Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Arthur Brain]

Cool. I'm not concerned with a woman who can't defend her own position and so goes and makes a thread trying to get others to do it for them.

Rape is 'to seize', so if you want to 'black and white' the matter, women rape all the time. Am I going to cry a river of a woman's husband forcing sex because she's utilizing sex to SEIZE the marriage? Of course not. Especially when, if a divorce happens, she's going to SEIZE the bank account and household, and probably put another man inside of it.

All I see with this entire subject is just another way to scrutinize and attack men- and treating women's bodies like they are holy vessels above all other things.
And I really just don't go in for that mainstream, white knight nonsense.

Then you ain't seeing very much...

 

[badp]

Who's on first?

This is one of the few threads where almost everyone agrees with each other, and yet everyone keeps going back and forth like they don't realize they agree.

I smell trolls.

 

[Arthur Brain]

how about it artie?

are you willing to recognize my traumatic experiences?

I would have thought living with yourself was bad enough...

 

[annabenedetti]

go away bybee

bybee is welcome on any thread of mine.

 

[ok doser]

The only ones who are objecting are you -

what is it you think i'm objecting to?

 

[Traditio]

There's no justifiable reason for a husband to even attempt that. If his wife doesn't want sex then he should back off and respect that. If he doesn't then he's raping her, end of story. Any objections?

I completely agree with this; that said, I think that his wife should be very wary of refusing. It's called "the marital debt" for a reason. A husband or wife should refuse a request for sexual intercourse only when circumstances "compel" this refusal. Otherwise, and I insist on this point, "mortal sin" and all.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...
The primary defining characteristic of a marriage is the sexual relationship between the husband and the wife.
The secondary defining characteristic of a marriage is the children produced by the sexual relationship between the husband and the wife.

If those are the primary and secondary defining characteristics of a marriage then that marriage is almost certain to fail.

 

[annabenedetti]

Cool. I'm not concerned with a woman who can't defend her own position

Sure you're not. Because that's why you left this thread already. Oh wait... :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

Anna:

1. It is a duty of both husband and wife to concede sexual relations to his or her spouse when reasonable request is made. The refusal to do so could be mortally sinful.

2. Each spouse has an obligation of justice and charity to respect the other. The admonition of St. Paul: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ has loved the Church" comes to mind. Spousal rape, i.e., using force or coersion to engage in sexual relations with one's spouse against his or her will could very well be mortally sinful.

There could be good reasons for a husband or wife not to request sexual relations, and, in turn, for the husband or wife to refuse. This should be respected. [Though, again, I insist: if there otherwise are not compelling reasons, the answer to such a request, POSSIBLY AT PAIN OF MORTAL SIN, should be "Yes!"]

There is no mortal sin in refusing sex. However, it's immoral and illegal to force sex on anyone.

The only practicing Catholics on this thread are you and Spitfire. Please try to frame your argument in a way that allows for communication between you and other Christians and nonChristians who don't use the Catholic idea of mortal sin as a valuation.

 

[annabenedetti]

So, you start initiating sex with your wife, she says "no" and you can go ahead carte blanche anyway and it's not rape because she effectively doesn't have the right to refuse?

:freak:

You gotta remember this is Skybringr you're talking to... the guy who admitted to being "overzealous" with his wife...

 

[ok doser]

The only practicing Catholics on this thread are you and Spitfire.

so you are no longer a practicing catholic


which of the following are you?

...other Christians and nonChristians ...

 

[Traditio]

There is no mortal sin in refusing sex.

Against this is the opinion of the Angelic Doctor. Again, it's called the "marriage debt" for a reason. A spouse has a grave obligation both of justice and of charity to engage in sexual intercourse with his or her spouse when a request for it reasonably is made.

A refusal to this request, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, is a very grave failure of, again, justice and charity. It is a grave offense both against one's neighbor (i.e., one's spouse), against God (who has made marriage a sacrament) and violates charity.

It is a mortal sin, if there are no mitigating factors.

The only practicing Catholics on this thread are you and Spitfire. Please try to frame your argument in a way that allows for communication between you and other Christians and nonChristians who don't use the Catholic idea of mortal sin as a valuation.

Then I'll speak in natural terminology: the wife OWES it to her husband to engage in sexual relations with him when reasonable request is made. A failure to pay this debt may be a grave act of injustice which offends against both neighbor and God, violates God's Law and merits Hell.

 

[Crucible]

You gotta remember this is Skybringr you're talking to... the guy who admitted to being "overzealous" with his wife...

No I'm not, and from this point on those accusations will be ignored. Between you and Rusha, I've been accused of being someone else several times over- the same two posters who can't contend with anything I say on top of it all.

You two make my case for me, I don't even have to show it.

So, you start initiating sex with your wife, she says "no" and you can go ahead carte blanche anyway and it's not rape because she effectively doesn't have the right to refuse?

:freak:

Why would a wife refuse to have sex with their husband?
The biblical right of a spouse's conjugal is to ensure that withholding sex isn't being used to seize a marriage.

I didn't come here to argue on secular, feminist, atheist, social, or otherwise legal pretenses. I'm arguing straight from the spirit of what is assumed from the Scriptures. If anyone has a problem with that, then oh well. I'm going by 'Theology', what other Christians are doing on here is beyond me.

 

[annabenedetti]

A failure to pay this debt may be a grave act of injustice which offends against both neighbor and God, violates God's Law and merits Hell.

No one is going to go to hell for refusing sex.

 

[annabenedetti]

No I'm not, and from this point on those accusations will be ignored. Between you and Rusha, I've been accused of being someone else several times over- the same two posters who can't contend with anything I say on top of it all.

You two make my case for me, I don't even have to show it.

Oh. You're still here?

 

[Rusha]

Having marital rape become a law would mean that millions of men would end up in prison. Women would be able to use it as a tool to abuse their husbands. Is that what you would like to have happen?

You say that like it's a bad thing ...

Rapists should be in prison.

 

[ok doser]

anna - why do you start a thread about scripture when you don't believe in scripture anymore?

 

[annabenedetti]

anna - why do you start a thread about scripture when you don't believe in scripture anymore?

Why are you asking me questions when you don't care about the answers?

 

[ok doser]

i don't care whether you answer or not - my point is made by asking the question

 

[Traditio]

No one is going to go to hell for refusing sex.

In point of fact? I have no idea. "Who am I to judge?"

But I do know this:

1. A spouse OWES it to his or her spouse to agree to sexual relations when reasonable request is made. It is a grave act of injustice to say "no" unless you have darned good reasons for doing so. All grave acts of injustice are mortal sins. They deserve Hell.

A corollary to this: a spouse does not belong to him or herself alone; he or she belongs to his or her spouse. Each spouse has a right over the other. The spouse, in saying "no," refuses to the other what properly belongs to that spouse.

2. God has given us marriage, at least in part, as a check against the concupiscence of the flesh. The wife should consider it a grave obligation of charity to preserve her husband from any serious moral danger. Saying "no" puts his soul in danger of many serious temptations against chastity, offenses of which merit Hell. All serious offenses against charity are mortal sins.