(July 12, 2015 at 11:09 am)Minimalist Wrote: Or so says asshole...probably a man.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/right-wi...sus-happy/

Quote:Right-wing Christian ‘expert’ on feminism insists that submitting to marital rape makes Jesus happy

Quote:There you have it, Christian wives … submitting to marital rape makes Jesus happy.

The guy sounds like some of the nutty muslims clerics.

(July 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm)QuarkDriven Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 1:44 pm)QuarkDriven Wrote: ah.. but of course... if he NEEDS to have sex, SHE has to consent... how could I have missed that... uh yes your honor, she consented.. i needed it.. i needed it bad....
BTW, scripture doesnt mean or prove anything...

This is your 1 Cor 7...
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

I call bullshit....  one line contradicts the other.. back to back...
just sayin

Dude, you've got to be a Poe.
(Christian pretending to be a 'smart' atheist.)

Because this is the most foolish post I've ever seen.

If the second line contradict your understanding of the first, then PERHAPS It is Your understanding of the First line that should be called into question.. (Just incase you are really a 'smart atheist') IF you think the second verses contradicts what the first verse says, then the first verse does not say what you think it does.

What you quoted was a Command for Sexual EQUALITY in the marriage and not permission for the Husband to dominate the wife and your article tells you to think. AGAIN, think about the time in which this command was written. Men did not need permission to Rape their wives, so why would their need to be a command telling their wives to have sex with the men anytime they wanted?

The oppsite is true here. Women for the first time in Human History have been given the authority over a man's/husband's body concerning sex, but at the same time the wife is also made to submit. Taking the power of when sex is to happen, away from one single person in the relationship and making it a married COUPLE decision.

Unless you really NEED it. Then the Holly Bibble orders her to consent to your needs. Right?

(July 13, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Drich Wrote:

Seriously?!??!

I posted the federal statue/Defination of the word rape. Why? Because of your definition. "UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" So again if the law/Federal Guideline' says consent is needed, and the passage in 1 cor 7 urges BOTH Husbands and WIVES to give consent if the other NEEDS to Have Sex then No law has been broken!

How is not wanting to have sex consent, exactly?

Never been married have you?

I have worked with married couples in the past in the church, and without getting too detailed, let just say john and Sally have been trying to have a baby. They have tried the romantic stuff for a year, and Sally says it's time to see a doctor, both go and get checked out, and the prognosis is that conception will be difficult due to some abnormality. So now sex ceases to be a 'fun activity' and it becomes about "time and temperatures". Meaning for the guy "sexual fasting 3 to 5 day before the 'event' and then made to perform according to a clock or thermometer. Now for some couples this goes on for a prolonged period of time. In my work I have noted that both sides of the marriage can feel resentment towards another, meaning the don't want, desire or lust after sex, but both consent to it.

That is Just One way one or both people in a marriage can not want sex but consent to it and it in no way resembles rape.

For you guys to onlt see sex one way (What people want/lust after) only shows how selfish you are as a potential lover, and because others are not so selfish or reminded that they should not be, you take offense...

This guy doesn't see his own contradictions, or chooses not to....

sexual equality in a marriage except when one is made to submit... sounds like cave men times... or the 1950's

(July 14, 2015 at 9:05 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: How is not wanting to have sex consent, exactly?

Never been married have you?

I have worked with married couples in the past in the church, and without getting too detailed, let just say john and Sally have been trying to have a baby. They have tried the romantic stuff for a year, and Sally says it's time to see a doctor, both go and get checked out, and the prognosis is that conception will be difficult due to some abnormality. So now sex ceases to be a 'fun activity' and it becomes about "time and temperatures". Meaning for the guy "sexual fasting 3 to 5 day before the 'event' and then made to perform according to a clock or thermometer. Now for some couples this goes on for a prolonged period of time. In my work I have noted that both sides of the marriage can feel resentment towards another, meaning the don't want, desire or lust after sex, but both consent to it.

That is Just One way one or both people in a marriage can not want sex but consent to it and it in no way resembles rape.

For you guys to onlt see sex one way (What people want/lust after) only shows how selfish you are as a potential lover, and because others are not so selfish or reminded that they should not be, you take offense...

At the risk of getting warned for flaming...Drich, you are a pig.

Consent works in a marriage the same way it does in any other relationship. The fact that you do not understand this should terrify any woman who knows your thoughts on the matter, your wife included. You are NEVER, EVER, EVER entitled to another human being's body, and neither is anyone else. We know the Christian bible says otherwise, and frankly, that's the point. The bible is horrible for a lot of reasons, and one of the ugliest reasons is that it condones rape in various capacities.

You can't counter the argument that the bible is horrible because it orders married people to consent to each other by saying, "But the bible says married people HAVE to consent to each other." We know that. That's our argument. Get a fucking clue.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:05 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: How is not wanting to have sex consent, exactly?

Never been married have you?

I have worked with married couples in the past in the church, and without getting too detailed, let just say john and Sally have been trying to have a baby. They have tried the romantic stuff for a year, and Sally says it's time to see a doctor, both go and get checked out, and the prognosis is that conception will be difficult due to some abnormality. So now sex ceases to be a 'fun activity' and it becomes about "time and temperatures". Meaning for the guy "sexual fasting 3 to 5 day before the 'event' and then made to perform according to a clock or thermometer. Now for some couples this goes on for a prolonged period of time. In my work I have noted that both sides of the marriage can feel resentment towards another, meaning the don't want, desire or lust after sex, but both consent to it.

That is Just One way one or both people in a marriage can not want sex but consent to it and it in no way resembles rape.

For you guys to onlt see sex one way (What people want/lust after) only shows how selfish you are as a potential lover, and because others are not so selfish or reminded that they should not be, you take offense...

and how does this apply to biblical times? when this was written, was there a guy checking sperm counts on a rock? or would that have been considered gay and therefore blasphemy? it must have been a women checking... wait, that would have been adultery... a women looking and possibly touching a married mans penis.. oh no...

and lack of lust does not mean lack of consent.. both are engaging in the 'event' as you elegantly put it towards a mutual goal of procreating...

(July 14, 2015 at 8:57 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Unless you really NEED it. Then the Holly Bibble orders her to consent to your needs. Right?

no. Because again She has control over what I NEED. There are two parts to that verse, and both have to be applied together.

Now if She has my intrest in the forefront of her mind as she is in mine then we will accomidate eachother's needs, but if for some reason we can't or shouldn't then just keep reading pinky, and you'll find there is even a provision for that.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:12 am)QuarkDriven Wrote: This guy doesn't see his own contradictions, or chooses not to....

sexual equality in a marriage except when one is made to submit... sounds like cave men times... or the 1950's

I hate using words like dummy... but the 'Spirit' is not providing a suitable replacement.

IT a two way STREET DUMMY! I have control over Her needs She has Control over mine! No one is MADE To Do ANYTHING! KEEP READING THE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED FROM. Your understanding not only contradicts the second line but the rest of the chapter as well. It like you turn your mind off after the verse that tells wives to submit to their husbands.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:16 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 9:05 am)Drich Wrote: Never been married have you?

I have worked with married couples in the past in the church, and without getting too detailed, let just say john and Sally have been trying to have a baby. They have tried the romantic stuff for a year, and Sally says it's time to see a doctor, both go and get checked out, and the prognosis is that conception will be difficult due to some abnormality. So now sex ceases to be a 'fun activity' and it becomes about "time and temperatures". Meaning for the guy "sexual fasting 3 to 5 day before the 'event' and then made to perform according to a clock or thermometer. Now for some couples this goes on for a prolonged period of time. In my work I have noted that both sides of the marriage can feel resentment towards another, meaning the don't want, desire or lust after sex, but both consent to it.

That is Just One way one or both people in a marriage can not want sex but consent to it and it in no way resembles rape.

For you guys to onlt see sex one way (What people want/lust after) only shows how selfish you are as a potential lover, and because others are not so selfish or reminded that they should not be, you take offense...

At the risk of getting warned for flaming...Drich, you are a pig.

Consent works in a marriage the same way it does in any other relationship. The fact that you do not understand this should terrify any woman who knows your thoughts on the matter, your wife included. You are NEVER, EVER, EVER entitled to another human being's body, and neither is anyone else. We know the Christian bible says otherwise, and frankly, that's the point. The bible is horrible for a lot of reasons, and one of the ugliest reasons is that it condones rape in various capacities.

You can't counter the argument that the bible is horrible because it orders married people to consent to each other by saying, "But the bible says married people HAVE to consent to each other." We know that. That's our argument. Get a fucking clue.

Not true.

The paradigm set forth in the bible of Marriage is not of two indivisuals, but one one. You can't say biblical marriage is like every other relationship because it is not. God/Paul is building something far better than any TWO INDIVISUALS Could ever build on their own. We are to become One Flesh. This doesn't just refer to sex, but we together become a single symbotic being in two bodies. we stop living for self and live and act as one. When two become one, they are far stronger than they were on their own. This is the picture of marriage The bible is building, not the selfish relationships where partners are kept at arms length. If my wife and I are one, then we care for each other as ourselves. We don't neglect our selves, we don't punish ourselves, we don't ignore ourselves. Rather we deeply care for one another so much so we put the other's needs before our own (as indivisuals)