Parliament is set to pass a bill which makes it virtually impossible for consenting adult couples to fall in love and consequently have sex, especially if the man is at a higher position than the woman. The law that is being debated will be passed as it was proposed (as always) and it will have severe repercussions.

I foresee in the future, all men will have no choice but to get the women to sign a pre-romance agreement, followed by a pre-sex agreement, so that they won't be dragged to court should their relationships turns sour. But I am not sure if such written agreements will be binding according to this new law which already has a bias against the men even before the case is heard in court.

Unfortunately, the ridiculousness of the new law is that women have the upper hand. They can claim that they were 'raped' even if they had been married to the men who were their seniors at their place of work. Even after they have become grandparents, should there be a dispute over property later, the women can still claim that they were forced to marry the men who happened to be their seniors when they were younger.

In the end, I foresee women are only getting involved with and marrying men who are of the same educational and job level. I hope the government will take into account the mechanics and psychology of human beings falling in love and getting married and having sex. There is a lot of haggling involved and normally, the men who are persistent will eventually get the women they desire. It often borders on harassment until the woman gives in. And most first sexual encounters happen on instinct and sometimes are initiated by the women.

Legally, according to the new law, a man now can be charged for raping a woman if she so decides, now that the court seem bent on convicting men for rape due to sexual encounters and personal relationships that have gone awry.

Women normally only look up to men who are more successful and earn more than them. I have seen many instances where women from the 'kampung' are married off to men who have doctorates and who had lived many years abroad. Some of them were matched by their parents.

Who can stop these women from saying that they were 'raped' if their marriage turns sour? Especially since their marriages were matched. Can the woman's parents and those of the husbands' be indicted for complicity in the crime?

The only positive side to this law that I can see is that impulsive romance and sexual activity will be seriously curtailed and those who are really serious will have to go the extra mile and get hitched.

And it will also mean that there will be less relationships and marriages between female nurses and male doctors, between female production staff and male factory officials and between female students and male lecturers at the universities.

It has been universally accepted that the men are given the task to pursue the women of their choice, although there are some women who are the predators in targeting men at the discos and pubs and taking them back to their apartments or following them back to their hotel rooms. Yet, in these cases, some of the men had instead been charged with and convicted for rape.

I still remember a case of a Japanese tourist who was sent to jail for nine years for 'raping' a woman whom he had befriended in a bar. The woman approached him and she agreed to go to his hotel room and have sex with him. But she turned around and cried that she was raped, all because she and her husband could not get the Japanese man to pay a certain sum of money to them.

It is one of the laws of nature that is now being debated and it is this law of nature that some of the more aggressive women leaders want to trample on.