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

[QuarkDriven]

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.

so how exactly do you have control over her needs?? in what world other then your fundamentalist pov, does this make sense? how can anyone have control over a person's sexual needs?

no one is made to do anything unless she doesnt want it, but he needs it and since he has control over her needs, well...

aw shit, he done gone and called me a dummy, in caps none the less... now im hurt and offended... looks like its hell for you buddy...

at least we have one here who doesnt seem to be cherry picking stuff he likes from the bible and leaving out others... i wonder if he's ever stoned anyone...

[Drich]

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...

How were marriages typically consummated in biblical times?

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

Yeah yeah...all that "don't deprive each other, except for a time, and then come back together" bullshit. You're talking to an advanced biblical apologist. That "just keep reading" shit doesn't work on me. I know what the bible says, and I know the context. Know your place.

You described a hypothetical situation earlier where a wife was in lots of pain for a long time and so does not wish to have sex (with good reason), and according to you it's acceptable in that situation for the husband to manipulate her into having sex by saying he really needs it and promising to be quick. You then go on later to talk about how if a wife really has her husband's needs in a place of priority, she'll be willing to consent and suffer through sex, and it's a sin if she doesn't pretend to enjoy it. Regardless of what the bible actually says about consent, your views on it are made plain by what YOU say about it. What makes it scary is that you think the bible supports you.

[The Grand Nudger]

By bludgeoning the former husband and shouting about yahweh, or so we're led to believe......Drich.........

[Drich]

so how exactly do you have control over her needs??

Her body is not her own, and mine does not belong to me it belongs to her.
Maybe you should ask How does she have control over mine since you seem to think you know the answer to that question.

in what world other then your fundamentalist pov, does this make sense? how can anyone have control over a person's sexual needs?

Keep reading 1 cor 7 sport, and it will become clear what paul is indeed talking about and why. This is a universal truth in all sexual active relationships.

no one is made to do anything unless she doesnt want it, but he needs it and since he has control over her needs, well...

Not true I provided an example where both parties don't want sex yet both have it.

aw shit, he done gone and called me a dummy, in caps none the less... now im hurt and offended... looks like its hell for you buddy...

just a literary device, to get you to stop and rethink/question your position.

at least we have one here who doesnt seem to be cherry picking stuff he likes from the bible and leaving out others... i wonder if he's ever stoned anyone...

You are projecting your own failings on to my work. I am the one who keeps telling you to continue reading 1 cor 7 or to at least read past the one verse you have hung yourself on.

[rado84]

Jesus Wants You to Fuck Like Bunnies

Not only Jesus wants that. I too want that.

[Drich]

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.

Yeah yeah...all that "don't deprive each other, except for a time, and then come back together" bullshit. You're talking to an advanced biblical apologist. That "just keep reading" shit doesn't work on me. I know what the bible says, and I know the context. Know your place.

You described a hypothetical situation earlier where a wife was in lots of pain for a long time and so does not wish to have sex (with good reason), and according to you it's acceptable in that situation for the husband to manipulate her into having sex by saying he really needs it and promising to be quick. You then go on later to talk about how if a wife really has her husband's needs in a place of priority, she'll be willing to consent and suffer through sex, and it's a sin if she doesn't pretend to enjoy it. Regardless of what the bible actually says about consent, your views on it are made plain by what YOU say about it. What makes it scary is that you think the bible supports you.

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.

[QuarkDriven]

so how exactly do you have control over her needs??

Her body is not her own, and mine does not belong to me it belongs to her.
Maybe you should ask How does she have control over mine since you seem to think you know the answer to that question.
we have an answer... its been mentioned above several times... no one has control over another person's body... except BDSM, then it's no longer control... thats just flat out domination

in what world other then your fundamentalist pov, does this make sense? how can anyone have control over a person's sexual needs?

Keep reading 1 cor 7 sport, and it will become clear what paul is indeed talking about and why. This is a universal truth in all sexual active relationships.
yeah, very universal... to the unmarried or widowed... stay unmarried.. of if you feel the urge to have sex, go get married... smh...

no one is made to do anything unless she doesnt want it, but he needs it and since he has control over her needs, well...

Not true I provided an example where both parties don't want sex yet both have it.
and I came back and showed you how both parties consented to it for a mutual greater cause... you said it.. both parties have it...

aw shit, he done gone and called me a dummy, in caps none the less... now im hurt and offended... looks like its hell for you buddy...

just a literary device, to get you to stop and rethink/question your position.
yeah, name calling is not going to get me to rethink anything... your position is bogus, no one has control over another persons sexual needs

at least we have one here who doesnt seem to be cherry picking stuff he likes from the bible and leaving out others... i wonder if he's ever stoned anyone...

You are projecting your own failings on to my work. I am the one who keeps telling you to continue reading 1 cor 7 or to at least read past the one verse you have hung yourself on.

no, im just wondering if you take the rest of it to be literal. Do you really believe a woman who divorces is not allowed to remarry except to her ex husband? thats just flatout bullshit

[Nope]

[quote='QuarkDriven' pid='991367' dateline='1436881024']
so how exactly do you have control over her needs??

Her body is not her own, and mine does not belong to me it belongs to her.
Maybe you should ask How does she have control over mine since you seem to think you know the answer to that question.

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.

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.

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.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Yeah yeah...all that "don't deprive each other, except for a time, and then come back together" bullshit. You're talking to an advanced biblical apologist. That "just keep reading" shit doesn't work on me. I know what the bible says, and I know the context. Know your place.

You described a hypothetical situation earlier where a wife was in lots of pain for a long time and so does not wish to have sex (with good reason), and according to you it's acceptable in that situation for the husband to manipulate her into having sex by saying he really needs it and promising to be quick. You then go on later to talk about how if a wife really has her husband's needs in a place of priority, she'll be willing to consent and suffer through sex, and it's a sin if she doesn't pretend to enjoy it. Regardless of what the bible actually says about consent, your views on it are made plain by what YOU say about it. What makes it scary is that you think the bible supports you.

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.