Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[genuineoriginal]

you [. . .] expect women to obey your every desire for no other reason than you are the man and she is the woman

You seem to be the only one on this thread that thinks that way.

 

[Traditio]

IF pregnancy is an issue, and the couple really wishes to have sexual relations, they would have medical options.

No, they don't. Sterilization and contraception are contrary to the natural law. The only legitimate option that they have is to "wait it out" until the woman is no longer in the fertile period of her cycle.

I would agree that ANY adultery would be a valid reason to refuse ... though IMO, it's more practical to leave. A cheating spouse is not a good example for children to grow up with.

So long as the marriage "contract" is in effect, they are in a state of obligation with respect to each other. If the Christian faith speaks truly, the marriage "contract," if contracted by baptised Christians, only can be dissolved at death.

I'm strongly inclined to think that "any" kind of adultery is not a valid reason to refuse. In support of this, I'll appeal to the example of the saints, and in particular, St. Monica, who did not refuse her husband even though he was not faithful.

If the spouse commits adultery with a close relative of his spouse, then he becomes "familiarized," so to speak, to his spouse, as St. Thomas tells us, and this forbids him from asking further, though his spouse, of course, is not to be punished, and may ask freely.

In the case of "regular" adultery, however, (and here, I do not speak from a position of firm knowledge, but am only voicing a tentative opinion) the offended spouse's refusal only further harms their marriage and exposes her husband to further temptation and danger. Though her husband should be sensitive to the fact that his wife is angry, hurt, etc., nonetheless, if asked, the wife should still probably say "yes" (all other things being equal, of course).

The love of charity isn't easy. It isn't convenient. The love of charity demands sacrifice.

 

[ok doser]

You seem to be the only one on this thread that thinks that way.

right?


right outta left field with that one :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

on the off chance that anybody's up to this, i'll throw it out again:

... takes without the other's consent. in the case of a non-violent marital "rape", what has been taken? what was taken from the Swarthmore student in the following case of "rape"? Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”: “They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’” Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.

 

[ok doser]

one more time with this one too:

rusha posted this a few days ago:: The actual definition of rape is here: http://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape So yes, someone who forces sex on another person is an evil, vicious monster. From Rusha's link: ... the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. but nobody is sensitive to the fact that my evil, vicious monster of a wife often raped me when i was incapacitated because of my ingestion of alcohol and my inability to consent!

anna - what was taken from me when i was raped by my wife?

 

[Desert Reign]

You seem afraid to say 'submitting to the man'. You have to whitewash it with 'submitting to the marriage'. It's clear that you are double-speaking. And you say 'in part' conflicts with the Christian religion because you haven't got the guts to say what you really mean, which is that in your view female autonomy conflicts completely with the Christian religion.

If a woman is witholding sex from her husband permanently or semi-permanently, it is because the marriage has broken down or is breaking down. In which case the husband has no right to expect sex from her anyway. If the marriage hasn't broken down, then the husband doesn't have the right to force himself upon her anyway because marital love doesn't do that. So either way, the above two posters are twisted in their attitude to women. And as for calling Anna a coward, you who expect women to obey your every desire for no other reason than you are the man and she is the woman, are the one who is being a coward because you can't get your own way except by force. For goodness sake, if you had any shred of love and honour in your marriage, your wife would not be refusing to have sex with you. And even if she is, there is a reason for it that needs sorting out and your first duty is to listen, not to treat her like an animal.

That's all a bunch of nonsense. Women take control of marriage through withholding sex, and crying 'rape' to one's husband is just as dubious and self-centered.

Taking control of marriage through witholding sex or making demands as a precondition is no different to taking control of marriage by forcing yourself on your partner.

I don't hear you speaking about this morbid control, which is by definition rape, as 'to seize'. The marriage, you see, is two made in the flesh, but god forbid if she divorces and gets something less than a genuine prospective in which the man is downgraded to being her supporter and stepping stone on to the next.

I don't know what you are on about. Either you are moving the goalposts or the original debate was a subterfuge to talk about this. You can describe all sorts of problems in a marriage till the cows come home but it won't answer the first question. Indeed, the more you try to justify it with this kind of digression, the less it seems you actually have a justification for the basic statement you made in the first place: that women's autonomy is not Christian and the woman should submit to the man if he wants sex. You seem to be going out of your way to mumble a load more double-speak. Does it come naturally to you?

Men are left with virtually no control of their marriages, and it's caused a growing rate of men to simply not marry. Who wants to sign up for their own destruction? And now we're on the subject of 'marital rape' instead of this virtual raping of marriage that women commit all the time?

If you are a nation of cowards like yourself then it is not surprising that men are avoiding marriage. Look, if you think that women taking control of marriage is a problem, then it certainly isn't going to be resolved by men taking control, is it? The one is as bad as the other. Use you loaf, man! If the marriage has got to this point, it is doomed already. If you are interested in protecting the institution of marriage then it sure as anything ain't gonna improve by men making their wives have sex with them on demand. Got it??? You need to think differently.
Or could it be that in your country or in at least in your Christian culture, men are used to ruling the roost and now you are on the back foot and suddenly you don't like it any more? Perhaps you are getting your come-uppance? I don't know, just wondering. As I say, either way, you need to think laterally if you are to solve it. Acting like a coward is a sure way not to.

No, I have this here Bible and it states that the husband is the head of the wife and that her body is not automated by her self. It's there, in the scriptures.

Strange, In my Bible it says that the woman's body belongs to her husband AND that the man's body belongs to the wife. I guess you just accidentally forgot to mention that.

If anyone has a twisted attitude about anything, it is most certainly those like you who will ALWAYS side with the woman, who will ALWAYS perpetuate the madness of what is thrown on men, and ALWAYS coerce men into believing they are to just deal with the monstrosities of women.

Here, you resort to your most conclusive and powerful argument: an ad hominem attack. I'm really beginning to like you, you are so transparent, it is such fun playing with you.

The fact is that a woman cannot be raped by her husband. She can simply refuse and yet be inconvenienced. A man is going to go to prison for having sex with his wife when she doesn't want to? I'd like you to go ask Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, or any other one of them what they think of 'marital rape' and I bet you they'd laugh in your face.
Men need some sort of credit, and the Bible is happy to oblige being that it can't seem to found anywhere else.

So now, having lost the moral argument, the really important argument, you retreat into a legal argument. When all else fails, the law is always on my side. Sorry, but 19 pages of posts on this subject in a mere few hours weren't about legal niceties, I assure you.

Thank you for posting in such a clear manner. I feel I know you better as a result.

 

[ok doser]

Taking control of marriage through witholding sex or making demands as a precondition is no different to taking control of marriage by forcing yourself on your partner.

:thumb:

 

[ok doser]

I would have thought living with yourself was bad enough...

and now you're just making jokes about rape :nono:

 

[Desert Reign]

You seem to be the only one on this thread that thinks that way.

I actually didn't have an argument with you because I know from past experience that you are a very rational person. And even if I occasionally disagree with you (and it is very occasional) I always respect your viewpoint. But the posts I cited in the first place made it clear that the woman had to consent to sex with her husband or she was not a good Christian; in other words she was being sinful. This is what I objected to. No allowance was made for her state of mind or body at the time; no consideration was given to the state of the marriage. It was just a blanket statement that the woman had to submit. They made it clear that she was not allowed to refuse. I am sure I am not the only person here or indeed anywhere who thinks that this is wrong.

 

[Crucible]

Strange, In my Bible it says that the woman's body belongs to her husband AND that the man's body belongs to the wife. I guess you just accidentally forgot to mention that.

If you look at the first page of this thread, a person did it the other way around, stating that the man has no control of his body.

So don't try to put that on me, you would be silent on that if I had stated it the way they did.

It's just an acknowledgement that they are one in the flesh. Can you rape yourself?
And, it's stated further that the man is the head of the wife. Ever noticed that there is virtually nothing in your philosophy that upholds that?

It's because you don't actually believe what the Bible says, and against anyone who does because your affiliation is not with the biblical authors.

Here, you resort to your most conclusive and powerful argument: an ad hominem attack.

This thread is an ad hominem attack. Care to read the OP, which has my name in it?
The only reason this thread exists is because some poster didn't have it in her to address anything that was stated to her in other threads so she went and made this one so that her small cavalry can arrive and talk a bunch of nonsense about me (and a couple others).

I would ask where the forum rules are on this, but apparently there may as well be none.


As for everything else you stated, it's just you trying to convince yourself and others that you have a case and that you aren't just getting off on people's biases. So there's no point in me even dealing with that.

 

[WizardofOz]

Let me guess, somehow it is the wife's fault if she gets raped. Maybe her Pjs were too revealing :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Let me guess, somehow it is the wife's fault if she gets raped. Maybe her Pjs were too revealing :idunno:

she deserved it for wearing flannel! :sibbie:

 

[patrick jane]

Hey, when the mood strikes . . . .

 

[ok doser]

Care to read the OP, which has my name in it?

that's anna's way of flirting with you

you'll know she's really interested in you when she puts your name in the thread title, like she does for me and chrys :banana:

 

[ClimateSanity]

:duh:

Once she starts withholding sex, a private detective should be hired. Sexual infidelity is around the corner. Its the only way to keep from losing your shirt.

 

[musterion]

Is it possible to lust after one's own spouse? Where's the line between desire and concupiscence?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would a wife refuse to have sex with their husband?
The biblical right of a spouse's conjugal is to ensure that withholding sex isn't being used to seize a marriage.

I didn't come here to argue on secular, feminist, atheist, social, or otherwise legal pretenses. I'm arguing straight from the spirit of what is assumed from the Scriptures. If anyone has a problem with that, then oh well. I'm going by 'Theology', what other Christians are doing on here is beyond me.

Because she's not in the mood? Tired? Is she obliged to satisfy her husbands libido no matter what?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Is it possible to lust after one's own spouse? Where's the line between desire and concupiscence?

I would hope you lust after your wife. She will start to feel like your sister or a friend after awhile if not.

Or.....she will ask where you are hiding the men's magazines.

 

[Arthur Brain]

what is it you think i'm objecting to?

Answer this:

"There's no justifiable reason for a husband to even attempt that. If his wife doesn't want sex then he should back off and respect that. If he doesn't then he's raping her, end of story. Any objections?"




What the hell is your objection on this thread?

 

[musterion]

I would hope you lust after your wife. She will start to feel like your sister or a friend after awhile if not.

So this thread wasn't already creepy enough for you?