According to Jeffrey , one can't have one's cake and eat it too. What a glorious oversimplification of marriage. Basically, if two people get married they have to put up with each other's little quirks, even if that includes sociopathic behaviour.

One of the main things Jeffrey ignores is that there is a the built-in inequality to sex. It is nearly impossible and virtually unheard of for a woman to force a man to have sex against his will.

If he is too tired, if he is ill, if he is no longer attracted to her because of changes in his or her body, if sex has become uncomfortable or painful, if she refuses to use contraception even if it means they might have another child he can't cope with (and he isn't even the one nature requires to carry the child around in his body for nine months and whom society puts the burden of raising), if sex means putting himself at risk of contracting a fatal disease because he knows she sleeps around, even if he is simply being manipulative, he can just say no.

Women, however, can and often are forced to have sex. Even by their husbands. Women use sex to manipulate their husbands? Maybe some do. But some husbands also use sex as a weapon. They use it not just to satisfy their sexual urges, but like your run-of-the-mill rapists, they use it to hurt and humiliate.

Jeffrey's concept of marriage is dreary (men who care more about their own urges than of their wives' needs and wives who would like nothing better than to throw their own husbands in jail on fabricated charges).

Sex is not the only basis for marriage. Why does Jeffrey think that the preference not to have sex, once or ever again, is enough of a basis to destroy the family unit? Yes, sex is important, but if one of a couple is no longer interested, there may be larger issues to explore and perhaps even to solve with communication or therapy. The grunting caveman approach is not the only way.

The tired old argument against laws that protect women is 'what if the women use it against poor, innocent men?' This is backed up by Jeffrey's frivolous scenario.

Even he must realise that a woman who is so concerned about waking her children that she submits to sex against her will, is probably not the kind of woman who would try to send her children's father to prison for the same offence. The sad fact is that most rapes still go unreported.

This is because we have trouble getting the courts and police to enforce the few laws that are already in place to protect us, even with outside testimony and proof. Reporting rape, let alone proving rape, is extraordinarily difficult for any woman.

A woman who is brave enough to come forward is often humiliated several times by doctors, policemen and the courts. The process has been compared with being raped a second time.

In this country, the burden of proof is entirely hers, much to the glee of thousands of Malaysian rapists. How do you prove it? How do you prove lack of consent?

If a man's wallet gets stolen he doesn't have to prove that he hadn't simply agreed to give it to the thief. On the other hand, a woman's generosity with sex is taken for granted. If a man says a woman wanted it, the court of men will usually believe him.

Even if we had the marital law on our side, chances are the courts would still believe that a wife's body belongs to her husband, as Jeffrey seems to. Chances are she would be just as ridiculed, disbelieved and humiliated, if not more, than a woman raped by a stranger.

So why are the laws even there? Why bother?

Because the fight for women's rights has always been one of baby steps. It took the courts 10 years to feel that a man does not have the right to pummel a woman, blacken her eyes or break her bones simply because he's married to her.

With few women and even less men taking up the cause, victories are small and infrequent, but the brave few who fight for them care if it helps prevent even one woman's nightmare.

Those who oppose laws that would protect women often do so because they wish to preserve a system that protects men. Laws that give men an advantage above and beyond the ones enjoyed due to nature and society. For some reason they argue against something that would give women a fighting chance?

Yes, it is true that vocal feminists are a minority. And bless them for speaking out for the rest of us.