The author implied that had the defendant married the plaintiff this would have set a dangerous precedent. To quote, "did the court, as a "law-making" institution, even consider the dangers such a precedent would pose to women?" If this is the case, then it is not 'customary' for men to rape women to get them to marry them in India. The subject invariably gives rise to hyperbole. How can we bring rationality to a crime so highly politicized and irrational responded to as rape?

The rest of the article reads like a feminist manifesto declaring domestic violence a 'human rights violation' and perpetrating the insensitive view that women and girls are the exclusive victims of both sexual and d...

The author implied that had the defendant married the plaintiff this would have set a dangerous precedent. To quote, "did the court, as a "law-making" institution, even consider the dangers such a precedent would pose to women?" If this is the case, then it is not 'customary' for men to rape women to get them to marry them in India. The subject invariably gives rise to hyperbole. How can we bring rationality to a crime so highly politicized and irrational responded to as rape?

The rest of the article reads like a feminist manifesto declaring domestic violence a 'human rights violation' and perpetrating the insensitive view that women and girls are the exclusive victims of both sexual and domestic assault.

That domestic violence should be framed as an exclusively male attitudinal and behavioral problem, that there ought to be recognized some officially denounced "War Against Women," that acts of violence against women are the sine qua non of sexual inequality, these are the themes that claim to bring enlightenment in place of ignorance.