Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Crucible]

All hail Crucible, speaker for the dead.

St. Augustine had a lot to say about souls and carnality, sex and volition, etc.
And nowhere in his writings does it hold up that it is bestiality if the soul resists.

More seriously, you appear to think that if a husband wants sex and the wife doesn't and she fails to provide it anyway that the husband is entitled to force her to provide it.

By the very nature of holy marriage, a husband forcing sex upon his wife cannot be seen as 'rape' in the fashion of two people not married-they are one in the flesh.

A wife crying rape by her husband is something I just don't take so seriously. It's her husband. It's a victim complex, it's not actually real but something imagined. That's the effect that feminism has done, you wouldn't catch women acting that way about it a century ago.

 

[Ktoyou]

St. Augustine had a lot to say about souls and carnality, sex and volition, etc.
And nowhere in his writings does it hold up that it is bestiality if the soul resists.



By the very nature of holy marriage, a husband forcing sex upon his wife cannot be seen as 'rape' in the fashion of two people not married-they are one in the flesh.

A wife crying rape by her husband is something I just don't take so seriously. It's her husband. It's a victim complex, it's not actually real but something imagined. That's the effect that feminism has done, you wouldn't catch women acting that way about it a century ago.

It does not matter what you say or think, nor does it matter what Augustine thinks. What matters is the decision by the court.

You are yell out "object", on grounds of 'wife has no separate life" and the judge will overrule it every time.

Your ideas have nothing to do with reality, women can seek a divorce. women can say, "no do not touch me", even when married, and if there is a force by physical power, then it is just as much a crime, even more, to tell the truth, than hitting her on the head with a brick!

You are a moron, using scripture to fend your false sense of dominance over women. What a nut you are! If you worked in my past profession, I would definitely be your superior and if you came across with any of these lame notions, I would fire you and guess what? The men who worked with me would agree with me. Then you do not do that, right? You follow the rules like everyone else. You may not like women who are your superiors, but in the real world, you put up with it, or you would be jobless.

Anyone in business, or public life would agree with me. They would think of you as an archaic fool, to stupid to face the modern world.

Now you may claim you are basing all your ideas on true Christianity, and it strikes me funny your thinking about women is the worst aspect of Islam. You are like the Anatolia pretending to be spiritual, when really you are a seeker of power you do not have.

What you are doing is escapist fantasy, going on web forums and spreading out your resentment at a world where you have to contend with powerful women. You are not a typical man, rather you may just be one of those guys who never had a chance with the most attractive girls, and you may well resent women because they do not choose you. :loser:

 

[Rusha]

It does not matter what you say or think, nor does it matter what Augustine thinks. What matters is the decision by the court.

You are yell out "object", on grounds of 'wife has no separate life" and the judge will overrule it every time.

Your ideas have nothing to do with reality, women can seek a divorce. women can say, "no do not touch me", even when married, and if there is a force by physical power, then it is just as much a crime, even more, to tell the truth, than hitting her on the head with a brick!

You are a moron, using scripture to fend your false sense of dominance over women. What a nut you are! If you worked in my past profession, I would definitely be your superior and if you came across with any of these lame notions, I would fire you and guess what? The men who worked with me would agree with me. Then you do not do that, right? You follow the rules like everyone else. You may not like women who are your superiors, but in the real world, you put up with it, or you would be jobless.

Anyone in business, or public life would agree with me. They would think of you as an archaic fool, to stupid to face the modern world.

Now you may claim you are basing all your ideas on true Christianity, and it strikes me funny your thinking about women is the worst aspect of Islam. You are like the Anatolia pretending to be spiritual, when really you are a seeker of power you do not have.

What you are doing is escapist fantasy, going on web forums and spreading out your resentment at a world where you have to contend with powerful women. You are not a typical man, rather you may just be one of those guys who never had a chance with the most attractive girls, and you may well resent women because they do not choose you. :loser:

:BRAVO:

 

[Crucible]

It does not matter what you say or think, nor does it matter what Augustine thinks. What matters is the decision by the court.

You are yell out "object", on grounds of 'wife has no separate life" and the judge will overrule it every time.

Spoken like a true feminist Edomite 'Christian'.
You're part of the downfall of this country.

Your ideas have nothing to do with reality, women can seek a divorce. women can say, "no do not touch me", even when married, and if there is a force by physical power, then it is just as much a crime, even more, to tell the truth, than hitting her on the head with a brick!

No it's not. If a woman had to choose between getting hit in the head with a brick or being forced to have sex with her husband, she'll be in the bedroom so fast that a sonic boom would burst the windows.


Everything else you said is too dumb to reply to :wave:

 

[Arthur Brain]

St. Augustine had a lot to say about souls and carnality, sex and volition, etc.
And nowhere in his writings does it hold up that it is bestiality if the soul resists.



By the very nature of holy marriage, a husband forcing sex upon his wife cannot be seen as 'rape' in the fashion of two people not married-they are one in the flesh.

A wife crying rape by her husband is something I just don't take so seriously. It's her husband. It's a victim complex, it's not actually real but something imagined. That's the effect that feminism has done, you wouldn't catch women acting that way about it a century ago.

And hence why you're an idiot. Sorry if it's a liberal British 'Stephen Fry' thing to you but a man forcing himself on his wife against her will is just as much rape as some bastard doing so with a stranger in a back alley. The key component of rape is forced sex without consent.

So frankly, who cares what you think when you're too vacuum brained to take such seriously?

You're a nut.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Spoken like a true feminist Edomite 'Christian'.
You're part of the downfall of this country.



No it's not. If a woman had to choose between getting hit in the head with a brick or being forced to have sex with her husband, she'll be in the bedroom so fast that a sonic boom would burst the windows.


Everything else you said is too dumb to reply to :wave:

How about if she had the choice to whack you over the head with a brick as a third option?

I wonder how long that queue would be...



Berk.

 

[Ktoyou]

....

No it's not. If a woman had to choose between getting hit in the head with a brick or being forced to have sex with her husband, she'll be in the bedroom so fast that a sonic boom would burst the windows.


Everything else you said is predictably too dumb to reply to :wave:

The ones who you know maybe, sounds like trailer trash to me. "yah take me, :duh: just do not beat me" Real winner, you Squeaky.

:nono: You would not drop your anger at me in the other thread where I told you to behave, and now you have been pants-ed, and you do not want others to see it/ Well, they do see it!

You gone out of your depth, so now shut up and I will ignore you:mmph:

 

[annabenedetti]

No it's not. If a woman had to choose between getting hit in the head with a brick or being forced to have sex with her husband, she'll be in the bedroom so fast that a sonic boom would burst the windows.

I'll bet you've gotten hit with a lot of bricks that got thrown right back at you.

 

[Traditio]

St. Augustine had a lot to say about souls and carnality, sex and volition, etc.

You have any particular texts in mind?

And nowhere in his writings does it hold up that it is bestiality if the soul resists.

Why on earth would Ktoyou think that marital rape constitutes bestiality?

I mean, all jokes about one's spouse aside, what?

 

[WizardofOz]

Have we yet come across a female poster who agrees that there is no such thing as a husband raping his wife?

 

[Traditio]

Have we yet come across a female poster who agrees that there is no such thing as a husband raping his wife?

Let us suppose that the answer is "no." So what?

 

[WizardofOz]

Let us suppose that the answer is "no." So what?

I imagine the trend would continue, nearly universally.

 

[Traditio]

I imagine the trend would continue, nearly universally.

For any given proposition x, do you hold that x is true only if at least one woman asserts that x is true? Do you hold that the assent of a woman is a necessary condition for the truth of a given proposition?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Let us suppose that the answer is "no." So what?

So everything. Would you agree that a woman having sex forced upon her against her will by her husband is rape?

 

[WizardofOz]

For any given proposition x, do you hold that x is true only if at least one woman asserts that x is true? Do you hold that the assent of woman is a necessary condition for the truth of a given proposition?

I hold that every marriage involves a woman and that her view of having sex when she doesn't wish to is at minimum equally as compelling as any opposing view her husband may hold.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For any given proposition x, do you hold that x is true only if at least one woman asserts that x is true? Do you hold that the assent of a woman is a necessary condition for the truth of a given proposition?

Oh seriously, enough with the 'x's dude. You're not in a bloody algebra class...

 

[Traditio]

I hold that every marriage involves a woman and that her view of having sex when she doesn't wish to is at minimum equally as compelling as any opposing view her husband may hold.

That's not what I asked.

 

[WizardofOz]

For any given marriage x, i hold that x is true only if the wife asserts that x is true. I hold that the assent of a woman is a necessary condition for the truth of a given marriage; including the conditions of the sexual relations in marriage x.

 

[WizardofOz]

That's not what I asked.

We're talking about a rather specific topic, why wonder off to discuss propositions in general?

 

[Traditio]

We're talking about a rather specific topic, why wonder off to discuss random propositions?

Typical liberal. :nono: