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

[MTL]

I think there is a difference between:

- consenting to do something you don't really feel like doing,
for the sake of making someone you love, happy;

IE:  A wife feels really exhausted and has a migraine,
but consents to...or even INITIATES...sex,
because she knows her husband is feeling a bit neglected and it will be a pleasant and well-timed surprise for him

 VS

- being COERCED into any act,
that not only an act that you not want to do,
but for a person or purpose that you have no interest in doing it for;

IE submitting to sex without a fight, because someone put a gun to your head.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I think there is a difference between:

- consenting to do something you don't really feel like doing,
for the sake of making someone you love, happy;

IE:  A wife feels really exhausted and has a migraine,
but consents to...or even INITIATES...sex,
because she knows her husband is feeling a bit neglected and it will be a pleasant and well-timed surprise for him

 VS

- being COERCED into any act,
that not only an act that you not want to do,
but for a person or purpose that you have no interest in doing it for;

IE submitting to sex without a fight, because someone put a gun to your head.

That's a very fair assessment. What's your opinion of situations where the wife is goaded into submitting using the god claim, though? What if the "someone she loves" that she's trying to make happy (or not piss off, more likely) is god? Is it right to use a person's faith to leverage sex against them?

Basically, what if the gun to their head is Hell?

[MTL]

I think there is a difference between:

- consenting to do something you don't really feel like doing,
for the sake of making someone you love, happy;

IE:  A wife feels really exhausted and has a migraine,
but consents to...or even INITIATES...sex,
because she knows her husband is feeling a bit neglected and it will be a pleasant and well-timed surprise for him

 VS

- being COERCED into any act,
that not only an act that you not want to do,
but for a person or purpose that you have no interest in doing it for;

IE submitting to sex without a fight, because someone put a gun to your head.

That's a very fair assessment. What's your opinion of situations where the wife is goaded into submitting using the god claim, though? What if the "someone she loves" that she's trying to make happy (or not piss off, more likely) is god? Is it right to use a person's faith to leverage sex against them?

Basically, what if the gun to their head is Hell?

I respect her choice to believe what she likes, even if I think it is sad and stupid that she believes such a thing;

but I hate the religion all the more for being the reason behind such evil;

and if the husband is the one using her religion as leverage against her, in order to get sex,
and I was his devout wife,
I'd be scouring that book for verses to make him do stuff he didn't want to do, either.

Sadly, most religions favour the man's advantage
and even excuses men doing all kinds of heinous things to women.

which is #643 in the Book Of Reasons Why I Hate Religion.

[Minimalist]

How is submitting to sex rape?

Maybe you just have a different understand of the word, than rest of society.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/re...-questions

Maybe you should define rape

Submitting to sex and giving one's consent are not the same thing. Women being raped may be too afraid to fight back and so "submit" for fear of death or bodily harm. That's still rape. If you think it isn't, there's a very special place for people like you where they'll be kept away from society so they can't hurt anyone.

Yeah, there is

The Vatican.

[Drich]

The original article was about someone's response to a wife who asked about having sex with her husband while she was in pain. That is probably why people are concentrating on men's control over women's body. Most Christian articles that I read on this subject are aimed at women submitting to their husbands and not the other way around.

But, don't you see that is wrong? In order for that to work (women only submitting to men) 2/3s of what follows has to be ignored. When you put everything in it's context both partners have been equal or a 50/50 say in sex. The man Has control over the Woman, and in turn the Woman has control over the man. not only that they can agree to stop for a while if need be.

The verse you quote could easily be used to guilt someone into believing that they must have sex or that they aren't real Christians. Whether a woman uses it against a man or a man uses it against a woman, it is still wrong.

The only thing wrong with that verse is those who misuse it, but that is true of anyone who misuses anything for a purpose something good was not designed for.

I own my own body just like my husband owns his. We have sex with one another because we want to have sex not because we feel obligated to perform a marital duty.

Not all situations married couples experience are like that of you or your husband.

Sometimes kids having them as well as not having them, work, family, and the like can sometimes make sex a chore for one partner or the other. What is being said here is that one partner should not deny the other just because they can, that both should be living and working for each others needs and well being.

[Redbeard The Pink]

The original article was about someone's response to a wife who asked about having sex with her husband while she was in pain. That is probably why people are concentrating on men's control over women's body. Most Christian articles that I read on this subject are aimed at women submitting to their husbands and not the other way around.

But, don't you see that is wrong? In order for that to work (women only submitting to men) 2/3s of what follows has to be ignored. When you put everything in it's context both partners have been equal or a 50/50 say in sex. The man Has control over the Woman, and in turn the Woman has control over the man. not only that they can agree to stop for a while if need be.

The verse you quote could easily be used to guilt someone into believing that they must have sex or that they aren't real Christians. Whether a woman uses it against a man or a man uses it against a woman, it is still wrong.

The only thing wrong with that verse is those who misuse it, but that is true of anyone who misuses anything for a purpose something good was not designed for.

I own my own body just like my husband owns his. We have sex with one another because we want to have sex not because we feel obligated to perform a marital duty.

Not all situations married couples experience are like that of you or your husband.

Sometimes kids having them as well as not having them, work, family, and the like can sometimes make sex a chore for one partner or the other. What is being said here is that one partner should not deny the other just because they can, that both should be living and working for each others needs and well being.

What you keep pussy-footing around, Drich-head, is that you don't think spouses should deny consent unless both spouses can agree that there's a legitimate, Gaud-sanctioned reason for consent to be denied. Your idea of love is completely centered around power, control, and obligation, and considering what your Gaud teaches about love (especially by example), I can't say I find that surprising.

If consent is being denied by one person or another, that's it. Period. Regardless of the relationship. There is no situation in objective reality where it is anybody's "duty" to have sex with anyone else. That only happens in fucked up patriarchal fantasy worlds like the one iterated in your Bibble.

[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.

[Drich]

[color=#cc3399]What you keep pussy-footing around, Drich-head, is that you don't think spouses should deny consent unless both spouses can agree that there's a legitimate, Gaud-sanctioned reason for consent to be denied. Your idea of love is completely centered around power, control, and obligation, and considering what your Gaud teaches about love (especially by example), I can't say I find that surprising.

Uhh, no. What you continually fail to understand is in a Christian Marriage, two become one. That we cease to be indivisuals and become paired collective. That's in what Paul says in 1 cor 7. We being two halves of one being are called to behave and care for the one being that we are to become, over how we care for ourselves.
We are to put our partner's needs first is what is being communicated here. Only a wraped or twisted mind looks for the loop holes that allow dominance in what is being said.

[color=#cc3399]If consent is being denied by one person or another, that's it. Period. Regardless of the relationship. There is no situation in objective reality where it is anybody's "duty" to have sex with anyone else. That only happens in fucked up patriarchal fantasy worlds like the one iterated in your Bibble.

In your messed up world where husband and wives are little more than people who live together (they fend for themselves) I agree. But for those call to a deeper connection those who seek to live as 'one flesh' it stops being about self or indivisuality, and then becomes about the person you are your spouce are called to become. If one seeks to become one with their spouce they have to stop living for self and put the other person first in all things.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Uhh, no. What you continually fail to understand is in a Christian Marriage, two become one. That we cease to be indivisuals and become paired collective. That's in what Paul says in 1 cor 7. We being two halves of one being are called to behave and care for the one being that we are to become, over how we care for ourselves.
We are to put our partner's needs first is what is being communicated here. Only a wraped or twisted mind looks for the loop holes that allow dominance in what is being said.

Uhh no, they don't. That "one flesh" bullshit is just a theological scapegoat you're trying to state as a fact and then offer as support for your claim that marriage somehow creates a duty to hold another person's wants/needs as higher than one's own. When people get married, they're essentially agreeing to function as a family unit for legal and social purposes. They do not stop being themselves, and they do not fundamentally change from being two people into one, spiritually unified meta-person. There is no such thing as magic. Grow up.

In your messed up world where husband and wives are little more than people who live together (they fend for themselves) I agree. But for those call to a deeper connection those who seek to live as 'one flesh' it stops being about self or indivisuality, and then becomes about the person you are your spouce are called to become. If one seeks to become one with their spouce they have to stop living for self and put the other person first in all things.

My wife and I don't just live together. We also love each other for the unique individuals that we are, and we cooperate and help each other because of that love and because it's practical for our happiness and survival. When my wife does not wish to have sex, I respect those wishes, and I don't hold her marital "duty" over her head, even if we haven't had sex in a while. If I don't want to have sex, then she respects mine. If we both want to have sex (for whatever our individual reasons may be), then we have it. What we DON'T do is press the issue when one of us or the other is clearly not interested in having sex. What is so hard about this concept?

[robvalue]

Maybe we need a sub-forum for atrocity apologetics.

I really hope the garbage I sometimes read on here is just bluster, their attempts to pretend reality has anything to do with stupid old books, and not how they actually act.

As if it even needs saying, marriage is in no way an open invitation of constant sexual consent. Not so long ago it used to be, but most of civilization has moved on since then. Secular morality improves, religious morality stubbornly refuses to budge.