Answering old threads thread

[Arthur Brain]

A violation of what? If we're merely going off of meh opinions, why is rape worse than withholding sex from your husband, or sodomy, or criminalizing sodomy, or criminalizing rape (refer back to @Idolater's duck-rape posts).

Your wife, partner, whoever. Rape is one of the most atrocious violations of another person there is. Can't believe this has to be even said, repeatedly.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The Bible has a better hold on ACTUAL morality than any modern legal system.



People like you complain when Christians say that two men shouldn't do abominable things with each other, saying the government should stay out of what happens in the bedroom, but then say the government should prosecute a man for having sex with his wife.

The hypocrisy!

Well, no. The government should prosecute a man who rapes his wife. Big difference...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I hate trolley problems. But I think that in this case we can imagine one that's actually easy. Imagine there are two people [presumably fertile] man and [presumably fertile] wife, and no one else, and if they don't multiply then well that's it for the human race.

But the wife resists and is uninterested.

Should the man override his wife's decision?

If not, what about when she's getting on in years and is nearing the end of her natural fertility?

An even easier trolley problem here would be a single woman and ten men, all presumably fertile, but the woman is uninterested in marrying any of them. Should her right against being raped be broken, in order to ensure the survival of the species? If she doesn't comply, and is not forced, then mankind goes extinct.

I say that in both cases, the answer is dead easy, and that this is what an absolute right looks like, this is what we mean by an absolute right. Even if it means the end of mankind (iow no matter the consequences), she still unilaterally reserves her natural moral right against being raped, end of story. And in these trolley problems, it's the end of mankind as well. Oh well----that's what makes it an absolute right.

And oh yeah, us men protecting this right of theirs is what makes them powerful. It is their power, and it exists because we honor and preserve it. If ever we violate it, we have not only taken their power from them, which is theft, but we also have become violent criminals, in certain circumstances deserving of execution, and we are also subject to being killed or maimed by the victim or by anybody else nearby in any attempt we make to rape.

A moral regime has laws against rape, and an immoral one doesn't.

Well, if there were only one couple left then that would kinda be the end of the human race anyway realistically.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I would hope they seek counseling before seeking divorce.



Stolen concept fallacy.

Again, they are "one flesh." They belong to each other. Each spouse has a right to their partner's body.

You cannot rape your own flesh, and you cannot violate what is yours, and both spouses gave consent the moment they said "I do" and sealed it with a kiss, before God and everyone.

Hmm, specify in the marriage vows where consent is given from either party to demand sex whenever they want regardless of their partners willingness to engage in it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Gotta love these preachers of the law.

No, Doser, you're dead wrong on this one.
In fact, I'm shocked to see such evil being perpetrated on this board.

To be fair by now you shouldn't be that shocked exactly...

Some of these views have been about for years on this board. It's repugnant as all get out but that's patriarchal fundamentalism in all its "glory" unfortunately. Apparently it's not possible for a husband to rape his wife...

It is of course, just some of this lot won't recognize the fact.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sorry. No way. These words are not specific enough. You do not by definition love and cherish anyone who you force intercourse on.

Makes you wonder what some folk interpret "love" and "cherish" to actually mean. Must have a different dictionary to what most of us have...

 

[glorydaz]

Yep. Perverted Christian guys bent and amped by dominance are no more moral than a silly faggot.

It's merely reading something into the scripture .....letter versus the spirit.

 

[glorydaz]

To be fair by now you shouldn't be that shocked exactly...

Some of these views have been about for years on this board. It's repugnant as all get out but that's patriarchal fundamentalism in all its "glory" unfortunately. Apparently it's not possible for a husband to rape his wife...

It is of course, just some of this lot won't recognize the fact.

The use of the word "shocked" was applied quite loosely in this case. I seem to remember such tomfoolery when I was here before.

I should have said "surprising" because any believer in the gospel of grace would not so happily leap back into law keeping.

Paul said those who preached such things were to be accursed.

To claim that ownership comes into play in the marriage relationship is so wrong, and contrary to the mystery that Paul preaches.
We are bought with a price....the blood of Christ, not by any vow between two people.

 

[glorydaz]

Makes you wonder what some folk interpret "love" and "cherish" to actually mean. Must have a different dictionary to what most of us have...

And, let's face it. The husband is supposed to woo his wife....that's part of the natural law. Even animals know this.

 

[Derf]

Your wife, partner, whoever. Rape is one of the most atrocious violations of another person there is. Can't believe this has to be even said, repeatedly.

You keep repeating something as if that makes it true. What if 95% of the world disagreed with you? Would that make you wrong? I'm sure you would say "no." What if 95% of the world agreed with you? Would that make you right?

Do you believe in a standard of right and wrong that is more authoritative than your personal opinion? If so, what is it? If not, then why do you spend your time on this site?

 

[Clete]

Yes this moral theory believes in human rights but it believes that there is basically just one right, and all the others basically 'grow' out of it like a tree trunk supporting limbs and branches. It proceeds from the principle of self ownership, which is fine for unbelievers but it conflicts with Scripture, so it's wrong for a Christian.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Biblically, life is the standard of right and wrong.

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.​

If you want to say that God is the standard then I can live with that too. It's the same thing. God is life and all life proceeds from God.

​

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.​

Acts 17:25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.​

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.​

1st Corinthians 6:20 " ye are bought with a price" You do not own yourself. So all ideas that proceed logically from the principle of self ownership are null and void for you as a Christian. You are not your own. Your rights do not belong to you, they belong to your Master, as you yourself do. You are His.

Non-sequitor.

First of all self ownership is not the premise, life is the premise, but just as importantly, you're changing the subject. We are not talking about soteriology or any other aspect of the divine/human relationship. We are talking about how human beings are to treat other human beings and why.
If I do not have the right to my own life then by what standard would anyone else (other than God) claim that right? If I do not own myself then you sure as Hell don't own me either. Of all the human beings that exist on the Earth, none possess a right to my life that supersedes my own. My life is mine so far as you (i.e. someone other than me) is concerned and so far as I am concerned, your life belongs to you. Your off topic point about God owning us applies just as much to you as it does to me and so everyone is on equal footing in that regard. In other words, God created us all and thus owns us all, believers and unbelievers alike. How then would you go from that premise to suggesting that anyone other than me would have any right to my life?

So your moral theory here is wrong on its face, again as a Christian man, because it proceeds from self-ownership, which you as a Bible believer shun.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Idolator!

Changing the premise so something that you THINK sounds bad and then, without making any actual argument at all, simply declaring my position to be "wrong on its face" only succeeds in causing me to laugh in your face.

Your position is laughably vapid and even self-contradictory. There is no basis whatsoever for human rights that you can defend with anything that approaches logical consistency. You claim that people do not own themselves but state that non-consensual sex is wrong. Who's consent is needed, Idolator, if not the victims? Isn't precisely the lack of her consent that makes it a crime? If the victim doesn't own herself, why is her consent relevant?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Alright men, you're to nourish and cherish your wife the way you do your own body. Do you like the idea of being raped YOURSELF?

My wife can't rape me because she can have sex with me any time that she wants.

 

[Clete]

Your difficulty in understanding probabilities here sheds light on why you seem unable to comprehend evolution. One dimensional, linear analysis leads you astray. In drawing conclusions you need to make appropriate comparisons. Control groups can lead to conclusive support for causation as you know. Here, you draw the wrong conclusion from the evidence. You believe rape does not usually lead to reproduction - which is true on a simplistic level but absurd in light of an appropriate comparison.

Blah blah blah.

Studies have shown that pregnancy results from rape about 5% of the time and most of the rapes that do result in pregnancy were perpetrated by members of the victim's own family.

That's just the facts of reality.

Claiming that rape has nothing to do with reproduction is very, very odd.

No it isn't. Rapists aren't trying to have children when they rape someone. They are trying to hurt the woman because they hate women and usually their own mother in particular. It has nothing to do with reproduction.

To interpret this correctly you must compare the probability of pregnancy of intercourse by rape and the probability of intercourse by consensual intercourse.

Stupidity.

A healthy young couple having unprotected intercourse only has a 5% chance of creating a pregnancy.

Utterly complete nonsense!

The odds are exactly the same as rape.

You are an evil lying perverted fool.

The vast majority of intercourse does not result in pregnancy.

If that were even close to the truth then the contraception business wouldn't exist.

This of course does not even imply that intercourse does not cause pregnancy.

No one suggested otherwise.

Blaming them by accusing them of lying about rape on the basis of conception is the result of the type of misunderstanding that you are making. It is stupid when people deny there was rape at all because there was a birth. A birth does not give any information on the veracity level of a woman's claim.

No one has claimed otherwise.

It is a s reliable as intercourse in general.

Inexcusably stupid.

Clete

 

[ok doser]

Alright men ... Do you like the idea of being raped YOURSELF?

Using the current legal definition of rape, my wife often "raped" me. And I enjoyed it.

 

[Skeeter]

Blah blah blah.

I spoon fed you and you gloss over it. You are a stubborn foolish man.

Studies have shown that pregnancy results from rape about 5% of the time and most of the rapes that do result in pregnancy were perpetrated by members of the victim's own family.

That's just the facts of reality.

No it isn't. Rapists aren't trying to have children when they rape someone. They are trying to hurt the woman because they hate women and usually their own mother in particular. It has nothing to do with reproduction.

Trying to have offspring has not been critical to reproduction for millennia. Animals do not even know the connection. You are a dim bulb.

Utterly complete nonsense!

You an ignorant stubborn person. This is not even open to debate. Estimates repeatedly range from 5-8% for an instance of intercourse.

A single act of intercourse between a young couple has on average a one in 20 chance of pregnancy – this assumes the opportunity presented itself on a random day, as these things tend do when you are young.

The chance of a couple getting pregnant within one year is 83% assuming unprotected sex 2- 3 times per week.

Demographic Research - Daily Fecundability: First Results from a New Data Base (Volume 3 - Article 5)

Volume 3 - Article 5

www.demographic-research.org

If that were even close to the truth then the contraception business wouldn't exist.

Wrong. Of course it exists. Healthy adults have sex several times a week, not just once. Duh!

Clete, you are not evil-- Just willfully ignorant, self-deluding, and have little to no intellectual integrity.

 

[Skeeter]

My wife can't rape me because she can have sex with me any time that she wants.

^^^^A better answer than Doser's <<<<<< which is depraved and foolish.

 

[Skeeter]

Is anyone willing to admit that they coerced a spouse into sex? Probably not because this is all a play on semantics and perceived justification for pursuing lust at all costs under a cloak of piety.

 

[Derf]

My wife always wants me to coerce her into sex. It's called foreplay.

Eh...I'm going to retract that. My usage is not very common, if used at all.

 

[Clete]

I spoon fed you and you gloss over it. You are a stubborn foolish man.

Trying to have offspring has not been critical to reproduction for millennia. Animals do not even know the connection. You are a dim bulb.

You an ignorant stubborn person. This is not even open to debate. Estimates repeatedly range from 5-8% for an instance of intercourse.

A single act of intercourse between a young couple has on average a one in 20 chance of pregnancy – this assumes the opportunity presented itself on a random day, as these things tend do when you are young.

The chance of a couple getting pregnant within one year is 83% assuming unprotected sex 2- 3 times per week.

Demographic Research - Daily Fecundability: First Results from a New Data Base (Volume 3 - Article 5)

Volume 3 - Article 5

www.demographic-research.org

Wrong. Of course it exists. Healthy adults have sex several times a week, not just once. Duh!

Clete, you are not evil-- Just willfully ignorant, self-deluding, and have little to no intellectual integrity.

Most of this is irrelevant to the topic but the study you cite doesn't support your contention, at least not in any direct way. Even the stat you directly site demonstrates that you are not talking about the same thing.

Having sex for a year, three times a week would be 156 times. If one of those times results in a pregnancy that's already a 0.6% success rate. That's 6 tenths of one percent. 83% of that number is .5%. So your citing something that you are interpreting to say that pregnancy only results from unprotected sex 5% of the time except that even if such an interpretation could rightly be made from that study, your number is off by a factor of 100!

Further, most couples do not have sex three times a week. On average its not quite once a week and that's when the couple ARE NOT married and are in their twenties. Married couples have less sex than unmarried couples (pathetic) and on average, then couples have less sex as they age. So, if real people (i.e. people who aren't participating in in a study that encourages them to have gobs of sex so as to determine when women menstruate) have sex about three times less than the folks in your cited study and your interpretation of this study was valid, then unprotected sex would result in pregnancy about .017% of the time and the human race would have gone extinct thousands of years ago.

The point there being that your interpretation is ludicrous. The real number is that unprotected sex will result in pregnancy in 20% of women within a month and 50 percent will be pregnant within three months. The number of times per week only makes a marginal difference in the numbers because the woman is fertile for 7-10 days and any sex in that window is quite likely (about 25% of the time, according to the study YOU cited) to result in pregnancy.

And so, disregarding over sexed members of scientific studies, regular people who are healthy get pregnant quite quickly and without having to have sex dozens of times to make it happen. This is because most people have sex when their sex hormones tell them to. Sex hormones are at their strongest when the woman is....wait for it...at her most fertile! Imagine that! This is why pregnancy due to rape happens most often when the victim is raped by someone in their own family (also, rape that occurs within a family often occurs several times over an extended period of time vastly increasing the chances of pregnancy).

ALMOST ALL OF WHICH IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!

Why isn't it relevant?

Because it doesn't change the fact that pregnancy only occurs as a result of rape 5% of the time - at most - and that's including familial rape that happens repeatedly instead of a one time occurrence. When you're talking about violent, stranger on stranger, rape of an adult woman (i.e. not various forms of molestation, which is just as horrible but not really the same crime.) pregnancy IS exceedingly rare. There is no study that anyone will ever cite that even begins to suggest otherwise.

Clete

 

[Skeeter]

Most of this is irrelevant to the topic but the study you cite doesn't support your contention, at least not in any direct way. Even the stat you directly site demonstrates that you are not talking about the same thing.

Having sex for a year, three times a week would be 156 times. If one of those times results in a pregnancy that's already a 0.6% success rate. That's 6 tenths of one percent. 83% of that number is .5%. So your citing something that you are interpreting to say that pregnancy only results from unprotected sex 5% of the time except that even if such an interpretation could rightly be made from that study, your number is off by a factor of 100!

Five percent is the average across the entire menstrual cycle if we were to randomly select an instance. Each instance varies depending on a number of variables, the most prominent being the time in the woman's cycle. Try to grasp the meaning of probability.

Further, most couples do not have sex three times a week. On average its not quite once a week and that's when the couple ARE NOT married and are in their twenties. Married couples have less sex than unmarried couples (pathetic) and on average, then couples have less sex as they age. So, if real people (i.e. people who aren't participating in in a study that encourages them to have gobs of sex so as to determine when women menstruate) have sex about three times less than the folks in your cited study and your interpretation of this study was valid, then unprotected sex would result in pregnancy about .017% of the time and the human race would have gone extinct thousands of years ago.

Again 2 - 3 times is an average. Review measures of central tendency. Report back on your progress. You have trouble considering general descriptive statistics and insist on interpreting everything in a linear absolute manner. The 5% figure is based on a young couple, not all couples. It's an average providing context. The pregnancy rate of older couples is LESS.

The point there being that your interpretation is ludicrous. The real number is that unprotected sex will result in pregnancy in 20% of women within a month and 50 percent will be pregnant within three months. The number of times per week only makes a marginal difference in the numbers because the woman is fertile for 7-10 days and any sex in that window is quite likely (about 25% of the time, according to the study YOU cited) to result in pregnancy.

Forced intercourse during the height of fertility also results in a greater instance of pregnancy.

And so, disregarding over sexed members of scientific studies, regular people who are healthy get pregnant quite quickly and without having to have sex dozens of times to make it happen. This is because most people have sex when their sex hormones tell them to. Sex hormones are at their strongest when the woman is....wait for it...at her most fertile! Imagine that! This is why pregnancy due to rape happens most often when the victim is raped by someone in their own family (also, rape that occurs within a family often occurs several times over an extended period of time vastly increasing the chances of pregnancy).

ALMOST ALL OF WHICH IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!

Why isn't it relevant?

Because it doesn't change the fact that pregnancy only occurs as a result of rape 5% of the time - at most - and that's including familial rape that happens repeatedly instead of a one time occurrence. When you're talking about violent, stranger on stranger, rape of an adult woman (i.e. not various forms of molestation, which is just as horrible but not really the same crime.) pregnancy IS exceedingly rare. There is no study that anyone will ever cite that even begins to suggest otherwise.

Clete

This is a lot of wasted words. And, you still cannot see the bottom-line: rape is intercourse. In terms of its reproductive potential, the point on the woman's cycle that it occurs is more salient variable than consent. I am tamping down your ridiculous statements, and you remain stubborn. Pregnancy by rape occurs more within families because there is usually more than one instance -- just as would be expected by our general understanding of reproductive success.

Will you continue to claim rape has nothing to do with pregnancy?
.