Something kinda provoked my senses today. Here's the culprit:

"Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman.
498*. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows, or has reason to believe, to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals, or detains, with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both. "

Why does it irk me? The reason is simple. See the bold italics word? I'm just wondering why this section only applies to women. Wouldn't it be fairer if it applied to both sexes? Does this imply that only men who have affairs with married women are culpable? I agree wholeheartedly with a friend of mine - This thing really looks like it was exported straight out of the middle east.

The diction it uses further irritates my feminist sensibilities.

"Taking away a woman"

hey guys we are not chattel :)

The reason why this clause exists is simple; the law was written by a man, that's for sure. Especially one who is afraid of losing his wife to another, and probably has a few skeletons in his cupboard :)