Anyone Who Thinks Another Person Deserves To Be Raped Is A Knob

[1PeaceMaker]

You cannot see that both the man and the woman in this video are dancing in a purposeful way to sexually arouse the opposite sex? Why is David coverdale wearing skin tight pants and trying to attract attention to his crotch if not to visually arouse females?

Again arousal is not covetousness. So it is neither here nor there if some find it arousing or titillating.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Again arousal is not covetousness. So it is neither here nor there if some find it arousing or titillating.

Purposeful arousal without intent to carry through is fraud and a sin. And you are right, the arousal is not sinful until it turns into covetousness.

 

[patrick jane]

She criticized my husband for remarrying after being divorced, and claimed he was presently committing adultery with me.

Care to sow any other lies?

Oh yes, it's her forte

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Purposeful arousal without intent to carry through is fraud and a sin.

There's a very good reason to say that's impossible.

Men and women carry pheromones that naturally are meant to arouse. The female shape, even under clothes is meant to be arousing on sight.
Just about any dance a woman can do can arouse a man because it displays the shapes and fitness of her body more clearly.

That would be like saying the smell of a bakery is sinful because it entices people to covet and consequently steal bread.

 

[ClimateSanity]

There's a very good reason to say that's impossible.

Men and women carry pheromones that naturally are meant to arouse. The female shape, even under clothes is meant to be arousing on sight.
Just about any dance a woman can do can arouse a man because it displays the shapes and fitness of her body more clearly.

That would be like saying the smell of a bakery is sinful because it entices people to covet and consequently steal bread.

I'm talking about arousal that goes beyond what happens naturally. To intentionally heighten the arousal to an even stronger intensity is the very essence of fraud and is a sin.

 

[ok doser]

When I see a belly dancer or the like I don't see a whore or an adulteress inciting men to rape or covet. Why do you?

how would your husband react to you telling him that you wanted to perform like the women in the Whitesnake video for strangers at a bar?

would you be willing to perform like the women in the Whitesnake video for strangers at a bar?

 

[glorydaz]

There's a very good reason to say that's impossible.

Men and women carry pheromones that naturally are meant to arouse. The female shape, even under clothes is meant to be arousing on sight.
Just about any dance a woman can do can arouse a man because it displays the shapes and fitness of her body more clearly.

That would be like saying the smell of a bakery is sinful because it entices people to covet and consequently steal bread.

If this isn't the height of ignorance, it's got to be the depth of depravity.

 

[ok doser]

If this isn't the height of ignorance, it's got to be the depth of depravity.

i can't tell if she's really this dumb or just trolling

but i've been wondering the same thing about elo for eleven years

 

[glorydaz]

She criticized my husband for remarrying after being divorced, and claimed he was presently committing adultery with me.

Care to sow any other lies?

So, you don't know the meaning of reaping what you sow, do you?


What you need to do is tell your husband to shut his big mouth about the personal affairs of others, or he will have to reap what he has sown by having details of his personal life put forth for public examination.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I'm talking about arousal that goes beyond what happens naturally. To intentionally heighten the arousal to an even stronger intensity is the very essence of fraud and is a sin.

Why didn't God warn about sinful dance styles and adulteress-wear, then? There is no specific Biblical dress code or approved/condemned dance style.

Any dance consisting of many motions of the arms or twirling would spread her pheromones to the audience, above what would happen while holding still.

So is holding still covered in many layers better than dancing for joy, because joy and movement enhances a woman's hotness beyond what is naturally present while she sits still and quiet?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

So, you don't know the meaning of reaping what you sow, do you?


What you need to do is tell your husband to shut his big mouth about the personal affairs of others, or he will have to reap what he has sown by having details of his personal life put forth for public examination.

You are doing a poor job of being vindictive. Much like the others.

 

[ok doser]

...dancing for joy....

you realize we're discussing strippers and whores, right?

 

[elohiym]

how would your husband react to you telling him that you wanted to perform like the women in the Whitesnake video for strangers at a bar?

I'm her husband, and I play drums for belly dancers. You think I have a problem with what the actress Tawny Kitaen did in a video from the eighties? :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

I'm her husband, and I play drums for belly dancers. You think I have a problem with what the actress Tawny Kitaen did in a video from the eighties? :chuckle:

ok, so you're used to perversion, you live it every day


and here i thought you were a Christian


guess i shoulda known better :idunno:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Show me in the Bible where anyone even hints that a husband can rape his wife.

(Is it just me, or are we both asking for the same thing?)

I have never seen anything in God's word that says we can force anybody to do anything that we want them to do. Which is rather the point. You seem to think that a wife must performe if her husband insists. I would never agree that that is an accurate reading of God's word.

That thinking comes from relative morality, not from the Bible.

My position is very biblical, nothing relative about it. If you disagree then in essence you are claiming that it is okay with God to force/coerce somebody who does not want to have sex into having sex.

You missed a couple of verses.

1 Corinthians 7:2-6 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 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. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.​

The verses, when not taken out of context like you have done, are saying that Paul's recommendation is that husbands are to give their wives what the wife needs and wives are to give their husbands what the husband needs in order to assist the other in keeping the sex within the marriage.
Paul did not command this, but did point out that intentionally withholding sex from your spouse is defrauding them.

These verses change nothing about what I said. I quoted the single verses that is most commonly quoted as support for forcing a wife to have sex against her will. When take the passage as whole it supports my position, not yours. Sex I something that should be shared mutually between a husband and a wife. When one if them says no for a single night then the other must respect that. If the time for that no us longer because she is in that period of the month where men were forbidden to lay with a woman then that should respected. There may be medical reasons. In any case, a man should rule over his libido instead of being ruled over by his libido.

Do you have anything else that supports your view that a husband should force his wife to have sex?

As that is not my position I cannot answer your question.

I suppose that your equivocation is the real heart of the matter.
Has a crime truly been committed?

That would be up to a prosecutor to determine.

Not according to this common law definition of rape that has been used in English speaking countries since the beginning of the English language until 1970.
"A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will."

I think that the change in the law is a good thing. The law was changed for a reason, what would cause legislators to change laws to give wives more legal protection against sexual assault?

Either you know you are deliberately lying, or you are too stupid to continue participating in this discussion.
Which is it?

I am a Christian man who understands that the law of an eye for eye a d the law of do to others what you want them to do to you are not the same thing. I follow Christ's lead as a servant who cares for others and treats them fairly and cares for their needs ahead of my own. I am a Christian man who loves and respects my wife and extends that same respect to all women.


[quoteEok doser repeatedly claimed that according to the current DoJ definition of rape, him having a couple glasses of wine at dinner before having sex with his wife meant he was unable to consent to the sex, therefore his wife raped him according to the DoJ.

Anything he said about being raped is only in context with that claim, and is not actionable.[/QUOTE]

Which means that he knowingly confessed to a crime. He knows the definition of rape and admitted to a rape according to that definition. He may think it was funny, but a police officer might not. That is the context he should be concerned about.

 

[ok doser]

He may think it was funny, but a police officer might not. That is the context he should be concerned about.

and you're a police officer?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

you realize we're discussing strippers and whores, right?

You do realize we are actually discussing angry, self-righteous rapists and their excuses to rape, right?

 

[elohiym]

What you need to do is tell your husband to shut his big mouth about the personal affairs of others...

Didn't you just come on here speculating about my personal affairs, hypocrite? Or was that Ms. Hyde?

 

[ok doser]

You do realize we are actually discussing angry, self-righteous rapists and their excuses to rape, right?

who is "we"? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

so we got cabinetmaker pretending to be a cop

elo pretending to be a Christian

1peacemaker pretending to be...:idunno: ... an intelligent form of life, i guess