Where is everybody when it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5?

[Spooky]

"God" is a sick fuck. Plain and simple.

[Longhorn]

Actually this verse does come up with Catholics and Orthodox; it's actually a sin to decline sex with your spouse without good reason. Not being in the mood is not a good reason unless something big like a death happened and it needs to be confessed to a priest.

OK WHAT THE FUCK.

Next catholic to tell me they don't condone rape is getting this post to the face -_-

[robvalue]

That's some pretty harsh shit to lay down and then say, "Just a suggestion guys! Just a suggestion that marital rape doesn't exist, and you have no bodily autonomy. Don't take it too seriously, y'know? Just a thought."

Seems like the caveat hasn't stopped the Catholic Church condoning rape as a doctrine. I knew they had a lot of sick shit, but that has to be one of the worst. I've not heard it before and it makes me feel ill.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Rather than listen to an archaic and dogmatic 'holy' book, I actually listen to what my partner wants and we make a joint decision.

If one wants sechs and the other doesn't, we don't have sechs. Not that difficult really unless you're one of those folks who enjoys a bit of rape at an invisible non-existent entity's command.

Funny how in these religions it's exclusively the men saying people can't deny sechs (they wrote the book and layeth down the dogma) and in the RCCs case they use it to good effect, be with spouses or little children.

[Longhorn]

'I don't want to have sex'
'Well fuck you, our catholic slave contract marriage agreement says I have to rape you now'

Objective morality for you, folks

[Metis]

Actually this verse does come up with Catholics and Orthodox; it's actually a sin to decline sex with your spouse without good reason. Not being in the mood is not a good reason unless something big like a death happened and it needs to be confessed to a priest.

OK WHAT THE FUCK.

Next catholic to tell me they don't condone rape is getting this post to the face -_-

Well, there is a long line of reasoning for this (please don't think I'm agreeing with it).

For one the only way Catholics can obtain sexual release is sex with their spouse, if the wife/hubby cuts them off they can't help themselves. It's not as bad a thing for the Orthodox since refusing sex constantly is grounds for a divorce but for Catholics they only get one shot at this, if they find out after they get hitched their partner actually doesn't like sex then tough titty.

The main reason they don't actually have a concept of marital rape is because the motif of two becoming one through the sexual act is incredibly influential. They are joined in the flesh, so whatever belongs to their partner also belongs to them and they should be at liberty to use it in any non-sinful way they please.

There is also the fact that within Catholicism marriage is all about procreation, if you don't want to procreate you have no right to get married. Loving your partner is not a requirement for marriage, but being willing to make as many babies as luck permits is.

[robvalue]

Although this verse equally condones rape against each gender, it obviously favours the male. It's a lot harder for a female to force sex on a male.

Catholic marriages sound sickening.

[Nope]

OK WHAT THE FUCK.

Next catholic to tell me they don't condone rape is getting this post to the face -_-

Well, there is a long line of reasoning for this (please don't think I'm agreeing with it).

For one the only way Catholics can obtain sexual release is sex with their spouse, if the wife/hubby cuts them off they can't help themselves. It's not as bad a thing for the Orthodox since refusing sex constantly is grounds for a divorce but for Catholics they only get one shot at this, if they find out after they get hitched their partner actually doesn't like sex then tough titty.

The main reason they don't actually have a concept of marital rape is because the motif of two becoming one through the sexual act is incredibly influential. They are joined in the flesh, so whatever belongs to their partner also belongs to them and they should be at liberty to use it in any non-sinful way they please.

There is also the fact that within Catholicism marriage is all about procreation, if you don't want to procreate you have no right to get married. Loving your partner is not a requirement for marriage, but being willing to make as many babies as luck permits is.

It surprises me how often I find reason to feel lucky that I'm not a Christian any longer.

[Drich]

I have strong romantic feelings for my girlfriend, but if she wants intimacy, and I don't, then if I submit, because I have to "live and serve my spouse," before my own, that's rape.

Two things A girlfriend is not a spouce. and two if you submit to sex whether or not you really want to, your submition means it is not rape.
How can I say this? It is by the definition of Rape and Spouce
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...glish/rape
(To force sex against another's will is the definition of Rape. If one submits then and both agree to have sex then it is not rape.)
A spouce is either a husband or wife according to the official definition.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...ish/spouse

Do you see how far you have to bend the English language in order to make your argument? to feel offended?
You had to basically change what was written and replace it with a command authorizing the rape of a in general sexual partner.

what if... the bible didn't actually authorize rape, but instead tell MARRIED Couples that we should not just think of ourselves and only have sex when both are in desperate need of it. What if, the bible says that we should be mindful of our spouse' needs and provide them with sex even if we are not in desperate need of it?

This verse was a huge problem back when I was a sex repulsed catholic, also when I thought I was asexual. I didn't want to have to consent to sexual encounters because it grossed me out. I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like if my girlfriend and I were in a catholic marriage and I had to submit to her while I was repulsed. To this day, I'm still repulsed by certain activities.

Then maybe you shouldn't get married. Because marriage is not about you. You seem to be more worried about you than providing for your spouse. What Paul is saying here is Sex is indeed apart of the provision/obligation married couples have to one another. If you can't provide for her then maybe it is best you do not marry someone you know going into a relationship you cant provide for. Because ultimately it will fail.

That's the problem with that passage. It doesn't take into consideration certain circumstances.

Actually it does. If you read the whole chapter Paul says unless you burn with uncontrollable sexual desire, you should get married.

If just 2 things were different, (1) my gf being a conservative catholic(she's a united methodist), and (2) us being married, then I would have no say in the matter regarding sex. If she wanted it, I'd have to provide it for her and likewise, if I wanted it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if she says "yes" because an ancient book obligated her to.

The point of the criticism of this passage is nobody needs to "serve" the needs of their spouse regarding sex. If you don't want it, you don't have to have it. If you want it, but your spouse doesn't, you can always take care of it yourself. It's that simple.

Again that type of selfish behavior simply means your are not ready to enter into what it means to be married. Because again, Marriage is not about you first. It is about providing for your spouse's needs and then your own. If you put the other person first and she yours you will truly know love and respect in the full fillment of your needs through the actions of your spouse.

[Metis]

Although this verse equally condones rape against each gender, it obviously favours the male. It's a lot harder for a female to force sex on a male.

Catholic marriages sound sickening.

It does right? Thankfully in practice few actually follow this and the partner who keeps getting told no just has to suck it up. In the pre-cana class reading ( that's the marriage preparation and assessment of the suitability for it) I've looked at there has been no information provided that this is a teaching. They know that they are expected to have sex, but there is nothing that explicitly states "you must have sex as demanded or you are committing a sin".

It's sort of a defunct teaching if you like, one where it has been overtaken by the local culture. Pre-Cana marriage materials tend to emphasize marital love and the role of helpmate when really that is a very historically un-catholic concept, actually loving your partner and working as an equal partner is actually a very western protestant innovation.