04 Oct 15
The fact is my fiends that you seem to be in somewhat of a dilemma, for if you answer the question you will no doubt incriminate yourselves because rape by definition is non consensual. If consent has already been given its difficult for you to construe that it constitutes rape, by definition.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSurely by extension there can be no such thing as domestic violence if a women has submitted her body to her husband during her wedding vows also?
Mutual consent is used in the context of withdrawing the so called, 'marital due', for a specific purpose. Nor can it be applied to so called 'marital rape', because if one partner is insistent on exrcising the so called , 'marital due', its not be mutual consent is it, sigh another EPIC FAIL! also it has no bearing on the issue that you seem unable to answer, that being that if consent has already been given how can it be construed as rape.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have condemned marital rape on this thread and you have also condemned physical violence. Are you now saying that you still condemn physical violence but that a husband is permitted to force his wife to have sex against her will?
another personal view point question that will be ignored.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am attempting to justify nothing, this is the second time that you need to be reminded. Please try to argue objectively.
You appear to be justify sexual violence through the use of Bilbical scripture and you're terming what I type an EPIC FAIL?!
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFanother personal perspective question that will be ignored.
You have condemned marital rape on this thread and you have also condemned physical violence. Are you now saying that you still condemn physical violence but that a husband is permitted to force his wife to have sex against her will?
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou actually think you have created a dilemma with this?
The fact is my fiends that you seem to be in somewhat of a dilemma, for if you answer the question you will no doubt incriminate yourselves because rape by definition is non consensual. If consent has already been given its difficult for you to construe that it constitutes rape, by definition.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou think WE'RE in a dilemma? You're the one making a case for the use of sexual violence against women.
The fact is my fiends that you seem to be in somewhat of a dilemma, for if you answer the question you will no doubt incriminate yourselves because rape by definition is non consensual. If consent has already been given its difficult for you to construe that it constitutes rape, by definition.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo i don't think that this can be substantiated although its an interesting point, for if one has vowed to love and cherish ones wife it can hardly in any meaning of the terms be construed as loving to subject her to violence, surely?
Surely by extension there can be no such thing as domestic violence if a women has submitted her body to her husband during her wedding vows also?
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould you be willing to get up on a stage with a Powerpoint presentation and a handout and talk to a hall full of battered wives and rape victims and say the things you've been saying on the last few pages of this thread?
I am attempting to justify nothing, this is the second time that you need to be reminded. Please try to argue objectively.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am doing no such thing, i am merely questioning the criteria that you have set and the terms that you seem intent on using. If you find that troubling then perhaps debate is not for you, if you find it necessary to make these ludicrous accusations then again i suggest that objective reasoning is not for you.
You think WE'RE in a dilemma? You're the one making a case for the use of sexual violence against women.
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFanother personal perspective question that will be ignored.
Would you be willing to get up on a stage with a Powerpoint presentation and a handout and talk to a hall full of battered wives and rape victims and say the things you've been saying on the last few pages of this thread?
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf one has vowed to love and cherish one's wife, can forcing her to have sex against her will be adjudged to be morally acceptable behaviour?
No i don't think that this can be substantiated although its an interesting point, for if one has vowed to love and cherish ones wife it can hardly in any meaning of the terms be construed as loving to subject her to violence, surely?
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then the same be can be said for rape.
No i don't think that this can be substantiated although its an interesting point, for if one has vowed to love and cherish ones wife it can hardly in any meaning of the terms be construed as loving to subject her to violence, surely?
Originally posted by FMFThis is an interesting point and I doubt it can, then again i am still left with the problem of how to deal with the fact that consent has already been given to yield ones body.
If one has vowed to love and cherish one's wife, can forcing her to have sex against her will be adjudged to be morally acceptable behaviour?
04 Oct 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo when a married couple go into a marriage on the mutual understanding (consent) that they will sleep together, have sexual intercourse, and have children, you think this "consent" allows the husband to force his wife to have sexual intercourse with her whenever he wants and even if it is against her will?
I am doing no such thing, i am merely questioning the criteria that you have set and the terms that you seem intent on using. If you find that troubling then perhaps debate is not for you, if you find it necessary to make these ludicrous accusations then again i suggest that objective reasoning is not for you.