Muslim Murdered by Hindus for Allegedly Eating Beef in India

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well then the same be can be said for rape.

yes but the point is dear Noobster in what sense can it be considered rape if consent has already been given, is it consensual rape?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

Your are attempting to make a case that sexual violence, in the form of marital rape is, justified in Biblical scripture. That is how the text you have been typing for the last few pages is coming across as.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This 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.

Do you think this "consent" you mention is for every hour of every day for the rest of the woman's life and that she must submit to sex at any time even if she doesn't want to do it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but the point is dear Noobster in what sense can it be considered rape if consent has already been given, is it consensual rape?

Speaking as a Christian, do you think this "consensual rape" you have mentioned is morally acceptable?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but the point is dear Noobster in what sense can it be considered rape if consent has already been given, is it consensual rape?

Rape is an act of violence, a women hasn't submitted herself to violence during her wedding vows. How can subjecting your wife to sexual violence be construed as honouring, loving and cherishing her? It can't.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but the point is dear Noobster in what sense can it be considered rape if consent has already been given, is it consensual rape?

"The brutal truth is that the idea of "consensual rape" is nothing more an attempt to rationalize aggressor privilege and blame the victim. Rape is rape is rape."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/shannon-mcclennan/consensual-rape-victim-blaming_b_3655444.html

An opinion piece by Shannon McClennan; worth a look.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Rape is an act of violence, a women hasn't submitted herself to violence during her wedding vows. How can subjecting your wife to sexual violence be construed as honouring, loving and cherishing her? It can't.

She has consented as has her husband to yield authority over there own bodies in the matter of sexual expression. If consent has been given I do not see why (and lets be clear about this you have failed to explain why), it can be construed as rape, by definition. This is not an attempt to justify anything, its an attempt for you to explain why it should be considered rape if consent has been given.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If consent has been given I do not see why (and lets be clear about this you have failed to explain why), it can be construed as rape, by definition.

Do you consider this "consent" you mention is for every hour of every day for the rest of the woman's life to submit to sex at times of the husband's choosing, or do you think that "mutual consent" has to be there and implicit for each occasion that a married couple have sexual intercourse?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is not an attempt to justify anything, its an attempt for you to explain why it should be considered rape if consent has been given.

The "consent" is surely to have a sexual relationship and for there to be sexual intercourse during the marriage, right? Surely it is does not mean that a wife must submit to sex against her will when she doesn't want to have sex? That can't be your perspective, surely?

Originally posted by FMF
"The brutal truth is that the idea of "consensual rape" is nothing more an attempt to rationalize aggressor privilege and blame the victim. Rape is rape is rape."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/shannon-mcclennan/consensual-rape-victim-blaming_b_3655444.html

An opinion piece by Shannon McClennan; worth a look.

Your link is almost entirely unrelated to the subject at hand and does not explain or even attempt to explain the phenomena of a christian's willingness to yield their bodies to their partners with the idea that if consent has already been given then how can it be construed as rape. No christian i know would willingly submit to rape never mind change their opinion about it half way through.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you consider this "consent" you mention is for every hour of every day for the rest of the woman's life to sex at times of the husband's choosing, or do you think that "mutual consent" has to be there and implicit for each occasion that a married couple have sexual intercourse?

another purely personal perspective viewpoint question that will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your link is almost entirely unrelated to the subject at hand and does not explain or even attempt to explain the phenomena of a christian's willingness to yield their bodies to their partners with the idea that if consent has already been given then how can it be construed as rape. No christian i know would willingly submit to rape never mind change their opinion about it half way through.

You mentioned "consensual rape" but now you don't want to discuss it, is that it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another purely personal perspective viewpoint question that will be ignored.

I am trying to get you to define "consent" as it is pivotal to what you are saying.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
She has consented as has her husband to yield authority over there own bodies in the matter of sexual expression.

What if the moment the man chooses to engage in "sexual expression" is a moment at which the woman does not want to engage in "sexual expression"?

Originally posted by FMF
The "consent" is surely to have a sexual relationship and for there to be sexual intercourse during the marriage, right? Surely it is does not mean that a wife must submit to sex against her will when she doesn't want to have sex? That can't be your perspective, surely?

If someone has consented to yielding authority over their own bodies how is it possible that they are now exercising their own will over it? surely they must renege on their original promise?