|
Gluelin -> RE: Punishment for marital rape (8/17/2006 7:16:17 AM)
|
quote:
IMO, anyone forcing himself on a woman (regardless of their marital status) should undergo incremental castration & emasculation in 1/8" slices. No anesthesia.
The implication of the OP is that “marital rape” differs somehow from “non-marital rape.” Otherwise, why ask the question in the context of marital rape? I think most agree that the TV crime drama type of rape deserves severe punishment, but clearly the assumption in the OP must imply more a lack of consent rather than physical violence.
quote:
Be a man. You had to do without it before, back when you were single - remember? Now that your hormones are less, you can't go without????
This kind of thinking bothers me because the idea is that a man, in this case, a man who is a husband, should be satisfied with a sexless marriage if his wife, for whatever reason, refuses intimacy. Pray tell, how does doing without sex in a marriage make someone a man? A primary benefit most men anticipate when they get married is that they will no longer have to do without. I fail to understand how repressing one’s masculine sexuality makes him a man.
quote:
Please do not quote 1 Cor 7 at me; I am well aware of that passage that says not to refuse one another. For a husband to quote that to his wife in order to get her to "submit" to his lust is like trying to force the issue with wives submitting in general to husbands according to Ephesians or 1 Peter. Submission cannot be forced, period.
What bothers me about this statement is that the implication is clearly that a husband who has a sexual desire for his wife suffers from “lust”. So now, if a man sexually desires a woman other that his wife, that’s lust. And if he sexually desires his wife, that’s lust. Who than can he sexually desire?
Perhaps submission cannot be forced, but submission by its very nature involves yielding or surrenduring to what someone else desires. Otherwise, it's not submission. A wife who refuses her husband is not submitting, she's refusing.
quote:
I will take the exact opposite stance of gluelin. I think there is nothing wrong whatsoever in wifely refusal.
There are countless articles about the “headship” of the husband in the home. Men are told over and over that they are to be the leaders, the protectors, etc. If such a “headship” exists, then there must be a structure or framework over which the husband “heads”. Otherwise there’s no need for headship. And those under the headship have some responsibility to support and respect the head.
If a parent directs a child to do something, the child must comply. Otherwise, there will be consequences. It’s not reasonable for the child to argue that since he never consented to the request there should be no consequences. If a boss orders an employee to perform a certain task, can employee refuse to consent. Sure, but there will be consequences. If God instructs us to do something, can we refuse to consent? Sure, but there will be consequences. So, why then, if husbands are head of the household, is there “nothing wrong whatsoever in wifely refusal?” If wife falls under her husband’s headship, she may refuse consent, but there is something wrong with it and there will be consequences. At the very minimum, those consequences will include a deterioration of the marriage.
|
|
|
|