ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Heat Street debate: marital rape

My latest debate with Louise Mensch of Heat Street is on the subject of marital rape, concerning which my view that it is an oxymoron has been declared controversial in certain circles:
Louise Mensch: Do you agree that there’s no such thing as rape within marriage?

Vox Day: Yeah, I think it’s quite obvious that it’s not even possible for there to be anything that we describe as rape within marriage. I find it remarkable that someone would try and claim that it is beyond debate when this new concept of marital rape is not only very, very new but is in fact not even applicable to most of the human race. It’s very clear, for example, in India it’s part of the written law that it’s not possible, for even if force is involved, there cannot be rape between a man and a woman. In China the law is the same.

LM: Mm-hmm (affirmative) but there’s a difference between saying what the law is and saying what is morally right. You would agree that just because somebody says something is a law doesn’t make it so. Let’s just start with that basic principle.

Vox: There’s huge difference between morality and legality. I’d be the first to agree with that. The fact of the matter is that the concept of marital rape hangs on consent and because marriage is and has always granted consent, the act of marriage is a granting of consent, therefore it’s not possible for the consent to be withdrawn and then for rape to happen. In fact, the concept of marital rape is created by the cultural Marxists in an attempt to destroy the family and to destroy the institution of marriage.

LM: I’m going to say that that’s patent nonsense. If you consent to something once it doesn’t mean that you’ve given a blanket consent to it forever. We agree on the definition of rape – that rape is when one party forces sex on the other without their consent?

Vox: Yes.

LM: Good. We go that far. Your argument then hinges on the statement that to get married is to give an all-time consent forever to sex with your spouse?

Vox: Exactly. It’s no different than when you join the army. You only have to join the army once. You don’t get the choice to consent to obey orders every single time an order is given. In certain arrangements, and marriage is one of them, the agreement is a lasting one, and that’s why it’s something that should not be entered into lightly.
I find it both amusing and mildly disconcerting that a view which is consistent with the entire legal and philosophical history of the human race is suddenly supposed to be unimaginable. I mean, precisely how ignorant, precisely how brainwashed, does one have to be in order to be completely unable to imagine that which is not only recent history, but is still the law for most of the human race?

Labels: , ,

212 Comments:

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Matt August 14, 2016 11:21 AM  

Its precisely because of the destruction of the family and of marriage that people imagine marriage is something to enter and leave on a whim. A woman you meet in a bar that changes her mind halfway through the act must have her wish granted. A wife who does the same, legally, should have no such privilege. Whether forcing sex on your wife is conducive to a happy marriage of course is another story..

Blogger Johnny August 14, 2016 11:22 AM  

The problem with rape is that it invites false charges. That has been going on forever (it is a women thing), and with our lawyered up society it is getting uncomfortably common. Plus currently the whole sexual harassment thing is getting a little crazy. But otherwise if it could be administered in a sound way I see merit to the concept.

I suppose you could do like they used to do with horses, one 'free' kick. The first time the horse kicks somebody there is no liability. You could do men like that, one free rape charge and after that it is prosecutable.

Blogger S1AL August 14, 2016 11:25 AM  

It's very confusing if you view it through the lens of trying to redefine rape. It becomes just another logical step when you see it as redefining marriage, which is what it's actually all about.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook August 14, 2016 11:33 AM  

So marriage is not marriage? What if I don't want to pay taxes since I consented once but now I'm of another mind?

Intellectuals my ass.

Blogger pyrrhus August 14, 2016 11:39 AM  

Marital rape is another example of essentially criminalizing bad manners, in a way that is very destructive to key social institutions...Naturally, it has been pushed by marxists and their allies in the judiciary. This is why it was so crucial that Pinochet made a clean sweep of marxists in the legal and academic institutions of Chile.

Anonymous Noah Nehm August 14, 2016 11:40 AM  

I find it interesting that Universities are in a knot trying to define consent to regulate sexual activity on campus. The irony is that the Lefties who control the Universities have systematically destroyed what marriage is and now they are finding the need to replace it with another institution.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 11:42 AM  

Marriage is not what the State says, or what the preacher declares. It is the act of sexual intercourse that starts a marriage. The breaking of that intercourse is defrauding the marriage. Neither party has a right to withhold. So either party can rightly demand or take it.

Redefining goes back to the Garden. Did God really mean...?

Best Tools For Men

Blogger Crude August 14, 2016 11:44 AM  

Interesting debate. I don't like Mensch much, but I applaud her for having the debate at all.

I would have enjoyed seeing you both debate whether sexual assault is possible in the context of a marriage. It's watered down from 'marital rape' in a way that I think may make it hard for Mensch to address. I think she gave away most of the game the moment she said that marriage initiates a certain level of familiarity that invalidates certain approaches regarding consent.

Blogger VFM #7634 August 14, 2016 11:45 AM  

Most people seem to have absolutely no clue what marriage even is any more. Gone is the recognition that it is a contract giving consent to the other's body until death do them part, open to the procreation of children and the continuation of the race.

Rather, they appear to consider it merely some sort of state recognition of their being boyfriend/girlfriend. This would, of course, explain not only how there could even be "marital rape", but "gay marriage" as well. Or, for that matter, "marriages" where the spouses don't intend to have children despite being fertile.

Blogger darrenl August 14, 2016 11:48 AM  

Ridiculous.

This woman clearly needs to take a look at the common marriage vows gain.

Husband: "I TAKE you, X, as my wife..."

Wife: "I TAKE you, Y, as my husband..."

Things usually missing that would help her argument:
- qualifiers, of any kind, on the word "take"
- the words "I feel"
- the holding back of anything, including the total gift of self, to the other.

Clearly, she's sees marriage much like a consumer would.

Seriously. If you can't get a woman to agree and understand on the total gift of self that is involved in marriage, then you should encourage her to get a dog and move on to find a woman who does understand.

Blogger Escoffier August 14, 2016 11:50 AM  

Noah Nehm wrote:I find it interesting that Universities are in a knot trying to define consent to regulate sexual activity on campus. The irony is that the Lefties who control the Universities have systematically destroyed what marriage is and now they are finding the need to replace it with another institution.

Or this was the plan all along? I mean The New Soviet Man ain't gonna create him or herself out of thin air, capisce?

Blogger chris August 14, 2016 11:54 AM  

"If you consent to something once it doesn’t mean that you’ve given a blanket consent to it forever. "

If the wife can say no to sex, then can the husband say no to providing and protecting her and her children? Can he kick her (and her kids) to the curb the second she denies him?

I doubt LM would agree to that, yet it is still based on consent. She would just come up with some other X principle that she says overrides consent as the ultimate norm in that scenario, likely something harm based. Funnily enough, if you then used that other X principle to override consent when consent is useful to women/wives she would conveniently say that it doesn't apply there.

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 11:54 AM  

Still no comments section.

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 11:55 AM  

Women often do enter into marriage lightly. And that really is the point. Women often spend more time and effort shopping for a blouse than they do selecting a spouse. Maybe arranged marriages weren't such a bad idea? Not perfect, but I think arranged marriages would be more likely to be based on "R" selection than "K" (or do I have that backwards?).

Blogger Joaquim Amado Lopes August 14, 2016 11:57 AM  

Even assuming that marrying someone meant perpetual consent to have sex (what sex acts precisely?) with your spouse anytime he/she wants, it doesn't mean your spouse has the right to use force against you to enforce that "right". The only thing it means is that the refusal to have sex would be reason enough to divorce or get an annulment.

Blogger pyrrhus August 14, 2016 11:59 AM  

"If the wife can say no to sex, then can the husband say no to providing and protecting her and her children? Can he kick her (and her kids) to the curb the second she denies him?"
Actually, indications are that in the old days, this is exactly what happened when Common Law marriages broke up....

Blogger Escoffier August 14, 2016 12:01 PM  

I was at a Church related small men's group last year. At fifty I was the old man of the group. Average age was early twenties and unmarried while the guy heading it up was early thirties and also unmarried. Just to note I will be married twenty four years this year.

So at the end of the group there was an interminable conversation on the subject of masturbation. Specifically focusing on strategies, techniques and phone apps to not. Nearing the end I noted that there was actually power in Jesus to help with this but that the obvious Christian remedy to a healthy sexual drive was to get married.

They, each and every one, was poleaxed. If any one of them had heard this simple advice previously I would be deeply surprised. I would argue not only has marriage been destroyed but for many even the notion that it is a healthy or necessary step of adulthood.

Blogger Jehu August 14, 2016 12:02 PM  

There is a way of withdrawing sexual consent during marriage. It is called divorce.
I swear perhaps moderns would have more respect for a BDSM contract that emulated marriage, where it was terminated (i.e. divorce) if either party used the safeword.

Blogger S. Misanthrope August 14, 2016 12:03 PM  

Acting like new-fangled things are unquestionable truth while all else is "unimaginable" is something I see too often for it not to be strategic. It's an attempt to win the argument by moral bullying and social pressure, similar to "I'm sure you don't mean X, because only a depraved person would believe that."

Marriage is different now; perhaps the law ought to adjust as well. But in the opposite direction from what feminists think.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 12:04 PM  

Such as saying it three times, "I divorce you.I divorce you.I divorce you." like the (((((eskimos))))) do/did.

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 12:06 PM  

chris wrote:If the wife can say no to sex, then can the husband say no to providing and protecting her and her children? Can he kick her (and her kids) to the curb the second she denies him?

MGTOW. Men are just eschewing the institution of marriage, and even long-term relationships with women altogether.

Think of it as 4th wave feminism.

This is what Marxism has wrought. Men are content to have minimum wage dead-end jobs and entertain themselves with vidya and waifu. Women are careerists who are absolutely miserable.

The Frankfurt School committed a crime against humanity as grave as those of their Bolshevist brothers.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 12:07 PM  

@17 That retreat experience just shows how successful the cultural Marxist are. But, at that stage of total cluelessness they may be open to retraining.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 12:09 PM  

And if your counter argument is "but the women will not follow", then you do not yet understand the basics of masculinity. If you lead, most will follow.

Anonymous A Catholic August 14, 2016 12:09 PM  

>The Catholics burnt Galileo at the stake for saying that the Earth went round the sun.

Galileo was not burnt! He was sentenced to house arrest in the mansion he hated leaving.

Anonymous Questionmark August 14, 2016 12:12 PM  

The taken by force and battery argument interests me.

Say a husband forcefully takes his wife and rips her up internally (vaginal bleeding) while she said no, but has no bruises on her arms, legs etc. What crime would that be?

Blogger Doom August 14, 2016 12:12 PM  

Amusing? Mildly disconcerting? I would rather have those presenting that, and any judge who becomes activist on the issue, to be shot. It's gotten too far for that, unfortunately. There will have to be a war. If they win, more of it, If they lose, exile them to NorK and other such places where some people do what they propose, tell everyone else what to do, regardless of history or logic or faith or even real science.

I'm not sure which way it will go, though I suspect. It, at this point, has to happen. Breaking up into little nations won't work, not for long anyway. It never does. Left to it's devices, the former Yugoslavia would come back as a single nation. May still if we pulled out of NATO and Russia and China stayed out. Europe is militarily castrated.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 14, 2016 12:13 PM  

The only reason that marital rape is even considered a thing is because Western culture has become so debauched as to assume that marriage is nothing more than a legally binding exclusive social dating contract.

Blogger Natalie August 14, 2016 12:13 PM  

Right, even in cases of sexual assault in marriage the issue is the assault and not the sex. One or both of them might be morally in the wrong (ie husband wants sex a week after his wife gives birth vs wife who refuses sex for BS reasons) but in terms of the law it should be assault that's considered.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 14, 2016 12:13 PM  

Well done!

Look for Hillary to cry "Debate rape" at some point to cover a freizure.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 12:16 PM  

@25 lube. But really, those are the extremes, not the norm.

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 12:17 PM  

Orville wrote:If you lead, most will follow.

Divorce stats disagree.

Granted the power of no-fault divorce and a guarantee of government force in extracting wealth from the man, woman can be pretty easily strayed.

And if your counter argument is "but you just masculined wrong," then you do not yet understand reality.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 12:21 PM  

The only story the stats tell is that most men are pussified. I challenge you to read deeply into the PUA stuff that can and should be applied to a marriage relationship. There's reframing, dread, etc.

It's quite simple, if nobody is following, then you aren't leading. And let's leave off the occasional bat shit crazy woman some dweeb married.

Blogger Weouro August 14, 2016 12:23 PM  

The problem is in bringing Mr. Governor into the marriage as a chaperone. Feminists talk about things like this as if men didn't love their wives until circa 1965. Prior to that they were unaccountable brutes just raping and pillaging their June Cleaver wives and then forcing her against her will to bring him a cup of coffee at breakfast to add to the humiliation.

Anonymous Trevor163 August 14, 2016 12:25 PM  

The issue here is obvious: what, exactly, has been consented to and are there circumstances or actions that can legitimately lead to that consent being withdrawn?

Blogger HonorLiving August 14, 2016 12:27 PM  

Are we actually arguing that a husband is as a state, and that therefore the obligation to have sex is as the obligation one would have toward the army or the tax collector?

On this basis, why not say that an engagement toward an employer is unlimited or perpetual, in so far as it is agreed upon on entry? If we acknowledge that a husband and a wife can divorce one another, on what basis do we say that a person cannot withdraw consent to have sex and that failure to respect same isn't rape?

I feel some false equivalence are being drawn, that equates the husband with a state, either in part or in toto.

Anonymous Rolf August 14, 2016 12:29 PM  

Maybe flip the argument around. If marriage is not to be considered ongoing consent, then what is it? A purely financial arrangement, whereby the breadwinner's pocket's are emptied? A sandwich-making, house maintenance, repair, and cleaning contract? What? What's the incentive for a person to get married if they still have to beg for it and sex can be used as an an, er, "area denial weapon"? If there isn't a strong positive incentive to put up with the partner's downside (and we all have them to one degree or another), why commit yourself for life?

Life is full of trade-offs. So is marriage. But if the terms of the agreement can be unilaterally altered post-commitment, then it's not much of an agreement, is is?

Would this be a good place to point out that research shows orgasms are a great cure for headaches, and semen acts as an antidepressant? (Really! Look it up.) Or is that too scientific and practical, and not historical or philosophical enough :-)

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 12:36 PM  

Orville wrote:The only story the stats tell is that most men are pussified.

Convenient.

Orville wrote:I challenge you to read deeply into the PUA stuff that can and should be applied to a marriage relationship.

Jesus.

PUA faggotry DOES NOT OVERCOME PERVERSE STATE INCENTIVES.

Orville wrote:It's quite simple, if nobody is following, then you aren't leading.

Herpa-derp circular reasoning is circular.

Following is an voluntary action.

Orville wrote:And let's leave off the occasional bat shit crazy woman some dweeb married.

Occasional.

Anonymous Opus August 14, 2016 12:40 PM  

Marital Rape is, as much as Married Bachelor, an Oxymoron: Louis Mensch attended Beechwood Sacred Heart School, a rather run-of-the-mill local school. It says little for the efforts of the Nuns and other Catholic teachers that all Mensch can parrot is full-on Feminist boilerplate. She does not appear to understand what Marriage is what it entails or what it excludes.

'Love you Short Time' - her version of marriage - indistinguishable from prostitution and without any agreed fee being settled in advance.

Blogger VD August 14, 2016 12:41 PM  

I doubt LM would agree to that, yet it is still based on consent. She would just come up with some other X principle that she says overrides consent as the ultimate norm in that scenario, likely something harm based.

You obviously didn't read the linked debate.

Blogger Verne August 14, 2016 12:45 PM  

They can't seem to deal with the fact that it is not rape. They are not happy with it being an Aagravated assault and spousal abuse charge. Those can be felony changes, but no it must be what by definition it can not be, it must be rape.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 14, 2016 12:48 PM  

Godfrey wrote:Maybe arranged marriages weren't such a bad idea? Not perfect, but I think arranged marriages would be more likely to be based on "R" selection than "K" (or do I have that backwards?).

Yes, you have that backwards. (R is for Rabbit.)
It seems to me that arranged marriages get a totally undeserved bad rap, after all which parents would intentionally make a bad match?

Unknown wrote:chris wrote:If the wife can say no to sex, then can the husband say no to providing and protecting her and her children? Can he kick her (and her kids) to the curb the second she denies him?

This is what Marxism has wrought. Men are content to have minimum wage dead-end jobs and entertain themselves with vidya and waifu. Women are careerists who are absolutely miserable.


Well, given how stacked the deck is against males, there is a logic to refusing to play the game. -- I mean looking just at the legal realm, and the subset thereof being "rape" and "divorce" the man is slated to lose big... even with "good outcomes".

Anonymous Type 5 August 14, 2016 12:48 PM  

Are we actually arguing that a husband is as a state, and that therefore the obligation to have sex is as the obligation one would have toward the army or the tax collector?

No. We are arguing that civilized people reasonably expect a woman to keep her word.

Blogger Sheila4g August 14, 2016 12:51 PM  

@5 Pyrrhus: "Marital rape is another example of essentially criminalizing bad manners, in a way that is very destructive to key social institutions."

That's really the whole hinge of Mensch's argument. Vox is speaking of principles and their overarching utility. Louise is, as it always seems, picking and choosing certain special exceptions and circumstances and saying they disprove the principle in general. Except even she admits that well, no, they don't.

Marriage implies affirmative consent. Principle. Are there exceptions in practice which would bad manners, or ill advised? Certainly. Do these practical exceptions render the principle moot or allow criminal prosecution for being an idiot? Not in a sane society.

Anonymous Roundtine August 14, 2016 12:52 PM  

Marital rape is another example of essentially criminalizing bad manners

This. Is why women shouldn't vote. Mensch will destroy marriage in her pursuit of prosecuting the exceptions. When you say marital rape to a normie (not a Cultural Marxist) they immediately think of the violent, abusive spouse. Their idea of marital rape is pretty much a full on violent assault. Or maybe a husband could use a gun (the wife could too!).

They completely miss the logic of the issue, that you literally cannot rape a spouse because evidence of penetration and semen is to be expected, because marriage. Trying to get 100% coverage with a law leads to horrible, tyrannical outcomes. It's why there's the standard of evidence, you can have a person who all the evidence points to as the criminal, but if a key piece of evidence is missing, it's often enough to acquit or even prevent a prosecution. If we were talking about stealing for instance, does Mensch think the husband can steal the wife's car? Even if the car is in her name, how are you going to prove it was stolen? She can call the cops and they will find the car and husband, and he'll say he borrowed it, or she was asleep and he needed to buy groceries and his wife is a total bitch about her car. How can you prove he stole the car? The husband might be a total dick who gets into accidents, resets the radio settings, grinds the gears and the wife really doesn't want him driving her car, but how can the State get involved in this without a major intrusion into the marriage?

Anonymous Thorbert August 14, 2016 12:57 PM  

They can't seem to deal with the fact that it is not rape. They are not happy with it being an Aagravated assault and spousal abuse charge. Those can be felony changes, but no it must be what by definition it can not be, it must be rape.

Of course since even thinking about engaging in sex has to send a close shiver down the spine of every man. Ezra Klein

Louise doesn't understand (and very likely doesn't care) what it does to a husband to be accused of rape, to be the called the same as some low life who drags a woman into the bushes, tries to impregnate her and then runs away. Neither does she care about what it does to society. Her prime and only focus is her religion: feminism.

What rape once meant and why the crime was established in the first place isn't important. It's important how much power the word has, power which can be used to shape the world for feminism.

Blogger Orville August 14, 2016 1:04 PM  

@37 Unknown sounds like a butt-hurt MGTOW who is not familiar with social-sexual dynamics.

Anonymous Jill August 14, 2016 1:07 PM  

HonorLiving, nobody is arguing that the husband is a state; the argument has nothing to do with the husband specifically. The argument is that marriage is a legal (and spiritual) contract defined by the sex act. This is what *should* make marriage different from other relationships, and why states used to have a vested interest in regulating and protecting it. The sex act *should* produce offspring in most marriages; when parents are legally bound together, the offspring are protected and cared for and hence a civilized society exists and continues to exist. If one of the legally bound adults in a marriage refuses to have sex, the contract itself is broken because of the basic definition of marriage. This is why there is no such thing as marital rape. There is, however, such a thing as cruelty and assault. I say "cruelty" because I know of several women who married older men who no longer want to engage in sex after they had several children together (the reason they usually give is that they don't want to provide for any more children, and they belong to churches that eschew birth control). These women wouldn't be able to force the sex act on their husbands if they tried, and I don't think they would want to, either.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 14, 2016 1:07 PM  

Deport the feminists to the half of the world where martial rape is a joke not a law, let them fight.

Blogger tz August 14, 2016 1:08 PM  

Back during Christendom, the exclusive form of consent was the marriage vow, and it was plenary.
Women were expected to remain virgins and there would be chaperons to protect virtue. Men were also forced to behave.
I'd add divorce was very hard. (I use student loan debt today as an example).
Now we have this bizarre SUI not replacing DUI for shame. And the woman is told she can consent, but withdraw the consent like Onan.

OpenID malcolmthecynic August 14, 2016 1:09 PM  

I thought this was a pretty good debate. And then...

The Catholics burnt Galileo at the stake for saying that the Earth went round the sun.

I...uh...What?

What?

I don't even know what to say to that.

Blogger Randy M August 14, 2016 1:13 PM  

The problem with her position is that if marriage confers the right to sex generally, but gives the wife the veto power over every occasion, it in fact doesn't confer any right to sex in practice.

Blogger tz August 14, 2016 1:14 PM  

Refusing sex doesn't break the contract, but allows less nice means of enforcing it. If a wife does not wish to remain under the contract, let her divorce and take nothing from the marriage - no cash or visitation.
Just as if the husband is tired of providing and sacrificing. Is it cruel to force him to keep working when he could be going off on an extended vacation?
Your wish to change your mind about obligation and duty isn't cruelty when you don't get your wish.

Anonymous Jill August 14, 2016 1:16 PM  

"The Catholics burnt Galileo at the stake for saying that the Earth went round the sun."
Maybe it was meant metaphorically, LOL.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 1:20 PM  

1 Corinthians 7Good News Translation (GNT)

Questions about Marriage
7 Now, to deal with the matters you wrote about.

A man does well not to marry.[a] 2 But because there is so much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. 3 A man should fulfill his duty as a husband, and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife, and each should satisfy the other's needs. 4 A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is. 5 Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations. In this way you will be kept from giving in to Satan's temptation because of your lack of self-control.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 1:22 PM  

Take a close look at verse 5.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 1:25 PM  

The principle of denial to the spouse is that it is mutually decided, not just a one sided act.

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 1:31 PM  

@50
I saw that too and LMAO.


Blogger tz August 14, 2016 1:31 PM  

It is a sin against charity to deny sex, or to force it.
Marriage as a sacrament is about giving, and giving sacrificially, not taking. The good wife should give herself to the husband even if she "doesn't feel like it", if there is no pain involved.
Women psychologically and/or physically damaged by riding the carousel will have more problems with this.
It is also how churchians turn good men into functional betas/gammas. Men are supposed to be the aggressors and women prefer that too.

Blogger tz August 14, 2016 1:34 PM  

One branch burned St. Joan of Arc, but I can't think of another example. The Witch craze was a protestant thing.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett August 14, 2016 1:36 PM  

@35. Your disconnect occurs because you are in a group of people. It is disconcerting because you are a fascist (in the sense of the Italian ideology).

Man, and marriage, existed long before the State, and are absolutely vital, unlike the State, to human flourishing.

No one is saying a mere man is like The State. We are arguing that A Man is far superior to any mere state.

Anonymous Jill August 14, 2016 1:39 PM  

"Refusing sex doesn't break the contract, but allows less nice means of enforcing it." As with any contract, marriage comes with obligations. I don't believe in no-fault divorce, but long before no-fault divorce, a man could divorce his wife for lack of sexual relations because sex is intrinsic to marriage. The problem with marriage as a legal contract is that there isn't a strict guideline as to how often the sexual act should occur, only that it is expected to occur because consent to sex was given at the time the couple made their vows. Going back to the original subject, this is why marital rape doesn't exist. Abuse exists and might be punishable by law, depending on the type of abuse. Cruelty exists, but cruelty is too ambiguous to be a punishable crime.

Blogger overcaffeinated August 14, 2016 1:48 PM  

"I’m going to say that that’s patent nonsense."

THAT's patent nonsense. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 1:48 PM  

Here's an idea...


Take time.

Date more than one guy.

Allow various men to court you.

Don't screw any of them.

Assess their qualities.

Go through a rational selection process to determine who would be the best father to your children and the best husband.

Introduce him to your parents and grandparents. Get their opinions.

Meet his parents. Are they normal? Get an idea on what his family life was like when he was young. Is his is father a drunken womanizer? Has his mother been married five times? These might be important things to know, right?

Don't screw him yet.

You see... if he's trying to screw you after the first date he may not a guy with much self-control. And he may not be a guy who loves you... because love is sacrifice. If he can't wait, then that tells you something doesn't it?

Talk about what you want in marriage (e.g. number of children, will you stay home or work, etc.). What are his expectations? Tell him yours?

Get engaged

Get married

Have children

Enjoy a happy family life


Get engaged.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 14, 2016 1:49 PM  

Just totally shocked I tell you that a woman chooses a petty issue, argues it with petty details, just shocked I tell you.

And I wouldn't be surprised that "martial rape" becomes the next really, really important issue with the bitter clinging #NeverTrumpers.

Blogger John Wright August 14, 2016 1:55 PM  

@35
" Are we actually arguing that a husband is as a state, and that therefore the obligation to have sex is as the obligation one would have toward the army or the tax collector? "

No, sir. We are arguing that the obligation is greater. In a healthy society, such as what prevailed during the formation of English common law, the court interfered with the intimacy of marriage only most reluctantly. Such men nad a realistic understanding of the inability of a court of law to cure domestic disputes. Their attitude was more akin to ours regarding friends:We don't call the cops each time friends quarrel, nor do we think lawyers possess godlike powers to set sour friendships aright.

Anonymous Faceless August 14, 2016 1:57 PM  

Women love to talk about this marital rape idea. They are the ones who always bring this up. It must be a common sexual fantasy for them that is going unfulfilled.

Anonymous Faceless August 14, 2016 2:01 PM  

@59

Those were the Burgundians, who she was at war with. Phillip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, had his enemy military commander executed. The English allies, the Burgundians, got their hands on the Dauphin's military leader. Any claims to it being for witch craft or cross dressing were entirely political propaganda to attempt to discredit and erase her as the defeated leader of the other side.

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra August 14, 2016 2:03 PM  

Surreal, just wow.

Men lead, women follow.

In the contractual agreement is obvious that a husband needs his dinner and his matters taken care of - if she really loves him and is for him and he loves her per their marriage martial rape is a lie - it doesn't exist. To place this matter of behind closed doors plainly, a good woman never lets her husband, her best friend, the father of her children go without wifely duties. This obviously includes a fine meal, proper attire, assistance to his nutritional needs, a clean home and all behind closed doors matters satisfied as this is good and holy within the agreement of marriage. The Lord willed and created men and women for these proper,lawful, loving purposes.

Sure its a way to destroy the family unit but its also another evil of feminism, marital rape is a non-starter, non-issue, a lie. I don't and never will subscribe to such absurdities. If women abandon their husbands' they are sorry excuses for women and if he goes along with her refusals and nullsense excuses he has to call her out for being a fraudwife.

It is a profound heartbreak and an act of cruelty to deny the husband matters behind closed doors.

Blogger Nick S August 14, 2016 2:22 PM  

This is the problem with liberal trans-rationale goalposts.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 2:23 PM  

"Marital rape" is all about control, the use of sexual denial to control men. Feminists are also quite determined to control men, so no surprise that feminism has spawned an ever growing number of "crimes" that apply only to men.

Mensch is just another misandric feminist, nothing more than that. Women like her are a dime a dozen in the urban areas. Many of them wonder why they can't seem to find a man, too.

Blogger Shimshon August 14, 2016 2:31 PM  

(((Jewish Law))) concurs. Although considered unseemly and frowned upon, a (((man))) is permitted to "force" himself on his (((wife))) with no "consent" need be given.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 2:33 PM  

Mrs. Mensch, BTW, what is the 1 Corinthians 7's immorality being addressed if not sexual intercourse?

Blogger Tom Kratman August 14, 2016 2:40 PM  

Thing is, presuming that the marital contract includes consent, and that consent lasts as long as the contract, which is to say, the marriage, does, then to deny it means that the woman was unable or unfit to contract, which is to say that she's either a beast or a child, and presumably remains so in perpetuity. Since we may reasonably suppose woman - except for a large number of feminists, of course - is neither beast nor child, we must presuppose she can contract and that the contract remains valid until properly terminated.

On the other hand, it would be wise these days to actually do contracts for marriage, beyond mere pre-nups, to spell out expressly that the contract includes consent.

Blogger S1AL August 14, 2016 2:42 PM  

Vox -

The tl;dr on that appears to be that LM was arguing the moral issue versus your focus on the legal issue. Is there a reason that you didn't push that point harder?

A aside from that, I think the was the best debate you guys have had yet.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 2:42 PM  

"If you consent to something once it doesn’t mean that you’ve given a blanket consent to it forever."

Leaving marriage out of it for the moment, giving blanket consent for the term of a contract is the entire function of contract.

Otherwise you would be left in the position of having to argue the terms from scratch with every interaction in the partnership, no matter how minor.

All business would become like trying to argue terms with a woman.

Oh. Wait . . .

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 2:45 PM  

" . . . LM was arguing the moral issue . . ."

The moral issue was a purely rhetorical tool. What she was actually arguing is that the contract should be biased entirely to her advantage.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 14, 2016 2:45 PM  

Thing is, presuming that the marital contract includes consent, and that consent lasts as long as the contract, which is to say, the marriage, does, then to deny it means that the woman was unable or unfit to contract, which is to say that she's either a beast or a child, and presumably remains so in perpetuity. Since we may reasonably suppose woman - except for a large number of feminists, of course - is neither beast nor child, we must presuppose she can contract and that the contract remains valid until properly terminated.

On the other hand, it would be wise these days to actually do contracts for marriage, beyond mere pre-nups, to spell out expressly that the contract includes consent.

Blogger SemiSpook37 August 14, 2016 2:47 PM  

The irony here is that the act itself is meant to facilitate the ability to procreate. The deluded "liberty" wrought by Kinsey (who people should have immediately questioned his research due to the fact he was an entymologist), aided by the Marxists, was that sex could be both procreative AND pleasurable. And we've seen how well THAT has worked out.

I'm glad that the Catholic Church, specifically Papa Roncalli (Paul VI), was smart enough to reinforce the arguments made in Casti Concubii via Humane Vitae. The use of contraceptives in any form is detrimental to a marriage, and with good reason: denying the purpose of the act for the sake of personal pleasure is extremely destructive.

My wife and I are perfectly content to refrain from the act. Sure, it'd help save on meds costs in her case if we were, but with the prohibitive expense of having a child where we live just doesn't make having more than we already do all that appealing. I waited almost 27 years to be with any woman; I can wait until she's ready to be intimate like that again.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 2:51 PM  

" . . . it would be wise these days to actually do contracts for marriage, beyond mere pre-nups, to spell out expressly that the contract includes consent."

In the relevant forums that is almost precisely what I recommend, that men refuse state license of marriage and have their lawyer draft terms under the business code (and point out that it is not state license that constitutes a legitimate marriage).

However, I note that a change in legal jurisdiction of residence may be necessary (you must reside where common law marriage is not recognized) and virtually all jurisdictions would class terms of sexual congress legally as prostitution.

Blogger S1AL August 14, 2016 2:54 PM  

"The moral issue was a purely rhetorical tool. What she was actually arguing is that the contract should be biased entirely to her advantage."

You and I clearly did not read the same debate.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 2:55 PM  

"You and I clearly did not read the same debate."

We only read the same words.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 2:58 PM  

On the other hand, it would be wise these days to actually do contracts for marriage, beyond mere pre-nups, to spell out expressly that the contract includes consent.

This would be a waste of time and money, as it is utterly unenforceable.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 3:02 PM  

JaimeInTexas wrote:Mrs. Mensch, BTW, what is the 1 Corinthians 7's immorality being addressed if not sexual intercourse?



The feminists are way ahead of you here, don't you realize those verses are totally about mutual submission, i.o.w. female domination?

Blogger Ostar August 14, 2016 3:18 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ostar August 14, 2016 3:20 PM  

ALL SEX is rape between M/F, even in marriage, regardless of consent. Because the man is penetrating and possessing the woman.

According to feminist doctrine, that is.
All of this about marriage rape is just one moving goalpost on the road to that.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 3:24 PM  

" . . .the man is penetrating and possessing the woman."

Except it is engulfment that possesses. The money does not possess the safe.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros August 14, 2016 3:31 PM  

"I mean, precisely how ignorant, precisely how brainwashed, does one have to be in order to be completely unable to imagine that which is not only recent history, but is still the law for most of the human race?"

Very, very much so. The West has been infiltrated and subverted by a sinister death cult that worships Procrustes as Almighty God.

Blogger Nate August 14, 2016 3:31 PM  

I can't get why its so hard to figure out that marital assault and battery is a real thing... but marital rape isn't.

Anonymous Frankenstein McBadperson August 14, 2016 3:34 PM  

Jim Donald's head is going to bloody explode. He bangs on about this sort of thing all the time.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 3:34 PM  

@88 that's what you get for thinking like a man, you rapist!

Blogger bob k. mando August 14, 2016 3:38 PM  

2. Johnny August 14, 2016 11:22 AM
The problem with rape is that it invites false charges. That has been going on forever (it is a women thing)



https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+39%3A6-19&version=KJV



10. darrenl August 14, 2016 11:48 AM
This woman clearly needs to take a look at the common marriage vows gain.


even better, look into some of the older, traditional vows exchanged. in some forms, the bride vowed to be "buxom".

now, you may ask, "how can a woman promise her husband that she will have large breasts?"

you are making the mistake of using the modern definition of buxom. in olden times, "buxom" meant 'pliant; willing or lively'.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/buxom?s=t
so yes, women used to vow to their husbands-to-be that they would be pliant, lively and willing to bed.

which would, of necessity, void the entire 'marital rape' argument as the man couldn't even "take her without consent" UNLESS she was already violating her own vow of sexual availability.

Anonymous Faceless August 14, 2016 3:53 PM  

@74

The women have spent fifty years making it a legal issue and then, in a motte-and-bailey approach, try to retreat to this moral angle of "treating her right" to justify their much more expansive criminalization of what really is nobody's business outside the marital bed.

He has been forever clear upon his position, and it is akin to the position of Christian liberty not exercised in the offense of the weaker brother or sister.

You are at liberty to drink whatever you will unto the Lord, but you would not be a good brother to your fellow Christian who has been five years sober after twenty years an alcoholic if you've got the Jack Daniels out for yourself while he's telling you he is sorely tempted.

Therefore, whereas the lord of the manor has the absolute right, the suitably Christian lord of the manner will exercise his marital rights much as how Paul admonished Philemon to treat Onesimus.

Vox makes this clear two or three times in the article; she ignores it. The moral case would be satisfied with saying - he should not exercise his right - but, you see, it's pretend - it's dress up - she retreats to the moral case to shore up the lost legal case, but intends to make the legal case.

As he says, beating your wife is covered with battery. Inventing new felonies out of things that were not felonies, to paraphrase a remark attributed to Confucius by Dr. Von Creveld in his book on equality or the lack thereof, inappropriately burdens and enervates the people. Mensch is hung up on a desperate search for equality, too.

Anonymous Trevor163 August 14, 2016 3:56 PM  

Rape (and marriage) in law are what society through its laws decide it is. Law is not static unless you are speaking of some law outside the civil version.

If civil law creates a marital rape statute then marital rape exists. If law does not recognize marital rape the forcing yourself on your wife against her consent, particularly in a violen way is likely something else, like assault.

Blogger bob k. mando August 14, 2016 3:57 PM  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_vows#History

the oldest, Sarum rite is the clearest example:
"to be honour and buxum in bed and at bord"

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 3:58 PM  

" . . . you see, it's pretend - it's dress up - she retreats to the moral case to shore up the lost legal case, but intends to make the legal case."

There ya go.

Blogger bob k. mando August 14, 2016 4:23 PM  

53. Jill August 14, 2016 1:16 PM
Maybe it was meant metaphorically, LOL.




sure.

in the same way that mAnn organ argued previously ( about this very same subject ) that she would be at serious risk that her ex-partner would possibly 'rape' her immediately post-birth if it were not permissible in law for her to refuse him.

all she really did, was tell us that she of the 166 Base7 iq loves dating psychopaths. no normal man would be interested in going to town in the midst of the delivery room with infants squalling and all that jazz. much less how much discomfort the wife had just been through.

Blogger bob k. mando August 14, 2016 4:25 PM  

92. Faceless August 14, 2016 3:53 PM
she retreats to the moral case to shore up the lost legal case, but intends to make the legal case.



constant bait-and-switching is a sign of an inherently deceitful personality.

because you'll notice that they NEVER bait-and-switch in a direction that would harm their cause ...

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 4:39 PM  

This is yet another example of women not wanting to take responsibility for the choices they've made. Really now... who made the poor choice in husband? Maybe women should stop complaining and actually put some effort in the process.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 14, 2016 4:44 PM  

"This would be a waste of time and money, as it is utterly unenforceable"

It's not about making it enforceable. It's about establishing grounds of defense in a criminal trial. Yes, there has to be more to it than just that.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 14, 2016 4:46 PM  

@ 85

Ostar: The rebuttal to that is similar to the presumption that a woman cannot enter into a binding contract, that the only way that is possible is if she is a perpetual beast or child.

Not that logic and reason are feminist strong suits, of course.

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 4:47 PM  

I think date-rape is a much bigger issue. Young naïve "Suzy" dates hanger-on "Bobby" on and off and suddenly gets knocked-up after "Bobby" forcibly has his way. I've seen it least a half a dozen times and I've never seen the cops involved.

Anonymous Just Stopping By August 14, 2016 4:51 PM  

Definitely OT: Hungarian (?) news website fingers the perp in the Swiss train attack before it was covered up throughout the rest of the EU.

Swiss? Yeah, sure.

http://meteon.org/2016/08/13/a-hatosagok-szerint-a-kessel-es-benzinnel-tamado-terrorista-sem-terrorista/

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 4:52 PM  

I think date-rape is a much bigger issue.

Many feminists and white knights agree with you.
Can't fathom why you're posting here, though.

Blogger S1AL August 14, 2016 4:53 PM  

"Except it is engulfment that possesses. The money does not possess the safe."

So the land possesses the people?

OpenID camillacameo August 14, 2016 4:57 PM  

Maybe when she said Galileo she was trying to think of Giordano Bruno? Who was burned at the stake for, while a friar, publicly denying every major Christian doctrine, as well as being an occultist; but scientism types like to think it was because he denied geocentrism among his myriads of kooky theories.

And a guy who'd gotten his legs (and I assume she means to imply, genitalia) blown off has to get special dispensation to get validly married in the Catholic Church.

What an ignorant woman.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 4:58 PM  

"This would be a waste of time and money, as it is utterly unenforceable"

It's not about making it enforceable.

Oh, ok. So it's about making random, empty gestures that cost money?


It's about establishing grounds of defense in a criminal trial.

I don't usually laugh out loud but this is an exception. Perhaps you should consult an attorney on this topic?
An unenforceable contract isn't going to mean Jack or Squat in a criminal defense. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, it's merely educated common sense.

Yes, there has to be more to it than just that.

Dude, you're at least 25 years out of date in your knowledge base. Get up to speed.

Your proposal is not just useless, it costs money so it is worse than useless, it's actively harmful to any man foolish enough to follow it.

Anonymous jdgalt August 14, 2016 5:12 PM  

With that belief I'm surprised you're not a Muslim. I doubt that any Pope in the last century would have agreed with a right to rape within marriage.

Blogger Alexandros August 14, 2016 5:12 PM  

I really enjoy these; I'm really glad that Vox puts himself out there to do them so that we can read the transcripts.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 5:17 PM  

@104: "So the land possesses the people?"

No. The people's perimeter possesses their land.

The land possesses the dead.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 5:20 PM  

107
I doubt that any Pope in the last century would have agreed with a right to rape within marriage.

So?

Blogger James August 14, 2016 5:23 PM  

I think the idea ought to be that if a wife denies her husband sex then he is entitled to a divorce with cause which leaves her liable for damages. I don't think the idea on our post modern world is that a husband has the legal right to act like William Jefferson Clinton, even with his wife.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 5:32 PM  

@99: " It's about establishing grounds of defense in a criminal trial."

The problem is that the law is aware of such defense argument and explicitly rejects it in law, except in those jurisdictions where it might be enforced under the code regulating prostitution or concubinage.

The Keep of Duluth was built within already existing fortified walls.

@107: " doubt that any Pope in the last century would have agreed with a right to rape within marriage."

And I doubt that any Pope in the last century would have agreed with a right to steal money out of your own pocket.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 5:35 PM  

I think the idea ought to be that if a wife denies her husband sex then he is entitled to a divorce with cause which leaves her liable for damages.

Cool. I think that each man should be legally entitled to his own, personal, unicorn that he can ride up and down the rainbow.

Which of us is further into fantasyland?

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 5:36 PM  

"I think the idea ought to be that if a wife denies her husband sex then he is entitled to a divorce with cause. . . "

The legal term is "abandonment." It is not merely the idea, but was the law from the beginning of law as we know it until within my own lifetime.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 5:42 PM  

Addendum:

In fact, lawyers used to advise women seeking divorce to fuck their husbands, so as not to give him the upper hand in having cause.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 5:51 PM  

Alienation of affection ... is it still an actionable in court?

Anonymous LastRedoubt August 14, 2016 5:54 PM  

On a slightly OT note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/fashion/marriage-politics-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?nytmobile=0&_r=0

Headline: "He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

In early May, when Dr. Thomas Stossel told his wife, Dr. Kerry Maguire, of his plan to vote for Donald J. Trump in the general election, she hit him with an ultimatum.

“If you vote for Trump, I will divorce you and move to Canada,” she recalled telling him. He tried to laugh it off.

“I’m serious,” Dr. Maguire told him.


Note the lack of a shared last name.

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 5:56 PM  

"Alienation of affection ... is it still an actionable in court?"

In the US, only Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah still recognize it. Good luck having it actually enforced though.



Blogger Daniel Aledo August 14, 2016 6:07 PM  

I am curious as to what he means by "morally right." After all, right and wrong are notions handed to us from the Judaeo-christian tradition and completely alien to ancient pagans and our contemporary neo-pagans.
The virtuous man? OK. The noble eight fold path? OK.
But right and wrong? Forbidden and permitted? Absolute standards? How do nonbelievers even ground those beliefs?

I guess "morally right" here means what is best to destroy Christianity.

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 6:10 PM  

@103
There are many things you can't fathom.

Blogger EscapeVelocity August 14, 2016 6:28 PM  

Marriage is a consent contract...among other things.

Anonymous BGKB August 14, 2016 6:54 PM  

Related: Faggots upset at the long sentence given to roofieing Male photographer caught red handed raping 2 guys
http://www.towleroad.com/2016/08/nigel-wilkinson/

Anonymous BGKB August 14, 2016 7:07 PM  

Libertarian VP just declared pistols to be WMDs http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/08/12/bill-weld-just-compared-ar-15s-weapons-mass-destruction-said-pistols-even-worse/

"William Weld, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts selected to be Gary Johnson’s running mate on the Libertarian ticket, just made one of the mind-blowingly stupid comments I’ve heard a politician make regarding firearms, bar none.

16 minutes and 50 seconds into an interview with"

Cucks say how the government would defeat Redshirts lining up in rows
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-armed-rebellion-2016-8?ref=yfp

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 7:26 PM  

@120
So enlighten me, "Godfrey". Why would you come here to spout off 1980's feminist lies?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 7:29 PM  

@125
Another Jezebel feminist crawling out of the woodwork, cripes, low quality as well. Soros isn't getting his money's worth out of this set.

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 7:34 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rusty Fife August 14, 2016 7:41 PM  

@128 Uknown

Yeah! All those stupid sinners screw up the true Christian meaning of Love. Why can't they understand the difference between Covenant marriage and whatever Evil Satanic Rite they use to confuse the masses!

Anonymous Godfrey August 14, 2016 7:48 PM  

@26
Have a daughter and then maybe you'll begin to fathom what I'm talking about asshole.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 7:53 PM  

@130
Oh, ok, Godfrey, you're not a feminist, but rather just another clueless White Knight. Thanks for clearing that up.

Does your wife know you are posting in this thread? Have you gotten her permission to do so?

Blogger tublecane August 14, 2016 7:59 PM  

@15-No, you oughtn't to use force, but the point is that's not rape. It's more like beating up your wife for overcooking your steak. Both are unhusbandly, and often illegal. (I assume there are places where husbands are free to beat their wives with impunity.)

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2016 8:05 PM  

"Yes" means yes. "I do" means I do.

Covenant marriage is sexual consent (legal unions are not marriage). However, marital sex may be denied by either husband or wife because when it's not governed by love. Without love, it's not marriage.

God is love. "Let no man separate what God has joined". While this means man doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage it doesn't mean that God doesn't. If sex is forced, it is a denial of love and therefore of God Himself. In every case, forced aex is a violation of the holy covenant. If it's a habit, it would be grounds for separation (but not necessarily divorce). The far greater harm is caused not by the forced sex, but by the denial of love; Christian love, that is, not romantic or hypergamous 'love'.

The law sees things a bit differently. The marriage license binds both parties under the law irrespective of any kind of religious covenant. In state-approved unions, the union is not considered legal consent in itself and therefore forced sex can be treated as rape. Those who marry by covenant alone are still bound by the broader sexual consent laws. Christians are instructed to obey the law of the land - and to bear any legal punishment if they choose to disobey them.

Debates like this with people like Mensch are pointless, even deliberately inflammatory (on both sides), because the distinction between covenant marriage and legal marriage is not within the feminists capacity to understand. Even the nominally Catholic Mensch would probably still cry foul if she was able to grasp the Christian view. I suspect it's harder for feminists to grasp the truth than for a pig to pass through the piercing in its own snout. Christians should pray for these sort of people rather than debate with them, at least until they've understood why God instituted marriage at all.

Anonymous Evolyn August 14, 2016 8:06 PM  

It all depends how you define 'rape'.

If your definition of rape is forced sex by a man who is not the husband, then Vox's stance holds up, because the old meaning of rape is actually a property crime because of the inheritance issues and because this law is a product of a shame based collective culture, as opposed to a culture of individual honour. Rape in such a world carries a very high price.

But if your definition is that this kind of assault should be termed rape because it involves sex, and because our culture has changed towards basing honour in individual merit and human rights in general, then Louise is correct.

The problem is that we should really have dropped 'rape' from the law book and replaced it with sexual assault / unwanted sexual contact, since the basic premise has changed and also, to make the crime definition from universal and so cover all genders and relationships.

Blogger S1AL August 14, 2016 8:10 PM  

"No. The people's perimeter possesses their land.

The land possesses the dead."

Retreating to pedantry to avoid the question? My favorite.

So, the house possesses the people and the clothes possess the man. But the people's walls possess their houses. I'm glad we have that all cleared up.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 8:15 PM  

It all depends how you define 'rape'.


"Rape" is "any sex that a woman didn't want to have happen, or that she regretted later, maybe years later". That's not the legal definition but it is the practical, working definition feminists and their white knights like Godfrey have written into law.

It conflates "knife at the throat in the bushes" with "dorm room Netflixing with one too many wine coolers" and with "married woman gets caught with her panties down during a ONS". That's not a bug. That's a feature, a deliberate feature.

Blogger tublecane August 14, 2016 8:15 PM  

@78-Kinseyites and Marxists were certainly not the first to realize that sex can be both procreative and pleasurable. I assume your average pre-Kinsey married couple had way more sex than I do. Was that out if a sense of Christian duty? More likely to get their rocks off.

What the Sexual Revolution accomplished, apart from making men, women, and children miserable, was divorcing sexand procreation in the popular mind, so that pleasure as an end in itself was socially acceptable. As if, for instance, food were suddenly thought to be for the pleasure of eating instead of nutrition. We never went that far, despite all the fat people. But we did go that far with sex. Sex is now gettin' off, and if you mention associate it in your mind with babies you're probably a weirdo.

Blogger tz August 14, 2016 8:17 PM  

@77 then to deny it means that the woman was unable or unfit to contract, which is to say that she's either a beast or a child, and presumably remains so in perpetuity. Since we may reasonably suppose woman - except for a large number of feminists, of course - is neither beast nor child,

We cannot reasonably suppose that.
Consider Abortion. Many say women can kill their unborn baby. I point out that she doesn't get pregnant spontaneously, so if she has full moral agency, then abortion can be banned as she would merely be required to deal with the known consequences. Then I ask if women are incapable of understanding that having sex causes babies, or go boy-crazy so cannot act on that knowledge or both, and note that either would logically require them to be under some kind of guardianship of someone who is capable of understanding and sane.
That said, Fathers have done a very bad job of protecting and educating their daughters.

Blogger Rusty Fife August 14, 2016 8:19 PM  

@132 Evolyn

I'm only an average language reasoner and I can parse the OP.

Rape == non-consensual sex
Marriage == sexual consent
Therefore:
Rape cannot be found in marriage
She consented when she said "I do". Until death do they part, not until she's feeling velklempt.

Battery == non-consensual violence
Marriage =/= consent to violence
Therefore:
Battery may be found in marriage.

Anonymous Fed Up Aussie August 14, 2016 8:25 PM  

OT, two stories from Aus that may be of interest:

1. A great example of black knighting: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/australian-politician-to-test-race-hate-laws-after-being-called-angry-white-male-20160814-gqscmm.html


2. People are finally becoming sick of pro-refugee cuck churches
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/wake-up-aussies-farright-pauline-hanson-supporters-dressed-as-muslims-storm-church-20160814-gqsclh.html

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 8:40 PM  

Marriage is not permanent sexual consent. That's retarded. Marital rape is rape, regardless of what a bunch of savage cultures have codified into law. Or perhaps you idiots wouldn't consider it wrong to have a fist forced up your ass by your wife in the middle of the night? After all, you consented. Please, let's focus on the shit SJWs say that is actually ridiculous, not something that is totally normal and should be easy to agree wtih.

OpenID malcolmthecynic August 14, 2016 8:50 PM  

@139

lol

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 8:51 PM  


That said, Fathers have done a very bad job of protecting and educating their daughters.


It is not an easy task. I challenge both you and Godfrey to spend some quality time on the smartphone of a 16 year old female. See what the texting, browsing and downloading history looks like.

Bear in mind that even girls who don't have phones, always have a friend or two who do.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 14, 2016 8:52 PM  

This one is painful to read. "Yeah, but what if she doesn't feel well?" times fifty.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 14, 2016 8:55 PM  

I'd compare this to imprisoning parents for assault and battery if they spank their kid and it turns out the kid didn't deserve it.

Blogger Hrodgar August 14, 2016 9:07 PM  

I do think it's worth pointing out in view of the later part of the debate that the wife in fact does NOT have the right to sit on her husband's head until he "orally satisfies" her. Such acts are sodomitic, not properly sexual at all. Neither does the husband have the right to a blow job. Marital rights apply to the marital act, to the sex act, not to masturbatory imitations of it.

So I suppose that "marital rape" might be a thing after all if we include forced sodomy under the definition of rape, but not otherwise.

Anonymous andon August 14, 2016 9:09 PM  

@ #139 - go back to mejico and tell them about marital rape

Blogger Log August 14, 2016 9:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Evolyn August 14, 2016 9:32 PM  

@Rusty & Paradigm:

As I said, there is no point in trying to graft modern meaning onto centuries old laws and customs. Feminists didn't exist then and no-one would have wanted to discuss sex with a judge either. (Even though Luther quipped famously about twice weekly sex being healthy).


@Rusty: Assault of any kind is a different kettle of fish. And, it never was recommended, because back then men were much more dependent on their wives than nowadays, and romance in marriage was optional. And those wives had many more brothers than modern ladies.

So, yes, marriage could always contain battery, but the incentive to not be a PITA was more convincing, and, families also were much more involved in private lives. Any problems like that would have affected everyone would have been 'taken care of', if only to protect the honour of family in public. (think about it, turning up @ Sunday mass with a beaten up wife would be the talk of the village(s) and severely effect social standing for the entire family and thus the overall marriage/business prospects too.)

All this no longer exists in our culture, and so, we need a better way of policing today. Anything else is the equivalent of taking a buggy whip to a broken down car.

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 9:40 PM  

@145 im not mexican, but Vox is. so if you disparage mexicans and enjoy this blog then you're an idiot

Anonymous Roundtine August 14, 2016 9:50 PM  

Or perhaps you idiots wouldn't consider it wrong to have a fist forced up your ass by your wife in the middle of the night? After all, you consented.

Sodomy is also still illegal in many countries, and that would qualify as assault.

That raises a question though: could the wife have the husband arrested if he raped her in the butt, even when marital rape wasn't a thing? Did she consent to that or not?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 9:51 PM  

@Evolyn
From what I can tell, "marital rape" charges are generally the cherry on top of an ugly blob-sundae that includes "domestic violence", usually as part of divorce proceedings. It's just a way to garner pity-points from other females and White Knights.

False DV charges are much more common than such "rape" charges. It's telling that the feminist Mensch can't let go of any whip that can be used against married men, no matter how unlikely the usage might be.

Feminism often boils down to control issues.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 14, 2016 9:57 PM  

"I doubt that any Pope in the last century would have agreed with a right to rape within marriage."

It's not a right to rape, it's impossibility of rape because consent is presumed.

Blogger IreneAthena August 14, 2016 10:03 PM  

@13 Unknown wrote:Still no comments section.

Planning to post a link to a Barry White video there?

Anonymous andon August 14, 2016 10:06 PM  

148. Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 9:40 PM
@145 im not mexican, but Vox is. so if you disparage mexicans and enjoy this blog then you're an idiot


hmm, I think he's an American Indian. either way I got no use for mejicanos. and go try preaching about marital rape in your own country vicente. brown complaining about crime, lol

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 10:12 PM  

@149 uh, vaginal rape by a husband is also illegal in many countries. so what exactly makes "laws other countries have" any more relevant than laws the USA has? And these arbitrary distinctions should make it clear how ridiculous this argument is. Are these the pathetic kinds of "debates" the alt right engages in?

Anonymous kfg August 14, 2016 10:14 PM  

@132: ". . . the inheritance issues . . ."

. . . are what define marriage.

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 10:19 PM  

@153 yeah and he's also mexican you inbred retard. you'll call minorities lazy, but in the meantime you cant be bothered to Google something that would help you save some face. instead you embrace your idiocy and somehow believe yourself superior to other races. HA! you're actually part of the lowest rung of white people, and we'd all love to give you away in Chappelle's next draft. p.s. I'm spanish, i.e. white european.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 10:24 PM  

Vicente, are Christian?

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 10:25 PM  

@157 agnostic

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 14, 2016 10:28 PM  

I have been married for 32 years, 4 children, the youngest is a 19 yo woman.
What is your marital background?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents August 14, 2016 10:29 PM  

vincente, what's your definition of the word "rape"?
You use the word, define it. Direct question.

Blogger Mark Butterworth August 14, 2016 10:30 PM  

I was going to make the same point Hrodgar made about sodomy (any form) as impermisable in marriage.

I give LM credit for debating Vox, but she's still as cuck as cuck can be.

The question that seemed left orphan to me was whether force and assault in marriage in order for the man to have sex was permitted (legal)?

I believe the law does not allow a man to beat his wife to force sexual compliance, although, in the past, men were allowed to beat their wives to some extant for any reason.

I didn't think Vox should have conceded the equality point, that the woman has an equal right to demand sex even when the man was incapable of erection.

I think the reality of "tough luck" ought to have been stressed. Yes, the woman is receptive as in passive recepticle for the male organ while the flaccid male can't be used to fill the woman's desire.

But that's unfair!! Tough. That's reality. Men and women aren't equal (and the law usually deems that the case in countless ways by not condemning women to the same punishment for the same crime. See statutory rape cases, murder, assault etc.)

It really does come down to criminalizing bad manners and hard cases making bad law.

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 10:37 PM  

@159 im single, 23

@160 vicente* forced sex against the victim's will

Blogger dfordoom August 14, 2016 10:39 PM  

93. Trevor163

Law is not static

That's one of the reasons there is so little respect for the law. The law is not something that should be constantly changing. One of the foundations of our civilisation is the rule of law but it becomes meaningless when the law changes constantly. That's one of the causes of the decline of our cvilisation.

Anonymous Jill August 14, 2016 10:40 PM  

bob k. mando wrote:53. Jill August 14, 2016 1:16 PM

Maybe it was meant metaphorically, LOL.


sure.

in the same way that mAnn organ argued previously ( about this very same subject ) that she would be at serious risk that her ex-partner would possibly 'rape' her immediately post-birth if it were not permissible in law for her to refuse him.

all she really did, was tell us that she of the 166 Base7 iq loves dating psychopaths. no normal man would be interested in going to town in the midst of the delivery room with infants squalling and all that jazz. much less how much discomfort the wife had just been through.



Huh? How is this related to Galileo being burnt at the stake?

Anonymous andon August 14, 2016 10:41 PM  

@ #156 - why am I not surprised - spain is another low class country, thanks to the mooslims. brought your rotten culture to central and south america. do tell about marital rape, skunk

Blogger Hrodgar August 14, 2016 10:41 PM  

Re: Tom Kratman, 14Aug 9:57p

In support of your statement, we have paragraph 19 from Casti Conubii, promulgated in 1930 and thus comfortably within the last century:

"The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person;"

Re: vicente, 14Aug 10:12p

The point is not the illegality per se, but that sodomy is distinct from the marriage act. Continuing the paragraph I just cited above: "... nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded." That is, while the spouses owe each other sex, they are not allowed to give each other things like sodomy or other abominations. So under just laws there would be a penalty for a wife who forced her fist up her husband's arse, because whatever it is, it is certainly not sex properly so called. The distinction between a sex act and a sodomitic one is not arbitrary, but hinges on whether or not the natural end of the sex act, reproduction, is deliberately frustrated.

Since Barnhardt's been getting a bit of play around here lately, it may be worth linking to her article on contraception, which touches on the line between perversion and not perversion. You may disagree with the distinction, but it is certainly not arbitrary, and has a long and well established pedigree: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/06/29/the-one-about-the-entire-sad-contraception-issue-explained/

Blogger Mark Butterworth August 14, 2016 10:49 PM  

vicente,

"Please, let's focus on the shit SJWs say that is actually ridiculous, not something that is totally normal and should be easy to agree wtih."

What kind of moron wastes his time complaining about others wasting their time?

Because, of course, there are hardly ever any posts about SJW ridiculousness. Such a dearth, and your moronic remark will surely fix that problem.

Sheesh. Nice little purity spiral and virtue signaling, vicente.

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 10:56 PM  

@166 I am not going to debate this on religious terms. its about as futile as trying to convince ISIS that terrorism is bad. however, the fact is that many women who get married do not subscribe to the christian definition of marriage. given that it is a contract, the terms of the contract must be explicit. you simply wont find an explicit endorsement of marital rape.

Blogger Feather Blade August 14, 2016 10:57 PM  

@162 so if it is against the victim's will, but is not forced, it's not rape?

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 11:03 PM  

@167 actually I didn't say anything about wasting time. my comment was intended as more of a wake up call that this is a really stupid argument. this is literally the ISIS position on marriage. congratulations

Anonymous vicente August 14, 2016 11:08 PM  

@169 With "forced sex" I include sex with a fully incapacitated person or sex with a person who explicitly says "no" but does not put up a fight. The reason I included the word "forced" is because if two people have sex but one didnt want to but didnt say anything, thats not rape.

the captchas are getting annoying so im gonna sign off, I might respond tomorrow.

Blogger James Dixon August 14, 2016 11:11 PM  

> Even assuming that marrying someone meant perpetual consent to have sex (what sex acts precisely?) with your spouse anytime he/she wants, it doesn't mean your spouse has the right to use force against you to enforce that "right".

What exactly does it mean then? That you can go to court and get a court order demanding that your wife provide the service she agreed to when she married you? If you do, and she still refuses, have her thrown in jail for contempt of court?

> On this basis, why not say that an engagement toward an employer is unlimited or perpetual, in so far as it is agreed upon on entry?

Were you stupid enough to agree "till death do you part" when you signed your contract with your employer?

> Rape (and marriage) in law are what society through its laws decide it is.

Oh, good. That means society can declare all democrats to be slaves to any republican who wishes to claim them starting the moment the law is passed. After all, that's what the law says. I'm sure Trump will get right on that if he's elected.

> So the land possesses the people?

We could have a long discussion about it, but a legitimate argument can be made for that, yes.

> Marriage is not permanent sexual consent.

What is it then? And if it's not, why should any man bother getting married?

> Or perhaps you idiots wouldn't consider it wrong to have a fist forced up your ass by your wife in the middle of the night?

Do you have these fantasies often? Have you considered seeking professional help?

> I do think it's worth pointing out in view of the later part of the debate that the wife in fact does NOT have the right to sit on her husband's head until he "orally satisfies" her.

What if he can't perform normally for medical reasons?

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 14, 2016 11:15 PM  

A Catholic wrote:>The Catholics burnt Galileo at the stake for saying that the Earth went round the sun.

Galileo was not burnt! He was sentenced to house arrest in the mansion he hated leaving.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake.  After being fitted with an "iron gag" so he could not say anything before sentence was carried out.

If he actually did deny every Christian doctrine, I have to feel some sympathy for the guy.  When your church is completely wrong about something so basic about creation itself, what could it possibly be RIGHT about?

Blogger Feather Blade August 14, 2016 11:30 PM  

vicente wrote:With "forced sex" I include sex with a fully incapacitated person or sex with a person who explicitly says "no" but does not put up a fight.

That's nice, but that's not what any reasonable person would consider force. Force is something that must be exerted by the aggressor.

The conditions you claim to include in the definition of force do not involve force on the part of the aggressor.

Blogger Hrodgar August 14, 2016 11:30 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Hrodgar August 14, 2016 11:32 PM  

Re: vicente, 14Aug 10:56p

I am not trying to convince you of the rightness of my, or for that matter Vox's, position on the subject. I am merely explaining why your objections don't apply to it. Since I am Catholic, the teaching of the Church will necessarily figure into any explanation of my position on moral matters.

Even if you are correct in your conclusions, the objections you have raised so far are specious or irrelevant at best. Find better ones or stop talking. Until you do find better objections, I don't think we have much more to say to each other.

Blogger BCD August 14, 2016 11:58 PM  

If someone violates a contract to pay you $X, and you break into their house and take $X, you will still be convicted of burglarly.

Vox's analogy to the army demonstrates the opposite point: a soldier who refuses to complete a task will not be forced to do said task, he will instead be punished for failing to do his duty. There's a big difference between saying sex is a marital duty (i.e. consent must be given) and presupposing consent.

Blogger bob k. mando August 15, 2016 12:28 AM  

139. vicente August 14, 2016 8:40 PM
That's retarded.



notice that vicente is resorting entirely to telling you that you should be ashamed of following some +4000 years of Judeo-Christian law and culture?

hmmm, i wonder what he wants to substitute for these millenia old and time tested principles?




153. andon August 14, 2016 10:06 PM
hmm, I think he's an American Indian.


and Mexican, one of his great-grandfathers rode with Pancho.

Vox checks off two minority benefit boxes.



154. vicente August 14, 2016 10:12 PM
Are these the pathetic kinds of "debates" the alt right engages in?



back to the shaming language.

why don't you go vote for Ted Cruz? i hear he's offering to let people feel his daughter up.

hey, at least it's not 'marital rape'.



161. Mark Butterworth August 14, 2016 10:30 PM
The question that seemed left orphan to me was whether force and assault in marriage in order for the man to have sex was permitted (legal)?


no spouse consents to assault or battery with their vows ... unless it's a BDSM ceremony. in which case, either or both spouses might be the bottom.



164. Jill August 14, 2016 10:40 PM
Huh? How is this related to Galileo being burnt at the stake?



it was a metaphorical story.

i mean, surely, you can't think that a woman with a 166 iq could have been telling us that she was unfit to choose her own sexual partners?

and i apologize for calling you "surely".



167. Mark Butterworth August 14, 2016 10:49 PM
Sheesh. Nice little purity spiral and virtue signaling, vicente.



vicente is either one of the more imaginative trolls OR so fully involved in Cultural Marxism that he is completely blind to what is actually going on.

if the latter, he believes that universal democracy and unlimited immigration and "universal rights of man" have always been Spanish principles.

heck, for all we know he was born more American than you or me. we know this happens in Portugal.




170. vicente August 14, 2016 11:03 PM
this is literally the ISIS position on marriage.



you are literally a bald faced lying little shit weasel. 'marital rape' did not even exist in ANY non-Iron Curtain nation until Sweden in 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Legal_changes

'marital rape' is a legal fiction concocted by Marxists in order to destroy the family in order to render the children more easily indoctrinated.

the issue of assault / battery within the marriage, as noted several times in this very thread, is not "consented too".

don't let that stop you from following your "timeless Spanish ideals" though.

Blogger buzzardist August 15, 2016 12:37 AM  

@ Mr. Rational

Bruno wasn't burned for anything he said about the shape of the solar system. For that matter, he didn't even make any scientific claims about the universe. He made a lot of mystical claims about the universe, but none based on any observable evidence. Bruno was a heretical mystic who argued that Satan would be redeemed, that Jesus was not divine, etc., and that's what did him in. Plenty in the Catholic Church speculated on a heliocentric universe before and after Bruno, and none was ever killed for it.

Ultimately, too, Bruno probably died mainly because he was an ass. He quickly alienated every noble who employed him until he soon had no friends left, and most powerful people would as soon have seen him dead. Bruno was almost sociopathic in the way he wore out his welcomes, and being an "original" thinker didn't go far in saving him from the fire.

Blogger buzzardist August 15, 2016 12:47 AM  

@BCD

Your attempt to redefine marriage as stealing from someone else's house because that person reneged on a contract is nonsensical. Marriage is built on a standing vow "to have and to hold until death do us part." The fundamental conception is that the married couple become "one flesh." People aren't convicted of burglary for taking something from their own houses. By the same token, married persons cannot commit rape.

The idea that consent has to continuously and repeatedly be given at every moment is absurd in any context. Once given, consent must be withdrawn. What withdraws the marital consent to sex? Divorce.

I guess we can chalk some of this up to SJWs always lie. Marriage vows are apparently no exception. When they say "until death do us part," what they actually mean is until the period at the end of this sentence. In case it's not readily apparent, don't marry any person who views that wedding vow as not literally meaning what it says.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 15, 2016 1:04 AM  

Vicente. Have a talk with your grandparents, if they are alive.

Blogger JaimeInTexas August 15, 2016 1:05 AM  

If consent is not for the duration of the marriage, for how long is it, the honeymoon?

Blogger tublecane August 15, 2016 2:02 AM  

"has been declared controversial in certain circles"

That's a strange way to put it. It *is* controversial, otherwise there'd be no debate and you wouldn't post about it. More to the point, in certain circles your position has been declared taboo. I'm always surprised at how the word "controversial" has morphed into meaning something over which we are not allowed to have controversy.

Blogger tublecane August 15, 2016 2:05 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Eric the Red August 15, 2016 2:14 AM  

Leftism has no inherent philosophical limits.
Feminism is a subset of leftism.
Male-female sex usually involves penetration by male of the female.
Feminism overgeneralizes that all acts of male-female sex involve "penetration".
Feminism then overgeneralizes that "penetration" is "force".
Feminism then overgeneralizes that "force" is "violence".
Feminism then illogically concludes that all acts of male-female sex involve violence.
Feminism also illogically concludes that each act of "violence" must be consented to by the female.
Leftism then parrots feminist conclusions.
Leftism pretends for the sake of the gullible public that consent for each act of sex is reasonable, without ever having to define underlying terms.
Q.E.D.

Blogger bob k. mando August 15, 2016 2:31 AM  

183. tublecane August 15, 2016 2:02 AM
I'm always surprised at how the word "controversial" has morphed into meaning something over which we are not allowed to have controversy.



that's because you're missing two things:
1 - the rhetorical game in which it is implied ( sometimes stated outright ) that the holder of the non-Progressive view is some sort of troglodytic caveman

2 - the effeminate point-and-shriek game in which it is assumed that whomever the sheep are squealing about is the one who actually caused the problem. women and fags LOVE 'building consensus', therefore anyone who is refusing the new consensus ( regardless of how artificial or fictitious the grounds ) must be wrong ... simply because they are portrayed as being in the out-group.

Red Eye Radio was playing this with the Trump 2nd Amendment quote earlier this week. they spent some 45 minutes telling Trump supporters how ashamed they should be for daring to support someone like Trump ... but wouldn't play the quote in question.

finally a caller got through and requested that they play the actual clip in question. to which, both of the hosts started heckling him for being ignorant.

and refused to play the quip.

i don't know if Red Eye Radio is SUPPOSED to be 'conservative' or not, but they are clearly nothing more than controlled opposition if they are. when they are that invested in telling you what you HAVE TO think about something BUT are determined to withold all relevant facts from you, you know there's a serious problem.

Blogger vosvos August 15, 2016 2:58 AM  

As far as I can see It's a very modern take on marriage (marriage until divorce) one commenter on the article brought up the biblical "one flesh" argument, can one rape oneself? The way I look at the sex act beyond emotional and spiritual union it is simply rubbing you and your partners bodies together till either you or the other or both are satisfied it's not that big a sacrifice in any event if you don't "feel like it" tuff ! I don't "feel like" picking the kids up from school so you can go out with (insert wife's college friend's name) but I do it ,it's called sacrifice this is a marriage after all a collaboration not a competition.

Anonymous Bukulu August 15, 2016 3:13 AM  

"I believe the law does not allow a man to beat his wife to force sexual compliance, although, in the past, men were allowed to beat their wives to some extant for any reason."

OK but what man would want sex with a shrew so unwilling he had to beat her into it? Just divorce the covenant-breaking wretch and be done with it.

Anonymous Bukulu August 15, 2016 3:16 AM  

malcom the cynic @ 50,

"... burnt Galileo at the stake... ... ... I don't even know what to say to that"

I think he got it from that alt-history novel by Newt Gingrich.

Blogger Samildanac August 15, 2016 3:36 AM  

So, if by her feelings she can withdraw consent because she does not want sex at that moment does this mean her husband can withdraw his vow of faithfulness when he sees a pretty girl because he doesn't feel like being married at that moment?

I was pretty sure this was supposed to be a mutual exchange, consent for faithfulness, on both parties. His assets and support for her youth and fertility. So it has now become, "this is all about me. I get to win, who cares what you want." And I thought the women making the wedding all about them was bad news.

Blogger James Dixon August 15, 2016 5:25 AM  

> ...does this mean her husband can withdraw his vow of faithfulness when he sees a pretty girl because he doesn't feel like being married at that moment?

That will be the effect, whether that's the intent or not.

OpenID anonymos-coward August 15, 2016 7:05 AM  

a BDSM contract that emulated marriage, where it was terminated (i.e. divorce) if either party used the safeword.

Funnily enough, that's exactly how Muslim marriage works.

Blogger Mark Butterworth August 15, 2016 7:43 AM  

vicente wrote, "actually I didn't say anything about wasting time. my comment was intended as more of a wake up call that this is a really stupid argument. this is literally the ISIS position on marriage. congratulations"

Right. The ISIS position on marriage. Congratulations yourself for further idiocy.

Again this is a really stupid argument that you somehow feel stupidly compelled to pay attention to and announce to the world that it must wake up from.

You didn't specifically say it was a "waste of time", but that people were "focused" on the wrong subject and matter.

I guess, when people "focus" on a particular subject, it doesn't involve anything such as time and attention. Thus, by your logic, people focused on the wrong or less important subject aren't wasting their time, they're what? Improperly focusing their attention, which of course doesn't include time, according to you, which is being wasted on trivial matters.

Did you not feel the rock called stupid when it hit you in the head? You're like the girl who fell down the ugly tree, hitting every branch, and then declares herself pretty while lying in a daze on the ground.

Blogger Mark Butterworth August 15, 2016 8:11 AM  

bob k.mando,

You wrote, "no spouse consents to assault or battery with their vows ... unless it's a BDSM ceremony. in which case, either or both spouses might be the bottom."

BDSM aside, I referenced the fact that men have been allowed to beat their wives according to law from time immemorial. Thus, although a wife may not have consented to being physically abused through her marriage vows, her only option was separation or divorce; either of which may have been difficult or impossible to obtain.

There's no denying a certain cruelty in many common laws as they fell out for some individuals, but in the main, they supported society in a healthier way.

Consider the laws that made the husband custodian of the children (and owner of all the property) in the case of divorce. This certainly discouraged women from embarking on a separate course for the mere matter of their "unhappiness" in the union, thus preserving families for the sake of the children, and the good over all.

Life is damned unfair. There's no getting around that. As William Goldman pointed out in The Princess Bride (movie): Life is pain. If anybody tells you different, they're trying to sell you something."

Life is pain. What we, the civilized West have tried to do is to ameliorate pain enough for the many to thrive if they try. That women should be subordinate to men is pain for them, no doubt, just as anyone dependent on others feels inferior and at a loss, but that's part of the tears of things, lacrimae rerum, as Virgil wrote.

Or it's the Cross dependents must bear. It's life -- tough luck. Therefore, seek redemption or salvation apart from society and men who are very imperfect.



Anonymous Conservative Buddhist August 15, 2016 8:12 AM  

No woman would ever use the courts to punish a man. http://www.newser.com/story/229635/girl-made-up-rape-allegations-about-dad-using-50-shades.html

Anonymous Godfrey August 15, 2016 8:26 AM  

@129
I bet you're not so mouthy in person asshole.

Blogger bob k. mando August 15, 2016 9:46 AM  

194. Mark Butterworth August 15, 2016 8:11 AM
There's no denying a certain cruelty in many common laws as they fell out for some individuals, but in the main, they supported society in a healthier way.

Consider the laws that made the husband custodian of the children (and owner of all the property) in the case of divorce. This certainly discouraged women from embarking on a separate course for the mere matter of their "unhappiness" in the union, thus preserving families for the sake of the children, and the good over all.



there's nothing 'cruel' in the father keeping the children.

they ( the Feminists ) have done the research, single fathers are almost as good at child rearing as bonded couples.

single women are so incompetent that they rear children almost as poorly as if they are orphans.

the coverture system was pro-social and concerned with the success of the children. our current system is not.

Blogger BCD August 15, 2016 10:19 AM  

@180 You're lying. I am not at all redefining marriage as stealing from a house, I am making an analogy to a particular case. Marriage defines the duties, hence the language of the vows: "I will..." rather than "You may..."

Anonymous Andrew August 15, 2016 10:36 AM  

I disagree that "consent" is the be-all & end-all either. "Consent" is a weak attempt to claw back some form of order once the idea of socially sanctioned sex is rejected

Blogger David Power August 15, 2016 11:51 AM  

"Have you read The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare?” LOL

"The wise sentence of the Duke in that play was that he could have his pound of flesh but if he spilled a single drop of blood he was going to be heinously punished.”

Precisely. If the Merchant had used violence to taking his pound of flesh, the crime would have been in the violence, not the taking. The charge would have been violent assault, NOT THEFT!.

Taking something which belongs to you is not a crime, but the manner in which you take it, can be.


Likewise a husband using violence to claim his right have sex with his wife, may be guilty of assault, but NOT RAPE!

1 – 200 of 212 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts