To have and to hold: Occasionally

One small step for the Supreme Court, a giant step for abused wives?  That might be how feminists will view the latest Supreme Court decision in People v. Jumawan, which ruled that a husband is not allowed to rape his wife.

I was taken aback when I initially saw the headline of another daily last Friday, which proclaimed "High court rules for first time: husbands can't rape wives".  For a minute there, I thought the good news I had initially heard was wrong, and that husbands, after all, could force sexual intercourse upon their wives.

Then I realized, it had something to do with how the word "can't" was used.  The newspaper meant "cannot" as in the sense that husbands are not going to be able to.  My impression, on the other hand, was that it had meant husbands could not commit the crime of rape if it was their wives that were the object of their dastardly affections.

I devoured the news article, and realized my mistake.  (Or the paper's mistake, which seems a much better conclusion).  Lucky for me I was wrong.  And so now we get to parse the ruling of the court, and figure out exactly what the basis for its enlightened decision was.

Simply put, the Supreme Court ruled that a husband doesn't own his wife.  She's not property (or as they like saying in law books or in other notoriously chauvinist countries, chattel).  She's another human being, for crying out loud.  So, if he wants to use her body, he has to ask for permission from her.  And if she says no, then he has to respect it.  Simple, right?

I can just imagine the scenarios we will encounter moving forward. Wives with an axe to grind, particularly those involved in ugly custody disputes or cheating allegations, will concoct stories about how one drunken night, husband dearie took advantage of their physical weakness and savaged them.

So husbands, better watch out.  Better make sure wifey is in a good mood, and be very, very respectful when requesting for access.  Otherwise, cranky wife might just transform the issue from a simple "not in the mood" affair to a full blown rape case.  (Something the Supreme Court foresaw already when they warned wives with "menacing personalities" against preying on their henpecked husbands.)

Love-making is no longer a marital right.  Shall we say, it is henceforth and forever more, a privilege?  Something to be extended or accorded to the other depending on the moods of the spouses?  Perhaps that is the way we should view sexual congress between spouses.  A matter of daily negotiation, with delicate probings of intents and moods.  Or, a potential minefield which could blow up into a jail sentence.

But what about when the other partner is asleep?  Uh-oh. Ordinarily, that's a rape case right then and there.  Does a man now have to wake up his wife, shake her alert, and then ask for consent?  That's the best recipe for a "no" right there and then.  Unless husband knows a way to wake up the wife in a receptive mood.  If not, then ambushes in the cover of darkness are no longer possible.

It's time to celebrate this ruling, but we should watch out for spouses (and their lawyers) who will capitalize on the ambiguities and potential issues likewise engendered by it. So far, all we have as a guide is, if wife says "no,"  then it means hands off.

If, however, she says "yes," that yes might mean a "no" later on.  If the husband's not careful.  (Evil laugh).