Quote:Post-marriage, she demands her ââ¬Ålegal rightââ¬Â to get sex from himWHAT.
And why did no one else notice this.
This can't possibly be true outside the fiction. Can it? Then does this 'law' hold for both genders or - with an added degree of injustice - just the one? (If the last: are they mad/are there people who seriously assume men would be ready to sleep with anything - including psychological and otherwise abusive terrorists - and "wouldn't mind". Idiot law flouting all value of human self.)
What kind of law is that? It is inhumane. It legalises marital rape. Terrorists have no "right" to touch you - even if you're married to one. Don't put up with it. Split.
Only mutual affection - and nothing else - can bring about that degree of intimacy.
No one *owes* their spouse anything.
(Am talking about the case where one or both people can't stand the other. Obviously not talking about married couples who are generally fond of each other but where one of them may not be in the mood at a particular moment - in such cases some compromise is usually reached, like either one person gives up, or the other gives in, or the interested person tries to get the other In The Mood For Love too. Or they just had a tiff/bickered, in which case both naturally sit it out for a bit. Besides, in the case of actual couples, there would *never be* any thought let alone threat of demanding/exerting any "legal" or otherwise invalid "right" over the other. <- Because normal people aren't deranged. Whereas all Terrorists are maniacs - and are in this aspect apparently encouraged by the absurdest of laws.)
As every normal person knows - but which these alien laws don't get - spouses aren't property. While they do belong to each other, certainly, this is so in an entirely different sense: akin to the way friends and family are one's own. Indeed, spouses are a sort of (best) friend and family rolled into one. And it is the only kind of family/friend that one is generally assured of retaining (excepting death): other family can move off, or pass away earlier due to differences in generation, friends can move away too without there being much one can do about it; but the general idea is that one's spouse remains one's friendly company, companion and comrade until old age. (Leastways, so it had been with Hindus thus far.) As with all kinds of friendship (and, perhaps, in some ways more so), it is mutual affection that builds, cements and strengthens this bond/this two-way claim married people have on each other; and it is a lot of other things that break it and render it void.
But can people imagine some lunatic demanding their legal right to exert absolute power over friends and relatives such as this "law" has enacted for married couples? (<- It's a rhetical question again. The answer is No.)
People should learn to stand up for themselves. I know that these characters - what's her name, Mangled, I mean Mangala and its husband - are supposed to be fiction, but if the law is not, don't stand for it. Come on. Why do Hindus have to abide by these alien christobritish laws (actually, in christobritain the law IIRC is/was one way: the husband's indisputable "right" over the wife in this respect. The law certainly held in Britain until around late 20th century/early 21st. Don't know about today. The consequences for those disadvantaged by that law were quite scary in practice.)
Mad. Mad. Eeeeewwwww. Why do people accept all this crap.
I'm so ticked off I don't even feel like reading the rest of that post now.