Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
This thread is speaking about this:

_____
Sexual ethics: Consent: Present and historical perspectives

From a human rights and international law perspective, consent is a key issue in sexual ethics. Nevertheless, historically, this has not necessarily been the case. Throughout history, a whole range of consensual sexual acts, such as adultery, fornication, interracial or interfaith sex, 'sodomy' (see sodomy laws) have been prohibited; while at the same time various forced sexual encounters such as rape of a slave, prostitute, war enemy, and most notably of a spouse, were not illegal. The criminalization of marital rape is very recent, having occurred during the past few decades, and the act is still legal in many places in the world.
. . .
Enthusiastic consent, as expressed in the slogan "Yes means yes," is typically the focus of liberal sexual ethics, rather than marriage. Under that view passivity, not saying "No," is not consent.
_____​
First, rape is redefined to mean a non-consensual act.
Next, rape is redefined to include sex between a husband and a wife.
Third, rape is redefined to include all sex that in not actively consented to.
I don't think the thread is about that. The title is asking if rape in marriage is scripturally justified. If you don't like the label 'rape' then change it to this: Is someone forcing sex on their spouse scripturally justified?

The opening post posed a question to you. If you answered it I don't remember seeing it.


So, genuineoriginal, if you held your wife down and forced yourself on her, you believe you would not be raping her.



I know you wouldn't call it 'rape' because you define rape as non-spousal. However, can you justify that using scripture?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Maybe you can find a verse that specifically deals with abuse of a spouse.

So far, no one has been able to find one.

The closest anyone has come is to claim that the golden rule is so general that it probably applies.

Do you think abusing your spouse is an act of love?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I don't think the thread is about that. The title is asking if rape in marriage is scripturally justified. If you don't like the label 'rape' then change it to this: Is someone forcing sex on their spouse scripturally justified?

The opening post posed a question to you. If you answered it I don't remember seeing it.


So, genuineoriginal, if you held your wife down and forced yourself on her, you believe you would not be raping her.



I know you wouldn't call it 'rape' because you define rape as non-spousal. However, can you justify that using scripture?


if they are both Christians, why does he have to hold her down and why does he have to force himself on her?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
if they are both Christians, why does he have to hold her down and why does he have to force himself on her?

:idunno: I know you're trying to find fault in the woman too but the thread isn't about your question.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I don't think the thread is about that. The title is asking if rape in marriage is scripturally justified.
If you read the opening post, you might have seen this quote:
I am not evading the question, you just appear to be unwilling to accept my answer.

You don't like the fact that the problem is the redefinition of rape to include many things that are not rape.

_____
Women’s long battle to define rape
In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband.
. . .
Advocates for women’s rights and racial justice started questioning these views in the mid-19th century, and their efforts helped reshape the meaning of rape in three important ways. First, legal remedies such as laws on criminal seduction and statutory rape made it easier to prosecute coercive but nonviolent sexual relations with acquaintances. African American activists insisted that black women could be victims of rape and that white men should be held accountable for assault. And feminists renamed a range of non-consensual acts, particularly with acquaintances and husbands, as rape.
_____​
From the very opening post of this thread, my argument has been against the redefinition of the criminal act of rape to include sex between a husband and his wife, something that has happened only within the last 60 years.

If you don't like the label 'rape' then change it to this: Is someone forcing sex on their spouse scripturally justified?
Why should I?
That has never been my argument.
That is the argument of those people unwilling to address my argument who are trying to sidetrack the discussion.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
:idunno: I know you're trying to find fault in the woman too but the thread isn't about your question.

if they're both Christian, that's between them to work out - between them and God

and if they need counseling, they should seek it from their spiritual leader and not involve the secular authorities
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
If you read the opening post, you might have seen this quote:

From the very opening post of this thread, my argument has been against the redefinition of the criminal act of rape to include sex between a husband and his wife, something that has happened only within the last 60 years.


Why should I?
That has never been my argument.
That is the argument of those people unwilling to address my argument who are trying to sidetrack the discussion.

Yes, that's what you want to talk about. I don't think it's what anna, the creator of this thread wanted to talk about. If anyone is changing the subject it's you.

But I'm glad to see you won't attempt to use scripture to justify someone forcing themselves on their spouse. :up:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Yes, that's what you want to talk about. I don't think it's what anna, the creator of this thread wanted to talk about. If anyone is changing the subject it's you.

But I'm glad to see you won't attempt to use scripture to justify someone forcing themselves on their spouse. :up:


who is supposed to be the head of the marriage?

who is supposed to be the leader if there is a disagreement?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Yes, that's what you want to talk about. I don't think it's what anna, the creator of this thread wanted to talk about. If anyone is changing the subject it's you.
Not at all.
It was my post that was quoted in the OP that prompted this thread.
My argument has not changed substantially since the OP.

anna may have wanted to change it to something else, but that has nothing to do with my position.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Not at all.
It was my post that was quoted in the OP that prompted this thread.
My argument has not changed substantially since the OP.

anna may have wanted to change it to something else, but that has nothing to do with my position.

To be fair to myself :)eek:), I did attempt to run where you were going for a bit but you left one question unanswered. You were talking about the government dissolving a marriage if there was violence between spouses and then possibly press criminal charges depending on the situation. I was asking why you don't include rape/forced sex in that. If someone forces sex on their spouse it's going to include some level of violence. Maybe not bloody and beaten but the offender would be using force to overpower and restrain them. Why isn't that grounds for dissolution if the wife goes to the state like you would for other forms of violence?

Do you see someone forcing sex on their spouse in the same way you'd view them forcing their spouse to watch a movie they don't like or go somewhere they don't want to go or sweep the floors when they don't want to clean?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Restraint/and forcing sex on another person IS rape ... including those who are married to their victim.

It happens, but is rarely reported due to those members of society who promote the act of rape by bashing the victims.

Right- let's see that statistic on unreported rape :rolleyes:

Seems to me like making things up. Not saying it doesn't happen, but those numbers are undoubtedly, greatly exaggerated being that many myths along these lines have been debunked before. Like the 1 in 4 victims on campuses, for example- exposed hogwash perpetuated by hipster feminists.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
To be fair to myself :)eek:), I did attempt to run where you were going for a bit but you left one question unanswered. You were talking about the government dissolving a marriage if there was violence between spouses and then possibly press criminal charges depending on the situation.
Yes, that is my personal opinion on the matter and I really have no clear scriptural support for my opinion that the marriage should be dissolved by the government when the two spouses end up on opposite sides of a criminal trial.

If this happens, I believe it is common sense to recognize that the marriage is too broken to be considered a marriage, and the dissolution of the marriage will either lend closure or lead to a real reconciliation.

I was asking why you don't include rape/forced sex in that. If someone forces sex on their spouse it's going to include some level of violence. Maybe not bloody and beaten but the offender would be using force to overpower and restrain them. Why isn't that grounds for dissolution if the wife goes to the state like you would for other forms of violence?
I believe I addressed it sufficiently with the bodily harm examples provided in that previous post.
If the wife needs stitches, a cast, is missing a tooth or an eye, etc. then whatever the husband did to her to cause the bodily harm is grounds for dissolving the marriage and criminal charges against him.
The sex part does not even need to be a factor.

The main reason sex should not be grounds for dissolution is the redefinition of rape from "A carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force or against her will" to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

In the story you keep refusing to look at, a man was very tired and already asleep when the woman climbed into bed with him.
His actions could easily be explained by their prior sexual relationship and the fact that he was too sleepy to control his actions.

I can understand his actions since my first wife told me one morning that she didn't get much sleep because I kept trying to have sex with her that night, but I couldn't remember any of it since I was sleeping at the time.
We ended up modifying our sleeping arraignments to prevent that from happening again.

I do not know if there was any penetration, no matter how slight, from the new definition of rape.
If there was, I could have been charged with rape, even though I had no ability to consent to the sex that I was apparently very willing to have.

Do you see someone forcing sex on their spouse in the same way you'd view them forcing their spouse to watch a movie they don't like or go somewhere they don't want to go or sweep the floors when they don't want to clean?
What a novel idea. :think:
I never thought of it like that, but you may have a point.

There is an obligation on the part of both the husband and the wife to engage in sex on an ongoing basis for the rest of their marriage, within the limits of some health issues and other factors.

However, the obligation ends with each person, and each person bears the sole responsibility to comply with that obligation.

One person is not justified in attempting to force the other person to comply with the obligation.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
Shame on you for accusing another person of having a mental disorder because you lack the ability to understand them.

Playing the victim now?

All I said, Mr. Thin Skin, was that I am convinced you have Asperger's Syndrome, which makes it difficult to communicate with you. Several other posters on TOL do have Asperger's Syndrome and you display behavior in discussions quite similar to them.

You mean these quotes where you end up being the one that accused God of being evil?

Now you are clearly being dishonest.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
if they're both Christian, that's between them to work out - between them and God

and if they need counseling, they should seek it from their spiritual leader and not involve the secular authorities

Did you ever force your ex-wife to have sexual intercourse with you?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I am convinced you have Asperger's Syndrome, which makes it difficult to communicate with you.
The problem lies with your inability to grasp the actual topic of discussion based on the actual words that are written.

You seem to have this habit of twisting the words that are written into something else before addressing that twisted concept as if it were the words you read.

So, what would you call the symptoms you have exhibited?
 

egyptianmuslim

New member
Not accommodating every sexual whim of another human being is not a dysfunction. Believing women should accommodate these whims ... is a dysfunction.



Do you believe there is EVER a reason for a wife to refuse sex to her husband? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes, if she is sick or in her period. But ,sometime, the wife should give sex to her husband as she gives food to her baby.
 

elohiym

Well-known member
as i've shared elsewhere - she raped* me often during our marriage

*by the current US DoJ definition

So you accuse your wife of rape.

How about you? Did you rape her according to that definition ever?

I ask because you have accused your wife of rape, have stated on this forum that some women deserve to be raped, and sometimes no means yes. Here you are trying to defend the idea of forced sex in marriage, claiming it is not rape, and you seem very concerned in the government's definition of rape, to the point of rejecting Romans 13:1-7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top