Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have stated repeatedly why I think the consent to be one's sexual partner clearly implied in a marriage vow does not mean a person is entitled to sex at times when their partner doesn't want it.
You have failed to answer this from the very beginning because I suspect that by answering it you are forced to take a stance and will inevitably incriminate yourself .
Originally posted by FMFI see its implied, therefore this marital vow of exercising authority over ones own body is relative, relative to some kind of personal preference, is that what you are saying?
I have stated repeatedly why I think the consent to be one's sexual partner clearly implied in a marriage vow does not mean a person is entitled to sex at times when their partner doesn't want it.
Originally posted by FMFwell it appears to me that if you answer in the affirmative that consent has been given then it cannot be construed as rape, the definition of rape being non consensual sex, if you answer that consent does not matter then you are watering down the idea of not exercising control over ones own body and we now have the ludicrous scenario of one having consented to forgo exercising authority over ones own body while exercising a personal prerogative in that regard, another non nonsensical idea.
Incriminate myself ~ how so?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFor FMF slobbering his way trying to evade logic and fighting reality with a machine gun primed with loaded questions, slanderous remarks and defamatory Molotov cocktails.
Ha ha. Yep. Way to go, Suzianne. Take this opportunity to have a swing! Never mind robbie dragging the notion of "Christian principle" through the misogynistic mud.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGiving "consent" to be a sexual partner in a marriage vow on a wedding day does not mean the spouse is saying he or she will automatically want sex at every and any point in the future. Surely "mutual consent" and mutual willingness for each and every sexual act is the only psychologically healthy and moral kind of sex in a marriage?
I see its implied, therefore this marital vow of exercising authority over ones own body is relative, relative to some kind of personal preference, is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSurely this topic is too serious for you to be using it for a catchphrase littered comedy routine? We are talking about women being raped here.
or FMF slobbering his way trying to evade logic and fighting reality with a machine gun primed with loaded questions, slanderous remarks and defamatory Molotov cocktails.
Originally posted by FMFBut a Christian has not consented to be a sexual partner they have actually consented to relinquishing authority over their own bodies. You keep trying to view the principle through some kind of relative namby pamby secularism.
Giving "consent" to be a sexual partner in a marriage vow on a wedding day does not mean the spouse is saying he or she will automatically want sex at every and any point in the future. Surely "mutual consent" and mutual willingness for each and every sexual act is the only psychologically healthy and moral kind of sex in a marriage?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am arguing that mutual consent and a shared willingness to have sex on each occasion is paramount so I am certainly not arguing that "consent does not matter".
...if you answer that consent does not matter then you are watering down the idea of not exercising control over ones own body