Rape is rape - it doesn't matter whether it involves penetration by a body part or an object, or whether it is m/f, m/m, or f/f, married or unmarried, paedophile or adult. What is the real agenda behind this attempt to change a law which was very late in coming?

Of course there are very real cultural problems to be overcome. Specially trained law enforcement and social welfare units need to be established, and there should be training for the judiciary and prosecutors, as well as public awareness campaigns. Other countries have done these things, and it wasn't easy for any of them. But it was right, and as time goes on more & more people see that, and that is the point.

Let's not change the law - let's work out how it can be effectively exercised.

Good point, Joy. There's also a lot of harassment in work-places and even schools. I recently saw a security guard in my building with his hand on a schoolboy's privates, right outside the lift in the foyer. The kid (about 10yr-old) looked really paralysed with fear & embarrassment, & as I stepped out of the lift and told the guard to stop it, he (kid) made his escape into the lift. I reported it to a member of the condo committee, & pointed out that the security camera is trained on that area, so it would have been recorded. Don't know what action has been taken, though.

This kind of stuff is just another aspect of the exploitative nature of this society. Laws like the rape law are needed, and they have to be properly administered, no matter how embarrassing the consequences.

You're absolutely right when you say "...sexual harrassment/violence is also a way to exercise power over others...," Joy. It's the ultimate way to disempower & humiliate. That's why soldiers have used it for thousands of years as a way of letting people know they've been conquered, and corrupt policemen in some countries (I wonder where!) use it as one of the ways of getting confessions, often from innocent people.

Most people I know who work with survivors of sexual abuse are of the opinion that it is primarily a 'power & control' thing, & that the idea that some (many?) priests & monks, for example, resort to it because of the sexual frustration caused by their vows of chastity, is a misconception. Certain types of people are drawn to religious orders because they provide a 'cover' for their activities, & access to potential victims. Similarly, rape inside the family is perpetrated by men with power and control hang-ups.

The success-rate in putting such people into therapy is very low. Most re-offend. That's why it is absolutely necessary to have tough laws and good systems set up to support the survivors, especially through the divorce procedures, as well as keeping a watch on the perpetrators after their release from prison.

In general, I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but I've come very close to changing my mind as a result of some cases of violent sexual abuse. No victim ever fully recovers, and few perpetrators ever change.

The coin always has two sides. Though I agree with the comments of Joy and michael, one must be aware of the other side of the stories. It's sometimes quite difficult to differentiate 'rape' from 'consensual' one. There's no scientific proof for 'forced' sexual abuse, so the painful and embarrassed trial is unavoidable, to be fair to both parties involved. But I can't see how this process can be improved by redefining the definition of 'rape'. Why beating around the bushes, what's the hidden agenda behind this?

Are we going to have another anachronistic law apart from loads of already existing ones? This is Thailand, indeed.

Right on, Sam!

Here are figures from a WHO report on domestic violence. The survey was conducted in 2000, so the figures are not up-to-date, but very probably still relevant:

3. Main findings

3.1 Prevalence of partner violence

23% of ever-partnered women in Bangkok and 34% in Nakhonsawan reported physical violence by their intimate partner at some time in their life.
30% in Bangkok and 29% in Nakhonsawan reported that they had experienced sexual violence by an intimate partner.
Combining these data, 41% of ever-partnered women in Bangkok and 47% in Nakhonsawan had experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner.

3.2 Injuries inflicted by a partner

Among women who had experienced physical violence by their partners, 51% in Bangkok and 44% in Nakhonsawan had ever been injured. Injuries ranged from abrasions and bruises, sprains and dislocations, ear and eye injuries, cuts, punctures, and bites to fractures. In Bangkok, 31% of women who had been injured were so badly injured that they needed health care. In Nakhonsawan, this percentage was 23%.

3.3 Physical violence by a partner during pregnancy

4% of women who had ever been pregnant in both Bangkok and Nakhonsawan had experienced physical violence during a pregnancy. Of these, about one third reported that they had been punched or kicked in the abdomen during pregnancy. In almost all cases the perpetrator was the father of the child.

(3.4 deleted to fit this post. Get it from the source - URL below)

3.5 Sexual abuse of girls under 15 years of age and forced first sex

9% of all respondents in Bangkok and 5% in Nakhonsawan reported sexual abuse before the age of 15 years. The main perpetrators were strangers mentioned by 58% in Bangkok, and 30% in Nakhonsawan.
Among women who had ever had sex 4%, in Bangkok and 5% in Nakhonsawan mentioned that their first sexual experience was forced.

http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/fact_sheets/tha/en/index.html

Full report: http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/en/index.html

Quote,

"Ironically, this draft amendment is disguised as an effort to protect vulnerable groups by increasing punishment for the rape of under-age girls, the disabled, the elderly, and pregnant women. Meanwhile, it tries to pacify the outcry from transsexuals and victims of paedophiles by making the prison terms and fines for the crime of sexual obscenity equal to that of rape"

I don't know why it's "ironical" I rather think this is the main point of the amendment and it's a good change. So, IMO the amendment on the martital rape is only the point which is controversial.

Regarding the marital rape, I don't understand what the article says clearly. Does it say that, because of the amendment, husbands will not be in jail at any circumstances in which rape-like situations take place?(For example, if the wife is injured in the course to the "rape", the husband will be only prosecuted for the crime of inflicting injury, but not for the rape, even though it's clear that he used the violence to fullfil his purpose?) Will they be exempted from the punishement because of the amandment? I want to know the details of the law, before I judge the draft. I smell that the writer oversimplify the facts for the sake of their argument.

About the devorce order, of course the spouses should file it by themselves, because it's their right to decide on their maritial status. Logically it's even possible that the "rape victim' still want to keep intact her marital relationship with her persetuting husband. Or do these passages mean that according to the current law, the same court dealing with the marital rape case can issue a divorce decree on the request from the wife if the act of abuse is proved, so that she can save her time and money to file a divorce in another court? If that is the case, the current law shold not be amended, I think.