Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[ClimateSanity]

I think not....K:

He made a very good point. They cannot be the same thing if you have to change the wording from one law to the next. If you say lack of consent was implied in the earlier wording, rapists had to be going free and so lawyers sought to tighten the language up. Regardless, it changes the meaning of rape in a legal sense.

 

[annabenedetti]

No, that is the loser feminist redefinition of rape.
You have been brainwashed so much that you can't even accept that there was a change in the definition since 1960.

You're so warped that you think the law should retain the "not one's spouse" element.

 

[ok doser]

The thread is about rape within marriage.

no

read the thread title and the OP

this thread is about the scriptural defensibility of the concept of "marital rape"


do try to keep up, granny

 

[ok doser]

You're so warped that you think the law should retain the "not one's spouse" element.

it's scripturally supported :idunno:

 

[bybee]

He made a very good point. They cannot be the same thing if you have to change the wording from one law to the next. If you say lack of consent was implied in the earlier wording, rapists had to be going free and so lawyers sought to tighten the language up. Regardless, it changes the meaning of rape in a legal sense.

The law may say anything. Patriarchal laws no longer work in today's society.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are incorrect. The thread is about rape within marriage.

There is no such thing, since the historical definition of rape is :
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

This definition has been redefined to criminalize sex within a marriage.

It appears that you consider a wife to be a slave?

Read Proverbs 31:10-31

 

[annabenedetti]

There is no such thing, since the historical definition of rape is :
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

This definition has been redefined to criminalize sex within a marriage.

You're warped. Seriously. Something is seriously wrong with you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're so warped that you think the law should retain the "not one's spouse" element.

You are the one that is warped by the feminist agenda if you think that clause should have been removed.

 

[ok doser]

Patriarchal laws no longer work in today's society.

is that scripturally supported?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The law may say anything. Patriarchal laws no longer work in today's society.

What society?
Feminism has killed the society.

We are just waiting for the corpse of the society to realize that it is already dead and collapse.

 

[lifeisgood]

male on male rape is considered to be more shameful and humiliating for a man than male on female rape is for a woman

And that is the crux of the matter --- 'considered'.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're warped. Seriously. Something is seriously wrong with you.

No, it is the feminist agenda that has warped you so much you can't understand logic.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Against your will is not the same as no consent. The victim must state she does not want sex. Otherwise, the perpetrator can legally claim he did not know it was against her will. If she ever says contradictory things or says nothing at all, her will is not clear. The two are certainly not the same.

 

[annabenedetti]

You are the one that is warped by the feminist agenda if you think that clause should have been removed.

Absolutely that clause should have been removed.

You'd probably call beating the wife foreplay.

 

[ok doser]

And that is the crux of the matter --- 'considered'.

considered by experts in the field of counseling who work with them, especially in the military (like my psych professor)

 

[Rusha]

You're warped. Seriously. Something is seriously wrong with you.

There is a whole lot of "something is seriously wrong with you" going on in this thread and several others. Here yet again is another thread where rape victims (who in this case are married to their rapists) are once again getting bashed.

The insecurity and self-importance ego tells some that being told "no" is so crushing that an aggressive act of violation is the appropriate reaction.

 

[ok doser]

Absolutely that clause should have been removed.

You'd probably call beating the wife foreplay.

i believe there's always been laws against assault that have applied to marriage partners

 

[ok doser]

... rape victims (who in this case are married to their rapists) are once again getting bashed.

and rusha jumps the shark again! :first:

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is a whole lot of "something is seriously wrong with you" going on in this thread and several others. Here yet again is another thread where rape victims (who in this case are married to their rapists) are once again getting bashed.

The insecurity and self-importance ego tells some that being told "no" is so crushing that an aggressive act of violation is the appropriate reaction.

Could you point out the posts where the rape victims are getting bashed?
The ones I have seen bashing the victims are Rusha, bybee, annabenedetti, and Arthur Brain.
Are there any others?

Please quote the posts to prove your point.

 

[ClimateSanity]

No, it is the feminist agenda that has warped you so much you can't understand logic.

Aren't you glad these folks don't have absolute power? They would deem you a danger to society and locked away or put on some kind of watch list that would prevent gainful employment or housing.