In reading through all the different letters that have come in debating on the pros and cons of regulating marital rape , the question that arises as to how one proves marital rape could be transposed to how one would prove date rape.

How would a woman prove that she has been raped by a long-time boyfriend if he uses drugs to render her senseless each time? How would a woman, who confesses to incestuous rape after having tolerated that for many years, prove her case, if the perpetrator and family members chose to deny the existence of such incidences?

We all agree that it is very difficult to regulate the behaviour of humankind, laws are imperfect tools for doing so. Perhaps what we need to look at is preventive measures, and how do we do that? By looking back at the male-female relationships through centuries and how an equilibrium could be achieved with proper education and values.

While I would not deny that more women are more empowered today (a tired argument, no?), this is not the case in many parts of the world, and definitely not even in Malaysia. Many women, including educated ones, often bow to pressures of traditions, and often without even understanding the history or origin.

One must not forget what marriage used to be. It used to be not what people will do for love, and this was the case up to the middle of the 20th century (and even until today in many parts of the world), with the exception of those with more progressive parents or those who chose to elope.

Since this has been the case for centuries, why not bring back arranged marriages? After all, it has always been that. Wasn't there an argument that used to be bandied about, saying that there were less divorces when people did not marry for love?

In the past, consummation of marriages allowed husbands the ability to 'test' the 'goods' he has 'bought'. As marriages in the past were not for love, but for the sake of perpetuating lineage, for the inheritance of wealth and all cold and calculating business that humans would engage in, how different is it today?

For centuries, institution of marriage was and still is for the protection of the disenfranchised, particularly the more vulnerable women and the progenies of such union. In patriarchal cultures of the past (and today), women who married into another family were seen as a chattel of the family she married into, her rights often ignored, which often translates to her having to be at beck and call of the husband and family, especially in providing sexual services to the former. In other words, her position is little better than that of a female slave.

But it seems that the suffrages fight for equality entirely escaped the mind of some Malaysian men when they deem that sex is an inviolable right and the man has every right to command it, as opposed to achieving the union through mutual love and understanding.

They see it as a place to get 'free sex' as opposed to paying for one (no more the need to wine, dine and even pay for the woman). What is the point of the marriage then? Not all religions recognise annulment of marriages despite of non-consummation, nor do all laws in the world have blanket implementation of such laws.

So I do not see how the non-existent of sexual relations would undermine the institution of marriage. Just as childlessness in the marriage.

Why not tackle the problems and woes of the marriage institution at its roots? Instead of pressuring men and women to get married because they are 'getting on' and regardless of whether they are suited to it or not, why not have more educational campaigns, counseling and

information booths to let couples or singles decide whether they are marrying for the right reasons instead of taking the plunge, ill-prepared for the consequences?

If we are to subscribe that marriage, by its very definition, is only for those would wish to propagate, why not have a different kind of civil union for couples who do love each other and want to legalise their relationship (under the law), but do not wish to be 'forced' to propagate.

Criminalising marital rape is different from criminalising sexual relations between husband and wife. It is as fallacious as saying that criminalising rape will lead to the criminalising of all forms of consensual sexual union, even between unmarried couples. If one wants to talk about marital rape, let us have an open discussion on sexuality.

It seems that a number of those who advocate against the implementation of marital rape laws have fallaciously subverted the cause and effect, and have engaged in simplistic acts of induction and deduction.

Instead of raising issues that would have forced those in favour of marital rape laws to question and rethink the justification and implication of their advocacy, they contend themselves with awakening the demons of tired and unproductive arguments, committing the same mistakes as 'Scholasticists' from the medieval period and 'Historicists' of current times.

Of if you want an Eastern example, when certain Asian civilisations closed their doors to others for centuries.