(cache) Vox Popoli: Marital sex is never rape

Some of my dimmer critics have attempted to make a meal out of my factual statement: a man cannot rape his wife. But that is not only a fact, it is the explicit law in the greater part of the world, just as it is part of the English Common Law.

A Delhi court has ruled that sex between a husband and wife, “even if forcible, is not rape.” The judge’s decision, which was made public Saturday, upheld section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not recognize “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age,” as rape.

The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West presently call some forms of sex between a husband and wife "rape" does not transform marital sex into rape any more than a law that declared all vaginal intercourse to be rape would make it so. Reality is not defined by politics; we cannot settle the question of evolution by natural selection by simply passing a law that declares God created the world and everything in it last Tuesday.

Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis. This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed. And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is "divorce".

The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.

Labels: law

255 Comments:

The Social Justice Warrior Prince May 14, 2014 9:17 AM: A woman can declare a man a "rapist" at anytime, for any reason she pleases. The only exception is if the partner is a lesbian, or if it's a white woman accusing a black man. You should know this. This is the law, de facto and de jure.
Crude May 14, 2014 9:19 AM: And for those who wish to argue that consent can be withdrawn, there is a word for withdrawing consent in a marriage. That word is "divorce".

What about that time during which a divorce is being procured, but it hasn't been finalized? Or do you subscribe to some kind of "non-secular" view of divorce which is instantaneous, and the process is just a formality?

Anyway, I was damn reluctant to entertain where I thought you'd be going with this, but I have to admit you hit a strong point about inebriated sex between spouses, etc. And the inebriation talk reminds me of a quote I came across recently: "Can a woman ever be charged with drunk driving? How could she give herself consent to drive?"
TontoBubbaGoldstein May 14, 2014 9:20 AM: Maybe not.

But when she slips that homemade cocktail of GHB, Exten-Z, Viagra, Cialis, oyster juice and ground rhino horn into my afterdinner carafe o' Manishewitz....it just doesn't feel right.
VD May 14, 2014 9:31 AM: What about that time during which a divorce is being procured, but it hasn't been finalized?

I would say that consent is de jure withdrawn at filing, de facto withdrawn upon announcement of the intention to file.
Salt May 14, 2014 9:32 AM: ... don't stop don't stop don't stop don't stop don't stop don't stop don't...
AmyJ May 14, 2014 9:39 AM: And why would you marry someone you don't want to have sex with? Calling the husband a rapist tries to get folks to overlook the fact that the wife is a sociopathic opportunist who would throw the man she vowed to love for the rest of her life under a bus.
TC May 14, 2014 9:41 AM: Tangential comment - A person who uses violent and unjustified force, to keep someone from walking away from a situation,has always been subject to a criminal charge of assault, false imprisonment, or (if the act occurs in a boat or moving vehicle) kidnapping, under all civilized legal systems. The victim could be one's spouse, one's demented great-grandparent, or someone who owes you thousands of dollars and has insulted your family. There is no marital privilege against being charged with assault, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, if the facts are there; a pre-existing relationship with the victim is a factor, but never a deciding factor, in the analysis of whether the act was a criminal act or a justifiable use of force.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 9:43 AM: @TC

By "tangential comment", you mean the heart of the matter, where the connivers, the language-debasers, the hucksters, the empowerment-through-victimhood mafia, and the useful idiots/tools/fools look around with a gleam in their eyes and imitation emotions and croak out, "but what of...........abuse?"
TC May 14, 2014 9:47 AM: Should have said a pre-existing relationship is "never a sole deciding factor", obviously any factor can be "a" deciding factor if it is the one extra part of the case that tips the balance one way or the other
TC May 14, 2014 9:51 AM: To Mr Green Man - the comment was tangential because it was not inconsistent with the post, and because it did not refer to what an intelligent reader would consider the main point of the post. If I explained more I would be insulting your intelligence or reading skills.
God's Hand May 14, 2014 9:54 AM: "Anyone with a basic grasp of logic who thinks about the subject of "marital rape" for more than ten seconds will quickly realize that marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis."

I've seen this claim asserted elsewhere. It was equally unfounded now and then.

The law, on the other hand, is the law. If Indian Law says that brutally fucking your pregnant wife while she is in labor and begging you not to is just sex and not rape, then that's the law.

However, we all know that it's really rape. We all know its assault, despite what the law says.

The problem for Vox and the reason folks swing at this softball is that there is no justification for supporting the idea that a married man ought to be able to push his wife up against a wall against her will, ram himself into her while she screams and begs him not to, then lets her fall to the floor when he's done just as Vox would allow under his philosophy. For that matter, there is no good warrant for supporting a law that would allow such a thing.

And those who do support such a law are clearly half-savages.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 9:57 AM: > What about that time during which a divorce is being procured, but it hasn't been finalized?

It's know as "legally separated".
DrTorch May 14, 2014 9:59 AM: This point was one of the first that I had to work to understand coming from you VD. But the proof is rather short and eloquent.

Some months after understanding this point, a writer at a Christian thought website I visited just assumed marital rape a legit problem. I realized then just how much disdain such people have toward marital vows. And that the destruction of marriage was occurring long ago w/ these sort of "conservatives".

I eventually stopped reading that site as they became more open and explicit about their feminist perspectives, and most of the other commenters were white knights who couldn't bear to see their objects of desire challenged.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 9:59 AM: @TC

Shalom. I detected the pre-emptive ilkment, and I was hoping to find a way to slip in smirk or quirk, but had to settle on croak.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 10:00 AM: > For that matter, there is no good warrant for supporting a law that would allow such a thing.

I'm pleased to hear you've been working ceaselessly your entire life to get the existing law changed.
swiftfoxmark2 May 14, 2014 10:02 AM: Of course, this concept presumes that a) marriage is the only legitimate avenue for pursuing romantic love and b) that women can't vote.

As we have seen, once women were allowed to vote, the institution of marriage was slowly dismantled brick-by-brick. With the aid of some unscrupulous Alpha males, of course.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 10:04 AM: @TC

You have to admit it's quite funny that "God's Hand" immediately charges in with the most extreme example possible, as if the marital sex law in India stands alone, and now he's just loving her differently . I love living in a land of extremists. We've turned "the edges of the law are not the law" into "the extreme examples are the only reason to have laws".
de ti May 14, 2014 10:12 AM: TC:

Assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment aren't what makes a marriage a marriage. A woman can assault her husband (from what I hear it happens more than you think). A man can kidnap his wife and can unlawfully impede her freedom of movement. The first two are crimes at common law and can form the basis of torts (civil wrongs) at common law. False imprisonment is a tort as well.

But sex is the sine qua non of marriage. No sex, no marriage. It is the only thing a married couple do that they aren't licitly permitted to do outside the marriage relationship. Sex is also the one tangible benefit a man gets from marriage. Deprivation of that one benefit removes the only incentive the man has to remain in that marriage.

So you can't really note that the law and decent civil order permit prosecutions for interspousal assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment; and from there springboard to an analogy that interspousal rape is prosecutable, or is even a thing. You can't, and it isn't.
IM2L844 May 14, 2014 10:16 AM: This highlights the superiority of marriages where both parties subscribe to biblical Christian principles. The whole concept of a man forcing himself on his wife becomes irrelevant and meaningless. Firstly because a Christian husband would never consider doing such a thing, but secondly and more importantly because a Christian wife would never allow for the conducive circumstance to arise is the first place.
de ti May 14, 2014 10:18 AM: God’s Hand:

There is no justification for a wife’s repeatedly and cruelly depriving her husband of sex, telling him no over and over again, nagging and taunting him, and insulting his sexuality. And there is no justification for that woman demanding that that deprived man then give her half of the marital assets and his children and an income stream for two decades for the privilege simply of not having to suffer that deprivation any longer. There is no good warrant for supporting laws that would allow such things.

And those who do support such laws are WORSE than half-savages.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 10:18 AM: > But sex is the sine qua non of marriage. No sex, no marriage.

Exactly. A marriage which is not consummated is void.
spastic0plastic May 14, 2014 10:21 AM: Modern law basically gives women the status of children, wards of the state. Age is of course just another social construct, so "not being under fifteen years of age" can apply no matter what number is on a woman's birth certificate. QED: marital sex is always rape.
de ti May 14, 2014 10:22 AM: "Exactly. A marriage which is not consummated is void."

A woman who unreasonably withholds sex from a husband without cause has abandoned her marriage. She is abusing her husband and is guilty of extreme and repeated mental cruelty. .
Maximo Macaroni May 14, 2014 10:27 AM: Let's look at the easy cases instead of the extremes. I suppose all would agree that a woman who files charges of rape after having sex with her husband when there are no circumstances providing evidence of assault, false imprisonment, or lack of consent is filing a frivolous complaint. Right?

Then the question becomes: are the rules for married couples in this limited situation different from those for an unmarried man and woman?
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 10:27 AM: God's Hand May 14, 2014 9:54 AM
*bullshit*

Ann?

what's the matter? you don't think the woman is competent to file for divorce if her husband treats her like that?

also:
[ Austin Powers ]
ooooh, yeah baby. chicks in LABOR. now there's a fetish that gets me mojo going.
[ /Austin Powers ]

you are one fucked up retard.

by definition, a man who treated his wife like that would be well into one of the more malignant DSM classifications ... as he would be causing harm not just to his wife but ALSO TO HIS BIRTHING CHILD.

that's a special level of sociopathy, that is.

why do you keep choosing sociopaths, Ann?

and why do you think the law should protect YOU from your own stupidity?
FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 10:28 AM: "There is no justification for a wife’s repeatedly and cruelly depriving her husband of sex, telling him no over and over again, nagging and taunting him, and insulting his sexuality."

I reread what VD wrote and what GH wrote. I didn't see either of them bring "repeatedly and cruelly depriving her husband of sex" into the equation. But I would agree with you. There is no justification for this that I can think of.

"And there is no justification for that woman demanding that that deprived man then give her half of the marital assets and his children and an income stream for two decades for the privilege simply of not having to suffer that deprivation any longer."

There could be justification for this. You just can't think of one. One justification is that she no longer wants to be bound by marriage to her husband and she, as well as most others, as well as a judge, believe that she is far better able to continue to raise their children in a safe and stable environment than is the man and that the man ought to be required to help support their upbringing either with partial custody or through helping to finance their upbringing.
Tank May 14, 2014 10:28 AM: Assuming VD is correct, what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 10:31 AM: de ti May 14, 2014 10:22 AM
She is abusing her husband and is guilty of extreme and repeated mental cruelty.

you will also note that 'women withholding' is COMMONPLACE.

as opposed to 'women in labor being raped in the delivery room' ... which i've never ever heard of. even if done by someone other than the husband.

of course, the whole point of female 'spousal rape' charges is to expand the power of the woman within the relationship.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 10:33 AM: > ...what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?

Roleplaying, usually..
de ti May 14, 2014 10:34 AM: If a woman no longer wants sex with her husband she should simply file for divorce and be done with it. The condition I'd put on it is that she walks away from the marriage with the clothes on her back and that's it. The children, the house, the money -- all stay with the husband who wants to remain in the marriage.
Ad Faciem (Formerly Myrddin) May 14, 2014 10:34 AM: The present definition that is being pushed for/used/whatever is an imbalance of power favoring the rapist, regardless of consent. Thus, 'consenting' pedophilia is characterized by rape.

Of course, since it is patently ridiculous to claim that any two people are equal in power in all ways at any point, all sex is rape. And since anyone who claims the New Testament is authoritative is forbidden to deny sex to his or her spouse, all married Christians are rapists.

And, as a side note, rapists all sorts of constitutional rights long before anyone else did. Once you've been accused, let alone convicted of rape, anyone can kill you and stand a decent chance of avoiding repercussions. New laws can be retroactively applied to you (I know of one guy who turned himself in, then when he got out started a pair of ministries to help rapists and victims get help for their various psychological difficulties, then had to go back to prison ten years later because... the minimum sentence had been increased and he was forced to retroactively serve it). There is no serving your time and then getting to start over: You are pooched for life.

Lads and lassies, all married Christians are rapists, and rapists have no rights. If you are married and a Christian, all that stands between you and any sort of punishment some authority can dream up is whether or not they think they will profit by it.
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 10:35 AM: FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 10:28 AM
and she, as well as most others, as well as a judge, believe that she is far better able to continue to raise their children in a safe and stable environment than is the man

the amusing thing being that the above opinion runs directly counter to all of the science on the subject.

are there specific exceptions to the science? undoubtedly.

but the fact that the woman is almost always awarded custody in the current legal milieu is completely unacceptable
...
unless your goal is to destroy the society.
Ad Faciem (Formerly Myrddin) May 14, 2014 10:36 AM: *characterized AS rape
Vidad May 14, 2014 10:38 AM: "The whole concept of a man forcing himself on his wife becomes irrelevant and meaningless. Firstly because a Christian husband would never consider doing such a thing"

C'mon, now... wouldn't even consider?
Tank May 14, 2014 10:38 AM: Jart, you did not answer the question. Dixon did not either. It's a serious question. If not rape, what?
Chris Gerrib May 14, 2014 10:39 AM: A woman who unreasonably withholds sex from a husband without cause has abandoned her marriage. - in which case, the husband should divorce her, not rape her.

The original post on marital rape has a fundamental flaw: in modern law, one person using force on another is frowned upon. There are obviously exceptions (self-defense) but in general hitting somebody is illegal.

A woman who unreasonably withholds sex from a husband without cause has abandoned her marriage.

We as a society frown on interpersonal violence. For example, if your neighbor takes your lawnmower and uses it to cut his grass, you (legally) can't march over to his house, beat him up, and take the lawnmower back. You're supposed to call the police to solve the dispute.

So, there is a strong assumption of consent to sex in a marriage, thus legalizing "drunk sex," but if there's a clear "no" followed by a forcible attack, that's rape. It's just as if the husband hits his wife (or vice versa) because one of them took money from the other.
Randy M May 14, 2014 10:40 AM: "Then the question becomes: are the rules for married couples in this limited situation different from those for an unmarried man and woman?"

Actually, no, at least ideally, because there should be some evidence to pursue conviction even against a stranger. I think the case of the sleeping spouse (now there's a Nancy Drew title for you...) makes a better point of distinction.

"There could be justification for this. You just can't think of one. One justification is that she no longer wants to be bound by marriage to her husband "

I think he meant "legitimate justification." If she can cease to be married on a whim, 'bound' is really the wrong word to use to describe the situation, no?
de ti May 14, 2014 10:41 AM: Tank:

In your scenario, Christian sexual and marital morality becomes very important. She doesn't want to, REALLY doesn't want to; he REALLY wants to. She follows the command to respect him and has sex with him. He follows the command to love her and acquiesces, he relents for the night.

But, here we have the situation where he goes ahead and has sex with her anyway despite her refusals. It's still not rape, because of this little thing: He asked her to marry him; and SHE SAID YES. The issue of consent was resolved forevermore at the moment she stands before the preacher and says "I do" and "I will" and "With this ring I thee wed". "Wed" and "marry" means the two are put together and become one, and that includes sexual congress. She can't withdraw consent. She cannot put conditions on it. She doesn't get to define her marriage. God does; and God says marriage includes sexual congress.

If she didn't want sexual congress with this one man and in whatever forms and permutations this man wants, then she should not have said "I do".

At the point of "I do", all questions of marital consent are settled for all time. She can't withdraw consent. If she does, the marriage is destroyed.
cailcorishev May 14, 2014 10:41 AM: what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?

A million romance novels.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 10:41 AM: I'm still waiting for clarification on when wife with frying pan became uncivilized.
Chris Gerrib May 14, 2014 10:42 AM: please ignore 3rd paragraph in my post above - cut-and-paste error.
FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 10:43 AM: "Assuming VD is correct, what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?"

Assuming she continues to demand he stop throughout his assault, then I would apply the words "rape" or "physical assault". That the law in some places might say different doesn't matter. We all know what assault is and we all know that forced penetration is rape...no matter married or not.
TontoBubbaGoldstein May 14, 2014 10:43 AM: If a woman no longer wants sex with her husband she should simply file for divorce and be done with it. The condition I'd put on it is that she walks away from the marriage with the clothes on her back and that's it. The children, the house, the money -- all stay with the husband who wants to remain in the marriage.

Word.

If this were the law, there would be many more intact, happy, functional families.
Salt May 14, 2014 10:44 AM: A million romance novels.

Written by women.
Truth or Consequences May 14, 2014 10:46 AM: I have popped my corn. Let's do this.
de ti May 14, 2014 10:46 AM: Chris Gerrib:

I was talking more about the situation in which there is repeated and consistent refusal to have sex. Where one spouse is doing that to the other, that's cruelty. It's marital abandonment and it's a manifestation that the withholding spouse no longer wants to be married to the deprived spouse. At that point, at least a legal divorce is justified.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 10:47 AM: > Dixon did not either

Yes, I did. 90+% of the time this happens, the couple is roleplaying.
Baseball Savant May 14, 2014 10:49 AM: I've often found that women like to be forced to have sex. They claim not to, but I've yet to find a woman who hasn't gotten her panties exceptionally wet when being manhandled by me.
Radpulp May 14, 2014 10:53 AM: >>The fact that some of the lawless governments in the decadent, demographically dying West...

Some??? Virtually every country in the Christian part of the world criminalizes marital rape (although it is often treated differently, in terms of exceptions, definitions, penalties, etc. than other rape). Marital rape is illegal in all 50 states in the US, illegal in the UK, illegal in virtually all of Western Europe, Oceania and South America.

I find it weird how this purportedly "Christian" blog keeps extolling the virtues of what the non-Christian, half-savage part of the world legally codifies (or fails to).
Don May 14, 2014 10:54 AM: A blasphemous named commenter noted above an extreme position where, 'we all know it is rape' counter to the law. He is mistaken. We do not 'all know it is rape'. If the law says it is not and most of the world says it is not then de facto and de jure it is not rape (in most of the world). Therefore the statement is factually false.

We may, or may not agree with the statement that the husband who forces sex on his in-labor, teenage wife while she writhes in pain needs a good solid beating. As the father or brother of that girl I would probably beat him good and solid then when the kid was born and my daughter recovered beat him one more time to remind him my daughter is still my daughter.

The law cannot cover all eventualities. However, civilized behavior can always find a solution.
JartStar May 14, 2014 10:54 AM: This comment has been removed by the author.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 10:56 AM: @Radpulp

Even Wikipedia will tell you: The definition of marital rape was a recent phenomenon in America; most such statutes date from the 1970s; there's no surprise this came hand-in-hand with no-fault divorce. Penalties were only tightened to bring it in line with other rape allegations in the 1990s. This is a recent mania that has gripped America.
wEz May 14, 2014 10:58 AM: A true Christian man wouldnt do that to his wife. Now, if he then asked her to give him a handjob instead, and she obliged, is that ok or is she being coerced if shes not interested? Liberal bullsh*t all the way around.
Luckily I have a great wife and our foundation is Christ, so there is a mutual understanding of selflessness-whether that is 'taking one for the team' when the other isnt interested, or communicating and calling it a night and going to bed wet or with blue balls.
Rape it is not, nor would it ever be.
If one truely desires within the 'one flesh unity' the other wilfully gives.
newrebeluniv May 14, 2014 10:59 AM: The critical point being that when a marriage exists, the state is barred from interfering. Thus, it cannot hear a case WRT rape any more than it can decide if one spouse is stealing from another. The relationship between man and wife is considered "private". Remember, if you want to keep the state out of your bedroom, then you accept the consequences of the police and courts also staying out of your bedroom.

--Hale
Josh May 14, 2014 11:00 AM: If a husband forces himself on his wife and she gets aroused, is it really rape?
Starbuck May 14, 2014 11:01 AM: Assuming VD is correct, what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?

This would be called "YES"
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 11:02 AM: @Radpulp

What is the Christian part of the world? I'd really love to know your thinking on this.

Does it change with the idea that most of those nations of Europe no longer have people who even self-identify as Christian as a majority? Is Sweden a Christian part of the world?

If there are more Christians in China than Europe, and soon more Christians in China than America, is China the Christian part of the world?

If the most growth in Christianity is in Africa - you know, like Uganda - does that make Africa the Christian part of the world?

How do you square historical religious practices, that are no longer practiced, with recent legal changes, concomitant with these recent legal developments, and then assign them to the ancient and abandoned religious beliefs of the majority of the West?
EntFist May 14, 2014 11:02 AM: Go on Twitter and search for "Vox Day" for a fun show today.
Some dude May 14, 2014 11:04 AM: @gods hand

You are right. But we are only mortal, and must recognize that some things are beyond us to punish.

Unless its extra legal. And that is a whole other nightmare
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 11:05 AM: I'm going to have to bring up an old chestnut offered by so many people when it was in fashion maybe 5-10 years ago when first discussing some of these issues men had when the women would frivorce them:

Since I don't know a Christian man who would do any of these activities described as the heinous examples that are the motivating extremes for extremists to try to regulate all sorts of behavior - she should have picked better when she got married!

I don't see American women being held at gunpoint to get married, and I don't think it's the norm in many locales.
Susan May 14, 2014 11:06 AM: Salt,

I hate to burst your bubble, but I found out years ago that there is a healthy proportion of those million romance novels that are actually written by men writing under a "nom de plume". You can tell by the fact(usually) that there is no photo inside the back cover of the paperback or inside the book jacket to give away the joke.

Someone who knew people in the industry at that time told me about it. Made me a lot more careful about my reading from that time on.
wEz May 14, 2014 11:07 AM: Non believers just dont marry. You dont believe in submission, compromise is a sign or weakness, there is no such thing as a 50/50 marriage with regards to decision making. Dont limit your sexual freedom, etc. Dont marry and then you guys wont have to worry about 'marital rape' and losing half your sh*t when she doesnt 'feel like it' or becomes bored in the relationship because vows are subjective and ever-changing to the secular non-believer. Just dont do it. Thank you.
God's Hand May 14, 2014 11:08 AM: "Even Wikipedia will tell you: The definition of marital rape was a recent phenomenon in America; most such statutes date from the 1970s; there's no surprise this came hand-in-hand with no-fault divorce. Penalties were only tightened to bring it in line with other rape allegations in the 1990s. This is a recent mania that has gripped America."

Mania? No. Commonsense is what you call giving call outlawing assault under the guise of the marriage contract.

Men have a long history of abusing their wives and calling it Christian or point to the Bible to legitimize their brutality.

Christianity has long been the veil used to cover up male brutality visited on women. That no fault divorce was instituted and marital rape laws approved was just a matter of leveling the playing field.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:11 AM: By 2050, women will have a long history of abusing their husbands and calling it "rape" or point to "progress" to legitimize their brutality.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 11:11 AM: @GH

It's funny how common sense was so overlooked...

In any event, it's nice that your view is that it's a post-Christian development, and your compatriot Radpulp's view that it's true Christianity. You two should get together and decide; it will be better than Barney Frank telling us what true Christian beliefs are or aren't.
Suindara May 14, 2014 11:13 AM: It depends on what the legal system considers to be rape.
If your system defines rape as: "sex without consent" then, logically, there's no such a thing as rape in a marriage.

But, just for comparison, the legal system in my country (Civil Law) defines rape as:

"Art. 213. To constrain someone, through violence or serious threat, to have sexual intercourse or to allow any other lewd acts to practiced with him." //rough translation

Since consent is irrelevant for this definition. In this case, rape in a marriage is possible as long as there is material evidence of the violence or the serious threat.

If the husband forces himself without the use of violence or serious threat it could perharps still be classified as another crime but not rape.
Giraffe May 14, 2014 11:13 AM: I hate to burst your bubble, but I found out years ago that there is a healthy proportion of those million romance novels that are actually written by men writing under a "nom de plume". You can tell by the fact(usually) that there is no photo inside the back cover of the paperback or inside the book jacket to give away the joke.

Someone who knew people in the industry at that time told me about it. Made me a lot more careful about my reading from that time on.

Sexiss! I don't understand. Is smut better when written by a woman?
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:13 AM: rape (verb)

: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence

seems pretty straight forward to me
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 11:14 AM: I've often found that women like to be forced to have sex.

Our bodies certainly know how to respond to it.

The woman who is still unwilling to have consensual sex after forceful (no is not an option) advances is not a woman who is having sex regularly with her husband.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:20 AM: Why am I not surprised that this crowd of moral degenerates actually deny that rape is rape.
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 11:22 AM: God's Hand May 14, 2014 11:08 AM
Men have a long history of abusing their wives and calling it Christian or point to the Bible to legitimize their brutality.

yeah, Ann Morgan.

so, why don't you just go lesbian and be done with it, Ann?
DrTorch May 14, 2014 11:22 AM: Men have a long history of abusing their wives and calling it Christian or point to the Bible to legitimize their brutality.

Just making up history as you go along.
Credo in Unum Deum May 14, 2014 11:23 AM: If this were still Christendom, and not the smoldering ruins of the same with bands of Mohammedan barbarians given free reign to pillage and plunder, then Marriage would be handled 100% by the Church. The state would have no say in the matter.

But that isn't the case...

If a woman really doesn't want to have sex with her husband, she's free to spend the night in a motel room by herself, and see a family lawyer in the morning.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:25 AM: "A blasphemous named commenter "

you mean God's Hand? Are you aware that the owner of this blog calls himself God's Voice?
Curlytop May 14, 2014 11:26 AM: When one side of the argument resorts to an extreme case that sounds straight out of a badly written psychological thriller(See GH's scenario), you know that you're being sold a sac of shitoki mushrooms. See also, politicians' excuses for overthrowing governments( babies out of incubators, WMDS, etc).

However, the guys here postulating about men being deprived sex frequently by spouses...I've listened in disgust many, many times as women have quite literally bragged about how little they put out. Yeah, it's amazing what women will reveal when NO men are around and they think they have the herd on their side. So also it comes as a shock when another married woman replies, "Your poor husband. I can't imagine going that long without sex?"

Needless to say, I am not well-liked by a certain demographic of the female species.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:27 AM: "so, why don't you just go lesbian and be done with it, Ann?"

Because Ann secretly likes getting it hard and rough. Why else does she post here over and over?
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 11:27 AM: @Lud VanB

If only that were the definition, given the armies of attorneys, politicians, and activists dead set on expanding it far and wide in law and practice so as to make it a meaningless charge, but at least we have common ground: We appear to agree that the unmarried people engaging in casual sex consensually and without any coercion, and then having regrets three days later when the woman sees the man with another woman, is not rape. We appear to also agree that staging oral sex (man doing the woman) on the window of a bank building while smiling for the camera and only feeling bad about it when it becomes a highly-shared story on Facebook and then crying rape, is not rape.

So, hooray for small things!
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:28 AM: Lud VanBoobies is here. Discussion is over.
Michael Maier May 14, 2014 11:28 AM: Lud: you're either very dim or very willfully obtuse to think that.
Salt May 14, 2014 11:30 AM: Are you aware that the owner of this blog calls himself God's Voice?

You assumptive idiot, Lud.
Michael Maier May 14, 2014 11:30 AM: Susan May 14, 2014 11:06 AM Salt,

I hate to burst your bubble, but I found out years ago that there is a healthy proportion of those million romance novels that are actually written by men writing under a "nom de plume". You can tell by the fact(usually) that there is no photo inside the back cover of the paperback or inside the book jacket to give away the joke.

Someone who knew people in the industry at that time told me about it. Made me a lot more careful about my reading from that time on.

More books are ghost-written than we'll ever know so the photos hardly matter.

The thing is, women are still BUYING AND READING "romance" novels. So obviously, that stuff appeals to women.

Since it's formulaic trash, does it really matter which set of gentilia the formula-implementer possesses ?
wEz May 14, 2014 11:31 AM: Thanks Lud. Appriciate your kind words and understanding to my reasoning big guy ; )
Matamoros May 14, 2014 11:31 AM: Sex is the duty of the woman in marriage (for the man too). It is called the Marriage Debt. She consents to sex upon demand as part of the marriage contract.

In Catholic theology sex is the visible sign of the sacrament of marriage. To deny the marriage debt is a mortal sin, and the "marriage" is annullable if she continues to grant sex.

Also, she is not entitled to "not tonight" unless there is a grave (super serious) health problem related to sex, that would make the health problem worse.
VD May 14, 2014 11:31 AM: Assuming VD is correct, what do you call it where a woman, who frequently has sex with her husband, tells him not tonight (insert any reason you want), and he takes her by force?

Forcible and consensual sex. The very thing the Indian court specifically deemed legal. You cannot withdraw consent from a marriage without ending it. It's like telling the Army that while you normally obey your lieutenant's orders, you don't feel like it tonight. Consent isn't a light switch.

Why am I not surprised that this crowd of moral degenerates actually deny that rape is rape.

Your rhetoric is inept, Lud. You've previously asserted that your morality has no basis and is applicable to you alone, so calling anyone else a "moral degenerate" by that standard is irrelevant.
Tank May 14, 2014 11:32 AM: Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:20 AM
Why am I not surprised that this crowd of moral degenerates actually deny that rape is rape.

Because you're too stupid to understand what they are talking about?
Michael Maier May 14, 2014 11:33 AM: Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:28 AM Lud VanBoobies is here. Discussion is over.

DUDE!!!! COME ON!!! STOP REMINDING US!!!

I am fairly certain that pic gave me PTSD... but since I'm wanting to lose weight, I guess I can use that pic as anti-inspiration...

Lemons into lemonade, and all....
Tank May 14, 2014 11:34 AM: Thanks to VD and de ti for addressing my question.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:35 AM: This comment has been removed by the author.
FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 11:35 AM: "
: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence

seems pretty straight forward to me"

It is straight forward. Forcing yourself on someone who says no and means it is assault, married or not. And if the law doesn't say this, that's just a matter of the law residing outside of reality.

"Men have a long history of abusing their wives and calling it Christian or point to the Bible to legitimize their brutality."

This altogether true, though less so in this age. And it hardly only applies to the issue or Rape. Christianity has been used by Christians to justify any number of brutalities from slavery to persecution of minorities to war and much more.

The hold that Christianity has on Western Culture today is greatly reduced, leading to changes, for example, in the laws surrounding rape inside a marriage. This is obviously an improvement.

"The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself."

This is old and cancerous thinking.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:36 AM: "Your rhetoric is inept, Lud. You've previously asserted that your morality has no basis and is applicable to you alone, so calling anyone else a "moral degenerate" by that standard is irrelevant."

My morality has the very same basis as your own...the people who came before us. But you pretend that it was given to them by God whereas I do not.
Alexander May 14, 2014 11:37 AM: You know what really impresses me about the midwits? How half-way they really are.

A reasonable person, a person who didn't particular care about a blog's name, or an ignorant person could read "Vox Day" and leave it at that. Maybe chuckle at "Voice of Day" and how as a blog is like talking, it's a nice lampshade on "Light of Day".

No need to take it any further.

Or you can go full hog, take it through the Latin, take it through the Greek. Discover VD's real name and congratulate yourself on a puzzle well puzzled until your puzzler was sore.

But the midwits, determined to show how smart they are and how wrong Vox is, EVERY BLOODY TIME get stuck somewhere in the middle. Then feign outrage despite inevitably, being condescending blasphemous ass-hats themselves who would rather chop off their own dicks with a rusty jigsaw than admit that Christianity every did anything in 2,000 years that was of use to anyone.
Alexander May 14, 2014 11:39 AM: Who gave it to them, Lud? Straight up question. Who gave the first man morality?

We are, afterall, all in agreement that man didn't simply make it up one day out of whole cloth.
VD May 14, 2014 11:41 AM: It is straight forward. Forcing yourself on someone who says no and means it is assault, married or not. And if the law doesn't say this, that's just a matter of the law residing outside of reality.

Again, saying no doesn't matter once you have already granted blanket and ongoing consent. There is no opt-out. That is the reality that the Common Law historically recognized. Once you give up your right to say no, it doesn't matter what you say.

My morality has the very same basis as your own...the people who came before us. But you pretend that it was given to them by God whereas I do not.

That's not true. Now you're changing your story. You previously said you define your own morality. The people who came before us did not define it for you, which is obvious, since no one ever said opposing gay marriage was immoral in the past.

You're in over your head here, Lud. Stop wasting your time and go out and exercise.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:41 AM: "Who gave it to them, Lud? Straight up question. Who gave the first man morality?

We are, afterall, all in agreement that man didn't simply make it up one day out of whole cloth."

That's as stupid as asking "who game mankind computers"
Marissa May 14, 2014 11:43 AM: in whatever forms and permutations this man wants, then she should not have said "I do".

Wrong. No man has the right to contraceptive sex with his wife.
Alexander May 14, 2014 11:43 AM: You just said that you got your morals from the people before you.

Where did they get there's from? Are you going to argue that there is an infinite sequence of people going backward in time so that for any person, there's always "someone who came before".

As it is, I can point to the individuals who gave us the computer.

I can also point to my Lord as He who gave me my morals.
VD May 14, 2014 11:44 AM: But the midwits, determined to show how smart they are and how wrong Vox is, EVERY BLOODY TIME get stuck somewhere in the middle.

And then Vox laughs at them. Every bloody time.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:44 AM: "That's not true. Now you're changing your story. You previously said you define your own morality. The people who came before us did not define it for you, which is obvious, since no one ever said opposing gay marriage was immoral in the past."

We all define it for ourselves the same way we define everything else...based on what we have learned from others.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:45 AM: But who has yet given mankind the bro - or the manzier... asking for a friend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4Sl6oVuyk
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:47 AM: "We all define it for ourselves the same way we define everything else."

WE? Speak for yourself, manboob.
Salt May 14, 2014 11:48 AM: Lud, were your parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, etc atheists? When did learned become not learned?
GG May 14, 2014 11:48 AM: May I say something?

"This has to be the case, otherwise every time one partner wakes the other up in an intimate manner or has sex with an inebriated spouse, rape has been committed."

Third degree marital rape, soon to be passed in my state. Ironic how the great champions of women never even consider how many wives can now be charged under this statute and how many men will now get to grow up as sexually confused as women already are.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:48 AM: "As it is, I can point to the individuals who gave us the computer.

I can also point to my Lord as He who gave me my morals."

you can point to your "lord" all you want...he didn't give you a damn thing and that includes life
FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 11:48 AM: "Again, saying no doesn't matter once you have already granted blanket and ongoing consent. There is no opt-out. That is the reality that the Common Law historically recognized. Once you give up your right to say no, it doesn't matter what you say."

It matters to the person saying "no". And that's what you can't seem to get your head around. You are too bound up in these ancient christian themes of male domination that have no place today. As a result, you end up standing in a corner endorsing assault and brutalization. In civilized countries and among civilized people, of course there is such a thing as a husband raping his wife. It's so obvious that you have to pity those who don't see it and really have to worry about their spouses safety.
inhumanist May 14, 2014 11:49 AM: God's Hand gave an extreme example that highlights the values of her religious worldview. In her religion, women have special laws, perhaps due to their "sacred" status, and these special laws are: rape laws. In a truly secular (non religious, non humanist) society, women would not have special rape laws protecting them. Women would simply be at the mercy of the men most able to overpower them and their white knights. If we are but animals, why can't we treat women like they are animals?
Signed, a secular atheist.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:49 AM: "Lud, were your parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents, etc atheists? When did learned become not learned?"

they are originally from Quebec so they were all catholics
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 11:51 AM: Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:25 AM
you mean God's Hand? Are you aware that the owner of this blog calls himself God's Voice?

dumbass.

are you aware that 'Dei' and 'Day' are two different words?

talk about not being tall enough for this ride ....

Curlytop May 14, 2014 11:26 AM
I've listened in disgust many, many times as women have quite literally bragged about how little they put out.

which, of course, is widely known to all.

hell, the henpecked husband who never gets any is a staple of the comedy tour.

'Labor Rape' on the other hand, no one has ever heard of.

seriously Ann, can you document A SINGLE INSTANCE of a woman being forced to sex while in labor *by the father of the child she is birthing*.

as Afor has pointed out, women murder their own children all the time.

men murder children ... but it's almost always step-children. a man who murders his own biological children is seriously deranged.
cailcorishev May 14, 2014 11:51 AM: The woman who is still unwilling to have consensual sex after forceful (no is not an option) advances is not a woman who is having sex regularly with her husband.

Bingo. It's a false scenario. On the other hand, I suspect most married (or shacked-up) men have run into this real scenario: you want sex, she says okay but she's tired and not really into it tonight, so don't worry about her pleasure, just get yourself off. You gladly do so, and then about the time you're ready to roll over and go to sleep, she's tickling your neck and saying she's changed her mind, now she wants some attention.
Salt May 14, 2014 11:52 AM: they are originally from Quebec so they were all catholics

But but but, "We all define it for ourselves ...based on what we have learned from others."

You're Catholic. Well, that explains it!!

/s
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 11:53 AM: GG May 14, 2014 11:48 AM
May I say something?

have you asked Vox for your ban to be lifted?
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:53 AM: "are you aware that 'Dei' and 'Day' are two different words?

talk about not being tall enough for this ride ...."

Its an obvious play on the word
God's Hand May 14, 2014 11:53 AM: "I can also point to my Lord as He who gave me my morals."

This is just another way of saying—"I'll make it up as I go along and blame it on some 'God' ". It's been this way forever. Beware of the fools who think their brutality is endorsed by something they can't see.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:55 AM: Regret = Rape.

A woman can say "no" after the fact, maybe years later, and you are guilty. Perhaps she can say "no" in her own mind. Perhaps all she must do is say "no" and you are guilty of rape without even doing a sexual act.

More efficient than Stalin's lists.

Let the showtrials begin.
trev006 May 14, 2014 11:55 AM: It's vastly amusing to watch stupid atheists turn this article into a debate on Christianity. I daresay they despise Vox more for not issuing a full condemnation than they condemn Hindu India for their own laws! But what interests me the most is how badly the Western media are pushing on India for not being feminist friendly, while they completely ignore worse actions in Muslim countries.

It's not even a question of diversity anymore: put simply, we're being "led" by complete cowards. No wonder the Threepers are getting ready to fight.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:55 AM: "You're Catholic. Well, that explains it!!"

I was raised catholic yes. I even attended private school ran by nuns from a nearby convent until I was 12. But I m not catholic or Christian anymore.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:56 AM: Rape = "I'll make it up as I go along and blame it on progress"
Joshua Dyal May 14, 2014 11:56 AM: And those who do support such a law are clearly half-savages.

Wow. So, did you just call the nation of India a nation of half-savages? And folks think Vox is a racist!
God's Hand May 14, 2014 11:56 AM: "If we are but animals, why can't we treat women like they are animals?
Signed, a secular atheist."

We did treat women like animals for centuries while christian legal and cultural norms ruled. Since the power of those norms has withered, we no longer allow women to be treated like animals.
Marissa May 14, 2014 11:57 AM: Beware of the fools who think their brutality is endorsed by something they can't see.

Well we can't see the child so let's vacuum his brains and dismember his body parts. More than 50 million strong in the U.S. alone! Talk about brutality.
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 11:59 AM: "Since the power of those norms has withered, we no longer allow women to be treated like animals."

So now we treat men like animals. We get it. The shoe is on the other foot. White Christian Men were badthink to women, thus they must be punished by fake cries of "rape." You're not as clever as you think you are...
Marissa May 14, 2014 11:59 AM: Since the power of those norms has withered, we no longer allow women to be treated like animals.

Women act like animals--sleeping around, having illegitimate children with no father to care for them, murdering the children they don't want to care for, expecting more intelligent beings to care for them. Like pets. With the decline of the Church, people act more like animals, not less.
Lud VanB May 14, 2014 12:01 PM: "Women act like animals--sleeping around, having illegitimate children with no father to care for them, murdering the children they don't want to care for, expecting more intelligent beings to care for them. Like pets. With the decline of the Church, people act more like animals, not less."

As a rule, most other animals don't really engage in recreational sex...that seems to be particular to the human animal and some of its ape cousins.
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 12:03 PM: Wrong. No man has the right to contraceptive sex with his wife.

Wrong. 1 Peter 3:1
Dick's Hand May 14, 2014 12:03 PM: "As a rule, most other animals don't really engage in recreational sex..."

As a rule, neither do manboobs.
Joshua Dyal May 14, 2014 12:04 PM: We did treat women like animals for centuries while christian legal and cultural norms ruled. Since the power of those norms has withered, we no longer allow women to be treated like animals.

This is just an outright anti-Christian, feminist lie. You can't just make such an absurd assertion and expect it to be taken seriously.
IM2L844 May 14, 2014 12:04 PM: you mean God's Hand? Are you aware that the owner of this blog calls himself God's Voice?

It's an obvious play on words

The thing is, people who presume themselves to have aphoristic wisdom seldom bother with inquiry. It's one of the things that separates the wheat from the chaff. The difference is that the wheat doesn't presume to know. Many of us had to ask for clarification and when we did we got it, moron. You don't know everything you think you know.

I may get excoriated for letting the cat out of the bag and ruining everyone's fun, but everyone who knows the facts are laughing at your fat ass and you don't even know it. I'm not going to ruin all the fun. I'm not going to give you the truth. You're going to have to seek it.
Nate May 14, 2014 12:04 PM: People...

You can still charge your husband with assault. You can charge him with battery. There are all kinds of things you can charge him with. you just can't charge him with rape.
FritzInHammer May 14, 2014 12:07 PM: "Women act like animals--sleeping around, having illegitimate children"

Thank goodness men have never done such things!!
inhumanist May 14, 2014 12:07 PM: God's Hand,
So you admit that nothing has changed, women are still animals, and they may be treated like animals in any non-religious society. Glad you agree with me.
God's Hand May 14, 2014 12:09 PM: "This is just an outright anti-Christian, feminist lie. You can't just make such an absurd assertion and expect it to be taken seriously."

The fact that the truth embarrasses you and Christianity doesn't make it a lie.
Chris Gerrib May 14, 2014 12:10 PM: In all of these comments on Christianity, I fail to find the one where Christ said So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.

So, unless you want to be forced to have sex, it's not right to force your wife to have sex. Seems pretty clear to me.
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 12:12 PM: Lud VanB May 14, 2014 11:53 AM
Its an obvious play on the word

yes, it's a pun you retard.

that is to say, it SOUNDS like one thing but it MEANS something completely different.

for you to assert that Theo is calling himself the 'voice of God' when he so clearly is NOT demonstrates basic language comprehension fail.

also, humor fail.

iow, exactly what we were expecting from you.
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 12:12 PM: Many of us had to ask for clarification and when we did we got it, moron.

Yep. But it is really fun to watch every couple months as yet another goes full retard. Makes me wonder if it was part of the cruelty artist plan from the beginning - laughter is good for his health and all.
the bandit May 14, 2014 12:16 PM: It's like when I point out that there should not be any illegal drugs, and then people try to argue against it like I'm advocating wide-spread drug use or driving under the influence.
GG May 14, 2014 12:16 PM: "...have you asked Vox for your ban to be lifted?"

As much fun as it would be to troll you all, I cannot do it. I do not like people coming at me from multiple directions anonymously, so I can't do it to anyone else. Hence the same old nick and the same IP so I am easily identified.

You would ban me, but not your trolls? Thanks a lot, I'll now spend the rest of the day trying to puzzle that one out.
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 12:18 PM: @Chris Gerrib

It's an interesting reminder, and, if you would like to fully ground within the boundaries of Christian marriage between two professing believers from the instance of the law of a land where fewer than 3% of people claim to be Christians, let's have at this one.

You cite the Golden Rule. That's a great thing to cite. Do you know why Christians marry?

As Paul said - better to be single than to marry; better to marry than to burn. Christians marry as the only legitimate and licit vehicle for the expression of human sexuality. All other expressions are sinful - the word fornication has disappeared from the lexicon, but it covers a lot of things.

Remember, the marriage bed is undefiled. All else is sinful.

Now, why is there the commandment to be sexually available in marriage? Because it is about avoiding sinful temptations. The marriage debt is owed because the wife receives all sorts of other benefits and protections under the traditional mutual benefit agreement in exchange for solving a particular sin problem the husband would otherwise have.

Therefore - treat others as you would like to be treated - if you are sorely tempted, and you have an option to have somebody give you a fully licit, sin-free way to avoid this temptation, do you want that person to put a stumbling block before you, or do you want them to help you avoid sin and temptation? Similarly, you make yourself available to help another believer from stumbling into sin.

Since one of the scriptural purposes of marriage is that the marital bond companionship saves the marriage partners from sin that they find too tempting to avoid, then, by refusing sexual availability, the partner who refuses is pushing the requesting partner into sin.

Now, if we are told - better to pluck out an eye than cast one's whole self into perdition - to knowingly cast somebody you profess to love into the hands of sin and damnation is about the most hateful thing you can do. It really isn't loving somebody else as yourself.
VD May 14, 2014 12:19 PM: May I say something?

Go ahead. And you are welcome to comment here again, so long as you do not give in to your previous monomania.

Jesus may well be the ultimate answer to everything. That does not require appealing to the ultimate answer on every single post; in most cases the proximate answer is not merely sufficient, but preferred.
de ti May 14, 2014 12:19 PM: VD: “Once you give up your right to say no, it doesn't matter what you say."

Fritz: “It matters to the person saying "no".”

In the context of a valid, binding marriage, that “no” is completely irrelevant. So no, it doesn’t matter. At all. What YOU are not seeing is that the man and woman are MARRIED. That changes everything.

She gave blanket, standing consent to sex with this man the moment she said “I do”. If she did not want to have sex with this one man for as long as they both live, she should NOT have said “I do”. That’s why they tell men and women getting married to be damn sure about it, because you can’t take it back except in very, very limited circumstances. “I don’t feel like it” is not one of them. “I don’t want to have sex with you” is not one of them. “You just don’t do it for me” is not one of them. “You just don’t make me wet” is not one of them.

Withdrawal of consent is destruction of the marriage, at least legally.

Go back and read that as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

Or, look at it this way. Look at the man’s obligation.

Once he says “I do”, he is taking on a lifetime commitment to provide for this woman. He must protect her from harm, poverty and the elements. He must provide for her children. He is required to make enormous, herculean investments of his—HIS—time, resources, and money. Lots and lots and LOTS of money. And if he doesn’t want to do those things, if he’s not willing to do them, if he doesn’t want to sign up for that, then he should not say “I do”. And he cannot relieve himself of that obligation by asking for a divorce or even getting one. He is still legally, morally and ontologically bound to take care of that woman and the children he made with her. Those obligations will be enforced through a myriad of legal provisions, wage garnishments, contempt citations, all at gunpoint if necessary.

Back to the woman.

Once she says “I do”, she is taking on a lifetime commitment to have sex with this man. It’s her body. She is choosing to invest it into the marriage. If she doesn’t want to do that, then she should not say “I do”. But unlike the man, she can be relieved of that obligation to have sex with that man literally any time she wishes. She’s not bound to continue having sex with him and no court or man with a gun will make her do it. There are no laws in place (except in Delhi, apparently) that will enforce a woman’s obligation to sex up the man she said “I do” to.

Sound fair? Are you seeing why a lot of men don’t want to marry? Are you seeing why marriage is falling apart?

To paraphrase VD over at AGP, most men don’t have a problem being held to their marital obligations. Those men are just worried that their wives won’t want to be held to theirs.
Nate May 14, 2014 12:23 PM: "So, unless you want to be forced to have sex, it's not right to force your wife to have sex. Seems pretty clear to me."

Excellent. And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

Would you like to entertain us by highlighting other areas of your own ignorance or are you a one trick pony today?
WATYF May 14, 2014 12:23 PM: And don't forget that, in God's eyes, a married couple is literally "one flesh". You can't rape yourself.

WATYF
de ti May 14, 2014 12:24 PM: Chris Gerrib:

“ In all of these comments on Christianity, I fail to find the one where Christ said So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.

“So, unless you want to be forced to have sex, it's not right to force your wife to have sex. Seems pretty clear to me.”

Not exactly apposite in the context of reciprocal marital obligations. His legal and moral obligations are to protect and provide. Her legal and moral obligations are to sex him up good and take care of their home and babies.

The husband CAN be forced to protect and provide, usually in the form of wage garnishments to pay alimony and child support, taken from him by men with guns if necessary. The wife CANNOT be forced to have sex with him or take care of “their” (former) home. The law completely releases her from these obligations if she wishes it. By contrast, he can wish to be released from a child support and alimony obligation, but that won’t happen.
Big Bill May 14, 2014 12:25 PM: "Can a woman ever be charged with drunk driving? How could she give herself consent to drive?"

This is a serious question. When drunk driving was initially prosecuted, they had a problem: you are out of your mind when drunk and therefore unable to rationally decide anything. Contracts you sign when you are drunk are therefore unenforceable at law, for example. The courts finessed the question daintily. They decided that since you were sober when you drove off to go barhopping you made the conscious, sober intention to drink ... and then drive home. People were convicted of drunk driving for their sober intention to drive home after drinking, not for their subsequent decision (once drunk) to get behind the wheel and drive. Frankly, I think the same logic should apply to frat parties: if Suzy Creemcheese make a sober decision to go get drunk with a bunch of drunken frat boys at a frat house, then she accepts the risk of sexual intercourse with whichever drunken fool jumps her ... or whichever fool she jumps on and humps. Two fornicating drunken teens is not rape by either one of them. Frat parties are "free-fire zones."
G.Veil May 14, 2014 12:25 PM: WATYF

Thread winner
God's Hand May 14, 2014 12:26 PM: "She gave blanket, standing consent to sex with this man the moment she said “I do”."

Really? Show me where she gave that blanket consent. It it written somewhere? Where can I read it? Did she also give consent to being beat by her husband when he thinks she needs correcting? Did she give her husband consent to lend her out for sex parties? How far does this consent go?

Idiot....Dig that hole!!
McRapey May 14, 2014 12:28 PM: Women are property, and their sum worth as an individual is the inversely proportional to the amount of stuff rammed in their genitals.
Chris Gerrib May 14, 2014 12:30 PM: Nate - I was responding to a number of people making a Christian and moral argument.

My comment upthread about how modern law frowns on people using force against each other was the legal argument. (Basically, denial of martial sex = divorce, not force)
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 12:31 PM: @WATYF

It's why I conflate marital rape laws with no-fault divorce laws as a mania of this latter age of our savage empire: No one can separate what God put together, but they are sure going to try.
VD May 14, 2014 12:31 PM: Really? Show me where she gave that blanket consent. It it written somewhere? Where can I read it? Did she also give consent to being beat by her husband when he thinks she needs correcting? Did she give her husband consent to lend her out for sex parties? How far does this consent go?

Yes. It's in the same place where you gave consent to the four guys in the bathhouse last weekend. No, it is not written, it is a verbal vow, given before God and Man. No, beating is not an intrinsic aspect of marriage, while sex is. No, in fact, traditionally she vowed not to be available for sex parties. The consent goes as far as his exclusive sexual rights to her body.
Captain_Caveman May 14, 2014 12:34 PM: God's Hand:

It appears that you have hatred towards Christianity in general, and God and Jesus in particular. You either hate Him and His, or you are convinced that He does not exist. You wish to convince others, who claim to belong to Him, that His rules do not apply to anyone.

We cannot convince you, and you most certainly convince us faithful, even upon pain of death. Your vitriol is equivalent to screaming underwater: it may make you feel better, but no one else listening, and may be unwise. One of us will be confirmed of our convictions upon death. I pity you as much as you hate our "half-savage" ways, and hope that you may change your ways.
Nate May 14, 2014 12:35 PM: "My comment upthread about how modern law frowns on people using force against each other was the legal argument."

That's another ridiculous statement. The law provides plenty of means for people to employ force. One may even claim it was designed exactly for that.
inhumanist May 14, 2014 12:36 PM: Why does God's Hand go on being outraged and commenting when she has admitted that women are just animals and may be treated accordingly?
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 12:37 PM: GG May 14, 2014 12:16 PM
You would ban me, but not your trolls?

Vox's blog, Vox's decision.

GG May 14, 2014 12:16 PM
Thanks a lot, I'll now spend the rest of the day trying to puzzle that one out.

Vox has explained this before. now, stop trying to make the thread about you.

that's part of what got you banned last time, remember?

MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 12:18 PM
Because it is about avoiding sinful temptations. The marriage debt is owed because the wife receives all sorts of other benefits and protections under the traditional mutual benefit agreement in exchange for solving a particular sin problem the husband would otherwise have.

you say this so blithely, as though women have no sexual desires.

the fact that the female libido is tied to a monthly cycle does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.
Nate May 14, 2014 12:39 PM: "Really? Show me where she gave that blanket consent. It it written somewhere? "

actually it is written. legally speaking the two people become one. in common law they can no longer individually enter into contracts... but must do so as a pair.

So again... how can one person rape himself?
Nate May 14, 2014 12:41 PM: "you say this so blithely, as though women have no sexual desires."

that's because he's a delta and thinks they are all precious pure snowflakes. so innocent.... so innocent...
the bandit May 14, 2014 12:42 PM: And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between morality and legality.

As would be expected of people without morals. For people without morals, legality is morality. Hence their drive to create a law for every conceivable transgression, as well as the way they proclaim immoral actions as "common" and "accepted" and "moral" the moment they become legal.

Furthermore, the legality-morality conflation demonstrates a tendency toward compulsion, i.e., everyone should be forced to practice their morality. From that lens, they cannot help but reach a single, narrow-minded, erroneous interpretation of this post.

There is no place in society for people of such simplistic, outdated thinking.
FritzenHammer May 14, 2014 12:44 PM: "No, it is not written, it is a verbal vow, given before God and Man. No, beating is not an intrinsic aspect of marriage, while sex is. No, in fact, traditionally she vowed not to be available for sex parties. The consent goes as far as his exclusive sexual rights to her body."

You can the problem with this approach. If the requirement for a woman to submit to her husband whenever he wants to get off, even if she is in pain or exhausted or otherwise infirmed, is something that is acknowledged between "Good and Man", then you have to ask, what other vow is between God and man?

The bottom line is that in a civil society that must be concerned with man's law and not a God's law and must be concerned that the law protects all people regardless of religion, then putting laws in place that punish rape taking place inside marriage make all the sense in the world.

If you can convince your wife that God's law allows you to use her like a plastic doll whenever you like and even if she says no, that's between you and her.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 12:45 PM: > FritzInHammer

Hi, Tad.

> God's Hand

Hi, Ann.

> Its an obvious play on the word

Yes, it is. It's a shame you don't understand it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes May 14, 2014 12:48 PM: what a fucking sideshow. Funny to watch the tards (like FritzenHammer) fall for it though. This is about weaponizing "rape" to destroy traditional marriage. No different than having NFL guys making out on national television. It's already been decided that "rape" means whatever the Powers That Be want it to mean. It no longer has any legal concept.
God's Hand May 14, 2014 12:50 PM: "It appears that you have hatred towards Christianity in general, and God and Jesus in particular."

LOL...That's a bit like saying, "you have a hatred for Cyclopsianity in general and The Cyclopse in particular"

"We cannot convince you, and you most certainly convince us faithful, even upon pain of death."
I think it's probably much easier to convince the self-deceived of the deception, than to convince the enlightened to adopt self deception.

"One of us will be confirmed of our convictions upon death. I pity you as much as you hate our "half-savage" ways, and hope that you may change your ways."

I look forward to meeting you in the abyss.
Josh May 14, 2014 12:51 PM: Look, when your wife says no, that doesn't always mean no. Sometimes it means that you have to turn her on first.

Not all "no's" are created equal.

And if a man beats the hell out of his wife so she'll have sex, he's probably beating the hell out of her for other reasons.
James Dixon May 14, 2014 12:52 PM: > ...what other vow is between God and man?

Traditionally, most of them. It's not like oaths didn't predate your precious "civil society".
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 12:56 PM: God's Hand May 14, 2014 12:50 PM
I look forward to meeting you in the abyss.

so to speak.

you know, Ann, none of the men here are interested in having sex with you.

part of the problem is your Base7 iq.

a larger problem is your active and perverse fantasy rape life ( as demonstrated above ).

but now, you're actively hungering for damnation.

you are a naughty, naughty girl.
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 12:59 PM: Josh May 14, 2014 12:51 PM
And if a man beats the hell out of his wife so she'll have sex, he's probably beating the hell out of her for other reasons.

Q: you know why so many women get physically abused by their male partners?

A: because they just
[ smash fist forcefully loudly into palm of other hand ] won't listen!

iow, stupid women choose abusive men.

and then blame the men for their idiotic choices in boyfriends.
Toby Temple May 14, 2014 12:59 PM: Really?

Vanilla relationship without the kinky fuckery at all?
MrGreenMan May 14, 2014 1:02 PM: @Nate, @bob.k.mando

Actually, I said it in that manner as I saw no real gain in saying that women are sinful creatures and benefit more from marriage to a Christian man than the Christian man does, in having the instruction and training received from the family priest as well as the regular poundings that she really does enjoy. Chris Gerrib was so hung up on the feelings of the women that I thought it was essential to turn the thing around and point out - if you're going to be a Christian, you should understand that Jesus said it was easier to heal the lame man than to forgive his sins.

Know your audience and all that...

I never claimed to be a Delta. When Vox did the survey, I claimed to not care, because I truly don't care, which made me an Omega opting out. I think it's a spiritual gift that I don't care. Yes, I have had women throw themselves at me, and I don't care. So, therefore, whether we call it following the "better to be single", or whether we call it observing that the average man's life in America is usually an 8, a good marriage can be a 10, but a bad marriage can quickly become a 1, or whether we assume I stood too close to the computer hardware at a young age - the one thing I don't think is that they're precious snowflakes.

I actually assume they're much more readily seduced into sin because the packaging of evil these days is aimed square at women by things like the bandwagon approach, I think most women should get married and have a husband explain to them from the Scripture their deep and abiding needs for submission to God and submission to husband as family priest, and I've only disagreed with you, Nate, before when you were playing games with the Scripture. (The one that comes to mind was when you tried to convince someone of the Ladies Ilk Auxiliary that Lesbianism was A-OK with the New Testament, and she actually appeared to be believing it.)
lurker2 May 14, 2014 1:02 PM: Ann and Tad ... sittin in a tree...
de ti May 14, 2014 1:04 PM: "Husband, I don't feel like having sex today."

Ok, wife. I don't feel like working today. I don't feel like giving you any money today to buy food. I don't feel like fending off that intruder bent on stealing our stuff and killing you and raping our daughter.

“Husband, you just don’t do it for me anymore.”

Wife, you know, this job just doesn’t do it for me anymore. I don’t like doing it, and it’s not much fun. So I’m going to quit.

“Husband, I don’t want to have sex anymore. I’ve had our children and you don’t need to have sex anymore.”

OK wife. I don’t want to support you anymore. I have worked for 20 years, and you don’t need my money anymore. You don’t need me to protect you against intruders or invaders, or fix the light fixtures, or change the batteries in the smoke detectors, or write the checks to pay the bills. You don’t need those things from me anymore, so I’m not going to do them.

“Husband, I just don’t want to be your wife anymore.”

Ok, wife. Then I don’t want to be your husband anymore.
Captain_Caveman May 14, 2014 1:05 PM: "Cyclopsianity"
???? Do you worship Sauron? That would explain the abhorrence to wedding rings...
Bethiah May 14, 2014 1:06 PM: To be wed is to give over your being to the other; The entirety of your being. Your body is no longer yours. It is willingly given over, and you may not arbitrarily decide that today you don't feel like honoring that oath. If you, as a woman, have chosen wisely and do not make a habit of making trivial refusals, then the occasional "I have the flu and need a break" is unlikely to be met with forceful advances. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is. Is it really such a travesty to take some time to allow ones husband sexual release? Why would you choose to refuse or God forbid "fight", when a few minutes of unselfish giving takes care of everyone's needs?
maniacprovost May 14, 2014 1:08 PM: I'm going to vote with the "forcible intercourse between spouses" = "simple assault" point of view. Of course, it's an article of fact, and we don't vote here, and if we did I don't think I would be allowed to vote, despite being a wealthy white male.

While consent to sex is implied by marriage, consent to force is not. Only if a wife did not fulfill her obligations for a significant period of time would I consider forcible sex to possibly be ethical*. By significant period of time, I mean, interfering with the creation of children. It doesn't mean it's OK to withold sex for short periods, but neither is it ok to take it by force purely for the mental well being of the other spouse.

*ethical is "what should be legal" but not necessarily "what is moral." This is not a definition I made up.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:19 PM: Sarah's Daughter, your comment to me is irrelevant. A woman is commanded to submit to her husband; that doesn't give her husband the right to sin against God. No man has the right to sin; specifically in the case of my comment, no man has the right to demand contraceptive sex of his wife. Sure he has the power, not the right, though.

And I'd say a wife has a right to refuse mutilated sex acts, with which I know you disagree.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:21 PM: "Women act like animals--sleeping around, having illegitimate children"

Thank goodness men have never done such things!!

I know it's tough for you liberals not to engage in "skim until offended" but the end of my comment says "With the decline of the Church, people act more like animals, not less."

A few more sentences shouldn't be that difficult. And it shouldn't be difficult to understand that I'm talking about women specifically because God's Hand whined about women being treated like animals.
DrTorch May 14, 2014 1:25 PM: no man has the right to demand contraceptive sex of his wife.

I know you're not the first to repeat that lie. I'm always a bit stunned at how people want to add their own rules to the direction provided in the Bible.
Josh May 14, 2014 1:28 PM: Marissa,

Why do you hate fellatio and cunnilingus?

Note that the Bible approves of oral sex in the song of Solomon.

Also does this mean that an infertile couple is sinning when they have sex?
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:28 PM: Yes, some crazy folks who carried the word of God throughout the darkness of the world for a couple millenia have been full of lies. Meanwhile, random guys on the internet argue sola scriptura, the same philosophy espoused by those who wanted to destroy the very organization which kept the light going. You can see why I went with the former.
Joshua Dyal May 14, 2014 1:29 PM: The fact that the truth embarrasses you and Christianity doesn't make it a lie.

I'm embarrassed by no truth. Quit projecting. And quit lying.

Christianity has done more to better the treatment of women then any other philosophy ever to spread across the earth.
Josh May 14, 2014 1:30 PM: Is it a sin for a husband to have sex with his pregnant wife?
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 1:31 PM: Marissa,
You stated that Deti was wrong in what he said:
If she didn't want sexual congress with this one man and in whatever forms and permutations this man wants, then she should not have said "I do".
Because "No man has the right to contraceptive sex with his wife."

Perhaps this is why it is so very important to know in advance what forms and permutations will be wanted by a future husband before she say's "I Do" because according to what God commands, once she's said "I Do" it is rebellion to Him (God) to say "I Don't". - even if he (the husband) asserts his power in requiring contraceptive sex.

Are we in agreement here or are do we need to split hairs over what is a man's rights vs. his power?
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:32 PM: Marissa,

Why do you hate fellatio and cunnilingus?

Note that the Bible approves of oral sex in the song of Solomon.

Also does this mean that an infertile couple is sinning when they have sex?

1. I don't, as long as it isn't to completion for the man and a complete sex act takes place afterward.

2. Infertility is not contraception. Looks like we need to define our terms: contraception is a deliberate attempt to stop conception while still engaging in sex. Infertility is a natural accident. I recommend the series of posts over at Zippy Catholic for greater detail and more eloquence.
Papist May 14, 2014 1:32 PM: " Meanwhile, random guys on the internet argue sola scriptura, the same philosophy espoused by those who wanted to destroy the very organization which kept the light going. "

Vox is a baptist. THus he is a dstroyer of hte Light.

Very soon our Pope will bless gay marraige. Then all be right in world progress.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:32 PM: Is it a sin for a husband to have sex with his pregnant wife?

Definitely not.
Josh May 14, 2014 1:35 PM: You said contraceptive sex. Sex with a pregnant wife is contraceptive.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:35 PM: " Meanwhile, random guys on the internet argue sola scriptura, the same philosophy espoused by those who wanted to destroy the very organization which kept the light going. "

Vox is a baptist. THus he is a dstroyer of hte Light.

Very soon our Pope will bless gay marraige. Then all be right in world progress.

Yes, I think Vox is a destroyer of the light. /eyeroll

I was annoyed at the poster's sola scriptura position, then gave a reason why I find it so foolish. As a former atheist of 11 years, I can't really understand how anyone could approach the history of Christianity and see otherwise. But that is my limited understanding, really. I'm sorry to be aggressive. Yes, I believe people who want to destroy the Church are wrong.

And I don't see the Pope blessing gay marriage anytime soon...where do come from with that?
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:36 PM: You said contraceptive sex. Sex with a pregnant wife is contraceptive.

No it isn't. The woman is naturally infertile at the time. That's like saying having sex during menstruation is contraceptive.
Josh May 14, 2014 1:36 PM: Also, your own Catholic church's natural family planning is contraception.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:38 PM: Perhaps this is why it is so very important to know in advance what forms and permutations will be wanted by a future husband before she say's "I Do" because according to what God commands, once she's said "I Do" it is rebellion to Him (God) to say "I Don't". - even if he (the husband) asserts his power in requiring contraceptive sex.

Are we in agreement here or are do we need to split hairs over what is a man's rights vs. his power?

I do agree a woman needs to know her husband's desires before marriage. I don't agree that she's in rebellion to God to resist sinful acts. One can wonder about the validity of the marriage if the husband wants to engage in contraceptive acts and the wife knows it, but that's not really the issue here.
Josh May 14, 2014 1:39 PM: My theory is that Catholics are retarded about sex because of their extra biblical insistence on having celibate leadership for two thousand years.
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:46 PM: Also, your own Catholic church's natural family planning is contraception.

First of all, it's not my church and I'm not a member. I'm not an atheist anymore, but I don't belong to any church yet. In my research on Christianity, there seems to be one big thing that lasted a millenium and a half, and then a bunch of people who thought that was wrong--just around the same time a bunch of people thought everything about Western civilization was wrong. You can maybe understand my leanings then, as a decade-long atheist.

I don't really know what to think about NFP. I understand some people think there's a difference between not having sex during fertile times and only having sex during infertile times, but it seems like splitting hairs and acting...badly. It doesn't seem "open to life" in the very words of the church. Again, I'm not sure what to think about it -- if it's truly contraception it's wrong and hopefully is corrected. I guess it's similar to being charitable but also not giving your last penny to a man requesting alms, but eh, I'm still not convinced.
UnSub May 14, 2014 1:47 PM: Oh, quit pussyfooting around the subject: When you wind your wife up from "I'm not in the mood", "I'm tired", or "there might be blood" to her orgasm(s) there's a fair chance they'll be a bit more intense than she's used to. Then it's "you know me better than I know myself" or "how did you know I needed that?" See the solipism?
Marissa May 14, 2014 1:52 PM: My theory is that Catholics are retarded about sex because of their extra biblical insistence on having celibate leadership for two thousand years.

I know, Paul and Jesus were celibate. Real retarded leadership right there. You do realize it was holy virgins who kept the Bible so that the non-retarded non-celibates could have it, right? I can't really understand this modern idea that what we do now is so much better than what we did before. Not that there isn't room to improve in matters of the world like science and medicine. I guess we can agree to disagree, Josh.
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 1:53 PM: Marissa,
Yeah, that Bible...funny how there are words in there like "everything" and "even if some do not obey the word" - pretty complicated reading.

Where as a wife being the determiner of which acts of her husbands are sinful or not - that's completely straight forward.
bob k. mando May 14, 2014 1:55 PM: maniacprovost May 14, 2014 1:08 PM
Only if a wife did not fulfill her obligations for a significant period of time would I consider forcible sex to possibly be ethical*. By significant period of time, I mean, interfering with the creation of children.

cute.

but completely non-Biblical. there is only ONE exemption from the responsibility of spouses to satisfy each other:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A4-5&version=KJV

pay special attention to vs 4. the latter half. the "and likewise" half.

in point of fact, Christians make a strategic error when we allow satanics like Ann to cast this as 'the husband cannot rape his wife'.

because, you see, it is also likewise impossible for the wife to rape her husband ...

Marissa May 14, 2014 11:43 AM
Wrong. No man has the right to contraceptive sex with his wife.

and you are Catholic?

*facepalm*

i went to a Catholic school for two years ... and the nuns taught the rhythm method.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=480255
Papist May 14, 2014 1:57 PM: Marrisa is right about Catholics vs. evil Protestants. You guys think anyone ever gets raped in Mexico?
Bodichi May 14, 2014 2:01 PM: @ Marrisa

Ephesians 5:22-33

New International Version (NIV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

I Peter 3:1

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Colossians 3:18

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Titus 2:5

5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,

Where in those verses does the woman have jurisdiction over the kind of sex? Honest question. if it is not in there just use the verse it is in.... I will wait.
Marissa May 14, 2014 2:05 PM: No, I'm not Catholic, bob.

Marissa,
Yeah, that Bible...funny how there are words in there like "everything" and "even if some do not obey the word" - pretty complicated reading.

Where as a wife being the determiner of which acts of her husbands are sinful or not - that's completely straight forward.

A wife can certainly determine if her husband acts sinfully. She is not a moral idiot. Resisting sin is her obligation to his immortal soul, and her own. I'd personally rather answer to God that I violated his commandment against lying because I lied to protect someone (cue typical Anne Frank argument), than that I led an innocent to slaughter. Likewise, I'd rather answer to Him that I rebelled against my husband's illegitimate command that I take the Pill, than answer to Him about all those embryos which didn't implant.

There is only one authority which is limitless and it isn't the worldly ruler, the priest, the husband, or the father.
Glen Filthie May 14, 2014 2:05 PM: Hmmmm....I don't know if I agree with you or disagree, Vox. If you don't love her, you shouldn't f+++ her. But then again, a woman that withholds sex from her mate really isn't a wife...

Yeah, maybe you are right after all...
Marissa May 14, 2014 2:06 PM: Marrisa is right about Catholics vs. evil Protestants. You guys think anyone ever gets raped in Mexico?

I don't think Protestants are evil. And there are plenty of evil Catholics. I'm sure rape occurs in Mexico, as it does in every country in the world. All men are sinners. I'm not sure what your argument is.
SarahsDaughter May 14, 2014 2:12 PM: There is only one authority which is limitless

And for some reason you believe that Authority to be duplicitous - commanding one thing (submit in everything) and then judging/punishing the wife for obedience to the command.
Marissa May 14, 2014 2:22 PM: Where in those verses does the woman have jurisdiction over the kind of sex? Honest question. if it is not in there just use the verse it is in.... I will wait.

Bodichi, of course wives should submit to their husbands as they do the Lord--one does not submit to Jesus Christ by engaging in sin but by following God's commandments. Every man has the duty to resist sinful acts, for the sake of his own soul and the sake of the sinner's soul. It's the kindest mercy you can do for a person.
Marissa May 14, 2014 2:23 PM: And for some reason you believe that Authority to be duplicitous - commanding one thing (submit in everything) and then judging/punishing the wife for obedience to the command.

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe God commands anyone to sin.

1 – 200 of 255 Newer› Newest»

Rod Walker	Nick Cole
Tom Kratman	Jonathan Moeller
John C. Wright	Rolf Nelson
Martin van Creveld	Josh Young
Mike Cernovich	David the Good
David VanDyke	B.V. Larson
Jerry Pournelle	Cheah Kai Wai
Peter Grant	Sarah Salviander
Ivan Throne

Vox Popoli

CONTACT

VOXOLOGY

PRINT AND AUDIO

CRYPTOFASHION

CASTALIA BOOKLISTS

Topics

Voxiversity

Interviews

Interviews of Me

SITES OF INTEREST

Voxonomica

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Marital sex is never rape

255 Comments:

Post a Comment

DAY TRIPS

CASTALIA EBOOKS

BOOK OF THE WEEK

CASTALIA AUTHORS

NON-FICTION DOWNLOADS

DOGGEREL

BOOK LIST 2017

ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS

Dread Ilk sites

Vox Popoli

CONTACT

VOXOLOGY

New Release Mailing List

PRINT AND AUDIO

CRYPTOFASHION

CASTALIA BOOKLISTS

Topics

Voxiversity

Interviews

Interviews of Me

SITES OF INTEREST

Voxonomica

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Marital sex is never rape

255 Comments:

Post a Comment

DAY TRIPS

CASTALIA EBOOKS

BOOK OF THE WEEK

CASTALIA AUTHORS

NON-FICTION DOWNLOADS

DOGGEREL

BOOK LIST 2017

ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS

Dread Ilk sites