Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Crucible]

It is not an argument. It is a statement of fact. In a loving relationship the good of the spouse comes first.

In a loving relationship, a wife doesn't withhold sex from the husband so..

Women just want to completely wreck the vestige that men have left, making them afraid of punitive results if they do what women are free to do to them.

That is why feminist ideology is immoral- it's all about the superiority of women and men have to tread carefully. When it gets to a point where not being robbed in divorce is some major accomplishment, there is a problem.

But please, feel free to make it about you, as per usual.
Just because you don't feel like having sex doesn't mean you are being raped by your husband. Get a grip.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Claiming to have been raped by one's husband... it's a joke. He's your husband- that's called an 'inconvenience'.

That seems to be the popular thing in today's world, women calling everything rape. There's even 'eye rape'. Women feel 'raped' when someone cat calls on the street. It's something that is losing the ability to be taken seriously. There are more pressing issues than a woman martyring themselves by their own self idolatry and attention-seeking, which men are suffering and being ignored because of it.

It's anything but a joke. You seem to be nothing other than some patriarch throwback who sees women as having little to no rights whatsoever. We don't live in 1800 anymore and women aren't "obliged" to be tied to the sink or pander to blokes every whim. Suck it up and deal with it, or flame out and bog off. Either suits although the former would be preferable...

 

[Crucible]

It's anything but a joke. You seem to be nothing other than some patriarch throwback who sees women as having little to no rights whatsoever. We don't live in 1800 anymore and women aren't "obliged" to be tied to the sink or pander to blokes every whim. Suck it up and deal with it, or flame out and bog off. Either suits although the former would be preferable...

All I heard was I'M A SUPER LIBERAL FEMINIST POLITICALLY CORRECT BRITISH DUDE

 

[Arthur Brain]

In a loving relationship, a wife doesn't withhold sex from the husband so..

Women just want to completely wreck the vestige that men have left, making them afraid of punitive results if they do what women are free to do to them.

That is why feminist ideology is immoral- it's all about the superiority of women and men have to tread carefully. When it gets to a point where not being robbed in divorce is some major accomplishment, there is a problem.

But please, feel free to make it about you, as per usual.
Just because you don't feel like having sex doesn't mean you are being raped by your husband. Get a grip.

If the wife says no and the husband forces sex then that's rape, pure and simple. Get a grip yourself.

 

[bybee]

All I heard was I'M A SUPER LIBERAL FEMINIST POLITICALLY CORRECT BRITISH DUDE

That darn ear wax will get you every time!

 

[Arthur Brain]

All I heard was I'M A SUPER LIBERAL FEMINIST POLITICALLY CORRECT BRITISH DUDE

Must be catching cos all I'm hearing is I'M A FUNDY CRANK BLAH BLAH GRIPE etc...

 

[Crucible]

That darn ear wax will get you every time!

UK liberals are annoying, and all the same.

Seriously, Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and makes more sense than a Christian UK liberal when it comes to gay people and feminism. I don't get it.
The Stockholm's syndrome is contagious over there.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's rather telling that anyone would see marriage as an issue of control rather than a relationship between the marital partners.

Yes it is. There has never been a struggle for control in my marriage. We work together to accomplish anything and everything. No need for control, just the mutual respect God intended.

 

[CabinetMaker]

A wife can put her foot down and you are basically her hostage. That's just the fact of modern marriage. You can have an illusion that you have control, she can make you feel like you do, but when it comes down to it, you are being taken captive and if you escape it's going to cost you a hell of a lot financially because the judge is going to rule in her favor.

I don't have an empty platitude, I have reality. You can take that feminizing, myth making, denial dumping machine somewhere it'll work. The patriarchs took control of the women because, collectively, emancipated women are intrinsically immoral. Their face, feminism, is an ugly smear on 1st world society and makes patriarchy look like gold. Patriarchy took men out of huts into civilization, feminism put man in the kennels they built.
Good job.

Put her foot down regarding what? My wife has put her foot down, we have had a discussion and then we do what is best for any given situation. Same from my side. I have put my foot down and we have had another discussion and again do what is best for both if us. It us not about who is in control, it is about being in a marriage where each spouse loves and supports and respects their spouse.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You seem to be trying to redefine the argument, but that won't work since you don't even know what a definition is nor what a defining characteristic is.

We are not talking about a "strong and lasting" relationship.
We are not talking about a "God honoring" relationship.

We are talking about the bare minimum defining characteristics of a marriage.
This includes the marriages that end in divorce in less than a week and marriages by atheists.

What are the properties held by all members of the class of object called marriage that are so distinctive that they are sufficient to determine membership in that class called marriage across most cultures found throughout recorded human history?

1. A sexual relationship between the spouses.
2. Offspring as a result of that sexual relationship (optional)
3. Inlaws (optional)

Lets be clear: this is your definition of marriage. I do not agree with your definition. It is incomplete and does not honor God.

You are also limiting your comments to one very specific set of marriages.

If you want to discuss the differences between a marriage and a strong and lasting God honoring marriage, start a new thread.

No, my comments are not limited to Christian marriages, my comments apply to all marriages between a man and a woman.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "a lot" and "one or two".
You also are complete mischaracterizing the argument being made by those one or two posters, who are actually making the exact same argument you are making here.


Who do you think is disagreeing with your statements here, and can you provide quotes to prove the disagreement?

Go back and look at your posts and OD's posts at several others who are all saying that rape does not exist in a marriage because a woman's bodies is not her own. i haven't read every single post but I have not seen one of these people say that a woman can say no because she has authority over her husbands body to do so. It has been very one sided and misogynistic.

 

[Crucible]

Put her foot down regarding what? My wife has put her foot down, we have had a discussion and then we do what is best for any given situation. Same from my side. I have put my foot down and we have had another discussion and again do what is best for both if us. It us not about who is in control, it is about being in a marriage where each spouse loves and supports and respects their spouse.

I'm talking about the brass tacks. When it really comes down to it, if she wants to take it there- to the place you cannot. The whole 50/50 thing is not without a ridiculous lean towards the woman, it is a full reversal of a patriarchal, biblical family setting.

Feminism just played men like a fiddle, is all. Right under your nose- they know what they are doing and you don't hold them accountable for that the same as you don't hold them accountable for anything else.
It's why I've made ample use of the phrases 'hostage' and 'Stockholms syndrome'- that's exactly what it is.

Men would do well to heed the Patriarchs, even if one is an atheist. There is valuable wisdom for men in the Bible in regards to the attack they are under by women.

 

[Arthur Brain]

UK liberals are annoying, and all the same.

Seriously, Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and makes more sense than a Christian UK liberal when it comes to gay people and feminism. I don't get it.
The Stockholm's syndrome is contagious over there.

'Seriously'? If only...

You're a nut.

 

[Crucible]

'Seriously'? If only...

You're a nut.

I find a gay person calling out the absurdity of the gay agenda to be refreshing. It just shows the pompous complex of liberals for what it is.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm talking about the brass tacks. When it really comes down to it, if she wants to take it there- to the place you cannot. The whole 50/50 thing is not without a ridiculous lean towards the woman, it is a full reversal of a patriarchal, biblical family setting.

Feminism just played men like a fiddle, is all. Right under your nose- they know what they are doing and you don't hold them accountable for that the same as you don't hold them accountable for anything else.
It's why I've made ample use of the phrases 'hostage' and 'Stockholms syndrome'- that's exactly what it is.

Men would do well to heed the Patriarchs, even if one is an atheist. There is valuable wisdom for men in the Bible in regards to the attack they are under by women.

Yeah yeah, those evil gals, all just itching to steal your wallet and demand you shave your beard off and do some cooking for a change...

For shame!

:madmad:

 

[lifeisgood]

Yes it is. There has never been a struggle for control in my marriage. We work together to accomplish anything and everything. No need for control, just the mutual respect God intended.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I find a gay person calling out the absurdity of the gay agenda to be refreshing. It just shows the pompous complex of liberals for what it is.

Oh why indubitably good sir! All of us more left than right folk are chagrined to say the least if we can't formulate a sentence with at least one word with more than four syllables in it by way of.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I'm talking about the brass tacks. When it really comes down to it, if she wants to take it there- to the place you cannot. The whole 50/50 thing is not without a ridiculous lean towards the woman, it is a full reversal of a patriarchal, biblical family setting.

Feminism just played men like a fiddle, is all. Right under your nose- they know what they are doing and you don't hold them accountable for that the same as you don't hold them accountable for anything else.
It's why I've made ample use of the phrases 'hostage' and 'Stockholms syndrome'- that's exactly what it is.

Men would do well to heed the Patriarchs, even if one is an atheist. There is valuable wisdom for men in the Bible in regards to the attack they are under by women.

It is the withholding of sex in a marriage from powerful men who are able to make societal change that got us here. Its also the promise of sexual favors to single men if they tow the line and help get the women power that got us here. Its mans biology that created his own noose. These men put their fellow men into very bad situations in marriages just so they could keep their libidos satisfied.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is the withholding of sex in a marriage from powerful men who are able to make societal change that got us here. Its also the promise of sexual favors to single men if they tow the line and help get the women power that got us here. Its mans biology that created his own noose. These men put their fellow men into very bad situations in marriages just so they could keep their libidos satisfied.

Oh boy, you're just as nuts as he is...

What a pair of paranoid deluded fruitcakes.

:freak:

 

[ClimateSanity]

UK liberals are annoying, and all the same.

Seriously, Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and makes more sense than a Christian UK liberal when it comes to gay people and feminism. I don't get it.
The Stockholm's syndrome is contagious over there.

A poll asked if Milo should be banned from the university of bristol. It was 84% to 16% saying no. That guy seems to make sense. Never heard of him until today though.