ClimateSanity
New member
Look at the history of the women's movement. Look at how women manipulate men with sex. Do some thinking beyond emotional knee jerk denial. I guess men in your circles are afraid to mention how they are treated at home.
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
Look at the history of the women's movement. Look at how women manipulate men with sex. Do some thinking beyond emotional knee jerk denial. I guess men in your circles are afraid to mention how they are treated at home.
If I so chose, I can take it to a place that my wife could never dream of. Why would I? Why would she? Once you reduce marriage to who is in control it is no longer a marriage. Power struggles never end well.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yeah, lets look at it shall we? Let's review how women had to fight to get the vote for starters. Let's review how few rights and lack of a voice they had in society as well as at home to boot. You whinge, moan and blow off as if women have you tied to the bloody sink dude. If I were supposedly so scared to mention my home life because of some supposed browbeaten existence by a woman then why would I come online to bluntly call you out on being a crank?
Do the math doofus.
I like Milo. He puts up a good fist against feminism and is honest about the gay agenda. The UK needs some based sanity, I think. They love to pummel Americans and Russians day in and day out for their conservative Christian slant.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
ClimateSanity
New member
You should be reported for quoting an inappropriate post.
All they really wanted was to have birth control and not be married. That was them wanting to 'be like men', and in order to do so, they had to be have jobs and vote.
The rest is just mythologized nonsense.
ClimateSanity
New member
Readers digest version and accurate.
Apparently, the discussion has very much progressed (I use the term loosely) since I've last posted. I wish to speak briefly to the original posting:
1. As scriptural commentators note, Eve was made from the rib of Adam. She was not made from his feet, so as to signify that Adam should dominate her, and that she should be his slave, but from his side, close to his heart, in order to signify that the woman is man's helpmate/partner, in order to signify the mutual complementarity of male and female. Men and women, I emphasize, are mutually complementary to each other. Each "brings something to the table," so to speak.
2. Nonetheless, as has been noted, as the scriptures tell us, a married person's body does not only belong to him or her, but also to his or her spouse, and, likewise, the other way around. Marriage involves complete mutual self-giving. Each spouse rightly may say of the other: "You are mine." This is a right of each spouse to the other which is not to be refused lightly.
3. Marriage is a dim prefigurement of the union of Christ and His Church. Marriage should imitate the sacrificial love that Christ has shown for His bride, the Church. Consider for a moment the Most Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist, and how marriage imperfectly imitates this.
The attitude of spouses to each other should be one of mutual respect, love, self-giving and self-sacrifice.
For the wife, this means: "I don't feel like it," "I have a headache," "I just washed my hair" and even "I am menstrating (as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us)" aren't good enough reasons to say "no."
For the man, this means that he should be sensitive to the needs, emotions, well being, etc. of his wife.
"No means no." Sure, in some sense, I'll grant that. But if the wife were justified in saying "no," the man should not have asked in the first place.
1. As scriptural commentators note, Eve was made from the rib of Adam. She was not made from his feet, so as to signify that Adam should dominate her, and that she should be his slave, but from his side, close to his heart, in order to signify that the woman is man's helpmate/partner, in order to signify the mutual complementarity of male and female. Men and women, I emphasize, are mutually complementary to each other. Each "brings something to the table," so to speak.
2. Nonetheless, as has been noted, as the scriptures tell us, a married person's body does not only belong to him or her, but also to his or her spouse, and, likewise, the other way around. Marriage involves complete mutual self-giving. Each spouse rightly may say of the other: "You are mine." This is a right of each spouse to the other which is not to be refused lightly.
3. Marriage is a dim prefigurement of the union of Christ and His Church. Marriage should imitate the sacrificial love that Christ has shown for His bride, the Church. Consider for a moment the Most Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist, and how marriage imperfectly imitates this.
The attitude of spouses to each other should be one of mutual respect, love, self-giving and self-sacrifice.
For the wife, this means: "I don't feel like it," "I have a headache," "I just washed my hair" and even "I am menstrating (as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us)" aren't good enough reasons to say "no."
For the man, this means that he should be sensitive to the needs, emotions, well being, etc. of his wife.
"No means no." Sure, in some sense, I'll grant that. But if the wife were justified in saying "no," the man should not have asked in the first place.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, well, yes that just must be true then. Forget the annuls of history on the topic and lets just accept you two as spokespersons for women of the time instead...
ClimateSanity
New member
Its much more weightier than anything you post.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Can't argue with nothing I suppose...
A feminized, revisionist falsehood.
The rib comes from Mesopotamian lore, in which a god was cursed by a goddess.
Imagine that.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's some chat up line you've got going there...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yes. Yes you have.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, you do not agree with the definition of marriage established in the Bible because it does not fit your liberal sensitivities.
1 Corinthians 6:16 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. |
Actually, it is quite complete and does honor God, but you do not want to accept it.
Not at all.
You are trying to identify what is needed in a marriage to make it "a strong and lasting no God honoring marriage".
I, on the other hand, am not distracted by your rabbit trail, and am sticking to what makes every marriage different from any other type relationship, including the weak marriage, the short marriage, and the marriage that doesn't honor God, such as one that ends in adultery.
Since you can't stick to the subject without running away from it, I will repeat it again.
The things that makes a marriage different from any other type of relationship are:
- The sexual relationship between the man and wife
- The children that may be produced from that sexual relationship
- Additional family in the form of in-laws.
Common law marriages are probably the most common type throughout history, and do not include a marriage certificate and may not include a ceremony other than the consummation of the marriage itself.
genuineoriginal
New member
You have been reading your own distorted opinion of what has been posted instead of reading the actual posts.
The point I have been making in this thread is a simple one based on whether the legal definition of rape should include the brand new freshly minted feminist concept of marital rape.
I say it should not.
Here is the historical definition of sex from before the changes imposed by feminists.
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."
Crucible has been trying to make the point that feminists have been calling everything rape in order to seize control over male-female relationships, since all they would need to do is claim rape to ruin the life of the man.
You have been trying to argue about what constitutes a good marriage as opposed to a bad one.
The same argument is also being made by ok doser, Crucible, and ClimateSanity.
The difference is you are focused on claiming it is evil for the husband to have sex with his wife after she says "no" and they are focused on claiming it is evil for the woman to say "no" when there is no sufficient reason for doing so.
To combine both sides: in a good marriage the husband does not pursue sex with his wife after she says "no" and the wife does not say "no" without sufficient reason.
Everyone in this thread is in agreement with this, now find out what you are actually disagreeing about.
The topic of the thread is whether there is scriptural support for marital rape.
The answer is not "no, the scriptures do not allow the husband to rape his wife."
The answer is not "yes, the scriptures allow the husband to rape his wife."
The answer is "the scriptures are silent on the matter since a husband having sex with his wife cannot be considered to be rape."
Why would that be the answer?
Two reasons.
The scriptures state that a man that has sex with an unmarried woman is to become her husband for the rest of her life and he cannot divorce her.
The scriptures state that a man that has sex with some other man's wife is to be put to death.
These scriptures are enforcing the principle that the only place that sex is allowed is in a marriage between the husband and his wife.
In our society, we are so messed up that we freely allow sex outside the marriage without any care whether the people having sex are a man and a woman, whether they are married to each other, or whether they are committing adultery.
On top of it, we have found a way to criminalize sex inside the marriage.
Permitting sex outside of marriage has been historically proven to destroy societies.
Criminalizing sex inside the marriage is only being done to promote more sex outside the marriage.
genuineoriginal
New member
According to the Bible, menstruation is a time that the husband is to avoid sex with his wife.
So, St. Thomas Aquinas would be wrong in saying that it is not a good enough reason.
It's pretty apparent by a few of the posters in this thread (which would include Crucible aka Sum/Skybringr/Homeskillet under his newest username) that they don't believe there is ANY justification for no.
- Status