That's just pathetic. I don't care if the guy is married to the woman. It's still atrocious and it's still rape. Btw, aren't most marriages fixed over there? I wonder how many women loathe the men they're 'married' to.

It's not like the women can do anything about it. They'd probably be beaten or worse...

Doubt the UN will take action. As of late, it doesn't seem like they've done much of anything in fear of aggravating Islam heavy countries. Heck, didn't they recently pass or are going to pass a bill that would prevent criticism of leadership or their religion or something? Can't they hide these sick human rights violations behind laws that criminalize criticism of their 'beliefs'? :|

I'm against rape in any shape, build, form, color, flavor and topping. When someone says no, it's a NO!

Yes, it is. It's also against one of the Ten Commandments. 

The UN has no credebility anymore, it won't as long as any nation has the power to veto any resolution

this is pretty sick, but i know a friend whos a perv who would probably love to see this law passed in the US.

It's called intra-marital rape and it's definitely still rape. Rape is rape is rape. Doesn't matter if they're your husband, boyfriend, uncle, or a total stranger. No means no.

Intra-marital rape was legal in England until 1991 and legal in the U.S. until 1993, but is still considered a lesser crime than 'real rape' by 33 states. In the U.S. before 1993, a man could rape his wife and it would be totally legal, even if they were already legally separated.


Hell, in India you CAN murder your wife and get away with it. You can even get your parents to help you burn her alive in your own house in front of the whole family. It happens about twice a day in India.

The UN never had any credibility.  Removing veto rights won't help.

Most rulers of countries aren't good people.  There are more dictators then democracies.

Removing the Veto ability would be like allowing a democratic vote on all policy in a prison.  It would actually make things worse.

I don't like it one bit, Pikachu Hitler.

This new law erases any social progress Afghanistan has made since the fall of the Taliban. Do the people of Afghanistan really want to live in a war torn, neolithic theocracy forever?

Article 132 requires women to obey their husband’s sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least “once every four nights” when travelling, unless they are ill.

Sounds like a good law to me. I'd clean up the sexist language though and make it clear that woman expect to have sex with their husband at least every four nights also.

is that first part really true???!?!?! wtf?