Answering old threads thread

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
A genetically unique human life starts at conception, the first step of a process of development through embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, early childhood, late childhood, young adulthood, adulthood, elderly adulthood, extreme elderly adulthood and ultimately death.

At no point in that arc of development is that life anything other than human.
I almost feel sorry for this dopey child in a woman's body

 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yep, unfortunately it’s not a DP offense as all rape should be.
We are 29 pages into this. I think it's worth reiterating that the original question was "Is marital rape scripturally defensible?"

Rape is defined as sex without consent.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 expressly forbids denial of consent.

If there's no denial of consent, then there's no rape.

So I'm uncertain why rusha is dithering on about the DP
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
We are 29 pages into this. I think it's worth reiterating that the original question was "Is marital rape scriptural defensible?"

Rape is defined as sex without consent.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 expressly forbids denial of consent.

If there's no denial of consent, then there's no rape.

So I'm uncertain why rusha is dithering on about the DP
False premise. I Corinthians does not expressly forbid any such thing.

The bible does not teach a defacto permission to rape one's wife! It is NOT the fault of the wife if the husband forces himself on her!

This is perhaps the most foolishly evil position I've ever seen you take.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
False premise. I Corinthians does not expressly forbid any such thing.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time ..

I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room in there
The bible does not teach a defacto permission to rape one's wife!
Of course it doesn't
It is NOT the fault of the wife
It is the fault of the wife if she withdraws consent unilaterally, ie "defrauds" her partner
if the husband forces himself on her!
Right.
That shouldn't happen.
That shouldn't have to happen.
This is perhaps the most foolishly evil position I've ever seen you take.
Perhaps that's because you're misunderstanding the position I'm taking.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Corinthians is not written to the man, it's written to either partner in a marriage. It applies equally to the man as to the woman. Predictably the feminists here see it as a unidirectional phenomenon, the brutish ape of a man violently raping his wife in rusha's fevered imagination.

I have known marriages in which the wife's libido was stronger than the husband's, and there was discord in the marriage because her physical needs were not being met. In the one case with which I was most familiar, the husband's denial of intimacy was unilateral and frustrating to the wife and ultimately a cause of the dissolution of the marriage.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time ..

I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room in there
What you see or don't see is not relevant. The FACT is that there is nothing there that "expressly forbids" anything!

Of course it doesn't
Thank you for conceding the debate.

Forbidding a spouse to withdraw consent would be a de-facto permission to rape, by definition.

It is the fault of the wife if she withdraws consent unilaterally, ie "defrauds" her partner
No it IS NOT!!!

Good grief man! Listen to what you're saying here! You cannot possibly believe that it is EVER a woman's fault when a man, ANY MAN, forces himself on her sexually!

To suggest that God would teach such a thing is BLASPHEMY!
Right.
That shouldn't happen.
That shouldn't have to happen.

Perhaps that's because you're misunderstanding the position I'm taking.
Ok, then explain it to me!

Under what conditions do you say that God sanctions that man can force himself on his wife and it be her fault for having "unilaterally" (whatever is meant by that term) withdrawn her consent?

Clete
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
What you see or don't see is not relevant. The FACT is that there is nothing there that "expressly forbids" anything!
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, unless you want to in which case it's all good

👍
Thank you for conceding the debate.
Same to you big guy 😁
Forbidding a spouse to withdraw consent
Unilaterally
would be a de-facto permission to rape, by definition.
If the husband forced himself on her, yes.

but at that point she has already defrauded him and the marriage is a sham
No it IS NOT!!!
If the wife defrauds her husband, defrauds the marriage, she is at fault.

I'm not saying she's at fault for what he chooses to do past that, I'm saying that she is at fault for defrauding her husband, for defrauding the marriage.
Good grief man! Listen to what you're saying here! You cannot possibly believe that it is EVER a woman fault when a man, ANY MAN, forces himself on her sexually!
In a Christian marriage? A woman is at fault if she denies consent unilaterally, if she defrauds her husband, if she defrauds the marriage. Her fault is in the defrauding.

His fault is in the forcing if he proceeds.

Outside of a Christian marriage? This was beaten to death when I had a flurry of Rape threads a few years ago. Not interested in revisiting it now.


Hopefully that makes it more clear
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
... I have known marriages in which the wife's libido was stronger than the husband's, and there was discord in the marriage because her physical needs were not being met. In the one case with which I was most familiar, the husband's denial of intimacy was unilateral and frustrating to the wife and ultimately a cause of the dissolution of the marriage.
I know about situations like this and to a man there's always pornography involved, iow the husband is not being chaste. He's getting his fix from the ethical (as opposed to chemical) hard drugs of pornography and self-gratification.
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I know about situations like this and to a man there's always pornography involved, iow the husband is not being chaste. He's getting his fix from the ethical (as opposed to chemical) hard drugs of pornography and self-gratification.
Hmm.
"Gratification" may be a key component of the argument.
That one gets gratification and the other doesn't should be a concern to both.
If it's about nothing more than physical gratification then a spouse is not needed for that, as one can physical gratify themself.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Hmm.
"Gratification" may be a key component of the argument.
It is.
That one gets gratification and the other doesn't should be a concern to both.
It's usually only a concern for the one not getting gratification. The other one not so much.
If it's about nothing more than physical gratification then a spouse is not needed for that, as one can physical gratify themself.
Not chastely.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I know about situations like this and to a man there's always pornography involved, iow the husband is not being chaste. He's getting his fix from the ethical (as opposed to chemical) hard drugs of pornography and self-gratification.
Don't discount the (bio)chemical effect of pornography and self-gratification.

And I'm sure that you appreciate this, others do here as well - we're in the middle of an unprecedented experiment in which generations of kids are being raised with a universe of pornography available at the swipe of a finger.
 
Top