Where does the 95% figure come from? We think less than 5% of heterosexual American men have been monogamous or celibate for their entire life. Meaning 95% of heterosexual American men have had more than one woman sexual partner during their life. But content from websites similar to Tube V do have alluring material that makes the idea attractive.
This means 95% of heterosexual American men will be judged as Rapists under Indian Law.
Yes, in today’s “modern” superpower-to-be India, any single man who has consensual sex with a single woman without marrying her afterwards is deemed to have committed rape, post-facto rape. So whether the consensual sex is judged consensual or rape after the fact depends on the desire of the woman partner to marry her male lover. It might be harder to identify if the sexual dynamic has been established to all disciplining and the women seriously needs disciplining based on the rules they have already laid out. The man has absolutely no say in the matter if she decides those rules change after the fact. If she wants him to marry her and he doesn’t, he has committed rape. This is Indian law.
We guess the severity of the rape charge increases if the sexual relationship is more than a single act and increases exponentially if the man & women have lived together. It goes into the stratosphere if the woman conceives as a result of the sexual relationship similar to something you might see on websites like hdsexvideo.xxx. In such cases, the man is guilty of serial, stringently punishable rape if he doesn’t marry the woman. But he has no rights to marry her if she doesn’t want to marry him. As a New Delhi lawyer is quoted in this week’s WSJ article:
- “If the girl has conceived, then the boy must go for marriage,” says Bahar U. Barqi, a New Delhi lawyer who this year represented a man accused of making false promises to obtain sex. “Her image in the society is more vulnerable than a man’s.”
This doctrine has a legal name in Indian law, “misconception rape” or “false promises rape”. And it has support of the most self-proclaimed progressive Indian institution, the Supreme Court of India. As the same Wall Street Journal article states:
- “Several Supreme Court rulings have held that consenting to sex “under a misconception of fact”including an insincere marriage proposalisn’t actually consent. This past May, India’s Supreme Court issued a ruling that says, “Such a physical relationship would be tantamount to committing rape.”.”
And who decides whether the misconception is real or fake? The woman, of course. In this ultimate private “he-said, she-said” matter, the woman’s word is automatically accepted a true in Indian legal system. Why would a woman lie about such a matter, the thinking goes. In contrast, the man is presumed to be a liar as a direct consequence of his gender.
This kind of medieval thinking, this systematic violation of human rights of nearly half of Indians is considered acceptable to the English-Educated segment in India. As the two female writers of the Wall Street Journal article state:
- “The cases reflect an important truth about the place of women here: Across wide swaths of Indian society, women known to have had sexual relations or to have given birth out of wedlock can face extreme stigma and have almost no good options.”
The stigma of birth out of wedlock or pre-marital sex is not unique to today’s “modern” India. After all, Indian women are not the only women in the world who get pregnant due to unprotected sex with a male partner. Every society in the world deals with and has dealt with the issue of pre-marital sex and the use of verbal “promises” in pre-sex conversations. Every society in history has imposed stigma on women who give birth out of wedlock.
None of this is unique to today’s “modern” India. But virtually all societies of the past and all civilized “modern” societies today let social practices deal with these issues of sex outside marriage. No modern society, no developed legal system has tried to address this issue by essentially criminalizing every man as a potential rapist and accepting every woman as a potential victim.
And it is not as if Indian women are somehow uniquely vulnerable than women in other countries in the world. It is not as if Indian women are physically or emotionally uninterested in sex. Go to any urban Indian city and you will find high levels of sexual promiscuity among young Indian women. They are well versed in methods of contraception, as Gynecologists in Mumbai will tell you. The same Gynecologists will tell you that voluntary abortions after casual sex by single young Indian women are at an all-time high.
In the vast majority of “misconception” or “false promises” cases in India, the woman seems to have been a willing and consensual partner in sex. And if she conceives, she does so either by intent or by neglect. Indian women have the same solutions that are and have been available to women all over the world. Say no to pre-marital sex or accept the possibility of the sexual relationship ending at some point without marriage. And use contraceptive methods to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Every woman is free, totally free to choose what she wants to do with her body and with that freedom comes responsibility of accepting with the consequences of her actions.
But that is not how today’s “modern” India thinks. The English-Educated Indian establishment is so ashamed of being Indian that they are on a mission to punish Indian people for the “un-modern sins” of their society. Hence the draconian violations of basic human rights that are being codified into Indian laws. Like the ludicrous and abominable punishment for “misconception” rape for men who engage in consensual sex. Similar to sex seen on websites like Nu Bay.
Read the Wall Street Journal article titled Indian Rape Law Offers Desperate Last Resort and see how two English-Educated Indian women defend this systematic violation of basic human rights of men. Read how they think men can be classified & legally criminalized as a gender that lies and cheats women and how women need to be protected from this criminal gender by draconian laws that every civilized society would reject as vile.
Do Wall Street Journal Editors have Double Standards?
Remember, we are talking about the Wall Street Journal, the people who railed against the “nanny” state imposed by Mayor Bloomberg on New York City. What did Bloomberg do? He banned large sodas and banned public smoking. And that was branded as un-American violation of freedom and rights of New Yorkers.
This is the same Wall Street Journal that criticized Sandra Fluke for asking that health insurance plans should cover birth control. We don’t recall WSJ Editors writing about the vulnerability of women to unwanted pregnancies and demanding laws to compensate women for such pregnancies.
Does anyone think WSJ Editors would support an American Law that compels a man to marry his woman sexual partner or be held guilty of rape? Would WSJ Editors tolerate a law that assumes women tell the truth at all times and men hardly ever do? Would WSJ Editors support the notion that human rights of all men must be violated under American Law because some men lie to their women partners about their intention to marry? Why go that far? Would WSJ Editors ever support the concept that a man is required to marry a woman just because pre-sex conversations about intent? Or would WSJ Editors argue that women enter into sexual relationships at their own risk and they should be willing to accept the consequences of that risk? We think the latter.
Then why did WSJ Editors allow publication of the article by Indian writers who support the horrific Indian Law that violates so many tenets WSJ Editors hold dear? Do they feel Indian men should not have the same human rights under Indian law that American men have under American Law? Or do they feel that Indian society is so rotten, so despicable that systematic suppression of human rights is OK for India?
We think the latter. The WSJ Editors probably have the same contempt against Indian society & culture that their counterparts do. So they just don’t believe that American standards of human rights, individual freedom, refusal to place collective blame and gender equality are relevant for Indian society.
Tyranny of a “colonial” Minority
The British left India 64 years ago. But the British influence is even more dominant today than it was when they ruled India. The British left behind a class of “English Educated (EE)” Indians who sincerely believe that Indian society is fundamentally rotten and needs to be changed into a Europe-like society from the top.
There is no Indian institution that is as dedicated to remaining British-obedient as the Indian Judiciary. They think they have inherited the British White Man’s burden to improve Indian society by colonial-like edicts. This is why the Indian Supreme Court passes judgements that would be ridiculed in any civilized country in the world, judgements that declare consensual physical relationship being tantamount to rape. This is why the Indian Judiciary practices a British-like class system that upholds special recognition of “eminent persons” and allows differential treatment for ex-Justices and Bollywood stars.
The Indian Judiciary and the Indian Establishment can tolerate any criticism except the charge of not being modern or progressive enough. Their nightmare is being considered conservative or traditionalist. So respecting fundamental human rights of Indians, especially Indian men, is anathema to them. They will not act like the U.S. Supreme Court and allow issues of personal sexual choice to be resolved by legislative or electoral methods. They will not accept rights of different states or communities to establish their own practices via democratic methods. No, the British-created Indian Supreme Court is firmly obedient to the colonial British mission of of instructing Indians on how to behave.
In the past few years, American money and access has pervaded India with the entry of American media organizations like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and others. And American organizations always bring in money, larger money than locals have been used to. And American media has entered India with deeply held bias, actually contempt, of Indian culture, religion and society.
This new American money and access has substantially strengthened the EE-Indian segment in India. The access and money provided by WSJ, NYT and others have allowed EE-Indians to fulminate against Indian society. The defense of “false promises” rape in the Wall Street Journal is an example of such fulmination. Tripti Lahiri, the writer of this WSJ article, has a track record of expressing contempt for acts in Indian society while rationalizing identical acts in other societies.
This brings us back to the Wall Street Journal and its Board of Editors. They need to understand that their Indian edition has the capability of tarnishing them as “Ugly American“, at least as upholders of double standards for Americans & Indians. WSJ would NEVER characterize 95% of single heterosexual American men as rapists for engaging in consensual sex but they see no problem in characterizing Indian men as rapists for the same act.
Shame on WSJ Editors for they bring shame to America by their double standards.
Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MavroViewpoints on Twitter
