Christian Website Says ‘There Is No Such Thing As Martial Rape’ And Women Must Submit

[KamaAina]

Typo theirs!

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/06/01/christian-website-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-martial-rape-and-women-must-submit/

Ever heard of the Biblical Gender Roles website? Me either. At least not until today, and now that I know it exists, I fear for women across this country because it asserts that married Christian women must submit to their spouse, no matter if they want to or not.

Yes, when I read that, I admit I had to go back and read it again. And as I read on, I found this nugget of non-equality that the website posted:
“(A woman’s) body does belong to her husband.”...

This “expert” on all things marital and Biblical then declares:
“But I will say this, despite American laws to the contrary, Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as ‘marital rape.’ In the Scriptures, the only way rape occurs is if a man forces himself on a woman who is not his property (not his wife, or concubine). A man’s wives, his concubines (slave wives taken as captives of war or bought) could be made to have sex with him, no questions asked.”...

As a Christian myself, I find this man’s views to be the equivalent of how ISIS treats women: like objects that are owned or possessed. And I can assure you that if and when my daughter marries in the years ahead, should her husband think he has a right to demand that she have sex with him, I will quickly set him straight on that notion, and I can promise I won’t be kind about it.

[malaise]

1. I wonder why DUers give these morons so much coverage

Fugg 'em - they don't run my life.

[cali]

7. we agree again. well said!

[malaise]

10. LOL

[GreatGazoo]

2. and what a typo it is -- ugh

Martial = of or appropriate to war; warlike.

Marital = of or relating to marriage or the relationship of a married couple.

[KamaAina]

3. Rather Freudian, don't you think?

[GreatGazoo]

4. Yes. also I am reminded of the horribly conceived scene in "Fury"

[jberryhill]

5. Anonymous blog, anonymous domain

Yeah, real influential one there.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Since Jews wrote the OT--From Judaism 101...

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

Sex should only be experienced in a time of joy. Sex for selfish personal satisfaction, without regard for the partner's pleasure, is wrong and evil. A man may never force his wife to have sex. A couple may not have sexual relations while drunk or quarreling. Sex may never be used as a weapon against a spouse, either by depriving the spouse of sex or by compelling it. It is a serious offense to use sex (or lack thereof) to punish or manipulate a spouse.

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.

So, did Jesus say anything to repeal this part of the Law?

[freshwest]

9. I'm impressed, never heard of that before. Thanks. n/t

[Backwoodsrider]

8. wooo 1250BC here we come!

Its been about power to control since we first started eyeing Thors sharp stone back on the savanna. In this article the church appears to be tying to bring new male members in by telling them its ok to have the 'male king of he world' viewpoint. A group of males promising sexual dreams come true if you just join their group, where have I heard that before..