Okay Girls.....Jesus Wants You to Fuck Like Bunnies

[Drich]

yeah, yeah... I know what I said and your paraphrase sounds like nothing I have EVER said. You are using an old standby atheist tactic/logic call a strawman. Maybe that is why you did not quote the actual post all of what you claim came from.

You're really gonna make me go quote by quote? Well, at least this isn't 40 pages long yet. 

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!

(Emphasis mine) Specimen #1: Even if it goes both ways, if someone is urged/commanded to give consent, it is not consent. What part of this do you not understand? If two people decide that the desire to produce offspring is currently more valuable than the desire to refrain from sex, then they still both desire to have sex (for whatever reason), and can still give voluntary, enthusiastic consent, and it counts as consent, whereas being urged or commanded to give consent does not. What part of this do you not understand?

“It depends. Had he just had sex with her in the last few days? Then perhaps he should have put her need to not experience more pain and discomfort ahead of his need for sex. But if she had been in pain for weeks or a month and he finally came to her and said ‘Babe I need this, I promise I will make it quick’ – then she should have put his need for sex above her need to not experience additional discomfort.”

This, admittedly, is not a quote from you, but I also haven't heard you address this statement, really. What do you think about it? Is this an adequate interpretation of the Corinthians passage, or would you say the husband is out of line to use the tactics described here? If you think this is horrible, then I agree...I mistakenly thought this was your view simply because it seemed to be the side of the argument you were defending.

Even when a Christian wife submits to unwanted sex out of obedience to God, she still may not be fully pleasing the Lord, as Mr. Biblical Gender Roles concludes, “But it is very possible that even if she yields to him – there is still sin on her part. If she acts disgusted by him and acts like he has no right to have sex with her – then the sin lies squarely in her court.”

This perhaps, is another example of my conflating your view with the side of the fence you're on in this debate, but again, I am curious to know what you think of this one. If a wife "submits" to sex because her husband and/or church pressures her into it using the god claim, but she makes it clear during the encounter that she doesn't want to be doing it really and doesn't act like she enjoys it, is she sinning? If you don't think so, then I concede I'm guilty of straw-manning you.

Even if that's the case, the idea that one person can somehow "control" the needs of the other is preposterous and problematic for consent, and conflating submission with consent is also problematic. Even if your views aren't as scary as the character from this article, it still sounds like it invites opportunities for one spouse or the other to toss the words "God" and "need" into the same sentence to make a case for demanding the spouse's consent. That's not really that much better, if at all.