Shia LeBouf epically trolled

[slowpoke]

Was any of this meant to discredit him? I find myself agreeing with virtually all of it. Clearly, you have never lived in a majority "diverse" neighborhood or gone to a majority "diverse" public school. Count your lack of knowledge on the matter to be a blessing.

So, how do you defend the following, then?

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

And that was only what *I* thought was the worst of it. Even if that was a cherry picked list of the worst things Vox has ever said or written, some of it was pretty damn disgusting. I'd spent several hours perusing the guy's blog and I still hadn't come across that stuff. My guess is that since the blog is basically a marketing tool for him, it won't be found there.

The funny thing is that your saying this is terrible based on fealings.
Vox is actually right, but moreso his view is more nuanced than that. What is marriage if it isnt consent to sex?
The husband promises to provide for the wife and the children, the wofe promises to have sex with the husband and him only thus ensuring the fruit of the marriage arent adultarated. Now wisdom says doing something you have a right to do can be destructive, but that doesn't make it not your right.
He debated this, go read it. Quit feeling for your decisions and realize where you are living the feminist leftist ideologies without realizing it.
https://heatst.com/world/feminism-debat ... sm_tw_post

[Netpackrat]

You have to be fucking kidding.

[randy]

Just a slight caution here guys. Not even close to a warning flag yet. A few of the replies, IMHO, are getting close to personal.

(and please don't take this as necessarily applied to the most recent posts)

[blackeagle603]

Vox is actually right, but moreso his view is more nuanced than that. What is marriage if it isnt consent to sex?

Yeahhhhhh, I suspect that Vox might be a lonely man if that's the nub of it for him. Gives some insight into the state of mind behind the blog.

With that view of marriage a person is going to be
a) disappointed
b) are really and truly missing the point of marriage and
c) are going loathe the lifetime costs of the deal even as the arrangement ends and the costs continue long after she/he are out the door and gone.

If that's the long and short of it for marriage, then it's much cheaper to hire help (for the house, and the bedroom).

[slowpoke]

Read the debate for goodness sakes. Then explain why common law was wrong for five hundred years before the 1980's.

[Kommander]

Vox is, as far as I can tell, happily married with at least one child and living in Italy of all places. I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility that he found a woman willing to... submit to his desires.

[Jericho941]

Read the debate for goodness sakes.

I read it. I wasn't impressed. His comparison between marriage and military service would be funny if it was a joke:

You don’t get to withdraw your consent and say, “You know what, sergeant? I don’t feel like going out running today. I’m withdrawing my consent.”

If sex with a husband is so bad it's as desirable as Passchendaele, it's completely understandable why he'd want it to be illegal for his spouse to tell him "no." But seriously, military law also entails limits on what you can and can't order people to do. An order that involves risk for some tangible gain is legal and needs to be followed. Ordering your new jack to do jumping jacks in front of a running intake or run back and forth across the freeway for your amusement is illegal. Ordering a subordinate to have sex with you is also illegal. And if one of your guys doesn't feel like running because he is sick, it may in fact be illegal to make him go run depending on how sick he is. Especially if he's already been checked out by a doctor and is supposed to be on quarters.

But as far as Vox is concerned, even illness isn't a valid reason to withdraw consent. He says as much in that debate. Can't take a rain check, it's straight to divorce. For all the talk of "nuance," Vox's grasp of it is lacking.

Then explain why common law was wrong for five hundred years before the 1980's.

During that time frame English common law ignored any marriage not performed by the Church of England, Quakers or Jews until 1836. If you were Catholic or anyone else, you'd have to have the ceremony performed in accordance with your beliefs and then have an Anglican priest do it over again. If you didn't, a married couple living together could be charged with fornication. Slavery was legal. The age of consent was 12 until 1950. They didn't have it all figured out back then.

Similarly, Vox also cites the attitudes of India and China, two nations notorious for relegating women to the role of baby factories so severely that "raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor’s garden." A family that only had daughters would be doomed to die in poverty if they were not very rich. China's transition to communism and the one-child policy didn't help. In both cases this has led to commonplace murders of daughters and selective abortions for so long that both have a severe shortage of women. In India especially, this has resulted in a pandemic of human trafficking where girls are kidnapped and sold as wives.

If you're having a discussion about moral behavior in a marriage in our modern society, it doesn't help your case to cite examples where women are barely even considered human.

[slowpoke]

Jericho, citeing our current feminist society where regret the next day makes the sex last night rape, where there are so few children that societies are importing peoples from those other cultures to try to keep up with the taxes for welfare and social security, might not be so good either.

And how are you having sex so badly that you think its dangerous for your spouse, and projecting that on Vox? He isnt saying beating the wife is fine, is that what you think?

You dont appear to have read the debate. Ever woke the wife up with morning sex? Ever "talked her into it" when she wasnt in the mood? Not taken no for an answer to kissing and caressing her until she changed her mind? Yes to any of those is marital rape.

Reality is if its to the point were she feels sex with her husband would be rape the divorce has happened in her mind already and she should go get a lawyer and make it official. Staying married is keeping the consent. The army anology is for those who feel divorve is immoral. any woman can divorce her husband for cash and prizes at anytime. If the marriage doesnt give the husband sexual rights, what the fuck does it give him? Which gets us back to my statement that institution of marriage is gone and is to late to conserve.

Historically and from a Biblical perspective, marriage was the only licit place for sex and romance; sex and romance out of marriage was illicit. We have inverted that so that romance is now the only licit place for sex and marriage. Thus if the romance is gone the sex can be rape, even in the marriage
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/2 ... ew-virtue/

I'm enjoying the debate here. Its funny where political correctness becomes that which conservatives should conserve. Forty years ago the idea of marital rape was thought of how we think of gay marriage.

[skb12172]

Marriage IS gone. If you are under 40 and still believe in it, you either found a unicorn or she just gasn't gotten around to frivolously divorce raping you yet.

[skb12172]

Vox is actually right, but moreso his view is more nuanced than that. What is marriage if it isnt consent to sex?

Yeahhhhhh, I suspect that Vox might be a lonely man if that's the nub of it for him. Gives some insight into the state of mind behind the blog.

With that view of marriage a person is going to be
a) disappointed
b) are really and truly missing the point of marriage and
c) are going loathe the lifetime costs of the deal even as the arrangement ends and the costs continue long after she/he are out the door and gone.

If that's the long and short of it for marriage, then it's much cheaper to hire help (for the house, and the bedroom).

Sex IS part of marriage. If you have a frigid partner, barring some medical reason, you don't have a spouse, you have a roomate.