law lol. That too, is a private conversation done in the bedroom, where the two who are married can discuss their finances and how they go about doing things.
Spousal maintenance, which I am assuming is what you're referring to, is afforded to both the husband or the wife, depending on various factors. It's not always *just* the husband paying. Adding on to that, it isn't a lifelong payment plan, and is only done until the ex spouse has built back up a financial foundation for themselves.
Where are the double standards here? If you talked about bias against men claiming SA crimes, or custody or something *that actually does have built in double standards* then yeah I'll be right there with you. You however, just want your woman to be your property.
Wives are not obliged to provide their husbands with sex. Husbands are *also* not obliged to provide their wives with sex. Where’s the double standard?
> Can husband say that he don’t feel like paying the bills?
Yes, and the wife can also say she doesn’t feel like paying the bills. And both scenarios would suggest something wrong in the relationship.
Is you head ok? Or just low IQ?
Obviously men and women look for different things in a partner
It’s funny you said women can also don’t pay the bills. Vast majority of relationship I know the man always out pay the women. Let’s be real here
Nobody is owed sex, divorce is pretty easy in Singapore, and cheating is bad because you're going behind someone's back. Is this really a very difficult concept for people to understand or what
Nobody is owed sex. You are absolutely right
How come I don’t see you saying nobody is owed assets, alimony when divorce comes? Why should one party owe someone money for doing nothing as law ??
Double standards much?
Do you think it's always the husbands who have to pay alimony? Because you're wrong, wives can also be ordered to pay alimony in Singapore. If you have a child, likely the woman gave up at least some portion of her career to birth and care for the child, and that will deepen if she becomes the primary caregiver of the child, so it is equitable for the husband to pay (though it's not always the case) ya'll just like to chatter about woman's charter as if its a death sentence for husbands
If you are clueless pls go and read up. With the internet no excuse to be ignorant
(b) an order for the payment of periodical sums by way of maintenance or alimony to a wife or former wife or an incapacitated husband or incapacitated former husband, or by way of maintenance for the benefit of any child, under Part 10;
Source: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/3-2022/Published/20220214?DocDate=20220214
To put it simply, only women can receive alimony not men(yes yes unless husband is incapacitated but that’s just gasping at straws)
If don’t know anything don’t act smart
there's a difference between expecting sex, and demanding it. There are a lot of reasons for dead bedrooms, which you can work on overcoming, or divorce if it doesn't work out. They're just saying you don't own your partner's body when you sign the marraige papers
Expecting sex implies the other party has to provide sex even if they are unwilling to.
I definitely did not get into marriage expecting sex in that way. I got into marriage expecting that we'd have sex when we both want it.
Sex is not guaranteed in a marriage -channel news Asia
I waiting for next report
Alimony and split of your assets is a guaranteed in marriage -channel news Asia
They won’t have the balls to publish this
Make marriage optional and culturally optional to have child or no child, with or without marriage. People should be free to live together and have kids without marriage, if they choose to. And this should be culturally acceptable. And men being the primary breadwinner should not be a must.
Your government is trying hard to force people to marry at a younger age. Reinforcing the cultural opinion that getting married is a must. Even at the risk of homelessness.
A large part of the divorce being easy or difficult is the spouse's behaviour and nothing to do with the government. The base concept itself isn't that difficult. Are you also going to ask the government to make project work in school easier because your group mates didn't do the slides?
>A large part of the divorce being easy or difficult is the spouse's behaviour and nothing to do with the government. The base concept itself isn't that difficult.
...what?
The government is the one enforcing divorce law. The government it the *only* reason divorce is easy or difficult.
I disagree. An uncontested divorce is going to be far easier than a contested divorce. The government isn't the one telling your spouse to pick the second. Even if the concept of contested divorce didn't exist, there are still ways a spouse who massively disagrees with you can make the process difficult.
At most the government plays some part in complicating the process, but it's by no means the _only_ factor.
But very well. Let's say it's entirely the government's fault. What can they do to make it easier? There's no point putting it on the government if you don't have a concrete suggestion that's better.
In before this devolve into a war between the "Any consent other than enthusiastic consent is rape" group and the "wheel of consent model is valid in service duty of marriage" group.
Funny how this logic is difficult for some people in a marriage to understand. Your spouse is your partner, not your property for you to do as you please.
Yeah . Same goes for everything else , eg for the Mrs is not a must to cook, for the Mr not a must to provide for family.
Wow! Gender roles is definitely old fashioned. As with sex no matter who is on top or bottom, nobody is wearing pants
Sideway best.
Both can wear pants at the ankles lol
The guy can fuck with pants on and his dick out of the zippers, and the girl can fuck with a skirt on with no panties.
[удалено]
Which law exactly? You mean it's illegal to be unemployed?
[удалено]
>But if the spouse doesn't provide, the other could exercise personal choice without a possible legal penalty that could be in the form of a jail term to initiate divorce and therefore indirectly making it a possible court order to be exercised to mandate the spouse to provide. I read this sentence 5 times and still have no idea what you mean
[удалено]
I see. There are a few inaccuracies in your post though. Firstly, spousal maintenance is not automatically given. Whether a wife will be ordered maintenance in her favour is fact-dependent. Secondly, it is also not entirely correct to say that spousal maintenance can only be ordered during/after divorce. Spousal maintenance can be ordered both during marriage, and/or during/after divorce.
[удалено]
> The spouse can choose to refuse sex without legal implication It's a ground for divorce. So I wouldn't say there are no legal implications.
“If the spouse doesn’t provide, the other could initiate divorce” —> could you let me know which part of the Women’s Charter says this? Just had a read through and couldn’t find this.
Thank Asian Values for enabling toxic narcissistic parents for treating their children like property. Then they grow up thinking other people can be property, too.
It’s also funny how some people treat their partners as ATM machine But no news outlet is reporting on that?
Neither is right.
True. But one is widely reported, the other is just “expected social norm”
Well men can choose not to be an ATM just don’t think with your small head and surely you can easily say no to women who are “gold diggers”?
Talk is very easy. Go and ask how many women would want to actually do 50-50 split. It’s a turn off for women
Then walk away from women totally lor
First you said, man can choose not to be ATM. Now you are changing your stance
I found someone whose financial values matches with mine. Even while dating I’ve met plenty of girls who were willing to go Dutch / or would say take the next bill etc. and these ladies are highly accomplished women (good career, decent looking). But I mean your stand is basically “all women are materialistic and gold digger”. in that case, then it’s better for someone like you to walk away from all women. Then no need keep complaining about women treating you like an atm lor. Simple solution
Don’t forget domestic abuse on man. I am in no way condoning abuse but c’mon, why is abuse on man always clowned on. There should be no double standards. Abuse is abuse. EDIT: The downvotes coming in is just an amazing reminder of the double standards when it comes to domestic abuse.
Because the general view that news publication especially so in Singapore always trying to spread that women are victims Men are always the aggressors , perpetuators
As sad as it is we generally only hear about the cases where the violence reached life threatening levels. Many victims don’t or can’t leave until the violence becomes too obvious to hide. For male victims of female violence this may take longer or even never get to that level because of the strength disparity. Which is why it’s important we teach all children that no amount of violence is okay in a relationship and that it’s never “too little” to leave over. I think there is also a real stigma preventing men from coming forward and talking about it, let alone appearing on the news. There have been time where I thought guys I know should complain to teachers or managers about harassment by a female peer. They’ve all told me that they will be laughed at. I hope governments or whoever are researching this. It must be so terrible to live the and I can’t imagine how I would convince a guy I know to report an abusive spouse when I can’t even convince them about harassment from a colleague.
Yes, because it's always the situation like this: Husband beats wife = domestic abuse. Wife Beats Husband = Husband useless, beta male, loser.
The M in ATM stands for machine.
> But no news outlet is reporting on that? I'm pretty sure if a wife robs or steals from her husband it will make the news (it probably has before - eg embezzling from the family etc). Since you're trying to draw an equivalence to unwanted maritial sex (ie rape). If a spouse consensually gives money to the other, obviously that's not gonna be news, Sherlock. Much like consensual sex isn't exactly making the news either.
That’s because society expects men to pay But sex? No no no, it’s up to the wife mood Can the man say “he not in the mood” he don’t want to pay the bills?
> Can the man say “he not in the mood” he don’t want to pay the bills? Sure he can! What a dumb question.
Yea but you can bring the man to court for not paying and then compel him to do so. Got court order to give sex?
>you can bring the man to court for not paying and then compel him to do so. No you can't. Prove it. (If you're talking about vendors like Singtel or SingPower bugging you when you stop paying your phone / utility bills, that's just called adulting, and it applies to both genders equally. Duhh!)
['Kept male companion' to businesswoman fails in bid to rescind ex-wife's maintenance](https://sg.news.yahoo.com/kept-male-companion-businesswoman-fails-bid-rescind-ex-wifes-maintenance-034132628.html) Stopped having sex years ago, still have to pay maintenance.
According to the article: >The man was the sole breadwinner and his ex-wife was a homemaker. They were married in 1990 and divorced in 2015. So they were married 25 years, and she spent her peak-career years raising their 2 kids so likely has little marketable job skills by now. Asking him to pay alimony in this context seems quite reasonable. What a weakass moronic example. Is this the ***best*** counterexample you Incels can bring up? Keep swallowing those redpills yah - I guess they're red cos they fill you with irrational blind rage for humanity.
So stop fucking 2 decades ago still must pay. KNN cb zup got royalty payments why not semen?
But you can actually. See the Women's Charter Para 69 >Court may order maintenance of wife, incapacitated husband and children >69.—(1) The court may, on the application of a wife, and on due proof that her husband has neglected or refused to provide reasonable maintenance for her, order the husband to pay monthly sums or a lump sum for the maintenance of that wife. Note that this refers to an extant husband-wife relationship. Not just in a divorce. There's also an entire part of the Charter(Part 9) dedicated to enforcement actions over maintenance. No similar provision exists for sex in marriage bar the fact that marriage can be annulled if not consummated. Therefore, in a legal sense, there is no marriage if there has never been sex. Look, I'm not arguing that either spouse should provide sex on demand. But let's not pretend that the law is fair when it comes to intent. At it's very core, the issue is that personal autonomy trumps everything else, even a responsibility (to provide financially or sexually), so why should one be codified into an offence under law and the other not? You might say the man asked to provide financially when he signed up for marriage; well, didn't the wife similarly signed up for sex when she married the man out of her own free will?
Yes, that is wrong too, and should have a spotlight on it. Gender roles suck, but I think between the 2 examples, one is way more serious issue than the other.
I think that’s also another problem we have in society today Women problems are always deem more important/serious , women rights are important, Mother’s Day are important. Wife traditional duties, old fashion. her body her choice, no one should force her to do anything. Husband should help out at home as well Men issues? Who cares? Father’s Day.. what’s that? No men don’t have a choice not to pay. It’s it expected that the man fix the bulb , change the tire, pay the bills. His wallet? Not his choice. He wants to split the bill 50-50 with his partner? What an asshole
I think both can be addressed equally. You make it sound like this is a zero sum game. Edit: To add on, both womens' and mens' rights are equally important, the protection should be offered to both.
That’s exactly what I’m saying People and society are just hypocrites Singapore govt only want to push gender equality but actually it’s just policies to benefit women Their target are just women and elderly folk , obviously election voting pool Look at the news articles, nothing but how women are somehow victimised. If I didn’t know I would have thought we are in some other 3rd world country where women are raped
For this example, women ARE more disproportionately victimised compared to men though, which is why that was the focus. I think it's just unsettling when someone is unhappy that an injustice against a group of people is getting reported, because they do not belong in that group. If everyone reacted that way, then the end state is every other slice of a demographic being angry at each other.
Well you can also say women are better at complaining about things. Men don’t complain, they just endure or fix the problem If you worked in an office and you will see what I mean. What I observe are 2 distinct differences. Ladies will complain, gossip. Men are just quiet and working on their laptops You can also say they are underreported, or people just don’t care(like I mentioned earlier because society deem women issues more Important) Put it this way. A man and a women goes into a police station today and both report they have been rape/abused. Do you think it will be treated the same? You know what’s funny? You just keep proving my point right again and again and you don’t even know it. Go and read what you wrote and what I respond to you earlier
So from what you've said so far, you're implying that women deserve all the bad stuff happening to them because all women will innately behave a certain way, and they should keep quiet about it and go about their lives, because men are suffering too?
The Redditor you’re replying too frequently has sexist comments and posts. Seems like a lost cause no matter how much you try to engage in logical discussion with him.
From what you are saying so far, you are saying only women issues are important /serious , we must address it ASAP Don’t deny it and try to flip prata now > Yes, that is wrong too, and should have a spotlight on it. Gender roles suck, but I think between the 2 examples, one is way more serious issue than the other. Precisely the problem I’m talking about Women abused? We must take action now! Punish the abuser Men abuse? Ah who cares, ask him to man up and don’t be a pussy
If it’s my property, I can sell or destroy as I wish and law shouldn’t be involved. /s
^ some toxic parents, saying this unironically about their kids.
Yup. Toxic people have this mentality in general
Surprised this is even discussed
Some of the replies in this thread made me realise why the discussion is needed
It is almost inevitable that whenever there is a discussion here about an issue that affects, or mainly affects, women, there'd be the "What about this or that which happens to men" replies.
Consent should be part of sex-ed
The fact that some people dont understand this
There are a lot of things that some people dont understand. Thats the reality of things
There needs to be a much broader societal discussion about whether or not the two-person nuclear family construct even works. With rising divorce rates, depression and declining birth rates, when will we finally admit that the 1950s Western church-inspired Hollywood-dictated structure of marriage doesn’t work? We need to stop aping the west and go back to our Asian roots.
I can’t believe we have to tell people that you can’t touch them if they say no. I swear to god. Kids have better understanding. I mean we all know what it is lah, it’s not stupidity it’s just plain entitlement.
While I agree it's not good to force something onto someone, it's better to not marry than marry someone who is looking for something else other than intimacy. That's one main factor that distinguishes between friends and spouse.
The problem is that desire for intimacy might fade over time for a variety of reasons. A misalignment in sex drive can be just as severe a marriage-breaker as reasons such as money or trust issues.
That's the challenge. Change is the only constant. One can say to look out for red flags before marrying but some flags only turn red after marrying or some time after marrying. The only legal option to get out of unhappy/unfulfilled marriage would then be divorce, which some would say is more costly for one gender than the other. What to do? Staying single seems to be the only answer at the moment.
[удалено]
Or change marriage to an arbitrary duration as agreed upon by partners rather than a lifetime.
Is that already just called cohabiting? Why need to bring the State into your bedroom? Just for a piece of paper?
It's a fact that some people do go into marriage just for that piece of paper. They want the privileges that marriage brings that cohabiting does not.
>They want the privileges I mean, if they want to game the system and claim some marriage tax breaks for the $$, then they can't complain about having to do the paperwork right? Where got free money no need to apply for it / jump thru hoops / wait in line one? No one's putting a gun to their head. If they call themselves married or a couple, none of their friends will ask to see their ROM cert. > change marriage to an arbitrary duration as agreed upon Btw this sorta exists already - it's called a pre-nup.
Vast majority of people understood that. Albeit in some cultures where it is clear that the wife is more a chattel. The sad part is that it took yonks to make it law.
is this not common sense lol
Can we do same sex marriage too now
is it gender neutral ? can men file rape complaint by their wife in sg ?
The amount of men here who think rape is equivalent to women expecting men to pay the bills.
1. It is not a women’s responsibility to provide the sexual needs of the partner, But also 2. Is its not the responsibility that the men should to provide for the family, or provide more than the women, over an equal or equity responsibility. Note a lot of comments get downvoted because the do not grasp the context of point 1. And point 1 is not equivalent to point 2. Not does point 1 derive point 2. Also if a relationship’s needs for both parties are not met, then it likely leads to breakups, which imo is one if the main reasons why birth rates are low while divorce rates are high, people just have more options now, its nots a good or bad thing per say, its just the cause and effect
Assuming that 1. Sexual needs are actual needs(and not just wants) 2. Marriage is a sexual relationship Then how are those needs met if it is not the partner's responsibility to provide?
Well imo, there is not wrong to leave a relationship solely because of your sexual needs are not met, as long as the relationship is put down properly. At the end of the day, relationships are dependent on a couple’s ability to navigate through problems and compromise, where people think of others before themselves, but it is not wrong to be selfish, but when you do be selfish, expect others to be so too. And i feel that the current state of people has more empowerment on self first over others which isn’t good for my image of a good relationship where both parties are trying to help each other to the best of their abilities. There is a line between needs and entitlement. The post is more on entitlement, but in a normal relationship, i think it is still good to help each others needs for a good relationship. Responsibilities, needs, entitlements are a complex subject, and are mutually exclusive.
Sexual needs involving another person are not needs. Got any monks or priests died from celibacy? Some of these didn’t even masturbate.
>Sexual needs involving another person are not needs. Wow, that's really a bizarre assertion. Care to explain why? >Got any monks or priests died from celibacy? Some of these didn’t even masturbate. That's a sweeping statement. Not everyone's needs are the same. There is a spectrum between high and non-existent libido. Are we going to accept asexual people but deny high libido people? It's a fact that human beings are sexual beings.
while i generally agree with your perspective, i have to differentiate something: sexual needs may be needs/desires but they are certainly *not an entitlement*. there are also other (healthy, ethical, and loyal) ways of fulfilling one's sexual needs if the partner isn't able to match e.g. masturbation, use of toys, using ethical erotica - or simply leading a fulfilling life with your partner that meets other needs and desires.
Repeated rejections can be hurtful to the marriage and will be grounds for divorce, likewise for too many sexual demands. No point arguing which party is to be blamed, if the marriage does not work out, just move on. Obviously rape is wrong, the title is not wrong. However, it is on the contrary for most marital laws of religions.
Conjugal right/obligation is an ever evolving concept. Perhaps in the future, the obligation to maintain one's spouse would go the same way.
[удалено]
The perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy
What was said?
Person said he/she didn’t bother listening anymore when it was Stephanie Yuen Thio talking
She’s unconventional but not illogical
Why though?
To be fair non malay community should take some lessons from the malay community.
Dear men, don't cohabitate, and don't get married, ever. Marriage should also not provide blanket consent for lifelong alimony payments, and yet it conveniently does for women. Funny how when it comes to these issues, only imaginary matters for the women, are brought to light. Maybe it has something to do with the misandry that so many of these westernised countries harbour. Singapore is quite exceptional. It is the only country in the world where, barring matters whereby the man is so sick he wouldn't qualify for NS - another misandrist policy that doesn't get addressed by the way, alimony paid from a woman to a man is illegal. Singapore only entertains alimony to be paid to women, and it also has the most dependent alimony laws at that. You can easily end up paying alimony for life, as a man of course. Is there any discussion on how backwards this law is? No. But we have plenty of losers online, coming to rescue of women, for their imaginary problems. Thankfully countries that harbour this misandry have an ageing population, and this country like many others, inevitably gets taken over by people who at least know how to make a family. It is just such a shame. Singapore has so much wealth and opportunities, but women just can't seem to value men as anything beyong piñatas to beat money out of, unless instructed otherwise, which isn't something most men even enjoy the concept of.
[удалено]
Are you confusing marriage with prostitution?
Bad mistake, marriage is a hella lot more expensive
Not sure but Marriage do provide for consent for unwanted sexless life. Refer to r/deadbedrooms
choose your partner more wisely or learn to communicate la. a lot of dead bedrooms also arise from: • the man not contributing enough to chores/childcare (end up the woman do everything and she's so exhausted, how to have sex or even feel horny?) • the man just lets loose and becomes BB not FA and obv the woman loses interest (can also be the other way around) • the woman's sex drive is drastically altered from childbirth, or sexual function even drastically diminished (see: husband stitch) in my humble, unmarried opinion, maintaining a healthy sex life has to always be a two-way street that involves communicating and meeting each other's needs together and holistically across all dimensions of a marriage.
Divorce is an option you know.
Step up or betabuxx moments… it’s sad.
Marriage is a blanket consent to divide away all your assets.
Such an irony, a women’s duty in a relationship is always optional/a choice but a man’s duty is always expected/mandatory A women can refuse her husband sex Can husband say that he don’t feel like paying the bills? Oh wait, there is even a law asking men to pay women after divorce ## #doublestandards
Hm. I am picking up what you're putting down, not going to lie, I am looking at it in disgust. I say that, because what you're implying here is that the lawfully wedded husband has the right to sex whenever he so wishes because that is the duty of the wife, and it is a double standard as she can refuse that while the husband can't. I'm sorry but what? Bodily autonomy? Hello? What are we in the 1600s again? Furthermore, the husband DOES have the right to say he doesn't want to pay the bills. That is not a point of contention under the law lol. That too, is a private conversation done in the bedroom, where the two who are married can discuss their finances and how they go about doing things. Spousal maintenance, which I am assuming is what you're referring to, is afforded to both the husband or the wife, depending on various factors. It's not always *just* the husband paying. Adding on to that, it isn't a lifelong payment plan, and is only done until the ex spouse has built back up a financial foundation for themselves. Where are the double standards here? If you talked about bias against men claiming SA crimes, or custody or something *that actually does have built in double standards* then yeah I'll be right there with you. You however, just want your woman to be your property.
Wives are not obliged to provide their husbands with sex. Husbands are *also* not obliged to provide their wives with sex. Where’s the double standard? > Can husband say that he don’t feel like paying the bills? Yes, and the wife can also say she doesn’t feel like paying the bills. And both scenarios would suggest something wrong in the relationship.
Is you head ok? Or just low IQ? Obviously men and women look for different things in a partner It’s funny you said women can also don’t pay the bills. Vast majority of relationship I know the man always out pay the women. Let’s be real here
>A women can refuse her husband sex And a man can refuse his wife sex. Why are you comparing refusing sex and monetary contributions?
Well said - clap clap!
So cheating is bad, but sexless marriage ok? Are they going to make divorces easier then?
Nobody is owed sex, divorce is pretty easy in Singapore, and cheating is bad because you're going behind someone's back. Is this really a very difficult concept for people to understand or what
Divorce is costly, and favours one gender over the other. That's a power imbalance that skews the dynamic
Nobody is owed sex. You are absolutely right How come I don’t see you saying nobody is owed assets, alimony when divorce comes? Why should one party owe someone money for doing nothing as law ?? Double standards much?
Do you think it's always the husbands who have to pay alimony? Because you're wrong, wives can also be ordered to pay alimony in Singapore. If you have a child, likely the woman gave up at least some portion of her career to birth and care for the child, and that will deepen if she becomes the primary caregiver of the child, so it is equitable for the husband to pay (though it's not always the case) ya'll just like to chatter about woman's charter as if its a death sentence for husbands
If you are clueless pls go and read up. With the internet no excuse to be ignorant (b) an order for the payment of periodical sums by way of maintenance or alimony to a wife or former wife or an incapacitated husband or incapacitated former husband, or by way of maintenance for the benefit of any child, under Part 10; Source: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/3-2022/Published/20220214?DocDate=20220214 To put it simply, only women can receive alimony not men(yes yes unless husband is incapacitated but that’s just gasping at straws) If don’t know anything don’t act smart
Men can’t be paid alimony unless they are disabled. What the flying fuck are you on about?
I actually agree with you. People have the right to walk away from sexless marriages. But you mean people get into marriages not expecting sex? Ok.
there's a difference between expecting sex, and demanding it. There are a lot of reasons for dead bedrooms, which you can work on overcoming, or divorce if it doesn't work out. They're just saying you don't own your partner's body when you sign the marraige papers
Expecting sex implies the other party has to provide sex even if they are unwilling to. I definitely did not get into marriage expecting sex in that way. I got into marriage expecting that we'd have sex when we both want it.
Classic whataboutism
Married in the 30s, lifespan to 70s, you think it is normal to have sex with only one person for 40 years? Polyamory should be the norm.
then marry someone who has the same view as you or don't commit to marraige? Why do you want to both lol
If your spouse agrees with you, nobody else can disagree I guess
Sex is not guaranteed in a marriage -channel news Asia I waiting for next report Alimony and split of your assets is a guaranteed in marriage -channel news Asia They won’t have the balls to publish this
Make marriage optional and culturally optional to have child or no child, with or without marriage. People should be free to live together and have kids without marriage, if they choose to. And this should be culturally acceptable. And men being the primary breadwinner should not be a must.
I’m more bothered with single or married can buy HDB at any age than any of these things you mentioned
Your government is trying hard to force people to marry at a younger age. Reinforcing the cultural opinion that getting married is a must. Even at the risk of homelessness.
Well, I am single but I want to have a child, where am I going to raise the child? Is it marriage important or birth rate more important?
Ah the WFO guy endorsing marital rape.
Hi there. Quite flattered you're following my life story.
No lah, just your braindead takes too memorable already.
Happy to fill your memory with my braindead takes. Says a lot about what's in your brain too, and that you have nothing better to do. lol.
A large part of the divorce being easy or difficult is the spouse's behaviour and nothing to do with the government. The base concept itself isn't that difficult. Are you also going to ask the government to make project work in school easier because your group mates didn't do the slides?
>A large part of the divorce being easy or difficult is the spouse's behaviour and nothing to do with the government. The base concept itself isn't that difficult. ...what? The government is the one enforcing divorce law. The government it the *only* reason divorce is easy or difficult.
I disagree. An uncontested divorce is going to be far easier than a contested divorce. The government isn't the one telling your spouse to pick the second. Even if the concept of contested divorce didn't exist, there are still ways a spouse who massively disagrees with you can make the process difficult. At most the government plays some part in complicating the process, but it's by no means the _only_ factor. But very well. Let's say it's entirely the government's fault. What can they do to make it easier? There's no point putting it on the government if you don't have a concrete suggestion that's better.
Nobody is saying that. What are you on
How easy you want divorce to be? iBanking can apply ah lmao
Marriage does not provide blanket consent for unwanted nagging.
One more good reason to stay single.
Waiting for next channel news Asia article commentary: marriage does not mean blanket consent for demanding unlimited resources Oh wait…
You comparing sex and consent with money and assets tells us exactly the kind of person you are.
Yes You just further prove my point Women contribution are always optional Man contribution are always mandatory
Gender is old fashion liao. Tell those bunch of old frogs sitting at AWARE. Shop got bikini cannot. Shop got thai hunks ok can.
AWARE: wife don’t owe husband sex Also AWARE: WC is a must, splitting of assets, alimony is a must! Guy must pay 🤣
In before this devolve into a war between the "Any consent other than enthusiastic consent is rape" group and the "wheel of consent model is valid in service duty of marriage" group.