I'm kind of confused on how we got to consensual sex vs rape in marriage. Lol! This went down some weird rabbit hole.
Some thoughts
- Thread starter Faithfulservant
- Start date
Well, that is what I was saying .. I get labelled a woman-hater, because I hold
different views on the purpose of marriage.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
Indeed. Thread drift or topic drift I think someone else called it in another thread
I was trying to make sense of what @muhammad_isa was saying
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
Well, I think it depends on what they think, you think the purpose of marriage is... or what the conditions are
What ideas are you promoting? How do you end up in discussions that get you labeled a woman hater?
Are you promoting anything that is hateful to women?
What exactly do you say? How do your conversations take that turn, that you end up labeled a hater? What are people responding to?
Are you saying something bad?
Something that reasonable people could consider bad?
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
I guess this thread got started with you needing to vent as you were feeling alienated by something... people's reactions to your posts, if not here somewhere
then @muhammad_isa commiserated because he was feeling alienated by something else... people's reactions to his posts, if not here, somewhere
His topic from his first post on this thread did relate to marriage and consent
Now here we are...
Getting to the bottom of it I guess.
I think it is one of those 'modern values are superior to our ancestors' thing..
We will have to agree to differ.
I never stated that consent includes violence to the person.
If man and wife no longer respect each other, they should not
be living together.
Divorce is a protection against abuse. It should not be a drawn out process,
but a right.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
I think maybe the answer to whether modern values are superior to our ancestors would be a resounding "Probably! With some exceptions!"
At least for my society, the one I know best. I lean towards thinking something like that may be true in other societies as well.
Modern values around personal independence and human rights are priorities to me and to many in my society.
It could be there is some confusion on the part of various people you have talked to as to what you mean by consent.
Do they let you clarify?
I remember you saying in your first post on this thread, that you felt attacked by atheists who didn't like your take on consent.
In your understanding, what effect does their atheism have?
If someone, who is not an atheist, but has some spiritual orientation of some kind, has similar concerns about your definition of consent (or their understanding of it) do you feel differently about their objections?
I don't think so..
Western society has become secular in nature, as people have strayed away from their Christian roots.
As marriage is no longer the norm in many countries, there has to be a level playing field.
i.e. Sexual intercourse is illegal without consent, and is considered rape
If this did not include married people, it would be one law for one section of society, and another
for the other.
However, it undermines the institution of marriage, effectively making it an accessory.
The law then becomes all about consent, and not marriage and divorce.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
The law is definitely about consent, and not marriage or divorce.
The crime of assault is a crime against a person, not a crime against the church or a crime against an institution, marriage or otherwise.
All crimes are against society.
What I suspect is this: That at least some of the people you are speaking to DO in FACT misunderstand what you mean about "marriage implying consent" They very well might.
What they are probably reacting to is an idea out there that somehow, in some way, marriage implie sex as a duty and "sex on demand" and "submission to demand" is a thing somehow. So when you say "marriage implies consent" it could bring that idea to mind, and that's what they think you mean, and if you didn't realize that's what they were thinking, you didn't realize to correct them and clarify as you did above. So they call you things like woman hater because they don't really get where you are coming from, and you (based on your remarks first post of this thread) feel besieged by them because you don't know where they are coming from...
Do I have it right?
I know..
..and society has been transformed from one of marriage being the norm, into one
all about consent .. most obviously the woman's.
One parent families are common now, despite not being at war.
I think that many people dislike Islam, and they find arguments against it.
In this case, the idea of "marital rape" .. as you have already mentioned.
I ask why it is necessary to have a separate offence?
Why is violent assault not suitable?
Why does one have to bring consent into it, thereby making a mockery out of marriage.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
I don't see how consent makes a mockery of marriage.
I think there's a fundamental piece of your thinking I am missing.
I am not a legal expert, but the term "marital rape" is not a separate offense to my knowledge.
The offense one would be charged with is still sexual assault.
The reason for the separate term has to do with giving society a way of talking about it.
As recently as the 70s, 80s or 90s, our laws (in many states anyway) were so backward as to make it impossible for a woman to have her husband arrested for rape.
The assumption, shocking as it is now, is that no matter what happened, a husband couldn't "rape" his wife, as the idea or belief was that the husband was somehow "entitled" to sex and that it was simply not illegal to assault her.
Or at least that is how prosecutors of the era read the statutes.
Here's some more information
Marital rape laws by country - Wikipedia
So, I think what might have gone wrong between yourself and your atheist detractors (I don't know if you saw my question about whether you would feel differently if the people who questioned or challenged you were not atheists) but I think what went wrong is they had the ideas around women's autonomy vs marital rape in their minds, and they misunderstood you to be endorsing assault within a marriage, akin to the outmoded ideas that a man owns his wife or that forcing sex on one's wife is not illegal. Your atheist friends may have been shocked and of course said bad things to you.
No .. because you see it as part of the values of modern society.
There, you see .. "so backward".
You see the direction society is heading as good .. whereas I do not.
A man and wife should look after each other's needs, yes.
For a woman to invoke a law about consent on her husband, is not acceptable to me.
As I said previously, it is not about consent in a violent assault.
A violent assault is never acceptable.
I'm well aware of it .. and as I have already said .. I don't agree with it.
It is not about a man owning his wife, or forcing sex..
What sort of marriage would that be?
I think you probably see divorce as an obstacle, that a woman might be trapped in a marriage with a
bad husband.
The problem would be the divorce laws, and not the institution of marriage itself .. IMO.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
Well, but sadly enough, in practical terms, that could sometimes happen.
Divorce isn't an obstacle to anything as such. Laws that do not permit divorce would be an obstacle to a life free of a bad abusive partner.
Both men and women can be trapped in bad marriages. Neither should have to be.
- Messages
- 2,549
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 108
Correct a violent assault is never acceptable.
But there was a time when a husband being arrested for a violent assault was not likely nor even supported by the law.
That's the part that is backwards.
A law about consent has a lot to do with violent assault.
What do you think a law about consent is about?
I feel like I need to support @muhammad_isa in this with scripture so I'm jumping in with what the bible teaches us and if we go through pre marital counseling this is addressed.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband... Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent 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" (1 Cor 7:3, 5).
None of that speaks of lack of consent but of mutual respect and love in fulfilling the needs of your partner.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband... Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent 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" (1 Cor 7:3, 5).
None of that speaks of lack of consent but of mutual respect and love in fulfilling the needs of your partner.
I think there's an issue with comparing a marriage based on scriptural definitions and a marriage contrary to that. There is always basis for divorce in abusive situations.. but that is mostly not the case in today's society. Scripturally the divine order is Christ first.. if we place Christ first then everything else will fall into place. If we seek Him out first all the other BS will work itself out with prayer and study of scripture. I'm not saying that this works out in every situation as society mostly disregards this but we can always hope that issues between spouses can be healed and the relationship made stronger. I've experienced both types and am grateful that with age wisdom grows. That's the goal. Right?
One piece that may be missing here is differing views about divorce.
Christianity does not provide for divorce. Jesus himself abolished divorce, and Christian societies are only recently coming out of a 2000 year ban on divorce.
Being stuck in a bad marriage, with only tbe death of one partner as a possible escape, has been the default experience of unhappily married Christian couples up until recent years, and in many places continues to this day.
Judaism and Islam allow for divorce.
That's a big difference in mindset.
(And even with the option of divorce, it is tough going for women to pursue a divorce, especially women who don't have an income because they "don't have to work". But that's a different, if related, point)
That's a description of an ideal.
What's lacking is a description of the opposite situation, and how to proceed if a relationship has no future. Christianity, due to Jesus' rejection of divorce, simply had to pretend this would not ever occur. Nowadays, with our laws in modern countries allowing civil divorce, the situation is defused to a certain extent. But that was due to civil rights activism, not Christian scripture.
The issue to me is whether the problems of a 21st Century global village of 8 billion people can be solved by trying to bring back the good old days by applying ancient tribal solutions and punishments -- especially when taken as divine edict?
I guess that's how I think... My goal is the ideal always... And what I can do to reach that ideal