Answering old threads thread

[Derf]

That's just as bad as rape

I hope you're joking.

 

[ok doser]

I hope you're joking.

of course

I'm not ashamed to joke about rape, being a rape survivor myself, having been molested as a child by a family member

 

[Clete]

Don't know if it's "evil" or just a misunderstanding.
He seems to be implying that unless BOTH consent to not having sex at any time then the one that wants to refrain must give in to the other.
But that's not even practical.
Should a man give in and leave work every time his wife is in the mood for sex?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I certainly hope that I am because it seems to me that he believes that God has created a situation where rape cannot occur within a marriage and that if anything similar to rape happens it's the fault of whichever spouse was the one saying "No!" because, according to what he's said, neither party has the right to say "no" to the other.

 

[Right Divider]

You are being too kind. Dingbat doesn’t begin to describe the vileness of an individual who claims a *male* (not man) has the right to PHYSICALLY FORCE sex on his wife … OR those who high five such an advocate for marital rape.

I've not seem anyone make that claim. Can you point me to the post where it was made?

 

[Derf]

I've been reading everything you've said, Derf. I'm basing my comment on all you've said on this stupid subject....that no believer would ever in a million years try to justify.

Your crap ended up getting Artie banned for NO REASON. NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

I'd like to call you a dingbat, but I daren't. Oh dear. I daren't do any such thing. I might get my butt booted to the curb.
Although what kind of lost that would be is beyond me at the moment.

Asking him to use the Bible to justify his position ended up getting him banned? I doubt that. It was always his response that he was responsible for.

I'm not opposed to being called a dingbat, and I don't think what he did deserves a ban (@JudgeRightly). But the discussion was about what the Bible said on the subject, yet he refused to use the Bible. What is his role in such a discussion? To claim to know what Paul taught on a subject without accessing Paul's easily accessible writings is to call oneself a dingbat, imo.

 

[ok doser]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I certainly hope that I am because it seems to me that he believes that God has created a situation where rape cannot occur within a marriage and that if anything similar to rape happens it's the fault of whichever spouse was the one saying "No!" because, according to what he's said, neither party has the right to say "no" to the other.

If you have a spouse (A) who is continually, unilaterally, denying consent to intimacy, you already have a marriage in serious trouble. You have a spouse (A) doing that which they ought not do.

If you have a partner (B) to that spouse (A) who is forcing themselves on that unwilling spouse (A), you have a marriage in more serious trouble. You have a partner (B) doing that which they ought not do.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Brittany is my hairdresser and I am her regular client. There is no suggestion we own each other.

The split along gender lines in interpretation of this doctrine is telling. If the couple agrees in general to have an intimate life, then either person can set the conditions and limits and neither is at the whim of the other. Obvious unless you see your wife as a cow you bought who can be milked at anytime. Sheesh.

 

[Clete]

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



Same to you big guy

Unilaterally

If the husband forced himself on her, yes.

but at that point she has already defrauded him and the marriage is a sham

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.

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

Poppy cock!

There is no such teaching in scripture. The verse you cite is general advice and it's good advice but it cannot be rightly used to construe such a law. There are as many different reasons for a wife to withdraw sexually as there are women who have done it. Some of those reasons are foolish and do indeed "defraud the marriage" to use your terminology, but there are also many of those reasons that don't have anything to do with defrauding anything or anybody. Emotional reasons, medical reason and probably a bunch of reasons that I can't think of right now that are perfectly legitimate reasons to decide not to have sex and if the husband disagrees (for WHATEVER reason) the bible DOES NOT give him permission to force her!

I can't even believe that I'm sitting here typing this!

I'm done!

Clete

 

[Derf]

Brittany is my hairdresser and I am her regular client. There is no suggestion we own each other.

The split along gender lines in interpretation of this doctrine is telling. If the couple agrees in general to have an intimate life, then either person can set the conditions and limits and neither is at the whim of the other. Obvious unless you see your wife as a cow you bought who can be milked at anytime. Sheesh.

I didn't know that about Artie.

 

[Clete]

If you have a spouse (A) who is continually, unilaterally, denying consent to intimacy, you already have a marriage in serious trouble. You have a spouse (A) doing that which they ought not do.

If you have a partner (B) to that spouse (A) who is forcing themselves on that unwilling spouse (A), you have a marriage in more serious trouble. You have a partner (B) doing that which they ought not do.

What I am reacting to is your contention that a spouse has no right to refuse sex which is completely asinine and leads to a situation where rape is not possible within a marriage.

 

[Rusha]

I've not seem anyone make that claim. Can you point me to the post where it was made?

Unfortunately I am not capable of pointing immoral men/women to think beyond their ego, immorality and chauvinism. Pray. Pick up a Bible. Just don’t bother me with your self-serving male privilege.

Now back on ignore with you and derf.

 

[Clete]

Unfortunately I am not capable of pointing immoral men/women to think beyond their ego, immorality and chauvinism. Pray. Pick up a Bible. Just don’t bother me with your self-serving male privilege.

Now back on ignore with you and derf.

Translation: "No, I can't point to any post anywhere, on any thread at any time, where any such claim was made. How dumb of you to ask! Did you think I had actually read any of this thread?"

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

I didn't know that about Artie.

The men on the sane side are being removed. Scooter was banned for calling doser old. Clete maybe next.

 

[Right Divider]

Unfortunately I am not capable of pointing immoral men/women to think beyond their ego, immorality and chauvinism. Pray. Pick up a Bible. Just don’t bother me with your self-serving male privilege.

Now back on ignore with you and derf.

I'm asking you to SHOW the POST where someone said what YOU CLAIM that they said.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[ok doser]

Scooter was banned for calling doser old.

Pretty sure he wasn't

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Pretty sure he wasn't

Old and dingbat are pretty tame. Ulterior motives to silence going on here.

 

[ok doser]

What I am reacting to is your contention that a spouse has no right to refuse sex ...

My contention is Paul's:

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

 

[Idolater]

I haven't seen any studies yet and I don't operate in that environment anymore but I'd be very curious to investigate changes in parental bonding related to pornography use. In other words, if you're triggering your dopamine system everyday, does it blunt its effectiveness in relational formation? Are we raising a generation of boys and girls who will be more receptive to the unstated goal of the extreme left of societally acceptable infanticide and pedophilia?

I guess I don't know about that narrow a question. But basically, if we are now educating our youths to succumb to whatever perverted idea the untrained dopamine reward system thinks is a good idea, that's a big break with the tradition where self mastery and training the dopamine system to prefer delayed and more valuable rewards to "our baser instincts," which means immediate but poor rewards, is the ideal. It's not unreasonable to think of adults who haven't learned how to train their dopamine systems away from perverted base instincts, as still being juveniles or adolescents in some ways.

 

[Derf]

The men on the sane side are being removed. Scooter was banned for calling doser old. Clete maybe next.

I guess "dingbat" = "insane"?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Constancy is for those in the child bearing years not to please dirty old men in their declining days.