Originally posted by FMFIf each has consented to yielding authority over their own bodies to their partners and are willing to abide by that its difficult if not impossible to see why your made up scenario would present much of a problem unless of course either one now decides to renege on that original commitment.
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 robbie carrobieFor a woman to consent to being her husband's sexual partner and bearing him children is one thing, but - morally speaking - for her to be forced to submit to sex at times when it is against her will is - morally speaking - abhorrent surely? Do you believe the marriage vows mean that a woman who has sex with her husband when she wants to, must also accept being forced to have sex when she doesn't want to?
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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you think that Christian marriage vows give Christian men 24 hours a day, seven days a week, entitlement to sex even if his wife doesn't want to engage in "sexual expression" at every single one of those moments, hours, days? Is that what Christian marriage vows mean to you regarding the woman having to have sex against her will?
If each has consented to yielding authority over their own bodies to their partners and are willing to abide by that its difficult if not impossible to see why your made up scenario would present much of a problem unless of course either one now decides to renege on that original commitment.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFBut they did not consent to be a sexual partner they consented to yield authority over their own bodies. Perhaps the marriage vow might be changed to 'I hereby consent to being your sexual partner when i feel like it and bearing you children if i feel like it'???
For a woman to consent to being her husband's sexual partner and bearing him children is one thing, but - morally speaking - for her to be forced to submit to sex at times when it is against her will is - morally speaking - abhorrent surely? Do you believe the marriage vows mean that a woman who has sex with her husband when she wants to, must also accept being forced to have sex when she doesn't want to?
Originally posted by FMFanother purely personal perspective viewpoint question that will be ignored.
Do you think that Christian marriage vows give Christian men 24 hours a day, seven days a week, entitlement to sex even if his wife doesn't want to engage in "sexual expression" at every single one of those moments, hours, days? Is that what Christian marriage vows mean to you regarding the woman having to have sex against her will?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape. What part of this you are having trouble with is hard to say.
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 carrobieDoes the marriage vow presuppose that the man can force sex on his wife at moments when she doesn't want it?
But they did not consent to be a sexual partner they consented to yield authority over their own bodies. Perhaps the marriage vow might be changed to 'I hereby consent to being your sexual partner when i feel like it and bearing you children'???
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, Christian marriage vows and what they mean, and what kinds of sex are subject to "consent" according to those vows, are things you don't want to discuss, is that so?
another purely personal perspective viewpoint question that will be ignored.
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition, which part of that you are having trouble dealing with I cannot say.
If a man forcibly has sex with a women against her will that is by definition rape. What part of this you are having trouble with is hard to say.
Originally posted by FMFIt appears to me to mean that couples are willing to forego their personal preferences and put the interests of their partner ahead of their own. That's what it appears to mean to me.
Does the marriage vow presuppose that the man can force sex on his wife at moments when she doesn't want it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI certainly have never ever forced my wife to have sex when my wife didn't feel like it. Do you think marriage vows should entitle me to do that to her?
Perhaps the marriage vow might be changed to 'I hereby consent to being your sexual partner when i feel like it and bearing you children if i feel like it'???
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo to your Christian way of thinking, marriage vows allow a man to force his wife to have sex at times when she doesn't want have sex? This is a Christian perspective?
It appears to me to mean that couples are willing to forego their personal preferences and put the interests of their partner ahead of their own. That's what it appears to mean to me.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you believe this "consent" gives the man a 24 hour a day, seven days a week, entitlement to sex, even if he has to force his wife to submit to it?
If someone has already given their consent then I don't see how that can be construed as rape, by definition, which part of that you are having trouble dealing with I cannot say.