Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
Is marital rape scripturally defensible?
Marital Rape, and all rape is bad.
Radical feminism is destroying lives.
Women's rights are imperative.
If a woman loves her man, she does things out of love and the man does the same.
He makes her feel like a she and she makes him feel like a he.
That is what I meant.
Marital Rape, and all rape is bad.
Radical feminism is destroying lives.
Women's rights are imperative.
If a woman loves her man, she does things out of love and the man does the same.
He makes her feel like a she and she makes him feel like a he.
That is what I meant.
:thumb:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Agreed.
Do you think that could be in response to the radical misogyny endured by women for millennia?
In a perfect world, yes. Since this isn't a perfect world, laws were long, long needed to protect women.
Radical *anything* destroys lives ... it's no different than patriarchy. Like everything, it depends on the motivation of the person. Any view that involves one group of human beings controlling another is always radical.
Currently yes ... however, there are those who would enjoy going back to the bad old days when women were not allowed to vote or given the opportunity to have the career of their choosing, etc.
Of course .... that would be showing mutual respect. However, the reality is that not everyone agrees with you insofar as the treatment towards women. Women's rights has nothing to do with honest, respectful men but rather with those who would still like to see women treated as second-class citizens.
The very fact that this thread exists (due to those who argue that wives cannot be raped) is an example of what I am speaking of.
:rotfl:
If people fall for that claim, it's no wonder society is so feminized.
It's like turning a lion into a tabby cat and putting a mane on him
lain: Yes, women have as many rights as you do. That's not changing so you will just have to get over it. I certainly have.
Plus the privileges and favoritism, positive bias and support systems. And lenience, and lesser obligation to take accountability. Less flack for wrongs, more praise for rights. Anon anon.
The most ridiculous thing about it is not just the fact that you say merely 'as many', but also that people act as if they still never achieved equality- even in the most egalitarian of terms.
~Feminism is a mental illness~
You will just have to get over the fact that I'm justified in my standing on the matter
Monotonous story ... much more effective than a glass of warm milk.
Feminism has always been a scattered mess with no centralized meaning or construct.
That is why the definition is directly ripped off of 'egalitarianism', except it has a slant on women which really just makes it a bastardization of 'equality'.
It is nothing but pride and prejudice, manipulating men to go against their own selves in favor of women.
Let me put it another way: women didn't achieve anything, men gave it to them- and now men are getting the shaft.
Just thought I'd forego the superfluous connectors he adds in lieu of argument and repost the real message.
Pretty clear either way, I mean exactly what I say. It's not like it isn't true :idunno:
But yall don't like truth
No, it's exactly like that, unless you mean that it's true you feel that way and that you're basically feeling your way through the issue.
I don't care much for willful ignorance wrapped in malice...I'd rather see a young man correct himself and make something better out of a life lesson. But to each their own, I suppose.But yall don't like truth
You know a good way to assess things, TH? You 'put yourself' there. Compile the information and detail, put it in order, and realize it for what it was, rather than the revision it became.
I know the best possible way, with a deliberate, careful and thorough rationality.
You're not doing that and neither are the snippets of propaganda you followed that statement with, curiously enough.
You should pay attention to the order of those 'snippets'. It doesn't work if you don't- pretty clever thing I came up with when trying to figure out a way to immerse myself in eras. Turns out it's really good in deducing reality from revision
They didn't interest me. It's lazy thinking, like bumper sticker philosophy. I don't engage it.
It is not lazy thinking, it's brilliant thinking. Women were never really against any type of cruelty or decrepit unfairness, you all divinized feminism and made the matter into something it never was.
'Suffragettes' homes brainwashed their daughters, and it grew over time. That's not a 'movement'- how do you call it that when the trend, which continues today, amounts to daughters taking liberal arts and suddenly being 'victims' in their privileged, elite lives?
It's a lie, which is all feminism appropriately is- lies. I doubt one genuine statistic, claim, or otherwise even exists within it, because I've never seen one that hasn't been refuted
Why should a man be involved in that lunacy?
It's simplistic propaganda playing to a fearful and/or hostile audience. It doesn't take much to do that.
One sure sign of an irrational objection where people are concerned is an inability to credit the object of its hostility with a rationally undeniable human variance. It insists, instead, that "all Jews are driven by a love of money" or "all women are devious". The only good thing about it is that everyone not caught in the throes of the bigoted notion can't help but note the perspective and skew.
The same is true of your "you all" nonsense. Feminism is also a broader tent than you understand or mean to, which is why people as different as Gloria Steinem and Sarah Palin can use the label to self-describe.
Suffragettes wanted the right the Constitution promised citizens, the right to vote, to be heard through the process that was premised in equality before the law. As with minorities, we failed the principle and, as with minorities, it had to be fought for and obtained through struggle.
Rather, that's precisely what it is, a social movement. As Merriam Webster would have the usage:
b: a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also: an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement> Merriam Webster
I call that overly generalized and wildly inaccurate description the problem. It's nonsense. Women, even in this society, are disproportionately poor. Most of them aren't leading the lives of an "elite" unless you want to consider everyone in our compact elite by comparison to a group without it.... That's just your irrational hostility denying you an objective approach. And any education that isn't steeped in liberal arts is, essentially, a glorified trade school exercise.
Rather, the root of feminism, which is nothing more that the idea that "men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" is right and good. Beyond that women, collectively and individually, have varying and sometimes even competing interests and ideas, as you'd expect with a large group of disparate individuals...were you capable of seeing that large group through the blood and planks you've brought to the examination.
People who speak too broadly rarely evidence a similar tendency in their reading or considerations. It's funny how that works.
A question that comes to mind each time I read you.
lain:- Status