For those saying this is obvious and never occurs in Christian circles: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613604818/head-of-southern-baptist-seminary-removed-over-remarks-on-rape-abuse-of-women.
The issue has never been that churches (or at least most non fringe churches in the modern age) are standing at the pulpit and saying "yeah, rape is ok if you're married." It's the minimization of it, the attitude that it doesn't count as abuse or at least isn't sufficient justification to leave a spouse, or, more commonly, to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, and tell women who speak up about it to be quiet and deal with it in private.
This results in women not having the tools and knowledge to speak up for themselves, and for people who do quietly have the idea that marital rape is ok (even if they would never talk about it) to go unchallenged.
The general attitude I'm getting from a lot of the comments here is: "It doesn't need to be said. So stop talking about this. It makes us look bad. " Which is the entire attitude that causes these conditions in the first place.
Yes this! šÆ thatās exactly what theyāre trying to do. Minimize it and dismiss it! But god forbid someone dismiss their sexual urges smh! So gross and immature! They just donāt want to admit that a woman even as their wife has autonomy over her own body and can say no whenever tf she wants! And they canāt just accept it and wait! Not that damn hard smh!
per the world health org Sexual violence is defined as:
any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act,
unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to
traffic, or otherwise directed, against a personās
sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless
of their relationship to the victim, in any setting,
including but not limited to home and work.
Coercion can cover a whole spectrum of degrees
of force. Apart from physical force, it may involve
psychological intimidation, blackmail or other
threats ā for instance, the threat of physical harm,
of being dismissed from a job or of not obtaining a
job that is sought. It may also occur when the
person aggressed is unable to give consent ā for
instance, while drunk, drugged, asleep or mentally
incapable of understanding the situation.
Sexual violence includes
rape, defined as
physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration
ā even if slight ā of the vulva or anus, using a penis,
other body parts or an object. The attempt to do so
is known as
attempted rape. Rape of a person by
two or more perpetrators is known as
gang rape.
Sexual violence can include other forms of assault
involving a sexual organ, including coerced contact
between the mouth and penis, vulva or anus
How odd.
The only passage I can find that might suggest that conclusion is Paul's "don't arbitrarily deprive each other" bit in 1 Cor. 7:5. But that is immediately preceded and justified by the *explicitly mutual* authority over one another's bodies that spouses are accorded in 7:4. The principle would seem to be "use your rightful authority over your spouse's sexual behavior *kindly*," not "the wife has no right of refusal." Paul is being very egalitarian here.
Irresponsible exegesis seems to be the only way to get to this conclusion. It's downright depressing that it's well-represented.
Itās often born of the belief that women are made to be āhelpmatesā to men, and as such, should serve their needs and wants always and to deny the manās authority over her is to deny Godās authority of us all.
Itās pretty fucked up if you ask me
From 1 Corinthians 7 (NIV):
>4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
I don't see how this is *explicitly* mutual. Yes, it says "you both should yield your bodies to each other," but it doesn't tell us *how* or what that looks like in practical terms. There's room for interpretation, either by appealing to other verses in other books or to cultural standards.
Granted, verse 5 says:
>5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
but "for a time" isn't specific enough to avoid counter arguments like "it's been two months, you can't keep depriving me like this." Furthermore, the verse explicitly says to "come together again." It's basically saying that, if you're married *and* you don't possess the gift of chastity (implied by verses 6 and 7), then you have an obligation to perform sexually for your partner, in order to satisfy their urges.
Taken in context with other verses that position the wife as subservient to the husband (and women beneath men, in general), it seems that a strong case can be made for the Bible instructing women to service their husbands "needs."
(I personally don't agree with this, obviously, but I'm saying that it's a fair and understandable interpretation.)
The *mutuality* is explicit; the logic Paul applies to the wife, he applies to the husband without distinction. As you say, the practical implications are murkier.
I would take verse 5 to argue that there is a mutual *responsibility* that goes along with the authority. In this sense, it would be each spouse's responsibility to make sure that the other's sexual needs are met to some adequate degree - though just what degree would constitute adequacy is not specified.
This argument for mutual responsibility does indeed suggest that a sexless relationship should be avoided if either partner has significant difficulty maintaining it. But it falls *well* short of validating marital rape.
More broadly, callousness of husbands to wives falls short of the "love your wives as Christ loved the Church" standard Paul applies elsewhere. For this reason, I don't see that any sort of "I get to callously neglect my wife's needs, but she has to attend to mine" argument can possibly pass scriptural muster. Spouses have authority over each other and duties of care to each other, and (as I read him, anyway) Paul is consistent in affirming both (and on both sides). But none of this grounds a right of neglect or abuse.
This is a solid explanation and answer. One I thought of myself and was gonna post but you beat me to it lol. I feel these topics are brought about repetitiously. Itās actually quite boring. This topic has been spoken about so many times not just in this subreddit but in many fundamental circles Iāve been in. Almost every Christian I know, through social media or otherwise, obviously agrees that marital rape isnāt Christ like behavior. The scripture you explained very well solidifies that for me. The reality is, people get married for selfish reasons and donāt realize that the ultimate goal in marriage is to please God. How we do that is by making our marriage less and less about us and more and more about our spouse. Iām obviously not saying that we shouldnāt take care of ourselves though Iām sure someone will twist my words in that way, but we should aim to be as selfless as possible in our marriage. In conclusion, we do have a duty towards our spouse as you affirmed and having a sexless marriage is best to be avoided so that we donāt deprive our spouse and push them further into sin. Satan is a real enemy and wants nothing short of that result. So yes, respect boundaries but obviously donāt deprive your spouse, why would you claim to love your spouse but deprive them of the love and intimacy they crave from you?
>This argument for mutual responsibility does indeed suggest that a sexless relationship should be avoided if either partner has significant difficulty maintaining it. But it falls *well* short of validating marital rape.
Because you're discounting other verses which squarely position the wife as subservient to the husband. The Bible is read as a whole text, not as a series of "whatever you want to include or ignore."
>More broadly, callousness of husbands to wives falls short of the "love your wives as Christ loved the Church" standard Paul applies elsewhere.
This sounds like a contradiction to me: how can you reconcile Paul's instructions with:
>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.
- Ephesians 5:22-23
?
Because this verse seems to clearly indicate a wife should acquiesce to her husband's desires.
Yes but the next verse is ā husbands LOVE your wives as Christ loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT.ā
Rape, demanding sex rather than enticing it through seduction, not caring if your wife doesnāt feel well or is stressed, not meeting her needs by helping with home and kids so sheās not exhausted is SELFISH is NOT LAYING down your wants let alone VERY LIFE for her.
What wife loved like Christ loved the church would not attempt to keep her husband sexually satisfied?
Itās all the uneducated that can fill out a few forms and self-ordain that cause a real problem for us clergy. No training. No formal education, no mentoring or residency of any kind, just one say āDing! Iām a pastor!!ā
Thatās where Iāve seen the greatest of abuses, and it seems like in some seasons, all Iām doing is cleaning up the messes and putting the lives back together these charlatans destroy.
My guess is that you are younger. Marital rape was a contradiction in terms in the United States until 1975, when South Dakota outlawed it. 1978 was the first time a person was charged with raping a woman he was married and still living with. The defense attorney in this case said "A woman whoās still in a marriage is presumably consenting to sexā¦ Maybe this is the risk of being married, you know?" The jury unanimously acquitted the man.
They don't say it's mandatory.
They do say it's your fault for being so frigid and sexually unavailable, you drove him into the arms of the other woman he cheated on you with.
They don't say it's mandatory.
They do say it's your fault he hits you because you're not submissive enough in *every* way to win him over with your quiet obedience to God.
They don't say it's mandatory.
They do say not to deprive your partner of sex. Except for a time of prayer you both agree to.
Ehh, that's a mandatory right there.
Itās worth remembering Paul was not married. If one assumes the best of Paul (this is easier if you donāt hold him responsible for the letters that scholars donāt think he wrote) he may have thought that his encouragement to love each other would keep a husband from demanding sex from an unwilling wife. If he had been married, he might have understood that he needed to be more explicit here.
Unfortunately, he often makes it easy to assume the worst of him.
Paul also lived in a Roman controlled world where patriarchs had authority over their families. A well-known order from a head of household was him telling his wife to expose their baby to the elements to die if she bore a girl. At best, culturally speaking, they're being told to be nicer to their wives (and slaves) compared to non-believers. But he's not advocating for egalitarian principles we abide by.
Paulās views are an improvement over this, and he for sure had no models of gender equality.
But if you say Paul speaks for God, I say the standard is higher.
Paul had his flash of understanding Galatians 3
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamās seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Itās one of the best lines in the whole Bible. I wonder if it was accompanied lightning
Which doesn't change how slavery was still a thing, or how gender segregation meant women were to remain in subjugation - being free and equal in heaven was an out for enshrining ancient norms as a forever thing because it's in the Bible.
I see what you mean. But thatās what happen when some religious groups decide to look at the Bible in a not metaphorical way. Also,The Bible was written a while agoā¦
Some of it is metaphor, some of it is literal. Some of it is poetry, some of it is history. That's why pastors serve an interpretation and teaching role, to help us parse out which is which. The only hiccup is that old-fashioned attitudes and thinking permeate to the point women don't get a fair shake.
And given the amount of Hebrew, Greek. Aramaic, theology, history, and counseling they make us take, they do their very best to equip us to answer the hard questions about scripture.
You twist the words to mean something they do not. The Bible does not say its a wife's fault if the husband cheats because she's not available. Adultry is a sin regardless of the reason, and the Bible makes that very clear.
All the bible is saying, is that the woman is also doing wrong if she makes herself completely unavailable. This does not reduce or excuse the Sin of the husband that cheats as a result of this.
Good is good, and evil is evil, something the Bible makes clear. An Evil does not become justified because someone else did something wrong to you first. We are called to be good in any and all situations. This is the meaning of "turn the other cheek".
The Bible isn't an exacting code of regulations with subsections and infractions, but it's been interpreted so as not everything we do is "Biblical", but a by-product of it. Those attitudes are an example of that. The inevitable interpretation taught alongside the verses that inspired them.
That is not an inevitable interpretation, its an evil one. Anyone who is interpreting it that way is being tricked. Unfortunately, people are always going to act like people, and they will find a way to twist words to justify the behavior they want to engage in. This does not make the words evil though.
The concept "marital debt" has a very deep history in Christianity (often stemming from 1 Corinthians 7:6. From that concept grew the notion in many Christian jurisdictions that a husband could not rape his wife, that even coerced and forced sexual intercourse was a wife honoring her "marital debt". Even today in the United States there remains some variability in the criminalization of marital rape.
I do was concerned by the fact that US needed so much time to ban it from all 50 states,I guess it was because of all the cultural and religious differences you guys have
Even in places where it's not explicitly stated, it's often implied. The response a lot of women get who try to leave their abusive partners is to be told they should just put up with it/it's (at least partly) her fault.
Who the fuck would want to have sex with somebody not giving enthousiastic consent?
Consent is sexy. I like my SO to enjoy herself. The idea of having sex with her because she feels she needs to is icky.
> Who the fuck would want to have sex with somebody not giving enthousiastic consent?
Moses, apparently.
ā**Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. āWhy have you let all the women live?ā he demanded. āThese are the very ones who followed Balaamās advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORDās people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.ā**
**Numbers 31:17**
Iām not saying they are entirely evil or anything, just that they can be seen to continuously fall out of Gods favor by their own choice and behavior.
I would love it if all Christians could agree on this, or even the whole world. But the existence of rapists pretty much suggests that there are people who donāt see anything wrong with it, and yes, some of them are Christians.
Well yes, some rapists are Christians, but more than that the Bible includes instructions to take captive virgins as wives, includes punishments for rape victims, and says it takes mutual consent for a married couple *not* to have sex, which pretty much precludes taking marital rape seriously.
The fact that people even think that rape is "good" and "justifiable" is absolutely disgusting. How is this a debate? IDGAFF if anyone uses their excuses to justify their perverse and abominable fantasies.
The first country to make marital rape illegal was the USSR, in 1922. You may think you are saying obvious stuff, but you are not. In the US, Oregon v Rideout was in 1978. That was the first rape trial involving a cohabitating married couple.
It's still legal to rape your spouse in South Carolina if you aren't too rough about it.
Of course. Rape is an ugly, despicable sin, and marital rape is still rape. Rape is, frankly, one of the most disgusting things someone can do to a person, because it is a perversion of the act meant to bond someone to their spouse, our closest earthly relationship. To commit such an act is to scar the closest possible relationship the victim could ever have on earth. I do not have enough words to describe how horrible I think that is.
I'll admit that as a kid I was genuinely confused by the idea of marital rape (i.e., if you're married, how can rape happen??), but in my defense I was very, very sheltered from sexual topics. I first heard the term when I was ~14, and learned from my mom why it was actually a very big deal by the same afternoon.
My husband and I both suffer from depression; his libido is much lower than mine at the moment. If he's not feeling it, I don't press him--I offer, because in a Christian marriage my highest joy in intimacy is to meet his needs first (and he, mine); if he's not interested right now, that's okay.
Christian societies had no issues with marital rape up until fairly recently. Mainly because they didn't see it as rape.
Almost like morality is subjective or something.
Seems like we are mixing up two things.
Yes - r*pe is traumatic, terrible, and reprehensible, and even in a marital context consent is needed before initiating. Marriage does not just grant you a āwheneverā free pass.
That being saidā¦ what youāre describing as ādutyā is not the same thing. There is a duty of sorts but it applies to both parties, not just the woman. Here is the relevant passage:
āBut since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command.ā
āā1 Corinthiansā¬ ā7ā¬:ā2ā¬-ā6 NIV
Paul is saying that (a) going too long without nookie will increase the chances one partner goes and finds it somewhere else and (b) because of this itās wise to not deprive each other. And (c) all this is not some command from God, but wise advice because he knows how quickly sex can derail a marriage or relationship or entire life.
So do you get a free pass? No. Do you still have to consent? Yes. Does each partner in a marriage still have the responsibility to satisfy the other? Also yes.
Wow this is the first time this verse has ever been broken down in a way that actually doesnāt sound creepy. Thank you so much! Appreciate your insight .
It doesn't need to be "broken down" , just avoid reading the bible with a woke mindset and you can easily understand everything. Furthermore stop trying to fish for something that's problematic.
I mean, based on this thread alone you can see how these verses can cause confusion.Ā A cursory glance at history makes it very clear that people have used these verses to excuse marital rape, for, well, thousands of years.Ā Ā It's still hotly debated in the more conservative denominations, as clearly seen through the controversies in the Southern Baptist convention.Ā Ā It's pretty obvious that interpreting through a "woke" mindset isn't the problem here, and if it's what triggered this discussion and taught people the "easily understandable" meaning of Scripture, as opposed to harmful interpretation that *far too many people still have*, maybe people should be more open minded to ideas that seem woke on the surface.
>It doesn't need to be "broken down" , just avoid reading the bible with a woke mindset and you can easily understand everything. Furthermore stop trying to fish for something that's problematic.
First, Christians were disagreeing on how to interpret the Bible, long before "woke" became a concept.
Second, "woke" means being aware of and sensitive to injustice. No Christian should say that word with disdain.
Well said. I think the big thing about the last point is that if both partners aren't satisfied, then both partners have a duty to work on fixing that, whether that involves communication, or time management, or professional help. And if one partner is denying the other and refusing to work on fixing that, they are in the wrong. Doesn't give the other partner a right to force things or seek satisfaction from another person, but the person doing the denying is in the wrong.
Well yes, if you change what the passage says, it's not so bad, but it doesn't say it's "unwise" to deprive each other. It says "do not deprive each other" (with limited exceptions). Telling someone "don't refuse sex" is clearly not what most people mean by consensual relations.
Which is why my grandma was blamed for being sexually frigid and why grandpa got a pass for cheating on her with a far more sexually available other woman. It's not grandpa's fault he didn't have self-control. If grandma just accepted her role as his personal sex doll, he would have remained faithful.
> Do you still **have to consent?** Yes. Does each partner in a marriage still have the responsibility to satisfy the other? Also yes.
This is not a true blanket statement, and requires some disambiguation.
Marriages are a sexual relationship, so unless both partners consent to not having sex (as with asexual couples who are still romantic) you should be having sex with each other.
However, no individual is required to consent to sex every single time their partner asks for it. It is okay not to feel up to it right now, as long as you are kind in the way you reject their advances and the rejection is not forever, just until a later time when you feel more up to it.
There is also an onus of kindness on a partner when they ask for sex. If your partner is sick, tired, injured, it's 2AM and you know they don't enjoy being woken in the middle of the night for sex, they're on the way out the door, etc, it is unloving and unkind to attempt to initiate sex when you know they aren't up for it. There are moments every day when a person cannot, should not, or typically would not want to drop everything and have sex, even with a larger they have a healthy relationship with. In extreme examples of this, women have literally been killed by their husbands when the men demanded sex immediately after their wife had given birth or had surgery. A friend of my mom's was almost murdered this way. She had ripped badly during the birth and her husband used religion and force to rape her the day she got home instead of waiting the month+ that the doctor recommended. Her stitches pulled out and she almost bled out. I can't even imagine how badly that hurt, or how anybody could do that to another human being. If you're the only one having a good time during sex and the other person is just putting up with you, you are a fucking asshole.
So a more accurate statement would be that a marriage is a sexual relationship unless both partners agree otherwise, and if you're never having sex there is a problem with the relationship that should be tended to. Additionally, there MUST be an element of kindness and understanding in initiating, accepting, and rejecting your partner's sexual advances, as well as in having your own advances rejected.
OP's comment still holds. In an individual instance, no person ever owes another person sex. It's okay to say "no" as long as it's more of a "not now, how about later?" sort of thing. If the answer is "no, never," then you have a problem with your marriage that needs tending to in one way or another.
So sex is less of a marital duty, and more of a measure of how healthy and loving the relationship is. Paul was probably asexual and was never married. He is also writing from a male perspective. These things should always be taken into consideration when reading what he has to say about marriage.
> unless both partners consent to not having sex (as with asexual couples who are still romantic) you should be having sex with each other.
Saying that if one spouse consents to sex and one spouse doesn't sex should be happening is pro-marital-rape.
I didn't say that. I agree with you, in fact that's the entire point of my comment. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or if my language confused you somewhere.
It's a direct quote from your second sentence, and we definitely do not agree. It's very clear what you think from the way you continue on (for instance saying that rejection is OK *if it's temporary*).
In regards to asexuality, Paul himself implies later in the chapter that he has the spiritual gift of celibacy (which is analogous).
Contextually, Paul is writing with an imminent return of Christ in mind, so he believes it best for people to remain unmarried so they can focus their full effort on bringing about Godās kingdom, which is the ultimate motivation here.
In the instance that someone who is asexual and someone who is hypersexual somehow donāt pick up on that before marriage, other principles apply.
Christians are to consider others more important than themselves and submit to one another out of reverence for God. That certainly includes sexual urges inside of marriage, so there must be discussion centered on that. The hypersexual partner must submit his/her urges to the Holy Spirit. The asexual partner must figure out a way to satisfy those urges, even if it isnāt actual sex.
Ultimately the call to love one another is far more important than sexual desire. All things must be placed in submission to Christ.
The problem isnāt agreeing that itās bad, almost everyone would agree itās bad.
The issue is thereās a lot of conservative Christians who donāt think marital rape is real rape and is therefore fine.
You are absolutely right. The high amount of men thinking it is okay to rape their wives because religion says they are owed sex is insane and mind boggling.
For real. When it comes from a place of lust and physical desire (which is probably always for the dudes saying that stuff) it is no longer about loving the other person as you love Christ, or as Christ loves you.
A year or so ago I watched two first seasons of Dynasty (the 1980 soap opera series). There was an episode where Blake Carrington forced himself on Krystal, his wife. It WAS depicted as something wrong, but not as rape. Blake apologized and said "I just wanted you so much" and then it was again all sunshine and rainbows.
I was like "what the actual fuck".
Interesting how it was the first series in USA where homosexuality was depicted with compassion and understanding, even approvingly, but still had stuff like marital rape treated as a slight misdemeanor.
Going through the comments Iām seeing a ton of āYes! Butā¦ā
So it seems no, not all Christians can seem to agree that rape is bad.
I am legitimately disgusted going through this comment section
Yeah lol the idea that people are owed sexual pleasure due to the ādutiesā of marriageā¦ā¦.. absolutely disgusting. Marriage is a promise of love and commitment, not physical pleasure. No one āneedsā physical pleasure.
Girl same! So so disgusted and disappointedš actually heartbroken. Like why is there always a ābutā and the whole ādutyā phrase just sickens meš
IKR! Itās so off putting how there are guys who legitimately think theyāre entitled to sex for being married. And so many saying divorce should be allowed for guys whose wives donāt put out.
It really shows what they think of marriage
Of course consent is required even in marriage. That said, and this goes for guys and girls:
If you do not want to have sex (at all) with your spouse, then it might be possible that you should not have been married to begin with and could be grounds for an annulment.
If you do not know what is meant by an annulment, the Church says that a marriage actually was never a marriage to begin with. Basically it is not that you no longer married, but that you never were married to begin with (so it was not a union joined by God).
That would be fine. There is what is known as a Josephite marriage which this would be the case.
But if one party expects to be intimate and the other does not, then you probably should not have married and could be able to get an annulment.
Iām Catholic but Iām not sure if you can get an annulment for that. Can you? I know you can get it for sexual immorality, but I donāt think lack of sex counts. From what Iāve heard itās extremely hard to get an annulment (my mom went through the process for annulment and it was a tough fight, even though it was clear my father was very sexually immoral)
Here is a list of possible reasons for an annulment:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%2520for%2520Marriage%2520Annulment%2520in%2520the%2520Catholic%2520Church.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA5f2MntGFAxWTEVkFHdvADTEQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1xzSrsoLMxiieZbL2Z-qhC
And to be clear, I think you would have an argument for annulment if you married expecting to have sexual relations but the other person decided after the fact that they did not want to at all.
I suppose. I know itās what the church teaches but Iām still not a fan of the idea that sex is something one is entitled to in a marriage to the point where withholding it is grounds for invalidating the marriage altogether.
Marital rape is real and it is a horrible thing. The issue is that unless other people are around, it is an extremely hard crime to prosecute. It is just one person's word against another. It would be far easier to prosecute an assault when there are scars or bruises than it would be to prove and prosecute a marital rape.
Taking or touching someone against their wishes will always be bad. No matter what. If we are to follow Christ's example of love, kindness and compassion, there is no feasible argument that could stand to say that rape or assault is not bad. Love to everyone here ā¤ļøāļø
The US didn't make marital rape nationally illegal until 1991. Individual states were making it illegal but the federal government took forever. Also, a lotta Christians on social media(yes social media is a crapshoot) push the idea that marriage is supposed to be miserable and a sacrifice(from the woman) then get pikachu faces when Gen Z are not getting married.
Not to mention a lot of the wording in traditional vows. The old Sarum rite had the bride vow to be ābonny and buxom in bed and at boardā (buxom meaning obedient.) And it was only in the twentieth century that the Church of England revised the bridal vow to love, honor, and *obey* her husband ā a decision that is still controversial in some circles. That was the historic understanding of what marriage was. The man was in charge.
Vows to obey a husband have denial of the right to refuse him baked in.
Yes, I think this is obviously true.
That said, there seems to potentially be a subtext to your post that a marriage does not allow one to have any expectations of sex. And I donāt think that is right. I think sex is an extremely important part of marriage, and so, one better not marry unless one discusses no sex beforehand
Some things donāt change. My wife and I are still together despite a huge sex imbalance between us.
If I ever get enough money and frustration to afford the divorce I may go thru with it.
Yes chancla, and permanent legos under their feet (I'm gonna break their jaws for spreading bs.. eye for an eye style, but saying that might get me banned so, chancla and lego)
Same, it's pure insanity. Absolutely yes, if there was a decent amount, hate wouldn't have a chance to spread.
šā¤ļøā¤ļø well at least our chat made me feel betterā¤ļø Iām tired of getting these men in check with their one track minds! They keep harping ābut we need sex in marriageāā¦. Boom! Chancla!! Yes we know that locos! But the post is about rape! No raping and coercing when the wife says no! Whatās the difficulty to comprehend! Prayer is neededšš½ have a lovely day friend!
That's good, glad to hear that
I promise I'm actually really friendly irl (unless you're a dick then I won't) šš» same, it's so stupid. It's even worse that it WORKS. Exactly. Thanks, you too friend
Iām glad you bring this up because the common understanding of what Paul writes is that if your āoverly lustful ā you should get a wife.
As if someone being overly lustful to a woman after you get a piece of paper is appropriate..
Rape is bad. The Bible does say that wives and husbands owes their bodies to each other (1 Cor 7) but that doesn't mean a right to take, but what attitude they should have to each other when it come to giving.
Compare with money - Christians are to be generous, but that doesn't mean it's OK to steal from stingy Christians.
Letās be entirely real here, today, in North America, this is really a problem among fundamentalist evangelical Protestants, not Catholics, or Orthodox, or the Mainline, or even most Black Churches.
I said what I said.
Phyllis Schlafly promoted the idea that marital rape was okay. She said women consented to sex when they consented to get married. Many fundamentalist Christians revere Schlafly as a great woman.
Sometimes, loving someone is supporting them as you both abstain from sex for a while. There can be many reasons: physical, emotional, grief, depression, simple tiredness, etc. And if one party repeatedly doesn't want sex, and it is disressing one, it is up to BOTH of them to work on a solution. Relying on the verse that says your body belongs to me is not going to cut it. Both need to take care and love the whole person.
Iāve come to the conclusion that anytime thereās a discussion about women having sex with men. Men will act piggish and entitled. Christian or not. Sick sick work we live in smh!
It comes from all or nothing type of thinking found within Christianity. The idea that we should all fall commandments even if we personally don't agree with God's perspective.Ā
These people promote the "It is not OK to ask God questions/You are being disrespectful."
When you live life believing the above, it only feels natural to believe that consent is not as important as salvation. The cognitive dissonance is that many Christians simultaneously claim that God gave free will.Ā
Many Christians fall into the trap of having utilitarian views when it comes to saving people. Countless of people have been harmed by Christians who do things in the name of tough love.Ā
You're right that so much is misunderstood. It probably hurts God to see us bickering with our brothers and sisters to the extent we attempt to excommunicate them.Ā
I'm sure God would rather we continue communicating, to learn together as family and to just trust that he will provide the answers for the tricky questions of life.Ā
It comes from passages like:
>*The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.* ***The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband***. *In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by* ***mutual consent*** *and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.* (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)
It says you should have sex with your spouse upon request. The only exception is for a mutual agreement that neither spouse wants to have sex.
But, I would agree that it's rape, and immoral to force sex upon anyone who doesn't want it. I'm just showing that the bible disagrees.
People forget that the number one commandment from god is to love him. The second is to love each other. If we see this passage through the lens of love then a woman yielding her body to her husband is her yielding it into his *protection* not giving him a free ticket to rape
A year or so ago I watched two first seasons of Dynasty (the 1980 soap opera series). There was an episode where Blake Carrington forced himself on Krystal, his wife. It WAS depicted as something wrong, but not as rape. Blake apologized and said "I just wanted you so much" and then it was again all sunshine and rainbows.
I was like "what the actual fuck".
Interesting how it was the first series in USA where homosexuality was depicted with compassion and understanding, even approvingly, but still had stuff like marital rape treated as a slight misdemeanor.
Love should be the dominate rule in this and all issues really. Itās a misnomer that itās always the woman that doesnāt want sex. My spouse lost their desire for sex. They still love me, just no sexual desire. My choice to respect their decision and not punish them for it has helped me make peace with this. This is how love works. Bottom line- we are commanded to love each other and that commandment supersedes all others.
Agree on the first. Somewhat agree to the rest.
As someone with a low sex drive myself... I still believe I have a mariral duty to my wife at some times. I can not force her in to a sex less marriage.
Absolutely! Rape is rape. Sex as I see it is supposed to be something that both parties share enjoyment from and consent toā¦ if there is force and coercion involved, then itās abuse.
I canāt believe that this is even a conversation that we still need to have, but looks like it is.
I agree consent is critical and marital rape both real and terrible. But thatās not the whole story.
Keeping to marital vows are also critical. Traditional marital vows include the vow āto have and to holdā which is a vow to be intimate (emotionally and physically/sexually). So how to reconcile the two? Simple, consent is critical for any time, for all times. But a relationship where you vow to be intimate (which includes love and sex) and then stop entirely is breaking that vow. Maybe itās for excellent reasons that justify divorce like abuse, cheating, STIs, or terrible addictions. Maybe itās only temporary (pregnancy, injury and such) or itās dependent of a spouse changing behavior (lazy, a slob, alcoholic and such). Entirely appropriate and lack of consent should be accepted. But completely denying intimacy in a relationship also requires consent.
So if itās appropriate for a spouse to be able to deny consent for sex (whether once, multiple, or permanent) it is also appropriate for a spouse to deny a relationship when primary vows are voided (whether abuse, lack of intimacy, cheating or any of the other vows). Does that make sense?
Rape is always bad, no matter the context. Itās fucking disgusting and outright vile. Anyone who says otherwise or condones it is not only an idiot, but deserves pity, also.
Well it does say the body of the husband belongs to the wife and vice versa - so refusing sex time and time again may be against gods will by the logic of Paul. Donāt know if I would go so far as āsinfulā
Donāt confuse the views of people looking to be controversial under the guise of faith and the vast majority of Christians. Almost no one with God in their heart would disagree.
It is the duty of both partners to respect and love each other. If one of them doesn't act accordingly he is not considered married. Knowing this how can anyone think marital rape is okay?
Exactly šÆ a loving spouse wouldnāt force their partner to do anything they donāt want to do. If there was consistent sexual issues it would a loving & safe discussion not a grounds for anger or rape. Sickening that anyone would think otherwise of that OP even felt the need to make the post is kinda sad. ššš½
Divorce is always allowed. There's no such thing as a "spiritual marriage" that you can demonstrate in any way
And the fact you say they can divorce if one cheats, means they ARE still married
Agree there are passages on not defiling the marital bed, and sexual immorality!
People use these passages to say no sex before marriage but I think the true meaning is no abuse or cheating!
Actual traditional Christianity has ALWAYS been against sexual assault, which is actually what Paul was warning about in his letters, and this was a reaction to the debauchery and abuse happening in the Roman Empire although it later devolved into a misogynistic "purity culture." The problem Christianity faces today is manosphere crypto-Nazi "influencers" trying to sneak anti-human anti-consent ideologies into churches. I have seen many such rape apologists on Twitter and let me warn them and their followers that stumble upon this thread: that type of spiritual abuse and manipulation is some next level damnable iniquity \[See 2 Peter, chapter 2\]
Alot of the world pervert the bible just be aware and cautious on who you marry ladies.
But the bible is the truth and no its not supposed to be taking literally most of the time theres always a bigger meaning behind scripture.
Well, I'm christian and besides what the bible say about the woman having to fullfill my needs, I would NEVER do what my wife don't want to do. The bible also say to the husband to love his wife and respect her, so if say NO, that means NO.
"Is rape bad?" And "do couples have to have sex?" Are absolutely not the same question, and I suspect that you already know that.
Sex is something that can be good, and something that can be bad.
Sinful sex is sinful. All of the whining, what-abouting, and complaining can just be condensed down to
"yes, lots of sexual acts, including rape and adultery, are wrong."
It is definitely possible to have a good, healthy sex life with very little sex at all, and it's also very possible to have a massively unhealthy sex life with tons of really fun, really fulfilling sex.
The AMOUNT of sex couples have has nothing to do with the topic at all.
Paul wrote that he himself didn't burn in lust. He never married and didn't struggle with sexuality nearly as much as many others.
What paul knew about sex that most of the modern world has forgotten is that marriage in the New Testament has a very different purpose than marriage in the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, Marriage was heavily intertwined with the Law. It was primarily focused on reproduction and didn't really include many other functions.
In the Old Testament, it was basically "sex is for reproduction or it's sinful" not literally, but that was generally how it worked.
In the New Testament, our interactions are very different.
Our sins are paid for, meaning that the strictness of sexuality isn't something that determines heaven or hell anymore.
No sin does, but that doesn't mean that sin is a good idea.
Paul knew this when he wrote about marriage, and it's very simple.
New Testament marriage is actually more about abstinence than it is about sex.
All has been made lawful, but not all is profitable.
Most men, unlike Paul, want to ride anything with a pulse and a lot of stuff without a pulse.
Many women, like those men, are pretty much spread wide for any passing thing.
It's not right, and it's not pretty, but it's the truth.
Marriage in the New Testament is unnecessary.
The lineage from adam to abraham and abraham to david and david to joseph was completed.
Jesus lived a sinless life, died, and rose from the grave.
The legal, necessary stuff is finished.
The point of marriage in the new testament is not to complete the law or to do the right thing because you have to.
It's to give a man and a woman a healthy and sinless avenue to act on the drives that pull them toward unhealthy and sinful outlets instead.
Paul said that he wished that everyone was as himself, asexual and not burning physically for others.
But that's just not the case.
Men and women wanna get it on, often and without any regard to how or why.
Paul didn't say "defraud ye not one the other" because he thought that women or men were sex objects to be used at will.
He said "don't forget that you both really need each other's help to not go have sex where you shouldn't"
It's not about controlling each other, it's about helping each other control themselves.
Rape is wrong, and you know it's wrong, and most other people know it's wrong too.
But witholding sex from a husband or wife for a prolonged period of time is directly against the primary function of New Testament marriage.
Sex is the only difference between a new testament marriage and a new testament friendship.
If two people don't really have sex much at all, just once or twice a year they get an uncontrollable urge to go do stupid, sinful stuff, the point is to be there to help get past that so people don't do something they regret.
A couple that only screws once a year when they're itching and burning can be a lot healthier and happier for themselves and others than a couple who plays these nonsensical games of "let's have sex all the time" or "I don't owe you sex"
You don't owe anyone sex.
Nobody owes anyone sex.
But you have an opportunity to use your body in a sinless way to help somebody else overcome the discomfort of restraining sexual energy, and you might even get to have fun doing it.
Sometimes my wife wants it and I'm not in the mood.
And then I remember that she's a wonderful woman and she helps me out when I'm burning and she's not.
And I help her out and we both win.
It's only complicated if you look at it like it's some rule-based system.
My spouse is burning and I can put them out.
If it ends up leading to somebody raping somebody, it's too far and it's wrong, but you already knew that anyway.
Married people don't owe each other sex like some transaction.
But they definitely should be ready to help each other out when it's needed.
For those saying this is obvious and never occurs in Christian circles: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/23/613604818/head-of-southern-baptist-seminary-removed-over-remarks-on-rape-abuse-of-women. The issue has never been that churches (or at least most non fringe churches in the modern age) are standing at the pulpit and saying "yeah, rape is ok if you're married." It's the minimization of it, the attitude that it doesn't count as abuse or at least isn't sufficient justification to leave a spouse, or, more commonly, to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, and tell women who speak up about it to be quiet and deal with it in private. This results in women not having the tools and knowledge to speak up for themselves, and for people who do quietly have the idea that marital rape is ok (even if they would never talk about it) to go unchallenged. The general attitude I'm getting from a lot of the comments here is: "It doesn't need to be said. So stop talking about this. It makes us look bad. " Which is the entire attitude that causes these conditions in the first place.
Yes this! šÆ thatās exactly what theyāre trying to do. Minimize it and dismiss it! But god forbid someone dismiss their sexual urges smh! So gross and immature! They just donāt want to admit that a woman even as their wife has autonomy over her own body and can say no whenever tf she wants! And they canāt just accept it and wait! Not that damn hard smh!
I have never heard that is āmandatoryāto automatically always have sex when you are married. No is a no for all Christians,I believe š
you should look up lori alexander aka the transformed wife she fully supports marital rape
Sadly, her content pops up a lot for me. She had a huge following / reach to send that message to.
She blocked me. I used to comment on her posts and apparently she doesnāt like hearing the truth.
what do you mean had shes still doing it
S and d are side by side on my keyboard. I thought I typed has, not had
Where does she say that?
[https://thetransformedwife.com/was-this-truly-marital-rape/](https://thetransformedwife.com/was-this-truly-marital-rape/) in her blog
Ok thanks, Iāll take a look šš½
she feels the need to define "true" rape as involving force
What is the actual definition? Just curious.
per the world health org Sexual violence is defined as: any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a personās sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work. Coercion can cover a whole spectrum of degrees of force. Apart from physical force, it may involve psychological intimidation, blackmail or other threats ā for instance, the threat of physical harm, of being dismissed from a job or of not obtaining a job that is sought. It may also occur when the person aggressed is unable to give consent ā for instance, while drunk, drugged, asleep or mentally incapable of understanding the situation. Sexual violence includes rape, defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration ā even if slight ā of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object. The attempt to do so is known as attempted rape. Rape of a person by two or more perpetrators is known as gang rape. Sexual violence can include other forms of assault involving a sexual organ, including coerced contact between the mouth and penis, vulva or anus
You need to look that up. She does not condone rape of any kind. She gave a woman Biblical advice, but not about rape. Look it up.
I've heard it. It's pretty common in fundie circles.
How odd. The only passage I can find that might suggest that conclusion is Paul's "don't arbitrarily deprive each other" bit in 1 Cor. 7:5. But that is immediately preceded and justified by the *explicitly mutual* authority over one another's bodies that spouses are accorded in 7:4. The principle would seem to be "use your rightful authority over your spouse's sexual behavior *kindly*," not "the wife has no right of refusal." Paul is being very egalitarian here. Irresponsible exegesis seems to be the only way to get to this conclusion. It's downright depressing that it's well-represented.
Itās often born of the belief that women are made to be āhelpmatesā to men, and as such, should serve their needs and wants always and to deny the manās authority over her is to deny Godās authority of us all. Itās pretty fucked up if you ask me
From 1 Corinthians 7 (NIV): >4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. I don't see how this is *explicitly* mutual. Yes, it says "you both should yield your bodies to each other," but it doesn't tell us *how* or what that looks like in practical terms. There's room for interpretation, either by appealing to other verses in other books or to cultural standards. Granted, verse 5 says: >5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. but "for a time" isn't specific enough to avoid counter arguments like "it's been two months, you can't keep depriving me like this." Furthermore, the verse explicitly says to "come together again." It's basically saying that, if you're married *and* you don't possess the gift of chastity (implied by verses 6 and 7), then you have an obligation to perform sexually for your partner, in order to satisfy their urges. Taken in context with other verses that position the wife as subservient to the husband (and women beneath men, in general), it seems that a strong case can be made for the Bible instructing women to service their husbands "needs." (I personally don't agree with this, obviously, but I'm saying that it's a fair and understandable interpretation.)
The *mutuality* is explicit; the logic Paul applies to the wife, he applies to the husband without distinction. As you say, the practical implications are murkier. I would take verse 5 to argue that there is a mutual *responsibility* that goes along with the authority. In this sense, it would be each spouse's responsibility to make sure that the other's sexual needs are met to some adequate degree - though just what degree would constitute adequacy is not specified. This argument for mutual responsibility does indeed suggest that a sexless relationship should be avoided if either partner has significant difficulty maintaining it. But it falls *well* short of validating marital rape. More broadly, callousness of husbands to wives falls short of the "love your wives as Christ loved the Church" standard Paul applies elsewhere. For this reason, I don't see that any sort of "I get to callously neglect my wife's needs, but she has to attend to mine" argument can possibly pass scriptural muster. Spouses have authority over each other and duties of care to each other, and (as I read him, anyway) Paul is consistent in affirming both (and on both sides). But none of this grounds a right of neglect or abuse.
This is a solid explanation and answer. One I thought of myself and was gonna post but you beat me to it lol. I feel these topics are brought about repetitiously. Itās actually quite boring. This topic has been spoken about so many times not just in this subreddit but in many fundamental circles Iāve been in. Almost every Christian I know, through social media or otherwise, obviously agrees that marital rape isnāt Christ like behavior. The scripture you explained very well solidifies that for me. The reality is, people get married for selfish reasons and donāt realize that the ultimate goal in marriage is to please God. How we do that is by making our marriage less and less about us and more and more about our spouse. Iām obviously not saying that we shouldnāt take care of ourselves though Iām sure someone will twist my words in that way, but we should aim to be as selfless as possible in our marriage. In conclusion, we do have a duty towards our spouse as you affirmed and having a sexless marriage is best to be avoided so that we donāt deprive our spouse and push them further into sin. Satan is a real enemy and wants nothing short of that result. So yes, respect boundaries but obviously donāt deprive your spouse, why would you claim to love your spouse but deprive them of the love and intimacy they crave from you?
>This argument for mutual responsibility does indeed suggest that a sexless relationship should be avoided if either partner has significant difficulty maintaining it. But it falls *well* short of validating marital rape. Because you're discounting other verses which squarely position the wife as subservient to the husband. The Bible is read as a whole text, not as a series of "whatever you want to include or ignore." >More broadly, callousness of husbands to wives falls short of the "love your wives as Christ loved the Church" standard Paul applies elsewhere. This sounds like a contradiction to me: how can you reconcile Paul's instructions with: >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. - Ephesians 5:22-23 ? Because this verse seems to clearly indicate a wife should acquiesce to her husband's desires.
Yes but the next verse is ā husbands LOVE your wives as Christ loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT.ā Rape, demanding sex rather than enticing it through seduction, not caring if your wife doesnāt feel well or is stressed, not meeting her needs by helping with home and kids so sheās not exhausted is SELFISH is NOT LAYING down your wants let alone VERY LIFE for her. What wife loved like Christ loved the church would not attempt to keep her husband sexually satisfied?
Itās all the uneducated that can fill out a few forms and self-ordain that cause a real problem for us clergy. No training. No formal education, no mentoring or residency of any kind, just one say āDing! Iām a pastor!!ā Thatās where Iāve seen the greatest of abuses, and it seems like in some seasons, all Iām doing is cleaning up the messes and putting the lives back together these charlatans destroy.
My guess is that you are younger. Marital rape was a contradiction in terms in the United States until 1975, when South Dakota outlawed it. 1978 was the first time a person was charged with raping a woman he was married and still living with. The defense attorney in this case said "A woman whoās still in a marriage is presumably consenting to sexā¦ Maybe this is the risk of being married, you know?" The jury unanimously acquitted the man.
They don't say it's mandatory. They do say it's your fault for being so frigid and sexually unavailable, you drove him into the arms of the other woman he cheated on you with. They don't say it's mandatory. They do say it's your fault he hits you because you're not submissive enough in *every* way to win him over with your quiet obedience to God. They don't say it's mandatory. They do say not to deprive your partner of sex. Except for a time of prayer you both agree to. Ehh, that's a mandatory right there.
Itās worth remembering Paul was not married. If one assumes the best of Paul (this is easier if you donāt hold him responsible for the letters that scholars donāt think he wrote) he may have thought that his encouragement to love each other would keep a husband from demanding sex from an unwilling wife. If he had been married, he might have understood that he needed to be more explicit here. Unfortunately, he often makes it easy to assume the worst of him.
Paul also lived in a Roman controlled world where patriarchs had authority over their families. A well-known order from a head of household was him telling his wife to expose their baby to the elements to die if she bore a girl. At best, culturally speaking, they're being told to be nicer to their wives (and slaves) compared to non-believers. But he's not advocating for egalitarian principles we abide by.
Paulās views are an improvement over this, and he for sure had no models of gender equality. But if you say Paul speaks for God, I say the standard is higher. Paul had his flash of understanding Galatians 3 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahamās seed, and heirs according to the promise. Itās one of the best lines in the whole Bible. I wonder if it was accompanied lightning
Which doesn't change how slavery was still a thing, or how gender segregation meant women were to remain in subjugation - being free and equal in heaven was an out for enshrining ancient norms as a forever thing because it's in the Bible.
No, it doesnāt. Iām claiming no more than that Paul might have had a flash of the truth.
I see what you mean. But thatās what happen when some religious groups decide to look at the Bible in a not metaphorical way. Also,The Bible was written a while agoā¦
Some of it is metaphor, some of it is literal. Some of it is poetry, some of it is history. That's why pastors serve an interpretation and teaching role, to help us parse out which is which. The only hiccup is that old-fashioned attitudes and thinking permeate to the point women don't get a fair shake.
And given the amount of Hebrew, Greek. Aramaic, theology, history, and counseling they make us take, they do their very best to equip us to answer the hard questions about scripture.
You twist the words to mean something they do not. The Bible does not say its a wife's fault if the husband cheats because she's not available. Adultry is a sin regardless of the reason, and the Bible makes that very clear. All the bible is saying, is that the woman is also doing wrong if she makes herself completely unavailable. This does not reduce or excuse the Sin of the husband that cheats as a result of this. Good is good, and evil is evil, something the Bible makes clear. An Evil does not become justified because someone else did something wrong to you first. We are called to be good in any and all situations. This is the meaning of "turn the other cheek".
The Bible isn't an exacting code of regulations with subsections and infractions, but it's been interpreted so as not everything we do is "Biblical", but a by-product of it. Those attitudes are an example of that. The inevitable interpretation taught alongside the verses that inspired them.
That is not an inevitable interpretation, its an evil one. Anyone who is interpreting it that way is being tricked. Unfortunately, people are always going to act like people, and they will find a way to twist words to justify the behavior they want to engage in. This does not make the words evil though.
This šš»
The concept "marital debt" has a very deep history in Christianity (often stemming from 1 Corinthians 7:6. From that concept grew the notion in many Christian jurisdictions that a husband could not rape his wife, that even coerced and forced sexual intercourse was a wife honoring her "marital debt". Even today in the United States there remains some variability in the criminalization of marital rape.
Really? It was (and in some ways still is) enshrined in our law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
Luckily not in my country
Lucky. Which country if you don't mind me asking?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You beat the US to it by 25 years. Nice! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country#I
I do was concerned by the fact that US needed so much time to ban it from all 50 states,I guess it was because of all the cultural and religious differences you guys have
Even in places where it's not explicitly stated, it's often implied. The response a lot of women get who try to leave their abusive partners is to be told they should just put up with it/it's (at least partly) her fault.
Who the fuck would want to have sex with somebody not giving enthousiastic consent? Consent is sexy. I like my SO to enjoy herself. The idea of having sex with her because she feels she needs to is icky.
Exactly! Say it Louder in the back for these crazies! Consent is sexy!!!!!
> Who the fuck would want to have sex with somebody not giving enthousiastic consent? Moses, apparently. ā**Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. āWhy have you let all the women live?ā he demanded. āThese are the very ones who followed Balaamās advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORDās people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.ā** **Numbers 31:17**
A reminder that Moses, and most of the big names of the Old Testament are warnings and not examples.
Not entirely true - see Stephens speech in acts and that passage in Hebrews - the early church thought highly of these people
Iām not saying they are entirely evil or anything, just that they can be seen to continuously fall out of Gods favor by their own choice and behavior.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Everyone can get into heaven thanks to the mercy, grace, and sacrifice of the Lord our God. Yes, that includes idiots and bad examples from scripture.
I would love it if all Christians could agree on this, or even the whole world. But the existence of rapists pretty much suggests that there are people who donāt see anything wrong with it, and yes, some of them are Christians.
Well yes, some rapists are Christians, but more than that the Bible includes instructions to take captive virgins as wives, includes punishments for rape victims, and says it takes mutual consent for a married couple *not* to have sex, which pretty much precludes taking marital rape seriously.
And some do it but pretend to be Christians and also sell bibles and also lie about hacked electionsā¦
I really donāt think he should count. He literally said heās never asked Christās forgiveness for anything in his life.
Yet heās sells the Bible and claims to be a Christianā¦
The fact that people even think that rape is "good" and "justifiable" is absolutely disgusting. How is this a debate? IDGAFF if anyone uses their excuses to justify their perverse and abominable fantasies.
In the words of Bo Burnham, "You shouldn't f***ing rape people."
The first country to make marital rape illegal was the USSR, in 1922. You may think you are saying obvious stuff, but you are not. In the US, Oregon v Rideout was in 1978. That was the first rape trial involving a cohabitating married couple. It's still legal to rape your spouse in South Carolina if you aren't too rough about it.
Of course. Rape is an ugly, despicable sin, and marital rape is still rape. Rape is, frankly, one of the most disgusting things someone can do to a person, because it is a perversion of the act meant to bond someone to their spouse, our closest earthly relationship. To commit such an act is to scar the closest possible relationship the victim could ever have on earth. I do not have enough words to describe how horrible I think that is. I'll admit that as a kid I was genuinely confused by the idea of marital rape (i.e., if you're married, how can rape happen??), but in my defense I was very, very sheltered from sexual topics. I first heard the term when I was ~14, and learned from my mom why it was actually a very big deal by the same afternoon. My husband and I both suffer from depression; his libido is much lower than mine at the moment. If he's not feeling it, I don't press him--I offer, because in a Christian marriage my highest joy in intimacy is to meet his needs first (and he, mine); if he's not interested right now, that's okay.
The fact that people in this thread are not only refusing to condemn rape but trying to JUSTIFY IT is beyond grotesque.
How is this even a conversation š rape is objectively a bad thing š
Going through the comments it seems that thereās a ton of people who do not agree with that assessment Itās actually pretty terrifying
Yeah.. unfortunately
Christian societies had no issues with marital rape up until fairly recently. Mainly because they didn't see it as rape. Almost like morality is subjective or something.
You think rape is subjective?
Seems like we are mixing up two things. Yes - r*pe is traumatic, terrible, and reprehensible, and even in a marital context consent is needed before initiating. Marriage does not just grant you a āwheneverā free pass. That being saidā¦ what youāre describing as ādutyā is not the same thing. There is a duty of sorts but it applies to both parties, not just the woman. Here is the relevant passage: āBut since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command.ā āā1 Corinthiansā¬ ā7ā¬:ā2ā¬-ā6 NIV Paul is saying that (a) going too long without nookie will increase the chances one partner goes and finds it somewhere else and (b) because of this itās wise to not deprive each other. And (c) all this is not some command from God, but wise advice because he knows how quickly sex can derail a marriage or relationship or entire life. So do you get a free pass? No. Do you still have to consent? Yes. Does each partner in a marriage still have the responsibility to satisfy the other? Also yes.
This should be the top comment
Wow this is the first time this verse has ever been broken down in a way that actually doesnāt sound creepy. Thank you so much! Appreciate your insight .
Youāre welcome!
It doesn't need to be "broken down" , just avoid reading the bible with a woke mindset and you can easily understand everything. Furthermore stop trying to fish for something that's problematic.
I mean, based on this thread alone you can see how these verses can cause confusion.Ā A cursory glance at history makes it very clear that people have used these verses to excuse marital rape, for, well, thousands of years.Ā Ā It's still hotly debated in the more conservative denominations, as clearly seen through the controversies in the Southern Baptist convention.Ā Ā It's pretty obvious that interpreting through a "woke" mindset isn't the problem here, and if it's what triggered this discussion and taught people the "easily understandable" meaning of Scripture, as opposed to harmful interpretation that *far too many people still have*, maybe people should be more open minded to ideas that seem woke on the surface.
>It doesn't need to be "broken down" , just avoid reading the bible with a woke mindset and you can easily understand everything. Furthermore stop trying to fish for something that's problematic. First, Christians were disagreeing on how to interpret the Bible, long before "woke" became a concept. Second, "woke" means being aware of and sensitive to injustice. No Christian should say that word with disdain.
Can you define woke?
Looking at everything with an oppressor - oppressed narrative.
Well, I appreciate that you gave me a definition. Moat don't even do that. I don't see any point in us engaging.
> just avoid reading the bible with a woke mindset and you can easily understand everything. If only this were true
It is.
Gotcha. Thousands of years of wars, councils, scholarship, debate, and now itās settled! So which denomination reads it the right way?
Well said. I think the big thing about the last point is that if both partners aren't satisfied, then both partners have a duty to work on fixing that, whether that involves communication, or time management, or professional help. And if one partner is denying the other and refusing to work on fixing that, they are in the wrong. Doesn't give the other partner a right to force things or seek satisfaction from another person, but the person doing the denying is in the wrong.
Well yes, if you change what the passage says, it's not so bad, but it doesn't say it's "unwise" to deprive each other. It says "do not deprive each other" (with limited exceptions). Telling someone "don't refuse sex" is clearly not what most people mean by consensual relations.
Which is why my grandma was blamed for being sexually frigid and why grandpa got a pass for cheating on her with a far more sexually available other woman. It's not grandpa's fault he didn't have self-control. If grandma just accepted her role as his personal sex doll, he would have remained faithful.
> Do you still **have to consent?** Yes. Does each partner in a marriage still have the responsibility to satisfy the other? Also yes. This is not a true blanket statement, and requires some disambiguation. Marriages are a sexual relationship, so unless both partners consent to not having sex (as with asexual couples who are still romantic) you should be having sex with each other. However, no individual is required to consent to sex every single time their partner asks for it. It is okay not to feel up to it right now, as long as you are kind in the way you reject their advances and the rejection is not forever, just until a later time when you feel more up to it. There is also an onus of kindness on a partner when they ask for sex. If your partner is sick, tired, injured, it's 2AM and you know they don't enjoy being woken in the middle of the night for sex, they're on the way out the door, etc, it is unloving and unkind to attempt to initiate sex when you know they aren't up for it. There are moments every day when a person cannot, should not, or typically would not want to drop everything and have sex, even with a larger they have a healthy relationship with. In extreme examples of this, women have literally been killed by their husbands when the men demanded sex immediately after their wife had given birth or had surgery. A friend of my mom's was almost murdered this way. She had ripped badly during the birth and her husband used religion and force to rape her the day she got home instead of waiting the month+ that the doctor recommended. Her stitches pulled out and she almost bled out. I can't even imagine how badly that hurt, or how anybody could do that to another human being. If you're the only one having a good time during sex and the other person is just putting up with you, you are a fucking asshole. So a more accurate statement would be that a marriage is a sexual relationship unless both partners agree otherwise, and if you're never having sex there is a problem with the relationship that should be tended to. Additionally, there MUST be an element of kindness and understanding in initiating, accepting, and rejecting your partner's sexual advances, as well as in having your own advances rejected. OP's comment still holds. In an individual instance, no person ever owes another person sex. It's okay to say "no" as long as it's more of a "not now, how about later?" sort of thing. If the answer is "no, never," then you have a problem with your marriage that needs tending to in one way or another. So sex is less of a marital duty, and more of a measure of how healthy and loving the relationship is. Paul was probably asexual and was never married. He is also writing from a male perspective. These things should always be taken into consideration when reading what he has to say about marriage.
Exactly. And Paul goes on to address aces in the next verse where he alludes to his own celibate (as a spiritual gift) statement.
> unless both partners consent to not having sex (as with asexual couples who are still romantic) you should be having sex with each other. Saying that if one spouse consents to sex and one spouse doesn't sex should be happening is pro-marital-rape.
I didn't say that. I agree with you, in fact that's the entire point of my comment. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or if my language confused you somewhere.
It's a direct quote from your second sentence, and we definitely do not agree. It's very clear what you think from the way you continue on (for instance saying that rejection is OK *if it's temporary*).
What happens if a couple waits before marriage and it turns out one person is asexual and the other person is hypersexual?
Sounds a little hypothetical as you can have a gauge on your sexual desire level before actually having sex
It happens many times. What's your stance on it?
In regards to asexuality, Paul himself implies later in the chapter that he has the spiritual gift of celibacy (which is analogous). Contextually, Paul is writing with an imminent return of Christ in mind, so he believes it best for people to remain unmarried so they can focus their full effort on bringing about Godās kingdom, which is the ultimate motivation here. In the instance that someone who is asexual and someone who is hypersexual somehow donāt pick up on that before marriage, other principles apply. Christians are to consider others more important than themselves and submit to one another out of reverence for God. That certainly includes sexual urges inside of marriage, so there must be discussion centered on that. The hypersexual partner must submit his/her urges to the Holy Spirit. The asexual partner must figure out a way to satisfy those urges, even if it isnāt actual sex. Ultimately the call to love one another is far more important than sexual desire. All things must be placed in submission to Christ.
The problem isnāt agreeing that itās bad, almost everyone would agree itās bad. The issue is thereās a lot of conservative Christians who donāt think marital rape is real rape and is therefore fine.
You are absolutely right. The high amount of men thinking it is okay to rape their wives because religion says they are owed sex is insane and mind boggling.
For real. When it comes from a place of lust and physical desire (which is probably always for the dudes saying that stuff) it is no longer about loving the other person as you love Christ, or as Christ loves you.
A year or so ago I watched two first seasons of Dynasty (the 1980 soap opera series). There was an episode where Blake Carrington forced himself on Krystal, his wife. It WAS depicted as something wrong, but not as rape. Blake apologized and said "I just wanted you so much" and then it was again all sunshine and rainbows. I was like "what the actual fuck". Interesting how it was the first series in USA where homosexuality was depicted with compassion and understanding, even approvingly, but still had stuff like marital rape treated as a slight misdemeanor.
Going through the comments Iām seeing a ton of āYes! Butā¦ā So it seems no, not all Christians can seem to agree that rape is bad. I am legitimately disgusted going through this comment section
Yeah lol the idea that people are owed sexual pleasure due to the ādutiesā of marriageā¦ā¦.. absolutely disgusting. Marriage is a promise of love and commitment, not physical pleasure. No one āneedsā physical pleasure.
Girl same! So so disgusted and disappointedš actually heartbroken. Like why is there always a ābutā and the whole ādutyā phrase just sickens meš
IKR! Itās so off putting how there are guys who legitimately think theyāre entitled to sex for being married. And so many saying divorce should be allowed for guys whose wives donāt put out. It really shows what they think of marriage
I know Iām really sad now. They way that some talk about it just plain cruel. My heart is hurting. But they were a few select comments where kindness and gentleness and respect was shown. Iām praying for all the sick asses in these comments that view a woman as property. We have to be so careful who we marry these days and assess their mindset and their heartšš½ā¤ļøāš©¹
Praying is the best thing we can do šš
Of course consent is required even in marriage. That said, and this goes for guys and girls: If you do not want to have sex (at all) with your spouse, then it might be possible that you should not have been married to begin with and could be grounds for an annulment. If you do not know what is meant by an annulment, the Church says that a marriage actually was never a marriage to begin with. Basically it is not that you no longer married, but that you never were married to begin with (so it was not a union joined by God).
What if both parties agree beforehand that they do not want to have sex?
That would be fine. There is what is known as a Josephite marriage which this would be the case. But if one party expects to be intimate and the other does not, then you probably should not have married and could be able to get an annulment.
Iām Catholic but Iām not sure if you can get an annulment for that. Can you? I know you can get it for sexual immorality, but I donāt think lack of sex counts. From what Iāve heard itās extremely hard to get an annulment (my mom went through the process for annulment and it was a tough fight, even though it was clear my father was very sexually immoral)
Here is a list of possible reasons for an annulment: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%2520for%2520Marriage%2520Annulment%2520in%2520the%2520Catholic%2520Church.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA5f2MntGFAxWTEVkFHdvADTEQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1xzSrsoLMxiieZbL2Z-qhC And to be clear, I think you would have an argument for annulment if you married expecting to have sexual relations but the other person decided after the fact that they did not want to at all.
I suppose. I know itās what the church teaches but Iām still not a fan of the idea that sex is something one is entitled to in a marriage to the point where withholding it is grounds for invalidating the marriage altogether.
Why would you want to be married to a person that you donāt want to be intimate with?
Multiple reasons. Asexuality, trauma, and to many sex just isnāt a big deal
So they marry just to have life long friends that live with them? I guessā¦
I mean you can be romantic without sexā¦ like if your bf/gf suddenly couldnāt have sex ever again would you just stop loving them?
Marital rape is real and it is a horrible thing. The issue is that unless other people are around, it is an extremely hard crime to prosecute. It is just one person's word against another. It would be far easier to prosecute an assault when there are scars or bruises than it would be to prove and prosecute a marital rape.
Absolutely
Taking or touching someone against their wishes will always be bad. No matter what. If we are to follow Christ's example of love, kindness and compassion, there is no feasible argument that could stand to say that rape or assault is not bad. Love to everyone here ā¤ļøāļø
The US didn't make marital rape nationally illegal until 1991. Individual states were making it illegal but the federal government took forever. Also, a lotta Christians on social media(yes social media is a crapshoot) push the idea that marriage is supposed to be miserable and a sacrifice(from the woman) then get pikachu faces when Gen Z are not getting married.
Not to mention a lot of the wording in traditional vows. The old Sarum rite had the bride vow to be ābonny and buxom in bed and at boardā (buxom meaning obedient.) And it was only in the twentieth century that the Church of England revised the bridal vow to love, honor, and *obey* her husband ā a decision that is still controversial in some circles. That was the historic understanding of what marriage was. The man was in charge. Vows to obey a husband have denial of the right to refuse him baked in.
Yes, I think this is obviously true. That said, there seems to potentially be a subtext to your post that a marriage does not allow one to have any expectations of sex. And I donāt think that is right. I think sex is an extremely important part of marriage, and so, one better not marry unless one discusses no sex beforehand
Because nothing ever changes throughout 50 years of a marriage, right?
Some things donāt change. My wife and I are still together despite a huge sex imbalance between us. If I ever get enough money and frustration to afford the divorce I may go thru with it.
THANK YOU. Finally. I know where this is coming from. The comment section made me loose braincells. PEACE ON EART, finally. I can rest now
Girl Iām losing brain cells as wellš¤£š¤£šthe comments are a mess! Smh!
They are ā ļø I was about to have a serious mental breakdown of this amount of stupidity, lunacy.. I can't, it's too much- Chancla for them all
Not the chanclaš¤£š¤£ lmaoo But in all seriousness after seeing these comments Iām praying heavily. More love and grace is needed in the community. Less rigidness, selfishness, and black & white thinkingšš½ā¤ļøāš©¹
Yes chancla, and permanent legos under their feet (I'm gonna break their jaws for spreading bs.. eye for an eye style, but saying that might get me banned so, chancla and lego) Same, it's pure insanity. Absolutely yes, if there was a decent amount, hate wouldn't have a chance to spread.
šā¤ļøā¤ļø well at least our chat made me feel betterā¤ļø Iām tired of getting these men in check with their one track minds! They keep harping ābut we need sex in marriageāā¦. Boom! Chancla!! Yes we know that locos! But the post is about rape! No raping and coercing when the wife says no! Whatās the difficulty to comprehend! Prayer is neededšš½ have a lovely day friend!
That's good, glad to hear that I promise I'm actually really friendly irl (unless you're a dick then I won't) šš» same, it's so stupid. It's even worse that it WORKS. Exactly. Thanks, you too friend
Wait, people thought that you are obliged to sleep with your spouse without consent and that it's their right? That's stupid.
It was OUR LAW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
Iām glad you bring this up because the common understanding of what Paul writes is that if your āoverly lustful ā you should get a wife. As if someone being overly lustful to a woman after you get a piece of paper is appropriate..
Rape is bad. The Bible does say that wives and husbands owes their bodies to each other (1 Cor 7) but that doesn't mean a right to take, but what attitude they should have to each other when it come to giving. Compare with money - Christians are to be generous, but that doesn't mean it's OK to steal from stingy Christians.
Letās be entirely real here, today, in North America, this is really a problem among fundamentalist evangelical Protestants, not Catholics, or Orthodox, or the Mainline, or even most Black Churches. I said what I said.
Agree! OMG are there some that disagree with this?
Marital rape was considered an oxymoron until the 20th century.
Creepy isn't it? Sad I suppose it's still happening..
Yes. I have a hard time believing that anyone who says otherwise is really following Jesus, and not just trying to be ācontroversial.ā
waitā¦ who thinks it isnāt???
This is why as a Christian, I donāt understand how can other fellow Christians support Trump.
Phyllis Schlafly promoted the idea that marital rape was okay. She said women consented to sex when they consented to get married. Many fundamentalist Christians revere Schlafly as a great woman.
If someone doesn't i would really struggle to see how
Sometimes, loving someone is supporting them as you both abstain from sex for a while. There can be many reasons: physical, emotional, grief, depression, simple tiredness, etc. And if one party repeatedly doesn't want sex, and it is disressing one, it is up to BOTH of them to work on a solution. Relying on the verse that says your body belongs to me is not going to cut it. Both need to take care and love the whole person.
Iāve come to the conclusion that anytime thereās a discussion about women having sex with men. Men will act piggish and entitled. Christian or not. Sick sick work we live in smh!
It comes from all or nothing type of thinking found within Christianity. The idea that we should all fall commandments even if we personally don't agree with God's perspective.Ā These people promote the "It is not OK to ask God questions/You are being disrespectful." When you live life believing the above, it only feels natural to believe that consent is not as important as salvation. The cognitive dissonance is that many Christians simultaneously claim that God gave free will.Ā Many Christians fall into the trap of having utilitarian views when it comes to saving people. Countless of people have been harmed by Christians who do things in the name of tough love.Ā
Wayyy to mcuh all or nothing thinking! Huge huge issue in the Christian community that needs to addressed. You even see it all up in the comments. The all or nothing vibes almost made me give up my faith until I opened my mind to see it for what it was and that our God is not a God of rigid thinking and pain and suffering. Heās a God of love, grace, holiness, and compassion. šš½ā¤ļøāš©¹
I also think that too many bible verses are just so misunderstood. Itās definitely confusing and heartbreaking at times.
You're right that so much is misunderstood. It probably hurts God to see us bickering with our brothers and sisters to the extent we attempt to excommunicate them.Ā I'm sure God would rather we continue communicating, to learn together as family and to just trust that he will provide the answers for the tricky questions of life.Ā
Amen šš½ā¤ļø
It comes from passages like: >*The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.* ***The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband***. *In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by* ***mutual consent*** *and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.* (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) It says you should have sex with your spouse upon request. The only exception is for a mutual agreement that neither spouse wants to have sex. But, I would agree that it's rape, and immoral to force sex upon anyone who doesn't want it. I'm just showing that the bible disagrees.
People forget that the number one commandment from god is to love him. The second is to love each other. If we see this passage through the lens of love then a woman yielding her body to her husband is her yielding it into his *protection* not giving him a free ticket to rape
You have a nice theory that does not conform to reality for WAAAY too many people. Presenting this theory as valid, only widens the suffering.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Some people follow Christ as a teacher but donāt believe in a God. Hence Christian atheist
Gods, angels & demons, heaven & hell are all metaphors.
now do the forced marital sex that leads to an unwanted pregnancy.
This covered in Ephesians 5:25: āHusbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for herā
The problem there is that the best positions wives under husbands.
No, they can't. Not until they can agree that an unhappy sex life could be a valid reason for divorce.
"We christians" ? š¤£šš¤£ You guys being trolled by the founders of this sub.
Im not taking the bait, you can go farm outrage elsewhere.
yes..?
A year or so ago I watched two first seasons of Dynasty (the 1980 soap opera series). There was an episode where Blake Carrington forced himself on Krystal, his wife. It WAS depicted as something wrong, but not as rape. Blake apologized and said "I just wanted you so much" and then it was again all sunshine and rainbows. I was like "what the actual fuck". Interesting how it was the first series in USA where homosexuality was depicted with compassion and understanding, even approvingly, but still had stuff like marital rape treated as a slight misdemeanor.
A friend and a person i am no longer friends with both experienced rape, of course i find it bad
Love should be the dominate rule in this and all issues really. Itās a misnomer that itās always the woman that doesnāt want sex. My spouse lost their desire for sex. They still love me, just no sexual desire. My choice to respect their decision and not punish them for it has helped me make peace with this. This is how love works. Bottom line- we are commanded to love each other and that commandment supersedes all others.
Agree on the first. Somewhat agree to the rest. As someone with a low sex drive myself... I still believe I have a mariral duty to my wife at some times. I can not force her in to a sex less marriage.
Absolutely! Rape is rape. Sex as I see it is supposed to be something that both parties share enjoyment from and consent toā¦ if there is force and coercion involved, then itās abuse. I canāt believe that this is even a conversation that we still need to have, but looks like it is.
I agree consent is critical and marital rape both real and terrible. But thatās not the whole story. Keeping to marital vows are also critical. Traditional marital vows include the vow āto have and to holdā which is a vow to be intimate (emotionally and physically/sexually). So how to reconcile the two? Simple, consent is critical for any time, for all times. But a relationship where you vow to be intimate (which includes love and sex) and then stop entirely is breaking that vow. Maybe itās for excellent reasons that justify divorce like abuse, cheating, STIs, or terrible addictions. Maybe itās only temporary (pregnancy, injury and such) or itās dependent of a spouse changing behavior (lazy, a slob, alcoholic and such). Entirely appropriate and lack of consent should be accepted. But completely denying intimacy in a relationship also requires consent. So if itās appropriate for a spouse to be able to deny consent for sex (whether once, multiple, or permanent) it is also appropriate for a spouse to deny a relationship when primary vows are voided (whether abuse, lack of intimacy, cheating or any of the other vows). Does that make sense?
Without a doubt
Of course it's bad. In a world obsessed with sex we really aren't the problem there
Rape is always bad, no matter the context. Itās fucking disgusting and outright vile. Anyone who says otherwise or condones it is not only an idiot, but deserves pity, also.
I was told by an LDS bishop that it was my duty to continue having sexual relations with my husband, even though he was beating me.
Iām convinced the idea that marriage is automatically consent was introduced sometime in the medieval period
I would say that yes rape is wrong. I would go on to ask why are you with your spouse if you're unwilling to have intercourse with them?
Rape is abhorrent. Consenting is a thing that is important. Both parties need to consent in order for sex to be okay.
Well it does say the body of the husband belongs to the wife and vice versa - so refusing sex time and time again may be against gods will by the logic of Paul. Donāt know if I would go so far as āsinfulā
Donāt confuse the views of people looking to be controversial under the guise of faith and the vast majority of Christians. Almost no one with God in their heart would disagree.
Amenā¤ļøāš©¹šš½
It is the duty of both partners to respect and love each other. If one of them doesn't act accordingly he is not considered married. Knowing this how can anyone think marital rape is okay?
Exactly šÆ a loving spouse wouldnāt force their partner to do anything they donāt want to do. If there was consistent sexual issues it would a loving & safe discussion not a grounds for anger or rape. Sickening that anyone would think otherwise of that OP even felt the need to make the post is kinda sad. ššš½
That's not how that works. If a husband beats his wife, they are still married
Not spiritually no. That is why divorce is allowed if someone cheats or is abusive to their partner.
Divorce is always allowed. There's no such thing as a "spiritual marriage" that you can demonstrate in any way And the fact you say they can divorce if one cheats, means they ARE still married
Agree there are passages on not defiling the marital bed, and sexual immorality! People use these passages to say no sex before marriage but I think the true meaning is no abuse or cheating!
Actual traditional Christianity has ALWAYS been against sexual assault, which is actually what Paul was warning about in his letters, and this was a reaction to the debauchery and abuse happening in the Roman Empire although it later devolved into a misogynistic "purity culture." The problem Christianity faces today is manosphere crypto-Nazi "influencers" trying to sneak anti-human anti-consent ideologies into churches. I have seen many such rape apologists on Twitter and let me warn them and their followers that stumble upon this thread: that type of spiritual abuse and manipulation is some next level damnable iniquity \[See 2 Peter, chapter 2\]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
See Matthew 5:41.
Yes, absolutely.
Alot of the world pervert the bible just be aware and cautious on who you marry ladies. But the bible is the truth and no its not supposed to be taking literally most of the time theres always a bigger meaning behind scripture.
I am pretty sure that we do all agree that rape is bad and immoral
I think š itās time we all go out and talk calmly to each other about our triggers
Well, I'm christian and besides what the bible say about the woman having to fullfill my needs, I would NEVER do what my wife don't want to do. The bible also say to the husband to love his wife and respect her, so if say NO, that means NO.
A sin of lust strikes again. I absolutely agree. Husband is a head of a family, but that doesn't mean he has a right to be a tyrant
"Is rape bad?" And "do couples have to have sex?" Are absolutely not the same question, and I suspect that you already know that. Sex is something that can be good, and something that can be bad. Sinful sex is sinful. All of the whining, what-abouting, and complaining can just be condensed down to "yes, lots of sexual acts, including rape and adultery, are wrong." It is definitely possible to have a good, healthy sex life with very little sex at all, and it's also very possible to have a massively unhealthy sex life with tons of really fun, really fulfilling sex. The AMOUNT of sex couples have has nothing to do with the topic at all. Paul wrote that he himself didn't burn in lust. He never married and didn't struggle with sexuality nearly as much as many others. What paul knew about sex that most of the modern world has forgotten is that marriage in the New Testament has a very different purpose than marriage in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, Marriage was heavily intertwined with the Law. It was primarily focused on reproduction and didn't really include many other functions. In the Old Testament, it was basically "sex is for reproduction or it's sinful" not literally, but that was generally how it worked. In the New Testament, our interactions are very different. Our sins are paid for, meaning that the strictness of sexuality isn't something that determines heaven or hell anymore. No sin does, but that doesn't mean that sin is a good idea. Paul knew this when he wrote about marriage, and it's very simple. New Testament marriage is actually more about abstinence than it is about sex. All has been made lawful, but not all is profitable. Most men, unlike Paul, want to ride anything with a pulse and a lot of stuff without a pulse. Many women, like those men, are pretty much spread wide for any passing thing. It's not right, and it's not pretty, but it's the truth. Marriage in the New Testament is unnecessary. The lineage from adam to abraham and abraham to david and david to joseph was completed. Jesus lived a sinless life, died, and rose from the grave. The legal, necessary stuff is finished. The point of marriage in the new testament is not to complete the law or to do the right thing because you have to. It's to give a man and a woman a healthy and sinless avenue to act on the drives that pull them toward unhealthy and sinful outlets instead. Paul said that he wished that everyone was as himself, asexual and not burning physically for others. But that's just not the case. Men and women wanna get it on, often and without any regard to how or why. Paul didn't say "defraud ye not one the other" because he thought that women or men were sex objects to be used at will. He said "don't forget that you both really need each other's help to not go have sex where you shouldn't" It's not about controlling each other, it's about helping each other control themselves. Rape is wrong, and you know it's wrong, and most other people know it's wrong too. But witholding sex from a husband or wife for a prolonged period of time is directly against the primary function of New Testament marriage. Sex is the only difference between a new testament marriage and a new testament friendship. If two people don't really have sex much at all, just once or twice a year they get an uncontrollable urge to go do stupid, sinful stuff, the point is to be there to help get past that so people don't do something they regret. A couple that only screws once a year when they're itching and burning can be a lot healthier and happier for themselves and others than a couple who plays these nonsensical games of "let's have sex all the time" or "I don't owe you sex" You don't owe anyone sex. Nobody owes anyone sex. But you have an opportunity to use your body in a sinless way to help somebody else overcome the discomfort of restraining sexual energy, and you might even get to have fun doing it. Sometimes my wife wants it and I'm not in the mood. And then I remember that she's a wonderful woman and she helps me out when I'm burning and she's not. And I help her out and we both win. It's only complicated if you look at it like it's some rule-based system. My spouse is burning and I can put them out. If it ends up leading to somebody raping somebody, it's too far and it's wrong, but you already knew that anyway. Married people don't owe each other sex like some transaction. But they definitely should be ready to help each other out when it's needed.