Reference is made here to comments by the Joint Action Group (JAG) Against Violence Against Women in their letter 'Unnatural offences' amendment needs fine-tuning .

The proposed amendment by the government to S377CA of the Penal Code reads:

"Sexual connection by object - 377CA: Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of any object into the vagina or anus of the another person shall be punished with imprisonment or a term which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to whipping."

The ordinary grammatical meaning of the word 'object' is any tangible and visible physical entity, which if not qualified by the adjective 'foreign' would ordinarily include finger, tongue and toes (besides, needless to say, any other foreign object, for examples, sticks, vibrators etc).

It is not entirely coincidental that the proposed amendment has:

- made no distinction between bodily parts and foreign objects

- omitted and disregarded the issue of consent and

- not broadened the definition of rape but instead expanded on 'unnatural acts'.

The implication of the amendment is that any form of consensual 'sexual connection' (e.g oral and anal sex or foreplay by sexual equipment like vibrators) will henceforth be considered 'unnatural acts'.

The underlying intention behind such an amendment must be to send out the message that sex, even between consenting adults, is only for the serious business of procreation, as the Almighty intended, and not recreation.

This must be the world-view of some ultra conservative elements in the government that have given their input to the amendment.

This also ironically means that whereas the JAG has endeavoured for the last two decades to modernise antiquated rape laws to bring them in line with the new millennium, it has however unwittingly, in that process, provided the platform for conservative elements within the administration to attempt to narrow the laws on permissible sexual behaviour to bring them in line with that of medieval times.

This is the problem in trying to tinker around with the original definition of rape based on forced vaginal penetration by the penis without awareness of the implications of such a move.

Let's look at some other implications in widening rape definition beyond penetration by the penis to that of finger, tongue or other foreign objects.

One implication is that whereas under the traditional definition only a man has the sexual organ capable of penetration to commit rape, under the new definition, however, a woman and even children can be deemed as capable of committing rape.

This happens when a lesbian woman, for example, inserts with a sexual intent an index finger into the genitals of an unwilling heterosexual female or a maid to any orifice of children under her charge.

That which otherwise would have passed off as molestation or sexual battery, would now assume the gravity of rape deserving up to 20 years jail and whipping, with the category of offenders widening from men to women and children as well.

What about the demand of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) for rape to prevent conviction of the innocent due to faulty prosecution? Whereas DNA fingerprinting can assist in proving traditional rape, it is irrelevant in object penetration.

I am not trying to trivialise here in any way the laudable efforts of JAG and all the women groups in the country in trying to tighten protection for women against sexual violence.

The issue of curbing sexual violence and crimes against women is an important and urgent one involving men who have mothers, sisters and daughters alike.

However, one must do it sensibly and not ape blindly Western feminist advocates in distorting, nay, violating the original meaning and understanding of the word 'rape' until it encompasses any form of sexual initiative of an unwelcome kind forced on another person.

Whilst I agree that any form of coercive sex is, in the connotative sense, violence perpetrated on the victim and all forms of sexual violence is heinous and ought to be criminalised, yet for purposes of prosecution and punishment, it is important to take into account the circumstances and nature of the violence and its effect on the victim so that justice may be done.

Conceptually, it is naive to lump together all forms of sexual violence as similar to rape, ignoring the intrinsic differences between various forms of sexual violence.

Whilst all sexual violence and violations of the female person are heinous, rape by penetration of a male organ into a woman's genitals is more heinous than other forms of sexual assault as it causes the greatest emotional trauma and pain.

The trauma is of an enduring nature for female victims far exceeding the pain of physical injury and emotional outrage resulting from other forms of sexual assault. And I am not only referring here to possible HIV transmission due to penile penetration.

The forcible penetration by a male organ strikes at the heart of female reproductive integrity by adulterating her gene pool and chancing a pregnancy that will place her in a dilemma of either carrying to term the result of the rape or aborting an innocent child that is half hers. Whichever course taken, both are psychologically and emotionally traumatic to the female victim in the longer term.

Rape is traditionally based on penile penetration because the common law, broadening down from generations to generations and instilled with generational experience and wisdom, has recognised and appreciated this fact more than the feminist women advocates who think it the same in terms of effect as the insertion of a finger or tongue.

By all means, all right thinking men and women should collaborate to curb and prevent sexual violence and we can do so under existing categories of offences ranging from rape to sodomy in the case of penile penetration to sexual battery or aggravated sexual assault for 'other forms of penetration'.

And if the latter were thought to be too lenient for deterrent purposes, then by all means increase the severity of the punishment for them. It is different from lumping everything under one notional category of rape (for expedience) as if it were the panacea to all social ills. It is not.

Sexual violence has escalated not because of the inadequacies of existing laws or categories of sexual offences but because of the inefficacy of the law's enforcement and investigation against a backdrop of other social factors fomenting the rise of crime in our society.