Is marital rape scripturally defensible?

[Traditio]

I don't get that from 1 Corinthians 13.

:idunno:

It's not a matter about which I particularly feel like arguing. Let it be noted, at the very least, that St. Thomas Aquinas seems to say this, and it seems reasonable enough.

What if he was to blame for her lack of arousal?

You're just looking at it the wrong way. You are envisioning, I assume, the man and the woman arguing back and forth in a dispute about whether or not to have sexual intercourse:

Man: We should have sexual intercourse.
Woman: I don't feel like it.
Man: That's not a good enough reason.
Woman: Yes it is, you caused me to feel this way!

That's not how I'm looking at it. Outwardly, if there is any kind of "dispute," this is what should happen:

Man: We should have sexual intercourse.
Woman: I'm sorry, but it's not a good time.
Man: Eh...are you sure? I mean, I was really hoping...
Woman: I'm very sorry; I can't honor your request.
Man: Ok. That's cool, I guess.

I'm thinking more in terms of the decision making process on the part of the female in between the time that the request is made and the time at which she says either "yes" or "no."

Woman: He's just requested sexual intercourse. Do I have a good reason for saying "no?" I really don't feel like it...on the other hand, it is certainly possible for me to honor his request even though I don't. Do any particularly grave circumstances hinder me? No...I guess not. I guess I'll have to honor the request; after all, it is my duty.

What desperate man wants to have sex with a woman who isn't aroused? I mean besides a rapist.

:idunno:

She decides if her reasons are compelling. The husband doesn't get to decide her reasons aren't compelling enough.

I agree with this. Ultimately, it's between her and God. If her reasons aren't compelling enough, though, she very well may have to answer for that before the Just Judge.

Again: she is her husband's keeper.

So does female dysfunction.

I don't know enough to comment. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

I can find nothing in the Bible that commends or condemns physical abuse between spouses.

What I believe, based on Exodus 21:26-27, is that any physical abuse that ends with a physical injury like a tooth being knocked out, an eye put out, a bone that needs to be set with a cast, or a wound that needs stitches, becomes sufficient grounds for a divorce, regardless of which spouse did it.

That said, it would be very difficult to find any marriage that does not have one or most likely both of the spouses rebelling against their marriage before any physical abuse takes place.

In those cases, the only duty of the police and criminal courts is to aid the couple in either reconciling or swiftly dissolving the marriage.

Criminal charges should only be brought on the surviving spouse if the physical abuse results in death (including brain death).

That is a valid point.
Thank you for bringing it up.

My counter is that if one of the spouses chooses to press charges against the other, then the courts should immediately dissolve the marriage at that point, with the final disposition of the divorce to be made based on the outcome of the criminal trial.

A married couple should never be on opposite sides of a criminal trial, especially if one is the defendant and the other is the plaintiff.

Forced sex is different within a marriage because the two are in a sexual relationship. However, ultimately, forced sex is an act of violence. It requires physical force in order to accomplish it (assuming the offender doesn't slip the victim a drug or something). Why wouldn't forced sex fall under the same category you talk about for physical abuse, where the couple's marriage is dissolved and then possibly criminal charges?

 

[kmoney]

What desperate man wants to have sex with a woman who isn't aroused? I mean besides a rapist.

:up:

 

[kmoney]

Rape is about power, thus all physical abuse is wrong.

:up:

 

[elohiym]

It's not a matter about which I particularly feel like arguing. Let it be noted, at the very least, that St. Thomas Aquinas seems to say this, and it seems reasonable enough.

You've attributed an obligation for sex to the idea of love that seems to conflict with the description of love authored by St. Paul. As for St. Thomas, he doesn't have a book in the Bible.

You're just looking at it the wrong way. You are envisioning, I assume, the man and the woman arguing back and forth in a dispute about whether or not to have sexual intercourse:

I'm looking at it from the perspective of a man who has a lot of marital experience. No offense, but you are a virgin and have never been married. I respect your chastity; however, it does handicap you in this conversation.

I'm thinking more in terms of the decision making process on the part of the female in between the time that the request is made and the time at which she says either "yes" or "no."

Woman: He's just requested sexual intercourse. Do I have a good reason for saying "no?" I really don't feel like it...on the other hand, it is certainly possible for me to honor his request even though I don't. Do any particularly grave circumstances hinder me? No...I guess not. I guess I'll have to honor the request; after all, it is my duty.

And that is supposed to make a man aroused? If she really doesn't feel like it, that should be a good enough reason. He may want to determine if he is causing her lack of arousal.

 

[elohiym]

I can find nothing in the Bible that commends or condemns physical abuse between spouses.

The golden rule! Matthew 7:12.

Physical abuse is an act of hate not love, and according to scripture one who hates another is a murderer and does not have eternal life, thus cannot be a believer while being an abuser. See 1 John 3:15, 1 John 4:20, 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 13:8 et seq.

Forced sex is physical abuse! Where is your common sense, man?!

 

[ClimateSanity]

Rape is about power, thus all physical abuse is wrong.

A significant number of rapes are about sex; at least it is the motivation of many rapists. He desires a woman,and she refuses him, and gets what he desires anyway. All he wants is sex, not total power of the woman. What possible power does a man have after a rape? If anything , the power is only for a fleeting moment. Being in jail for the rest of your life and having forced homosexual sex is not my idea of power.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The golden rule! Matthew 7:12.

Physical abuse is an act of hate not love, and according to scripture one who hates another is a murderer and does not have eternal life, thus cannot be a believer while being an abuser. See 1 John 3:15, 1 John 4:20, 1 Corinthians 13, Romans 13:8 et seq.

Forced sex is physical abuse! Where is your common sense, man?!

Yeah, that didn't take much thought.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Forced sex is different within a marriage because the two are in a sexual relationship. However, ultimately, forced sex is an act of violence. It requires physical force in order to accomplish it (assuming the offender doesn't slip the victim a drug or something). Why wouldn't forced sex fall under the same category you talk about for physical abuse, where the couple's marriage is dissolved and then possibly criminal charges?

If there is violence involved, then there could be criminal charges brought for the violence along with an immediate dissolution of the marriage.

However, since sex should only be legal within a marriage between the spouses, anything that criminalizes sex within a marriage weakens the institution of marriage itself, which leads to the destruction of the society.
The same is true of anything that decriminalizes sex outside of a marriage or replaces a marriage with an abomination.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Forced sex is physical abuse! Where is your common sense, man?!

Do you know what I am arguing about?
From your question, it appears that you are not addressing my arguments, but are addressing something else entirely.

 

[Traditio]

You've attributed an obligation for sex to the idea of love that seems to conflict with the description of love authored by St. Paul. As for St. Thomas, he doesn't have a book in the Bible.

There's no verse in the Bible which, strictly speaking, denies such an obligation. The verse about a married person's body not being his own seems to imply such an obligation, and St. Thomas reads it this way.

And why even insist on speaking theologically? Even at the natural level, it seems as though spouses have certain kinds of mutual obligations, of which one conceivably could be sexual intercourse.

At any rate, as I said before, it's not something for which I have definitive knock down arguments either in favor of or against, in large part because I haven't really spent much time on it.

As I said before, it's sufficient for me that St. Thomas Aquinas said it. If you disagree, then so be it, but only let it be noted that you have no Bible verse to which you can appeal which, strictly speaking, excludes it.

But again, let us assume that I am in error, and there is no such obligation. Even so, the woman should act as though there is anyway. This is the sort of attitude that she should have: "Am I strictly obliged...who cares? He is my husband; I love him; He has been placed in my care; I wish to do good for him. Period."

I'm looking at it from the perspective of a man who has a lot of marital experience. No offense, but you are a virgin and have never been married. I respect your chastity; however, it does handicap you in this conversation.

You shouldn't make these kinds of assumptions about people. When it comes to the moral character of other people, you should, indeed, hope and wish for the best...but you should fear and pray as though it were the worst. You should be praying for me (and I do hope that you pray for me) and begging God's mercy on my behalf as though I were the worst sinner ever to have lived. As far as you know, despite all appearances, I very well could be, and but for your prayers, I could be damned.

And that is supposed to make a man aroused? If she really doesn't feel like it, that should be a good enough reason. He may want to determine if he is causing her lack of arousal.

Again, this entire discussion may be circumvented simply by noting that the spouses should have an attitude of self-sacrifice, self-giving and charitable love. They should be mutually beneficent and attentive to the needs of the other.

 

[bybee]

There's no verse in the Bible which, strictly speaking, denies such an obligation. The verse about a married person's body not being his own seems to imply such an obligation, and St. Thomas reads it this way.

And why even insist on speaking theologically? Even at the natural level, it seems as though spouses have certain kinds of mutual obligations, of which one conceivably could be sexual intercourse.

At any rate, as I said before, it's not something for which I have definitive knock down arguments either in favor of or against, in large part because I haven't really spent much time on it.

As I said before, it's sufficient for me that St. Thomas Aquinas said it. If you disagree, then so be it, but only let it be noted that you have no Bible verse to which you can appeal which, strictly speaking, excludes it.

But again, let us assume that I am in error, and there is no such obligation. Even so, the woman should act as though there is anyway. This is the sort of attitude that she should have: "Am I strictly obliged...who cares? He is my husband; I love him; He has been placed in my care; I wish to do good for him. Period."



You shouldn't make these kinds of assumptions about people. When it comes to the moral character of other people, you should, indeed, hope and wish for the best...but you should fear and pray as though it were the worst. You should be praying for me (and I do hope that you pray for me) and begging God's mercy on my behalf as though I were the worst sinner ever to have lived. As far as you know, despite all appearances, I very well could be, and but for your prayers, I could be damned.



Again, this entire discussion may be circumvented simply by noting that the spouses should have an attitude of self-sacrifice, self-giving and charitable love. They should be mutually beneficent and attentive to the needs of the other.

Yes, mutually attentive.

 

[Ktoyou]

A significant number of rapes are about sex; at least it is the motivation of many rapists. He desires a woman,and she refuses him, and gets what he desires anyway. All he wants is sex, not total power of the woman. What possible power does a man have after a rape? If anything , the power is only for a fleeting moment. Being in jail for the rest of your life and having forced homosexual sex is not my idea of power.

You are wrong. Only an insane person would be so gratified by an unwilling partner, such notions evoke the twisted prurient act of a necrophiliac.
Sorry to hear about it, and that was about power too.

 

[bybee]

You are wrong. Only an insane person would be so gratified by an unwilling partner, such notions evoke the twisted prurient act of a necrophiliac.
Sorry to hear about it, and that was about power too.

Yup!

 

[Arsenios]

Maybe you can explain why I would need to condemn either of those, since neither is a sin?

Isn't it the married couple's business how they handle their sex life?

It definitely is not the business of the police department and the criminal courts nor is it the business of the tattlers and busybodies.

I sympathize with your point, but if ceded, then one must affirm as well that not only the sexual arena of a married couple's relationship is their business, but the entirety of the relationship in all arenas as well is NOT the business of anyone other than the two parties involved.

And if so, then there is no such thing as assault and battery in a marriage... No such thing as spousal abuse...

I think we must acknowledge that some actions are criminal, and that marriage cannot be used as an umbrella to shield such actions from the law...

And having said that, I will concede that the door to legal abuse by the presumptively abused is opened, when the presumption is false as the "abused" is in fact the predator...

Welcome to our fallen creation...

Arsenios

 

[truthjourney]

genuineoriginal
Without the sexual relationship, there is no marriage.

Oh really? My husband and I took vows "through sickness and in health". He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and given five years to live. His condition deteriorated to the point that he could no longer "perform". According to you there is no marriage without the sexual relationship.
Our marriage was not based on or defined by a sexual relationship. It was based on and defined by love. We also took vows "till death do us part". Our marriage did not end till he passed away. That's when there was no marriage.

 

[ok doser]

Rape is about power...

that's the way it's acceptably viewed by psychologists and sociologists

but it seems to me to be an awful difficult way to assert power over somebody when you could just whack them over the head with a baseball bat and be done with it

What else is only between them and God? Is physical abuse?

in a Christian marriage - absent unequal yoking - a marriage in which God has joined together two and made one?

do you really want to insert the state in between that which God has joined together?

I sympathize with your point, but if ceded, then one must affirm as well that not only the sexual arena of a married couple's relationship is their business, but the entirety of the relationship in all arenas as well is NOT the business of anyone other than the two parties involved.

yes, in a Christian marriage

if the couple is having difficulty of any sort they should seek resolution through prayer or the counseling of their spiritual leaders

not from the state

 

[bybee]

Oh really? My husband and I took vows "through sickness and in health". He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and given five years to live. His condition deteriorated to the point that he could no longer "perform". According to you there is no marriage without the sexual relationship.
Our marriage was not based on or defined by a sexual relationship. It was based on and defined by love. We also took vows "till death do us part". Our marriage did not end till he passed away. That's when there was no marriage.

Yup! My husband's health slowly deteriorated and though under a Doctor's care the cancer which had spread throughout his body was missed until it was too late for meaningful treatment. We met each obstacle together until his last breath.

 

[Crucible]

that's the way it's acceptably viewed by psychologists and sociologists

but it seems to me to be an awful difficult way to assert power over somebody when you could just whack them over the head with a baseball bat and be done with it

The 'rape is about power' thing is basically a lie. Rape can a lot of times be in part about power, but the prime factor is ultimately sexual frustration.

They want to make it about power as to dumb it all down to 'evil man tyranny'.

 

[ok doser]

The 'rape is about power' thing is basically a lie. Rape can a lot of times be in part about power, but the prime factor is ultimately sexual frustration.

that's the way i see it