Marital sex is never rape
Some of my dimmer critics have attempted to make a meal out of my factual statement: a man cannot rape his wife. But that is not only a fact, it is the explicit law in the greater part of the world, just as it is part of the English Common Law.
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed. And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is "divorce".
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
A Delhi court has ruled that sex between a husband and wife, “even if forcible, is not rape.” The judge’s decision, which was made public Saturday, upheld section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not recognize “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age,” as rape.The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West presently call some forms of sex between a husband and wife "rape" does not transform marital sex into rape any more than a law that declared all vaginal intercourse to be rape would make it so. Reality is not defined by politics; we cannot settle the question of evolution by natural selection by simply passing a law that declares God created the world and everything in it last Tuesday.
Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed. And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is "divorce".
The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.
Labels: law
255 Comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 2:26 PM
-
-
Bodichi
May 14, 2014 2:30 PM
-
-
ThirdMonkey
May 14, 2014 2:37 PM
-
-
Bodichi
May 14, 2014 2:38 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 2:55 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 2:55 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 2:59 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 3:12 PM
-
-
Josh
May 14, 2014 3:23 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 3:24 PM
-
-
Rolf
May 14, 2014 3:32 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 3:34 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 3:36 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 3:37 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 3:42 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 3:44 PM
-
-
Josh
May 14, 2014 3:45 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 3:48 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 3:51 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 3:54 PM
-
-
MrGreenMan
May 14, 2014 3:55 PM
-
-
MrGreenMan
May 14, 2014 3:56 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 4:00 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 4:06 PM
-
-
MrGreenMan
May 14, 2014 4:18 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 4:31 PM
-
-
Marissa
May 14, 2014 5:25 PM
-
-
Doom
May 14, 2014 5:31 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 5:49 PM
-
-
SarahsDaughter
May 14, 2014 5:54 PM
-
-
tacticaltoolbox
May 14, 2014 5:57 PM
-
-
Soga
May 14, 2014 6:09 PM
-
-
Mmmm
May 14, 2014 6:34 PM
-
-
GG
May 14, 2014 7:13 PM
-
-
JRL
May 14, 2014 7:57 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 9:00 PM
-
-
damntull
May 14, 2014 9:04 PM
-
-
tacticaltoolbox
May 14, 2014 10:05 PM
-
-
dw
May 14, 2014 10:16 PM
-
-
AnalogMan
May 14, 2014 10:44 PM
-
-
wEz
May 14, 2014 11:13 PM
-
-
Soga
May 14, 2014 11:15 PM
-
-
T
May 14, 2014 11:50 PM
-
-
T
May 14, 2014 11:53 PM
-
-
T
May 15, 2014 12:01 AM
-
-
T
May 15, 2014 12:02 AM
-
-
scoobius dubious
May 15, 2014 12:08 AM
-
-
Handwaving
May 15, 2014 3:13 AM
-
-
GG
May 15, 2014 9:53 AM
-
-
damntull
May 15, 2014 10:31 AM
-
-
evilwhitemalempire
May 16, 2014 1:40 AM
-
-
Snowflake
May 16, 2014 1:54 AM
-
-
JaimeInTexas
May 18, 2014 2:35 PM
-
-
Elie Challita
May 21, 2014 12:06 PM
-
-
Rilu
April 12, 2015 4:28 PM
-
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Define "everything".
@ Marissa
Please show where oral sex to completion is a sin for a man but not for a woman. Even one verse.
Marissa, if the husband has the authority, then he bears the responsibility, and judgment, for whatever he requires his wife to submit to. The wife's responsiblity is to submit to the one the LORD has put over her. She will be judged for her rebellion. So you would rebel to "make" your husband obey. Yeah, good luck with that.
That's what I don't get about Catholics. Everything is about self-flagellation. You can have sex, but you have to do it for the sake of procreation, wouldn't want to do it for fun or the benefits of the marital relationship. This is part of the reason why secular society comes to the conclusion that single sex=good, married sex=bad. The fun is taken out of it for the sake of appearing holy.
@Marissa,
You state this:
"1. I don't, as long as it isn't to completion for the man and a complete sex act takes place afterward."
You emphatically state this as if it is from the Bible, please provide proof.
Define "everything".
Sure, here is the verse you're quoting: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
The church cannot submit to Christ by sinning. It's literally impossible. How can the wife submit like the church by submitting through sin? Maybe the issue here is a semantic one. A wife can still be submissive and refuse a sinful command.
Please show where oral sex to completion is a sin for a man but not for a woman. Even one verse.
Bodichi, I'm not a sola scriptura type. This is from the teachings of the Church.
ThirdMonkey, I don't have much to say to that. I don't think less "fun" is self-flagellation, so we'll have to agree to disagree, on that as well as believing that God will withhold judgment on one's sins.
You emphatically state this as if it is from the Bible, please provide proof.
No I did not state it as if it is from the Bible; I stated it as a teaching of the Church.
Also, with the exception of contraception, I don't think it's common that husbands command their wives to sin. In general, in the U.S., at least, it seems like the husbands are better at upholding their end. I just simply disagreed that a husband has the right to command a sinful act.
Women get so close...
Never really understanding that which awaits on the other side of surrender. So many distractions and lies they believe and hold to that last shred of control over their husbands. They wonder why they never really experience that one flesh bond. And the knowledge that the concept of marital rape is simply inconceivable.
Makes sense that the Enemy would convince them they must be the overseer of their husband's behavior, the one to determine whether his conduct is sin or not, and of course then the one who doles out earthy consequences (withholding sex/rebellion) for what she determines is unacceptable behavior.
So we have someone appealing to the authority of a church that isn't even their church?
We're done here.
SarahsDaughter
We had this discussion about wifely submission on another thread a few weeks back, and I pointed out to you that your absolutist approach leads to absurd conclusions like:
- A husband can command his wife to worship Allah and she must obey
- A husband can command his wife to have an abortion and she must obey
- etc.
Instead of adopting an absurd approach, why not adjust your interpretation of the passage such that it conforms to the rest of the Christian message!?
Never is too strong a word, IMO. While the marriage vows are, I think, a generalized ongoing consent, I do not think they equate to a carte blanch for any kind of sex anywhere, whenever, under any circumstances the husbands demands. I can think of any number of situations where it might be fair to call forcing the issue "rape," the most obvious of which would be when it includes elements of another crime, such as being public, when the specific acts demanded are illegal, when it amounts to assault/battery or results in physical injury, etc.
But I would agree that calling it rape when he's frisky but she's not and is just passive when he does something "normal" for a few minutes is also pretty absurd. It may not be particularly gentlemanly, and if done regularly might well be grounds for divorce, but calling it a major crime and applying the same law that would be used for the forcible rape of a stranger is totally ridiculous.
We'll have to agree to disagree, SarahsDaugher. I don't think all the men who espoused the ideas I'm repeating were under the spell of the Enemy when they laid out the roles of Christian marriage.
So we have someone appealing to the authority of a church that isn't even their church?
We're done here.
Josh, membership in the Church is not an instant snap of one's fingers, fortunately. I understand that you don't want to continue the conversation.
Instead of adopting an absurd approach, why not adjust your interpretation of the passage such that it conforms to the rest of the Christian message!?
Because of what I know living as I do - having lived in rebellion prior. If there is a line that I hold that my husband can't cross, I am the authority of the marriage which is in complete contradiction to what Paul said in Ephesians 5:23 - the husband is the head of the wife. The same faith that is required to believe Jesus Christ is our Savior is also required to surrender to obedience to God in his very specific commands for wives in marriage. It is because of that faith I say and do what I do, and I can no more conform to these interpretations that provide extra biblical exceptions to the word "everything" than I can conform to denying Christ is my Savior.
Marissa,
That is fine, just please realize you are submitting to men other than your husband and in the event you determine your husband is asking you to sin based on extra biblical rules about sex, you are submitting to other men instead of your husband.
SarahsDaughter,
"If there is a line that I hold that my husband can't cross, I am the authority of the marriage."
BS! God is the authority, and the Church is the arbiter! You don't make yourself the head of household when you refuse to sin!
This is one of the major problems of the Protestant Revolt! You have nowhere to go for authoritative teaching, so you end up with "solutions" that are patently and obviously false.
Marissa, what would be the point in continuing the conversation? You have no scriptural basis for your position. And you can't appeal to church tradition because you're not even a member of that tradition.
SarahsDaughter,
The bible also tells us to submit to the authority of the Church in Hebrews 13:17!
What will you do with the conflict then? Oh me oh my! How is a lone Christian without any Church authority to decide whom to follow in the case of a conflict between the husband and the wife????
Again - God is the authority and the Church is the arbiter. That's your answer. Your husband cannot command you to sin. If he commands you to sin, and you refuse, it is not rebellion, because you submit to God and His law before all else.
Josh, my not being a member of the tradition doesn't make that tradition wrong. The only scriptural basis I have is that the Church has been established as the authority here on earth and they have made their decision on this issue. But yes, I still understand why you don't want to continue the conversation.
SarahsDaughter, we'll have to agree to disagree. Damntull already laid out the problems with your position.
Damntull,
Read Genesis 3:16 and then read Hebrews 13:17.
As for my husband, that is his concern, I keep my eyes on my own paper.
It would underline the gravity of the situation to consider the actions of federal heads of households on their subordinates:
- Adam's sin mattered to us, not Eve's. We do not inherit death from Eve.
- Judges 19
- Joshua 7
- Despite Jonathan being a good guy, all of Saul's sons died because bad king Saul was bad; Jonathan's good deeds redounded to posterity as well, as his crippled son was brought to King David's table - but Jonathan was still dead with his father.
Best for a marriage-minded woman to marry a Christian man who will practice Biblical marriage (and, as described numerous times above, give it to her sufficiently to fulfill her physical cravings and then some) and make the right choices.
He is, after all, the federal head of the family unit, and his decisions, good or ill, effect everyone in his line and all bound to him. I tend to think this means that a wife's attempt to police her husband's wilful sinful choices is not going to be successful in any head-on rebellion. To worry about hypothetical sins is as bad as idle gossip. Best to follow the word of Peter exactly and live the circumspect life of a witness of Christ without a word, so that the workings of the Holy Ghost can be done on the husband's heart, or, better, marry a solid, reliable Christian man about which there are no such reservations of character failings at the outset.
Sorry, meant to include Numbers 16; probably better example than Judges 19.
SarahsDaughter
What point are you trying to make? Hebrews 13:17 refers to the leaders of the Christian community, i.e. the Church. Are you trying to lump husbands in there?
so that the workings of the Holy Ghost can be done on the husband's heart
Exactly. It's been an amazing journey these last several years seeing the evidence of His workings now that I've shut the hell up, gotten out of the way and stopped attempting to be my husband's spiritual authority. If only I'd done so fourteen years earlier than that.
Another hard lesson, right there in 1 Peter, is 1 Peter 2, and the relation of citizen to state. We are similarly under command to obey the government, and, similarly, if our federal head double-taps emergency first responders, he is still our federal head. Even David gave honor to bad king Saul, as it was the right thing to do. Endurance, patience, and obedience are all hard, or else it wouldn't be called a narrow path.
What I always find interesting is when Christian men think of the possibility of a wife being in submission in everything, honoring her husbands headship of her, showing him respect out of obedience to God, the first thing they think is: "I should tell her to have an abortion!"
When I have witnessed an atheist man whose wife does the same, after a night of her intense prayer and confession to him that she will never leave him and that she prays for him daily, fall to his knees in humility and angst over how poorly he had treated her by having affairs and doing drugs. He then started turning his life around and upon his suggestion are having their children baptized. He, this atheist man, did not have the idea of telling her to sin cross his mind.
It took faith for her. Thank goodness she did not have the confusion of a supposed authority in her life telling her to judge her husband's sin and rebel against him.
When I have witnessed an atheist man whose wife does the same, after a night of her intense prayer and confession to him that she will never leave him and that she prays for him daily, fall to his knees in humility and angst over how poorly he had treated her by having affairs and doing drugs. He then started turning his life around and upon his suggestion are having their children baptized. He, this atheist man, did not have the idea of telling her to sin cross his mind.
So he changed because she prayed for him, not because she submitted to a command to commit a sin? I think we agree here. Had he instead said, "snort these drugs, babe" she would not have a moral obligation to do something evil.
Maybe you're trying to argue that it's not likely for him to tell her to sin, which I agree with, of course.
Luddite! You don't have to be married. As long as you are living with the woman in such a relationship, same-same. Once she has handed you the responsibility for her sexuality, then you have the responsibility. Now, some discernment is advisable. She does know where you sleep.
My point, Marissa, is how ludicrous it is, these "exceptions" that are spoken of, that keep women from biblical submission. When the Bible doesn't say "everything except for..." why then is it sooo important for women to say it? The woman I mentioned had every reason to believe complete submission would require her to do things she'd rather not do with regards to his lifestyle (though prior to becoming a Christian she would do plenty of crazy things with him). Instead of fearing what he might do, she confessed her sin of rebellion, repented, and committed to submission in everything out of obedience to God. That which Christian wives fear might be asked of them if they are in complete submission never happened to her. But she has realized the blessings of unquestioning submission. He protects her more from the ugly world he was in. There is so much a man is liberated from when he knows his wife is not judging him for anything. It releases an unnecessary burden that most marriages experience (especially marriages where the wife is a Christian and the husband is not).
Had he instead said, "snort these drugs, babe" she would not have a moral obligation to do something evil.
Look how you just made a subjective interpretation of what is evil. Is it just cocaine that is evil? What about marijuana? What about legalized marijuana? Heroine? How about Percocet? Caffeine? Nicotine?
You just perfectly demonstrated why having exceptions to submission is a far greater burden for women to navigate than just accepting the word...everything.
It is highly interesting to note that a thorough study of God's actual laws concerning sexuality does not impart the concept of general consent. Sexual acts are prohibited regardless of consent and consent is only an issue in the forcible sex of a betrothed or married woman. Conspicuously absent are any issues of consent for the maiden (virgin) or the unmarried non-virgin (slut, whore, etc). So, I would conclude that consent is an insidious and recent development of human morality which is clearly having an effect to shift the discussion on sexual morality. I reject the concept of consent making all things right.
Now, people may complain that God would be wrong to regulate absolutely, ignoring consent. It is interesting to note that the very people who would complain at this absolute regulation concerning sex, wholly support current legal trends (man regulating) which absolutely regulate sexual activity, regardless of consent. Let me hum you a few bars: prostitution, child sex, age of consent laws. These laws reject any concept of consent and effectively prohibit relationships, even though they use the language of "consent". Nothing could be further from the truth. It is still ignoring the actual consent of the actors and regulating certain sexual relationships absolutely.
God also absolutely regulates life/death issues, ignoring concepts of general consent. One cannot consent to murder, making it all right.
damntull,
Did it ever occur to you that the woman has the option of rejecting the man to whom she would be married?
2 Corinthians 6:14
She must choose a Christian to wed, refusing to be yoked to a man of darkness. A Christian man will obey God, unless he stumbles. And if he should force his wife to stumble, it is upon his hands.
I think it is possible for the man to rape his wife, but only if it involves something out of the ordinary. Like if he forcefully sodomizes her, which would not be something she'd ordinarily consent to during sexual intercourse or something she that a marriage contract would not mean consent to.
May I say something about the legal implications here? Marital rape, at least in the US, is a crime against the state and the state must choose to prosecute it. A victim's consent to this prosecution is not required. In theory, the state can now prosecute anybody they want, for anything they deem rape, without without the cooperation of a victim. So much for keeping the government out of our bedrooms.
For those of you who think this is a fanciful notion, I assure you we've been doing it in cases of alleged domestic violence and child abuse for decades. If some busy body decides you are a rapist, a batterer, or a child abuser, and the state decides it's interested in you, there need not be any complaining witness. In fact, your wife, your kids, the one's the state claims to be serving, may have little or no say in the matter.
Children and alleged rape victims, can be accused of being in denial and have been charged with obstruction of justice for failing to testify that they were raped. This abuse of power and victimization of women and children is far more easily documented then any perverse notions of women being raped while in labor.
Marital rape in the third degree...sex in which no force was used but consent was not obtained or some one says "not right now dear", if I understand correctly...what planet are these bozos living on?
SarahsDaughter
"What I always find interesting is when Christian men think of the possibility of a wife being in submission in everything, honoring her husbands headship of her, showing him respect out of obedience to God, the first thing they think is: "I should tell her to have an abortion!"
I believe in biblical Christian submission. What I don't believe in is your screwed up absolutistic interpretation of what is involved. The very idea that a woman can transgress one of God's explicit commands such as, Thou shalt not kill, and then say that she's not responsible because her husband told her to do it is absurd. Every time someone brings up the abortion example, you dodge and complain because you have no answer, and you refuse to accept a more reasonable approach to biblical Christian submission.
Soga,
"And if he should force his wife to stumble, it is upon his hands."
It is upon his hands, AND upon hers. There is no ambiguity in God's command to refrain from the worship of false gods - it cannot be abrogated by any man, and no Christian can be absolved from responsibility for transgressing that command. Your problem is that you are separated from the Church and cannot see that God is the authority, and the Church is the arbiter. Since you don't understand this, the only avenue left for you is absolutistic interpretations of scripture that lead you into needless confusion and contradiction.
damntull,
The contradiction starts whereat one guts the clear commands of Scripture as outlined in 1 Peter in order to be "reasonable" and thereby entertain the notion of judging one's husband, and of course the total confusion of having to then choose between pleasing God (according to one's own interpretation/conscience) and pleasing a husband. I think Peter made it quite clear in citing Sarah as the example. If any husband obey not the word, the wife would still obey the husband. In the case of Sarah, that looked to be heading from lies towards enforced adultery as she was in Abimelech's house awaiting the time she would be married to him.
I thought we had this conversation already. There are legitimate ways one disobey a legitimate authority. A wife whose husband converts from Christianity to Islam is under no obligation to disobey the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me...) should he command her to worship Allah. Some rules supersede all others at ALL times no matter what.
You're simply wrong if you believe having moral responsibility alongside proper submission to a legitimate authority means you're somehow usurping that authority. Government, according to the Bible, is a legitimate above us, but if a government orders us to worship an idol or to stop preaching the Good News, it ought to be disobeyed. And if that government attacks us, it ought to be fought.
Thank you for this article. It needed to be said, though it shouldn't have.
This is what used to be called "conjugal rights".
For a sincere Christian, the answer is an easy and resounding NO.
But when people move the goal posts on marital definitions of course things get dicey; hence the juxtaposition of thoughts on the subject.
Btw, to bible says divorce is acceptable if infidelity occurs. When you find out, file for it and free yourself of that sexual promise, otherwise uphold your legal marital agreement.
damntull,
It's interesting that you suggest I'm separated from the Church, because Scripture says that the Church is the Body of Christ, those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and confess so with their lips. That all believers form a holy priesthood.
Would I be correct in presuming that you believe non-Catholics are not Christians? Because there is ample evidence that there are indeed genuine Christians among Protestants. They pass the necessary tests as outlined in Scripture to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit as a seal of their fellowship with the Lord.
Unless you mean to suggest that I am disconnected from the tradition of the Church. I assure you, that is most certainly not the case. I may consider myself Protestant, but I am learned of the Church Traditions. And in this case, this would mean that the difference between you and me, damntull, is that I do not elevate the words of wise men to or above the authority of God's Word.
Begin with known authority, and the rest is annotation.
Oh please, the infantile arguments are bad enough, don't start with the open backslapping and smiley faces. Any moment now you're going to start calling each other "sir", too.
Oh boy, here comes the obligatory lib backslapping and gladhanding.
THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY, GOOD SIR! :) :) :)
Make sure you call each other "sir" 50 times. I'm told that's a requirement.
So let me get this straight, the people here villifying Vox are saying that the can picture a scenario where the husband forcibly rapes the wife, she wants to charge him with rape...but still wants to stay married?
Because that's the only plausible scenario here. Otherwise, just divorce your evil violent husband, right? When you declare you want to divorce, there's no problem anymore.
So the genius libs are merely staying they can picture a scenario where the wife wants to convict her husband of rape, but stay married to him. Genius.
Also, I see the backslapping and "Hello my fine good sir, thank you for considering my opinion and agreeing with me! :) :) :)" lib gladhanding is starting between the two rabbits.
Make sure you call each other 'sir' at least 50 times. I'm told that's a requirement.
I see the 'reply' function simply threw the comments on at the end of the post instead of actually replying to the comment I responded to. I apologize, delete my first two comments and this one if you want to clean up my mess.
"Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis."
Heh, I didn't know Jim Donald had started doing guest posts here. He seems sort of a little insistent on this concept.
"Instead of adopting an [absolute] approach, why not adjust your interpretation of the passage such that it conforms to the rest of the Christian message!?"
This seems like a sensible general principle. I think it would be helpful to employ the Confucian concept of "rectification of names" to this issue. In other words, we need to stop giving over-reaching definitions to the word "rape" and treat it as what it strictly is, and only that. We should also look for what is the implicit truth of genuine roles in words like "marriage" "husband" "wife" "submit" "obey" etc.
Husbands and wives have duties to one another, and performing these duties is part of what makes them these roles we call them. A wife who is deliberately withholding sex as an act of malice or contempt is not genuinely performing the role of a "wife". Likewise, a husband who deliberately insists on sex in a circumstance where a loving husband would recognize that a wife's reluctance to engage for specific, limited times and for reasonable reasons, but forces himself on her anyway, has done wrong. You may or may not choose to call that "rape" but in both instances the spouses are doing wrong, and need to be reminded that they are in a "marriage" and that this means they are charged with loving and honoring one another.
I'm not making any clear pronouncements here, just reminding people that certain words have mystical inner meanings which must be perceived, and that that might help one come to a fuller, clearer, more Christian understanding of the whole thing.
So... can we assume that since there is no such thing as marital rape, if a wife gets AIDS through a blood transfusion, and no fault of her own, it doesn't matter if husband tells her he will remain married to support her but doesn't want to risk having sex with her, Vox would have no problem with wife getting hubby drunk, having unprotected sex with him, and infecting him with AIDS? Or is this a case of a double standard where the wife can't turn down sex even for one night, never mind how sick she is, or if husband has AIDS, but hubby has the right of refusal whenever he wants?
"Or "is this a case of a double standard where the wife can't turn down sex even for one night..."
Kind of ironic, in the fem's continuum for domestic violence, one of the indicators for abuse is when MEN with hold affection. Refusing to talk to your wife, refusing to have sex with her, are part of the continuum of psychological abuse. However, when we turn it around and suggest that women with holding sex may also be a form of emotional terrorism, suddenly the rules change. That's the real double standard.
The reality of the situation however, is that when you are married to somebody you allegedly care about, refusing to have sex with them really is a form of abuse. It is holding them hostage, it is power tripping, it is an attempt to punish them. Naturally there are negotiations and compromises involved, but the assumption that men must be monitored and regulated by the state so they don't violate their wives, is simply asinine.
Soga,
No, I don't believe that all non-Catholics are not Christians. You are, however, separated from the Church in a real since you don't recognize her teaching authority, and by removing the arbiter, you have a truncated view of the authority.
At the core of all feminist rape politics is the conceit that a certain group of people have the right to dangle raw meat in front of a hungry dog and not even expect to get their fingers nipped much less get their hand bit clean off.
After a great deal of consideration, I, as a woman, have decided that Vox is correct. Consent to marriage means you have agreed to a contract in which you automatically consent to normal penis-vagina sex whenever requested.
Refusal to engage in normal penis-vagina sex when asked by your spouse constitutes a violation of this contract. There are NO valid reasons for refusal. Sickness, pain, being in labor, or anything else is not a valid reason. No, your reason is not a valid reason. Refusing to engage in normal penis-vagina sex when your spouse asks for it is a violation of the marriage contract. Also, there will be no weaselling around this, trying to get around this contractual requirement by trying never to be home (and refusing to come home to have sex when asked) or asking or telling your spouse not to ask you for sex as that also constitutes a defacto violation of the marriage contract.
The law is not nearly strict enough in this matter, when a married person violates the marriage contract by either refusing sex when their spouse asks for it, or trying to weasel around the matter, that is grounds for immediate divorce, and as people who violate contracts deserve to be punished for it, all of the marital assets should go to the aggrieved party who was, in violation of the marital contract, denied sex (or weaselled out of it) when they asked for it.
1) Jesus, God incarnate, diety in human flesh, of course he was to be celibate. He was not to be married. That would have presented some difficult questions as to the nature of Jesus' offsprings.
2) How do you know that Paul was celibate?
The problem with that statement is that your dimmest critics are still intellectual giants when compared to you.
Marriage is not an open license to do whatever the fuck you want to your wife. If you have to beat the crap out of her to get her to sleep with you, it's not consensual sex. If you coerce financially by threatening to cut her off, it's not consensual sex. If you manage to separate her from her support system then bully her emotionally and verbally until she gives in to you, it's not consensual sex.
If your wife were to tazer you or drug you, then force a strapon up your ass, it's consensual sex?
Going further, what if you are in the midst of a divorce, possibly even for causes of physical abuse, but the papers haven't been finalized yet. Are you allowed to break into your separated partner's home and fuck her at gunpoint? Does that still count as consensual?
People like you make chemical castration sound like a sane option.
So you are okay with the idea of you Dad bending your Mom over and taking her at any given time or day, regardless of her feelings or physical state?
And since this works both ways, as you say consent is a given within a marriage, you would be find if say, your wife awoke you to her penetrating you?
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.