(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...
