A Comparative Analysis of Sexual Consent Within Marriage
Introduction
On January 28, 2026, French lawmakers unanimously passed a groundbreaking bill to eliminate the concept of “marital duty” from the nation’s civil code. The legislation, supported by more than 120 members of the National Assembly across party lines, explicitly clarifies that cohabitation between spouses does not create any obligation to engage in sexual relations. While the bill must still pass through the Senate, this development represents a significant milestone in recognizing sexual autonomy within marriage and raises important questions about how other nations, including Singapore, approach these fundamental issues of consent and bodily autonomy.
This article examines the French legislative reform, places it within a broader international context, and analyzes its potential implications for Singapore’s legal framework and ongoing discussions about marital rights, sexual consent, and gender equality.
Understanding the French Reform
The Legal Framework and Historical Context
France’s civil code has long established four fundamental duties of marriage: fidelity, support, assistance, and cohabitation. While sexual obligation is not explicitly mentioned in the code, judicial interpretation has historically allowed the concept of “marital duty” to persist. Older court rulings sometimes interpreted the duty of cohabitation as implying a “shared bed,” creating an expectation that spouses had an ongoing obligation to engage in sexual relations.
This interpretation traces its roots to the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which viewed marriage primarily as a framework for reproduction and family stability. For over two centuries, this understanding has shaped French family law, despite significant advances in human rights and gender equality.
The Catalyst: A Landmark European Court Ruling
The immediate trigger for the French legislation was a watershed ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2025. The case involved a French woman who had been found “at fault” in divorce proceedings by the Versailles Court of Appeal in 2019 because she had stopped having sexual relations with her husband. Her husband successfully obtained a divorce on these grounds, with the court describing her refusal as a breach of marital obligations.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled decisively in favor of the woman, declaring that consent to marriage cannot imply consent to future sexual relations. The court found that the French court’s interpretation violated the woman’s right to private life and bodily autonomy. This ruling exposed a fundamental contradiction between France’s civil law framework and its criminal law, which had recently been updated to include explicit consent-based definitions of rape.
Key Provisions of the New Bill
The new legislation amends the French civil code to state explicitly that cohabitation does not create any obligation for spouses to have sexual relations. This clarification serves multiple purposes. First, it prevents judges from assigning fault in divorce proceedings based on a lack of sexual intimacy. Second, it aligns civil law with criminal law, which now recognizes that sexual consent must be actively given in each instance, regardless of marital status. Third, it addresses what women’s rights advocates have long characterized as an archaic framework that enables marital coercion.
Lawmaker Véronique Riotton, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, emphasized that the reform represents a necessary step to align civil and criminal law. She argued that it was absurd for the civil system to hint at an obligation to perform sexual acts while criminal law clearly requires consent for all sexual activity.
Singapore’s Journey on Marital Rape and Sexual Consent
Historical Background: The Marital Rape Immunity
Singapore’s approach to marital rape has undergone significant evolution, particularly in recent years. Like France, Singapore inherited legal concepts from colonial-era frameworks. The marital rape immunity in Singapore law is believed to have originated from an extrajudicial remark by English jurist Sir Matthew Hale in “The History of the Pleas of the Crown,” where he stated that a husband cannot be guilty of marital rape against his wife because she had irrevocably consented to sexual relations during marriage.
This principle of irrevocable consent was imported into Singapore law as part of English common law. Prior to 2007, Section 375(e) of the Penal Code provided blanket immunity to husbands who had non-consensual sexual intercourse with their wives, as long as the wife was not below 13 years of age.
The 2007 Reform: A Calibrated Approach
The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 marked Singapore’s first major attempt to address marital rape. However, the reform was cautious and incremental. Instead of completely abolishing the immunity, the amendment introduced exceptions that lifted the immunity only in specific circumstances:
When divorce or judicial separation proceedings were ongoing or had been granted
When a court injunction restrained the husband from having sexual intercourse with his wife
When a Personal Protection Order or Expedited Order had been made against the husband
Then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee described this as a “calibrated approach” that balanced the needs of women requiring protection with general concerns about conjugal rights and the expression of intimacy in marriage. The government expressed concern that complete abolition would “change the whole complexion of marriage” in Singaporean society.
The 2007 reforms drew mixed reactions from Members of Parliament. While all condemned marital rape in principle, several MPs criticized the amendments as insufficient. MP Ellen Lee questioned the lack of safeguards for women who had not yet commenced legal processes to lift the immunity or were unable to do so due to financial or emotional reasons. MP Ho Geok Choo argued that the amendments were inadequate to protect women most dependent on their husbands and those with least access to legal counsel.
The 2020 Breakthrough: Full Repeal of Marital Rape Immunity
Following years of advocacy by women’s rights organizations and mounting international pressure, Singapore took a decisive step forward. The Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, passed on May 6, 2019, fully repealed the marital rape immunity. The reforms came into force on January 1, 2020.
Under current Singapore law, as established by Section 375 of the Penal Code, marriage no longer provides any immunity from rape charges. A husband can be found guilty of raping his wife if he engages in non-consensual penile penetration of her vagina, mouth, or anus. The law explicitly recognizes that marriage does not equal blanket consent to sexual activity, and that consent must exist in every sexual act.
The 2020 reforms also expanded the definition of rape to include non-consensual penile-anal and penile-oral penetration, meaning that both men and women can now be recognized as rape victims under Singapore law, though only men can be charged with rape due to the penis-centric definition of the offense.
In their announcement of the reforms, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law affirmed that sexual relations in any relationship should be based on mutual consent, and that the amendment ensures all women are protected from sexual abuse.
Implementation and Early Cases
The new laws were first utilized in 2024 when a man was convicted and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment and six strokes of the cane for sexually assaulting his wife and obstructing justice. This case demonstrated that Singapore courts are willing to prosecute and punish marital rape with the same seriousness as other sexual offenses.
Comparative Analysis: France and Singapore
Different Legal Frameworks, Similar Principles
While France and Singapore approach marital sexual consent from different legal angles, both nations have recognized the fundamental principle that marriage does not constitute ongoing consent to sexual relations. France addresses this through civil law governing marital obligations and divorce proceedings, while Singapore has tackled it through criminal law addressing rape and sexual assault.
France’s reform focuses on preventing the concept of marital duty from being used against spouses in civil proceedings, particularly divorce cases. The French approach recognizes that even without criminal liability, the civil law framework can create pressure and stigma that undermines sexual autonomy within marriage.
Singapore’s approach has been more direct in addressing criminal liability. By fully repealing marital rape immunity, Singapore has established that non-consensual sexual acts within marriage are criminal offenses subject to prosecution and punishment. However, this leaves open questions about how Singapore’s family law and divorce proceedings handle issues of sexual intimacy and consent.
The Role of International Pressure
Both France and Singapore have faced international scrutiny regarding marital rape. For France, the European Court of Human Rights played a crucial role in exposing the contradiction between civil and criminal law frameworks. The court’s ruling made it untenable for France to maintain a civil law system that effectively sanctioned the denial of sexual consent within marriage.
Singapore faced similar pressure from international bodies. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women criticized Singapore’s partial immunity approach in 2011, noting that it was insufficient to safeguard women against domestic and sexual violence. The Committee urged Singapore to criminalize marital rape and expand the definition of rape to cover all non-consensual sexual acts. During Singapore’s Universal Periodic Review in 2011, Canada recommended legislation to criminalize marital rape in all circumstances, though this recommendation did not initially enjoy Singapore government support.
Cultural and Social Considerations
Both nations have grappled with concerns about how legal reforms might affect marriage as a social institution. In Singapore’s 2007 debates, government ministers expressed worry that total abolition of marital rape immunity would “change the whole complexion of marriage.” Similarly, France’s new legislation addresses deeply entrenched social attitudes, as evidenced by survey data showing that 57% of French women have engaged in marital sex without wanting to, compared to 39% of men.
Both nations have recognized that legal reform alone is insufficient to change social attitudes. In France, one physician reported issuing medical certificates three times per week to women requesting them not to have sex, with half of those women returning to say they still felt obliged. This underscores that the concept of marital duty persists in social practice even when not legally mandated.
Implications for Singapore
Gaps in Singapore’s Current Framework
While Singapore has made significant progress in criminalizing marital rape, the French reforms highlight potential gaps in how Singapore’s family law system addresses sexual consent within marriage. Singapore’s Women’s Charter, which governs marriage and divorce, does not explicitly address sexual consent or marital duty in the same way that France is now doing.
Under Singapore law, divorce can be granted on the grounds of unreasonable behavior that has caused irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In theory, a pattern of sexual coercion or pressure could constitute such unreasonable behavior. However, without explicit statutory clarification, there is potential for inconsistent application or misunderstanding of how consent principles apply in family law proceedings.
The French approach of explicitly stating that cohabitation does not create sexual obligations could serve as a model for similar clarification in Singapore’s family law framework. Such clarification would reinforce the principle that consent must be ongoing and cannot be assumed based on marital status, applying this not just in criminal prosecutions but also in civil family law matters.
The Challenge of Implementation and Enforcement
Singapore’s experience since the 2020 reforms offers important lessons about the challenges of implementation. Organizations like the Sexual Assault Care Centre report that many women continue to feel pressure to engage in sexual activity within marriage, despite legal protections. A 2009 International Violence against Women survey in Singapore found that 71.7% of women abused by their partners would not make a police report, suggesting that legal reform alone does not address the barriers victims face.
The French reforms acknowledge this reality by addressing not just criminal law but also the civil law framework that can create subtle pressure and stigma. By removing the possibility that refusal of sexual intimacy could be used against a spouse in divorce proceedings, France is attempting to address the broader ecosystem that enables sexual coercion within marriage.
Public Education and Awareness
Both the French reforms and Singapore’s experience highlight the critical need for public education about consent within marriage. The persistence of the “marital duty” concept in social attitudes, even after legal reforms, demonstrates that changing laws is only the first step.
Singapore has made efforts in this direction. Organizations like AWARE and the Sexual Assault Care Centre provide education and support services. The recent Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) (Amendment) Act 2023 expanded the definition of family violence to include sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse, demonstrating continued evolution in recognizing various forms of abuse within intimate relationships.
However, more could be done to ensure that the principle of ongoing consent within marriage is widely understood. This includes education in schools, public awareness campaigns, training for healthcare providers and social service professionals, and resources for couples about healthy communication and consent within relationships.
Support Systems for Victims
The French experience, particularly the physician who regularly issues medical certificates to women seeking to avoid sexual activity, highlights the need for robust support systems. Singapore has established various protection mechanisms, including Personal Protection Orders, Expedited Orders, and Domestic Exclusion Orders under the Women’s Charter.
The Sexual Assault Care Centre offers counseling, legal assistance, and befriending services for survivors. However, access to these services could be expanded, and awareness of their existence could be improved. Many women may not know that they can seek help for sexual coercion within marriage, or may face financial, emotional, or social barriers to doing so.
The Question of Fault-Based Divorce
France’s reform directly addresses how marital duty has been used in fault-based divorce proceedings. Singapore’s divorce system also allows for fault-based divorce, including on grounds of unreasonable behavior or adultery. While Singapore’s legal framework does not explicitly recognize refusal of sexual intimacy as grounds for divorce in the way France’s did, there is value in providing explicit clarification that such refusal cannot be considered unreasonable behavior or a breach of marital obligations.
Such clarification would align with Singapore’s 2020 criminal law reforms and would reinforce that sexual consent is an individual right that cannot be overridden by marital status, whether in criminal or civil proceedings.
Broader Regional and International Context
Global Movement Toward Consent-Based Sexual Offense Laws
France’s reforms are part of a broader international movement toward consent-based definitions of sexual offenses. In 2025, France adopted the principle of consent into its definition of rape, joining other European countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. This represents a shift from laws that focused on force, coercion, or lack of resistance to laws that center on the presence or absence of consent.
Singapore’s 2020 reforms align with this international trend. By eliminating marital rape immunity entirely, Singapore joined nations that recognize sexual autonomy as a fundamental right that exists regardless of marital status. However, Singapore has not yet fully adopted a consent-based definition of rape; the current definition still focuses on penetration without consent rather than making consent the central organizing principle of the offense.
Regional Leadership and Influence
Singapore’s abolition of marital rape immunity in 2020 positioned it as a regional leader in Southeast Asia on this issue. Many countries in the region continue to maintain some form of marital rape exception or have laws that inadequately address sexual violence within marriage.
The French reforms, particularly their approach to addressing civil law frameworks alongside criminal law, could offer valuable lessons for Singapore as it continues to refine its approach. Singapore has an opportunity to further strengthen its position as a regional leader by ensuring that all aspects of its legal framework consistently uphold principles of sexual autonomy and consent.
Recommendations for Singapore
Legislative and Policy Measures
Based on the French experience and Singapore’s own reform journey, several potential next steps emerge:
Clarify Family Law Framework: Consider amending the Women’s Charter to explicitly state that marriage does not create any obligation for sexual relations between spouses. This would align family law with criminal law and prevent any possibility of sexual refusal being used as grounds for fault in divorce proceedings.
Comprehensive Review of Divorce Grounds: Conduct a review of how unreasonable behavior is interpreted in divorce cases to ensure that expectations of sexual intimacy or marital duty are not being used, even implicitly, in determining fault.
Expand Public Education: Develop comprehensive public education campaigns about consent within marriage, targeting multiple audiences including married couples, young people preparing for marriage, healthcare providers, and legal professionals.
Strengthen Support Services: Increase funding and accessibility of support services for survivors of marital sexual violence, including counseling, legal assistance, and temporary housing options.
Training for Professionals: Implement mandatory training for judges, family lawyers, social workers, and healthcare providers on recognizing and responding to sexual coercion and violence within marriage.
Data Collection and Research: Conduct research on the prevalence of sexual coercion within marriage in Singapore and evaluate the effectiveness of current laws and support systems.
Cultural and Social Initiatives
Beyond legal reforms, addressing marital duty and sexual consent requires cultural change. Initiatives could include:
Pre-Marriage Education: Incorporate education about consent, communication, and healthy sexual relationships into pre-marriage courses and preparation programs.
Community Engagement: Work with religious and community leaders to address traditional attitudes about marital duty and promote understanding of consent within marriage.
Media and Public Discourse: Encourage balanced media coverage and public discussion about sexual consent within marriage to normalize these conversations and reduce stigma.
Conclusion
France’s unanimous passage of legislation ending “marital duty” represents a significant milestone in the global movement to recognize sexual autonomy within marriage. By explicitly clarifying that cohabitation does not create any obligation for sexual relations, France is addressing not just criminal law but also the civil law framework that can enable subtle forms of sexual coercion.
For Singapore, which abolished marital rape immunity in 2020, the French reforms offer valuable lessons. While Singapore has made important strides in criminalizing marital rape, there may be opportunities to strengthen family law frameworks to ensure consistent application of consent principles across all legal proceedings.
Both nations’ experiences demonstrate that legal reform, while essential, is only part of the solution. Changing deeply entrenched social attitudes about marital duty and sexual obligation requires sustained effort in public education, professional training, support services, and cultural change.
The fundamental principle underlying both nations’ reforms is clear: marriage is a partnership of equals based on mutual consent, respect, and negotiation. Sexual consent cannot be assumed or mandated based on marital status. It must be freely given in each instance, and the right to refuse sexual activity is a fundamental aspect of personal autonomy and dignity.
As France moves forward with this legislation through its Senate, and as Singapore continues to implement and refine its 2020 reforms, both nations are contributing to a global conversation about sexual autonomy, consent, and the meaning of marriage in the 21st century. The path forward requires continued vigilance, ongoing reform, and a commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their marital status.
Ultimately, the goal is to create legal and social frameworks where marriage is understood as a relationship built on mutual respect, where consent is understood as ongoing and never presumed, and where all individuals enjoy full sexual autonomy and bodily integrity. Both France’s current reforms and Singapore’s recent progress represent important steps toward that goal.