rosemummy:

Women's Charter is meant to sort out the affairs of the couple and their children in the event of divorce or separation. It is not meant to punish the \"wrongdoer\". It's not so straight forward for the court to determine wrongdoing in domestic affairs.

limlim:

Why do we need OWC?


Got this from some forum..
[quote]
Title: Revise Women's Charter so the wronged are not punished
Source: Straits Times
Author:

Legal News Archive

I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Allow men to claim alimony, says ex-NMP'. It is sad to note that the Women's Charter remains unchanged over the years. It was first drafted under social conditions that are totally different from what we see now. Now women are more educated, independent and earn as much as men or more.

A review should be considered, just as the Penal Code was revised not long ago to reflect the current environment.

Recently, my friend decided to end his marriage after he found out his wife had been cheating on him. She was awarded more than half his assets although she makes quite a lot herself.

Does this charter protect the weak or the strong?

Also, alimony should have a time frame attached and not be a life sentence.

I am not biased against women but I hope the Women's Charter will be revised so the wronged are not punished and protection goes to the needy.

Tan Boon Tat

Funz:

rosemummy:

I don't agree with the OWC either. They seem to be treating the wife as a sex slave who need to please her husband so he don't look for other women. To me, both have a role to play. The husband has to start by loving his wife.
Precisely what I am saying. I am disagreeing with OWC and I find their suggestion ridiculous and demeaning. Both to the wife and to the husband. Base on what they have suggested, they are saying men are shallow creatures who are controlled by their carnal urges.

In a way, yes, we are probably not all that different in how we manage our relationship most of the time. But when it comes to the crunch, when it's not possible to compromise, I would submit to my husband. I'm not sure how you handle it, but it didn't matter. The dynamics of every relationship is different. It's fine as long as both of you can work it out to your mutual satisfaction.
Yes again. So long as the couple agrees with what works for them. I do not think any of us here are saying that your believes are not right. In fact I respect and envy your position. 30yrs together and to be able to have absolute faith and trust. I think this, actually, is very freeing. Thing is there will be those of us, for whatever reasons, be it upbringing or past experience or plain ole character, who will find it difficult to do so.

Btw, I'm also a very independent woman. I've no problem leading others, including men who're older than me. But with the man I love, I choose to trust him and submit to him.
No one said otherwise, definitely not me.

And like what Buds said, the discussion is about OWC and what they are promoting. I hope you don't see what I have written as arguing against your believes. It is just a sharing of my thoughts.

buds:

Dearest rosemummy... firstly this is from me.. :hugs:


I want you to know i for one understand where you are coming from. Well at least i hope i do. :xedfingers:

From your writings, i can feel that you exude the pure essence of a strong, confident woman, trusting and genuinely in love, in awe and respect for your other half and definitely not to be mistaken as being subservient. But really, the immense love you guys have for one another has got to do with where you are right now.. with what you have. You are among the fortunate ones.. honest.

I hope you aren't mistaken. Most of us share similar views, just perhaps not as straight forward as yours. For each of are married to a different man. Each of them carry their own individual characters and personalities and they vary on how they exude love, value love and show love.. similarly how they exude leadership & show leadership... and finally how we (the wives) in your own words 'submit' or 'obey' to the man that we've married. In short, how we accept leadership. Not forgetting the duration of each and everyone's marriage... time does make a difference. While it may have been a smooth sailing and almost automatic telepathy btwn what you and your husband have and that unspoken love he has for you and your unspoken submission in reciprocating and understanding to that love, his love and what it stands for... well, not everyone has it that easy.

While it is helpful, it is not a must to have common interests either. Hubs and i are two different people with varying interests. That said, some of the interest grow on us over time. He is also not my soulmate, which i am inclined to believe that your husband is yours and vice versa. In this aspect alone, you are very fortunate.. I also didn't have the pleasure of a long courtship. It does not mean that we can't love one another's differences... that we cannot agree to disagree... over trivial issues of course. Like you've mentioned earlier, each of us lead in our own subtle way and in no way is that kow-towing to one another or kissing the other's feet but in respect for the other as a spouse... as a partner... joined together in the union of marriage.

This thread is honestly not about all these. It is to discuss how insane it is to subject ourselves to the act that demeans us legally married women to the people we love; to the level of prostitutes on the street in the name of love? In the hope of not getting divorced? In the hope that he'd love us even more? :faint:

Men being men... are built differently... from us women. For men who explore pornography as an outlet of fantasy, they need to realize not all women are as perverted as those wu liao and :siao: ones on video. They also do not realize that some of these sluts are pretending on camera.. :roll: ...acting.. seducing, luring, to boggle minds; that WOW.. it can be done? :drool: But where does it stop? This perversion? Let's say, at level one they do this... and at level two the intensity of the perversion increases.. and so on... they get escalated highs until they seek more.. In doing so, when they actually go to bed with the one they've married and realized ehh? How come she doesn't attempt to do it like that babe on tv? How come i don't get it like that lucky dude on tv? That's when the fantasy is being provoked to become reality.. the danger lurks behind every level of these fantasies that aren't being played out in real life.

And so the lure of transgressions slowly begins.. these secret rendezvous.. the high of not being caught.. the secret lives they live.. the varying perverted styles they get at their whim and pleasure.. then it sinks in, ohh the fantasies CAN become reality.

Not only wild men are attracted to fun sex. Not only promiscuous men are lured into the high of one night stands. Good men are tempted too. good men good husbands, good fathers do fall and have fallen trap into the lures of fantasies and promises of sexual ecstasy. I've had to bear witness to so many women in such circumstances, not because they're not pretty, not because they're not competent mothers or the good wives they are. It is sad really..

In reality all of us aren't saints. We're human. It's how we value what we have in the marriage.. for what that marriage means to us (both husband and wife) and how important this marriage is in our lives. You are right, someone will have that unspoken leadership at some point where decisions need to be made. And when it boils down to only one final say, it usually is the stronger and more informed one who gets the ultimate choice of way without animosity. As you've said, the give and take scale weighs in. There are times when we can scream hoh yeah, i support! :rahrah: and at other times one of us WILL give way and not necessarily cause we obey but cos we can listen & acknowledge & know it's the right thing to do. Even if it is not what we necessarily favour or agree to.

Unless of course we have two screaming heads. That's an entirely different story.

There are many many aspects to what you've reason out that i do share affinity with as well. Just to remember tho.. not all men are built the same. You are extremely fortunate to have the one and i can read that you are very happy together and i'm truly very happy for you. Not everyone has had it easy. I'm one of them. Esp since we're (hubs and i) very different in nature, we share different interests, we're brought up by two different families with different kind of family leadership and that it didn't all start out from the seeds of love. We faced a lot of obstacles because we are different. But hey.. we made it this far.

And we are trying to walk closer to that park Funz is walking towards..

We're still trying and we're still learning our languages of love.

BUUUTTT not at that :siao: institute of learning. :dowan:

Sex is not the only pillar that makes a marriage sparkle,
even though well... yeaah.. it sure does help.

30 years and going soo strong, i have only deep respect and awe for you that you and your husband have this profound passion for one another for this long and counting.. i've still got more to work on. Hopefully i'm on the right track... without having hubs applying for me to undergo tutelage in that club. *gulp*

And finally, one more :hugs: for you.. I hope i did not offend you in any way. Just to steer the discussion back to what this :stupid: club promotes and not abt what makes a marriage tick in general.

rosemummy:

I don't agree with the OWC either. They seem to be treating the wife as a sex slave who need to please her husband so he don't look for other women. To me, both have a role to play. The husband has to start by loving his wife.
Precisely what I am saying. I am disagreeing with OWC and I find their suggestion ridiculous and demeaning. Both to the wife and to the husband. Base on what they have suggested, they are saying men are shallow creatures who are controlled by their carnal urges.

In a way, yes, we are probably not all that different in how we manage our relationship most of the time. But when it comes to the crunch, when it's not possible to compromise, I would submit to my husband. I'm not sure how you handle it, but it didn't matter. The dynamics of every relationship is different. It's fine as long as both of you can work it out to your mutual satisfaction.
Yes again. So long as the couple agrees with what works for them. I do not think any of us here are saying that your believes are not right. In fact I respect and envy your position. 30yrs together and to be able to have absolute faith and trust. I think this, actually, is very freeing. Thing is there will be those of us, for whatever reasons, be it upbringing or past experience or plain ole character, who will find it difficult to do so.

Btw, I'm also a very independent woman. I've no problem leading others, including men who're older than me. But with the man I love, I choose to trust him and submit to him.
No one said otherwise, definitely not me.

sall:

rosemummy:

[quote=\"pinky\"]I am referring to this particular issue only.

Why only this issue? So a wife who obey her husband who love and cherish her is a pet dog? Are all our female ancestors who submitted to their husbands dogs?

Then what about those who obey someone other than their husband, including people who do not love or show them any respect? Or are you saying that it's ok to obey someone who may be abusive and do not care for one's wellbeing (eg customers, bosses etc), but not ok to obey a loving husband? I don't think the former is ok but note that many people do so out of necessity. I respect them for it and won't think about comparing them to any animal.

Do you think it's nice to compare a human, whoever they may be and whatever their views, to a pet dog? It's fine to have your views but not fine to call others with a different view such names.

sall:

Wow... Sounds like a school principal scolding a student...

Take it easy... a little humour is good for everybody...

dunnoleh:

rosemummy:

.... To me, respect and compromise is necessary in every relationship. Compromise is necessary so that parties with different interest each gets something. But a marital relationship is different - both parties have the same interest and should be working towards their common interest. Above all, it is a relationship that bind 2 families together in love. If the couple love each other, they want the best for the other person, more than for themselves and it should not be necessary to have to look out for one's interest in a marriage. Because you trust your spouse to do so.


Compromise may not always be possible. You either buy a property or you don't. You can't buy half a house. And you either send your child for college overseas, or you don't. In some cases, compromise won't yield the best, just the least objectionable to both parties. 1 of my friend was telling me how she and her husband had several names they liked for their baby. But they each didn't like the name the other liked and their compromise was a name they both didn't like but had no strong objection. I doubt the child will be happy knowing how they named her, by compromising.

In a marriage built on love and trust, a wife can submit to her husband out of love and respect. She is able to accept his leadership because she trust him to be able to make the best decision for the marriage. But from the posts, it seems that not every woman is prepared to do that. That's fine. Afterall, the dynamics of every marriage is different. But I don't see obedience and submission to the leadership of the person you love most is absurd or ridiculous. If I can't accept a man's leadership, I won't marry him in the first place. And it definitely didn't have to be out of fear or because you're scared of him. Rather, it is out of deep love and respect for each other.

:goodpost: well said! and I fully agree with your view.
it is quite clear that many do not share your views, not only in this forum, probably among many Singaporeans as well.

buds:

VERY :goodpost:


Plus similar to how myself and hubs work things out too.
Still learning the ropes to even better what we have, so
still can't walk in that park yet hor. :lol:

Funz:

I am referring to the OWC's premise that to maintain a healthy marriage the wife must submit to the point of being like a prostitute in bed as being ridiculous. Not about others choice to submit and obey their spouse if they should choose to.


For me and DH, ours is an equal partnership. There are things that he will take the lead and others that I will as we both have our individual strengths and expertise. If we should disagree over some stuff, we go back to the drawing board and see if there is any way that we can come up with something that both will be able to accept rather then having one party totally giving in even if they may not be for the idea.

Being the one who is leading all the time is also no walk in the park. We share in the responsibility and ease each others burden.

I believe most of us have similar ways of working our marriage. You may term it as submitting, I call it compromising. In areas where he is the expert, I respect and go along with his decision, but you may call it obeying.

Just that to me, the word obey means to follow without question and to submit means to give up your rights. A bit difficult for me to swallow since I have been brought up to be independant and not be reliant on others. Which in itself is a burden.

rosemummy:

.... To me, respect and compromise is necessary in every relationship. Compromise is necessary so that parties with different interest each gets something. But a marital relationship is different - both parties have the same interest and should be working towards their common interest. Above all, it is a relationship that bind 2 families together in love. If the couple love each other, they want the best for the other person, more than for themselves and it should not be necessary to have to look out for one's interest in a marriage. Because you trust your spouse to do so.


Compromise may not always be possible. You either buy a property or you don't. You can't buy half a house. And you either send your child for college overseas, or you don't. In some cases, compromise won't yield the best, just the least objectionable to both parties. 1 of my friend was telling me how she and her husband had several names they liked for their baby. But they each didn't like the name the other liked and their compromise was a name they both didn't like but had no strong objection. I doubt the child will be happy knowing how they named her, by compromising.

In a marriage built on love and trust, a wife can submit to her husband out of love and respect. She is able to accept his leadership because she trust him to be able to make the best decision for the marriage. But from the posts, it seems that not every woman is prepared to do that. That's fine. Afterall, the dynamics of every marriage is different. But I don't see obedience and submission to the leadership of the person you love most is absurd or ridiculous. If I can't accept a man's leadership, I won't marry him in the first place. And it definitely didn't have to be out of fear or because you're scared of him. Rather, it is out of deep love and respect for each other.

rosemummy:

Funz:

So ridiculous.


I prefer, respect rather then obedience, compromise rather then submission.

Happy Mama:

This is absurd! DH and I always believe in mutual respect in a relationship. We don't believe in who should be scared of who.

To me, respect and compromise is necessary in every relationship. Compromise is necessary so that parties with different interest each gets something. But a marital relationship is different - both parties have the same interest and should be working towards their common interest. Above all, it is a relationship that bind 2 families together in love. If the couple love each other, they want the best for the other person, more than for themselves and it should not be necessary to have to look out for one's interest in a marriage. Because you trust your spouse to do so.

Compromise may not always be possible. You either buy a property or you don't. You can't buy half a house. And you either send your child for college overseas, or you don't. In some cases, compromise won't yield the best, just the least objectionable to both parties. 1 of my friend was telling me how she and her husband had several names they liked for their baby. But they each didn't like the name the other liked and their compromise was a name they both didn't like but had no strong objection. I doubt the child will be happy knowing how they named her, by compromising.

In a marriage built on love and trust, a wife can submit to her husband out of love and respect. She is able to accept his leadership because she trust him to be able to make the best decision for the marriage. But from the posts, it seems that not every woman is prepared to do that. That's fine. Afterall, the dynamics of every marriage is different. But I don't see obedience and submission to the leadership of the person you love most is absurd or ridiculous. If I can't accept a man's leadership, I won't marry him in the first place. And it definitely didn't have to be out of fear or because you're scared of him. Rather, it is out of deep love and respect for each other.

rosemummy:

pinky:

I am referring to this particular issue only.

Why only this issue? So a wife who obey her husband who love and cherish her is a pet dog? Are all our female ancestors who submitted to their husbands dogs?

Then what about those who obey someone other than their husband, including people who do not love or show them any respect? Or are you saying that it's ok to obey someone who may be abusive and do not care for one's wellbeing (eg customers, bosses etc), but not ok to obey a loving husband? I don't think the former is ok but note that many people do so out of necessity. I respect them for it and won't think about comparing them to any animal.

Do you think it's nice to compare a human, whoever they may be and whatever their views, to a pet dog? It's fine to have your views but not fine to call others with a different view such names.

pinky:

I am referring to this particular issue only.