slowpoke wrote: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.
Sorry, but that's completely unrelated. The lowered fertility rate isn't a result of wives not putting out. Only one contributing factor can, if you reach really hard, be blamed on feminism:
1. You don't need to crank out 8 kids to make sure at least 2 survive to take care of you in your old age.
2. Kids are expensive as hell both in time and money, and as it turns out, people
really like having free time after work and being able to go out in public without running the risk of a meltdown, resulting in everyone staring daggers at them as their darling offspring have transformed into Scream Machines. If one wishes to raise a kid responsibly, it takes tremendous effort. Even the super-wealthy usually don't have large families.
3.Contraception is widely available in myriad reliable forms. The odds of having a "happy little accident" are pretty low. We've got people going at it like rabbits who will never have a kid.
The idea that a woman being able to say "not right now" to sex is to blame for a declining birthrate is nonsense.
And how are you having sex so badly that you think its dangerous for your spouse, and projecting that on Vox?
That's such a non sequitur I can't even tell what that's meant to be a response to.
He isnt saying beating the wife is fine, is that what you think?
Nope, he's only saying raping the wife is fine. He tries to justify this argument by saying that screwing someone who doesn't want to be screwed isn't rape.
You can try and conflate any kind of feminist nonsense with this, but this isn't "morning after regret" or "all sex is rape" or any other canard. Simply put, you are arguing that if someone does not want to have sex, and someone forces sex upon them regardless, that's okay if at any point they signed a document vowing to live in a mutually beneficial relationship.
Frankly, that's reprehensible. I mean, for crying out loud, what if the only way your wife could get off was to shove vegetables of increasing size up your ass? Is "sexual satisfaction part of the deal" reasonable when she says "hey baby, get ready for an hour with the cucumber?" Welp, you signed up for this one, soldier. Time to take one for the team.
You dont appear to have read the debate.
I
directly quoted it.
Ever woke the wife up with morning sex?
Nope.
Ever "talked her into it" when she wasnt in the mood?
Nope.
Not taken no for an answer to kissing and caressing her until she changed her mind?
Nope.
Yes to any of those is marital rape
Y'know, not to belabor the point or anything, but "not taking 'no' for an answer and screwing them anyway" is the most fundamental definition of rape. You can try and make it cutesy with "until she changes her mind" but the problem is the "not taking no for an answer" part. "No means no" is the most basic criterion when it comes to "am I committing rape or not?" If you have to pester and harass someone until it is more desirable to just let you do your thing so you'll leave them alone, you're not in the right.
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.
Nonsense. The reality is that there is no magic permission slip that gives you unfettered access to violate another person's bodily autonomy, whether you like it or not.
Staying married is keeping the consent.
Staying married is consenting to staying married. Nothing more, nothing less.
The army anology is for those who feel divorve is immoral.
Did
you read the debate? The military comparison is obviously meant to say that a wife refusing sex is the same thing as a soldier refusing a lawful order. That they have no right, they signed up for this, and they better suck it up:
"Because it’s not possible to withdraw the consent. There is no such thing as temporary consent. When a marriage vow is made it is made for life. Like I said, it is exactly the same as when you sign up for the military."
any woman can divorce her husband for cash and prizes at anytime.
Even if absolutely true, 100% of the time, that's still completely irrelevant to this issue.
If the marriage doesnt give the husband sexual rights, what the fuck does it give him?
Are we talking on a spiritual or secular level? Because if we're talking on a spiritual level, you're confusing "the privilege of having consensual sex with your spouse without eternal damnation" as meaning "I get to get my rocks off any time I please." On a secular level, if you think the sole purpose of marriage is to legally bind another person make them sexually satisfy you, understand that what you really want is a fleshlight and warming lube. They are readily available online at affordable prices.
Which gets us back to my statement that institution of marriage is gone and is to late to conserve.
If marriage is a contract of ownership rather than partnership, there is no point in conserving it.
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
Who said anything about romance? People who have grown to despise each other in their marriage can still consent to sex and have it. People who love each other may not consent and do it some other time. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Nothing said there applies here. If the response you have to your wife saying "not right now" is "MARRIAGE IS OVER, DIVORCE NOW, NOTHING MEANS ANYTHING" I hate to break it to you, but the problem is almost certainly you, and either way, you should do some soul-searching and seriously reevaluate your marriage.
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.
40 years ago conservatives were arguing for the reinstitution of racial segregation of public services. Things being different in the past does not mean that they were better. Either way, it has zero bearing on this debate.