I don't like to see my name (or handle) in the same line with the word 'rape' in a forum like this. I don't think it is fair, based on what I said, to jump to such conclusions.
I didn't even talk about a scenario where my wife said, "no." If you will read carefully, you will see I was saying this was an advantage of someone having a 'my body is yours attitude' rather than 'my body is mine' attitude.
If you think, "my body is yours" of your spouse, then if he asks, you don't say "no." If you aren't in the mood, you share your feelings.
I don't force my wife. I don't have an argument where I pressure her. If I think she needs some sexual attention, I might talk her into having a massage and the during the process, she realizes that she needs it and she may ask or hint about wanting to make love to me. Of course, I'll comply. Or I may ask her if she is interested and she'll say 'yes.'
If my wife were to turn into some stern feminist with a chip on her shoulder and if I gently broached the topic of making love, and she screamed 'NO!, and no means no." If I offered a massage or offered to hold her and she said, "No--I know what that could lead to..." that could kill my plans for her for the evening, but we would both be shortchanged. I don't remember her ever doing that.
I don't like my point in my post being associated with the 'take her' point of some other poster which I am not familiar with, but it doesn't sound good the way you describe it. It is pretty clear from my post that I am talking about 'seducing' or 'enticing' my wife into doing something good for her, not forcing her to do anything. Loving persuasion is not force.
Look at my post. When a wife feels her body is not her own, and leaves the door open for sex, that gives the husband the opportunity to persuade her to have sex when he perceives that she would benefit from it. What I was saying has nothing to do with marital rape, and if you'll read my argument, willingness (or willingness to be persuaded) is implied.
I can certainly appreciate why people are adamant against violence toward women, marital rape, and see it as a huge social concern. I am against men being violent toward women.
On the other hand, this trend toward having laws against 'marital rape' is disconcerting-- and I suspect a lot of men feel this way but don't want to speak up about it. The reason is it is so easy for a woman to accuse her husband of being a rapist and put this awful stigma on him. It could be used as a divorce strategy, where she could get a good settlement and the kids.
Our society is so messed up, it seems like fornication is being treated as the norm for how they design laws and marital sex is treated as secondary. If we really think about it, we've probably all had sex with our spouse without asking permission. One thing leads to another and there isn't that much talking. It's hard to talk and kiss at the same time. No one gave permission. No one said 'yes.' Or what if the wife said, 'no' but two hours later, the couple has had a heart-to-heart talk, and they start hugging, then kissing, the next thing you know, they are having sex. Both husband and wife are fine with this. The wife doesn't feel raped. The husband doesn't feel raped.
Five years later, there are some problems and the wife finds a lawyer. Maybe she gets a feminist friend, or a feminist lawyer. Let's say she hates her husband, and starts thinking about all their sexual interactions n the past. Lots of times, she didn't say 'yes.' She didn't sign a form in triplicate with carbon copies agreeing to all those sex acts. That one time, she even said 'no' two hours earlier, and somehow that jerk managed to get her in the bed. How dare he! All she needs is some really lose marital rape laws to really take that man to the cleaners and have him sent to jail. Of course, his reputation is ruined. He's considered to be a wife rapist, right down there with child molesters, wife beaters, and terrorists in our society.
I suppose the husband could argue that his wife 'raped' him all those times they kissed and he didn't say 'yes', too, but he wouldn't want all those people in the courtroom laughing at him.
I don't think marital rape should be handled under the same laws in society as regular rape with the same penalties, and given the damage it can do to a man's reputation, I would hope the burden of proof would be exceedingly high. In the Old Testament, rape of a married or a betrothed woman was a death penalty crime (assuming two or three reliable witnesses testify). I would be fine with having that be a law in our society. A man who raped an unbetrothed virgin had to marry her, pay the bride price for virgins and never divorce her. I assume the potential father-in-law had the potential to just take the money and not let him marry the daughter, comparing it to the case of seduction. There is no specific law in the Bible against raping one's wife. I suppose judges had the option of beating someone who had done something unloving or heinous with 40 stripes. While there is no specific law against it, there are general laws that apply. Men are told to love their wives as Christ loves the church and to honor their wives.
No means no, but it doesn't mean someone might not say 'yes' a little while later when the circumstances change. But my post wasn't even about that. It was a post about how it is important to have a 'my body is yours' attitude toward one's spouse to leave one's spouse an opportunity to convince one to partake of some 'due benevolence' when one needs it but doesn't realize it. There was no one saying 'no' in my story.
Upvote
0
