Jump to content
Guest freedwoman

Biblical Marital Rape (TRIGGER WARNING)

Recommended Posts

Guest freedwoman

The Bible supports "Marital Rape" Husbands have Biblical authority to rape their wives. Likewise wives have Biblical authority to rape their husbands. It is strange to me how there is even one Bible verse at all saying wives have authority over their husbands! This is absolutely disgusting. If any Christian woman or man is reading this. You don't owe your body to your spouse. You do not have to have sex when you don't want to. That is "Marital Rape" period. If you are experiencing that abuse please divorce and get legal protection. 

 

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-4.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, freedwoman said:

The Bible supports "Marital Rape" Husbands have Biblical authority to rape their wives. Likewise wives have Biblical authority to rape their husbands. It is strange to me how there is even one Bible verse at all saying wives have authority over their husbands! This is absolutely disgusting. If any Christian woman or man is reading this. You don't owe your body to your spouse. You do not have to have sex when you don't want to. That is "Marital Rape" period. If you are experiencing that abuse please divorce and get legal protection. 

 

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-4.htm

 

FW, Agreed. I have to keep in mind that the decrees that christians order their lives and thinking by were written by and for a culture in which men were (as Christians are today) deeply insecure in their manhood. the fact that it was deemed necessary to write such statements as " wives will be in submission to their husbands" and similar statements reveals the extent of their insecurity and the fact that christians continue to "buy into" this mindset gives their men an easy way to not have to grow up. They just quote their holy book and done is done. This is a natural outgrowth of the beliefs of their horrible "old testament" that allowed violence, up through killing a woman. Needless to say, this is more of their anti-human, anti-life, misogyny that forms the backbone Christian beliefs. Think of the trenchant modern christian hate groups like "the promise keepers" they are a modern organized example of the principle in action today. All the more reason to organize, expose them and speak out! Thanks for posting this. It's timely and necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important that we don't make the bible say something it doesn't just to support some disagreement we may have with the bible. 

 

The full passage in context is this:

 

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 

 

In this verse the writer refers to some puritan believers who think that Christians should not have sex, but to pray and watch for the 'second coming' constantly. 

 

2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

 

Here the writer points out that believers are doing sexual immoral acts anyway (Probably sex without marriage etc) so its best that they have god sanctioned sex (I.e. marriage sex)

 

 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

 

This is not a command or condonment of rape, in fact its surprising dual sided considering some of the shit in the NT. Now of course the idea that someone else has authority over your body is simply wrong, but at least the writer is playing the equality card. Certainly there seems no contextual intent to condone rape.

 

 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

Again here is a reference to the first verse where a believer suggested no sex, but the writer says have sex, just not all the time so you have time to pray.

 

There are many problems with the bible we can legitimately point to. Let us not give Christians cause to tell us we don't know what we are talking about by inventing problems that really don't exist.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
On 5/9/2020 at 6:43 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

It is important that we don't make the bible say something it doesn't just to support some disagreement we may have with the bible. 

 

The full passage in context is this:

 

1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 

 

In this verse the writer refers to some puritan believers who think that Christians should not have sex, but to pray and watch for the 'second coming' constantly. 

 

2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

 

Here the writer points out that believers are doing sexual immoral acts anyway (Probably sex without marriage etc) so its best that they have god sanctioned sex (I.e. marriage sex)

 

 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

 

This is not a command or condonment of rape, in fact its surprising dual sided considering some of the shit in the NT. Now of course the idea that someone else has authority over your body is simply wrong, but at least the writer is playing the equality card. Certainly there seems no contextual intent to condone rape.

 

 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

Again here is a reference to the first verse where a believer suggested no sex, but the writer says have sex, just not all the time so you have time to pray.

 

There are many problems with the bible we can legitimately point to. Let us not give Christians cause to tell us we don't know what we are talking about by inventing problems that really don't exist.

No offense LogicalFallacy. But I disagree. It applies that either spouse should yield their body to the other. What if the husband wanted sex but the wife didn't?  She would have to put out. What if the wife wanted sex but the husband didn't? He would have to put out. That is not agreement by both parties. The Bible is all about submission. So this verse just further proves it. You need to read it in context. Not just your own opinion. If you were Christian and married and you wanted sex but your wife didn't she would be Biblically commanded to give it to you. And same with your wife. If you weren't in the mood you would still be commanded to give her sex. Context. It's all about the proper context not opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in the hell would WANT to have sex with anyone who does not want to have sex with them?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
Just now, MOHO said:

Who in the hell would WANT to have sex with anyone who does not want to have sex with them?

Rapists?! This Bible verse just tries to make it okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, freedwoman said:

Context. It's all about the proper context not opinions. 

Umm... I'm pretty sure context was exactly what LF was trying to explain.  That verse, in the proper context of that passage, is not condoning rape.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Umm... I'm pretty sure context was exactly what LF was trying to explain.  That verse, in the proper context of that passage, is not condoning rape.

What then according to the Bible  if one spouse wants sex and the other spouse does NOT want sex??? They are not both agreeing to want to abstain???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, freedwoman said:

What then according to the Bible  if one spouse wants sex and the other spouse does NOT want sex??? They are not both agreeing to want to abstain???

But one is agreeing to submit.  I'm not defending it; it's pretty fucked up.  But, if one partner agrees to submit, it is not non-consensual sex (also known as "rape").  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
52 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But one is agreeing to submit.  I'm not defending it; it's pretty fucked up.  But, if one partner agrees to submit, it is not non-consensual sex (also known as "rape").  

Forced submission??? What if the spouse REFUSES to submit and have sex??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman

With all due respect LogicalFallacy and RedNeckProfessor, you are both men. So you most likely don't know what it's like to be raped. But I know some men do. Just you two most likely don't. Good bye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freedwoman said:

What if the spouse REFUSES to submit and have sex??? 

That would be a question each spouse would need to answer for themselves.  

 

2 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Forced submission???

Here again, the point, which LF went to great lengths to explain, is that this verse says nothing about forced submission.  It even uses the word "should" rather than "must."  Can this verse be taken out of context and abused?  I'm as sure it can as I'm sure it has.  But this verse, within the broader context of this passage, does not condone marital rape.  Rather, it encourages spouses to submit to one another as the church is submitted to christ.

 

Here again, also, I am not defending this viewpoint.  But...

 

Not everything in the bible is all misogyny and chauvinism.  There are some wonderful verses about bashing babies' heads against rocks, mutilating male genitalia, slaughtering entire races of people, and even a verse or two about the awesomeness of donkey cum. 

 

Maybe it doesn't seem like it now; but there are far more important things in life than losing your shit over every verse that doesn't tickle your fancy.  Find you some Zen and focus on healing what's broken in you.  Then, later, you'll be in a better position to fix all the problems in the bible... for all the good that will do.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman
8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That would be a question each spouse would need to answer for themselves.  

 

Here again, the point, which LF went to great lengths to explain, is that this verse says nothing about forced submission.  It even uses the word "should" rather than "must."  Can this verse be taken out of context and abused?  I'm as sure it can as I'm sure it has.  But this verse, within the broader context of this passage, does not condone marital rape.  Rather, it encourages spouses to submit to one another as the church is submitted to christ.

 

Here again, also, I am not defending this viewpoint.  But...

 

Not everything in the bible is all misogyny and chauvinism.  There are some wonderful verses about bashing babies' heads against rocks, mutilating male genitalia, slaughtering entire races of people, and even a verse or two about the awesomeness of donkey cum. 

 

Maybe it doesn't seem like it now; but there are far more important things in life than losing your shit over every verse that doesn't tickle your fany.  Find you some Zen and focus on healing what's broken in you.  Then, later, you'll be in a better position to fix all the problems in the bible... for all the good that will do.

Well I know that. Some women even ate their own babies. 

https://biblehub.com/2_kings/6-29.htm

 

I am no woman white night. In fact most women disgust me. It's not about misogyny because the wife can rape her HUSBAND! If he tells her he's not in the mood she can quote that he doesn't have the authority to tell her no. He has to give his body to his wife whether he wants to or not. But if he doesn't want to have sex but he does based off that verse, he is being raped by his wife. Trust me I know how repulsive, domineering, evil, and abusive women can be. Lemme introduce you to my mother. And women such as China Arnold. I'm not defending women here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, freedwoman said:

No offense LogicalFallacy. But I disagree. It applies that either spouse should yield their body to the other. What if the husband wanted sex but the wife didn't?  She would have to put out. What if the wife wanted sex but the husband didn't? He would have to put out. That is not agreement by both parties. The Bible is all about submission. So this verse just further proves it.

 

Except in CONTEXT the passage is not talking about the right to rape your spouse. That's why you have to read it in CONTEXT.

 

3 hours ago, freedwoman said:

You need to read it in context.

 

That is what I said!

 

My very first lines in reply to you were:

 

"It is important that we don't make the bible say something it doesn't just to support some disagreement we may have with the bible. 

 

The full passage in context is this:"

 

3 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Not just your own opinion. If you were Christian and married and you wanted sex but your wife didn't she would be Biblically commanded to give it to you. And same with your wife. If you weren't in the mood you would still be commanded to give her sex. Context. It's all about the proper context not opinions. 

 

According to the verses of the bible part of the marital duties of each spouse is to fulfill the desire of the other. One should not hold out indefinitely and refuse to have sex ever... relationships don't work well like that. Heck if I had a GF/wife who refused to ever have sex with me I'd say fuck this, I'm out. Bye. (Short of mutually agreeing to no sex.)

 

There is no condoning of rape. You are reading that into the passage. You are taking the wording and applying the very worst possible interpretation you can... you know, as opposed to taking into context of what the writer is trying to convey regarding believers having sex.

 

There are plenty of bad passages in the bible. Why plant your flag on this one which is fairly equal in it's treatment of men and women? The main thing it gets wrong is saying that a person does not have authority over their body. Now what exactly the writer is getting at in that situation I don't know. We'd need to know what was going on in the church at the time. But in CONTEXT I would say some overly pious spouses were refusing to have sex because the coming of the lord was nigh and they wanted to be ready, but the other spouse did want to have sex and felt going a few years with no sex was a bit much. So the writer came up with a solution, which in CONTEXT and for its time is not all that bad. It certainly doesn't appear inspired by any great god being, but a shit load fairer than most of the crap in the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Maybe it doesn't seem like it now; but there are far more important things in life than losing your shit over every verse that doesn't tickle your fancy.  Find you some Zen and focus on healing what's broken in you.  Then, later, you'll be in a better position to fix all the problems in the bible... for all the good that will do.

@freedwoman, this, apparently, bears repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all probably agree that there are plenty of parts of the bible that are abhorrent, misogynistic, oppressive, and downright repulsive. But that doesn't mean that every passage specifically condones rape. This one fairly clearly doesn't, on my reading.

 

I am a man, and I've never been raped. But that doesn't change what this text says. And, it seems to me that what it says is fairly clear: sex is a regrettable evil, but y'all are gonna fuck no matter what I say. So fuck your spouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman

Geez. Please calm down gentlemen. Can we just agree to disagree?! I think I need to stop bringing this up. Discussing religion and politics always gets people so emotional! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freedwoman said:

Geez. Please calm down gentlemen. Can we just agree to disagree?! I think I need to stop bringing this up. Discussing religion and politics always gets people so emotional! 

 

I've said this and will say it again. You've relatively recently left the faith in terms of recovery, and what you need to focus on is processing your own trauma. I understand the anger - it comes across very well with you - you want to bash everything that's wrong in this world and that has caused you pain. You should see a therapist, if you aren't already. It could be of immense help. And think about things. Like why do most women disgust you? What's the deeper feeling there? 

Have you had a chance to start reading resources I pointed out in terms of recovery? Re Marlene Winell's book. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Geez. Please calm down gentlemen.

 

I don't think any of the gentlemen are worked up over this. 

 

Quote

Can we just agree to disagree?!

 

Haven't we already done that? You don't seem to have accepted the points critiquing your view of the passage so I guess we disagree.

 

Quote

I think I need to stop bringing this up. Discussing religion and politics always gets people so emotional! 

 

I think you may want to step back and look carefully at the situation here. You may be projecting your own emotion regarding the subject onto others. I'm certainly not emotional, TRP isn't the type to get worked up over minor interpretive differences, and Disillusioned didn't show any emotion either.

 

As a final note you are going to have to get used to people disagreeing with you, sometimes strongly when you post. You asked about face to face debate in an earlier thread. Here we've just had a very bland 'internet debate' over minor differences of opinion on what a passage is saying, and yet you seem to think people are emotional and need to calm down. If you think this, then in my humble opinion you are not ready for face to face debate, not even close. Keep working on your debate skills online. If things do get out of hand in any thread the mods will step in. Until then its kinda par for the course.

 

Edit: PS I also think Truthseeker has a good point. Therapists, good therapists, can be extremely helpful in sorting out the stuff that goes on in our brains because of religious life.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman

There are none who specialize in Religious Trauma Syndrome around here though. My current therapist is a Christian. 

 

Plus I don't give a care if people disagree with me. 

 

Women disgust me because my mom abused and molested me. Growing up I was always told how dirty and practically worthless girls and women are. How evil men have only daughters. But good men have sons.  Etc... etc... etc...

 

Sorry for being blunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, freedwoman said:

There are none who specialize in Religious Trauma Syndrome around here though. My current therapist is a Christian. 

 

Do they bring their religion into their therapy? If no then I don't see a huge issue, if yes then you need to drop that therapist likes they are diseased!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freedwoman

He only has a few times. But he chilled when I told him about my religious trauma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This therapy you are getting may be especially affordable but I really would have my concerns that your therapist doesn't believe that therapy itself is actually an effective treatment for matters of the mind. A real therapist would just never bring up their own personal religion/beliefs. You, the client, should always be the focus in real therapy and I just can't help but believe that deep down a therapist willing to bring religion into the equation at any time has a fundamental mistrust of and lack of confidence in whatever method of therapy they are using. So I guess the bottom line from my perspective would be that you are receiving some low level toutoring on pretty much a do it yourself therapy. That could possibly work for you freedwoman but I am pretty sure it will require much more work and research on you part meaning it will certainly be slower that it could be if you were working with a therapist who clearly understood their purpose and worked on improving their effectiveness over the years rather than spending part of their career (maybe a pretty substantial part) practicing religion and then the rest practicing a therapy they only partially believe in. 

 

 

/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, freedwoman said:

There are none who specialize in Religious Trauma Syndrome around here though. My current therapist is a Christian. 

Umm, this is problematic. Having a xtian therapist will do zero to help you recover from religious trauma and may in fact make it worse for you. 

Marlene has an online support group precisely for those recovering from religion, which is donation based, and if you cannot donate to be a part of it, it's actually ok and shouldn't hinder you from joining. 

The reason why I mentioned her book Leaving the Fold is because it's self help - you can start processing your trauma and if you join the online support group, there are groups dedicated specifically to those who are working through the book. 

We are only trying to help you. Here's the link https://journeyfree.org/group-forum/

14 hours ago, freedwoman said:

 

Plus I don't give a care if people disagree with me. 

 

Women disgust me because my mom abused and molested me.

You're projecting what your mom did to you on to all women. 

14 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Growing up I was always told how dirty and practically worthless girls and women are. How evil men have only daughters. But good men have sons.  Etc... etc... etc...

 

Sorry for being blunt.

I'm sorry to hear things were that bad. The more I hear about your experiences the more I'm assured proper therapy can be of real assistance to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, freedwoman said:

He only has a few times. But he chilled when I told him about my religious trauma. 

He has only brought his religion into therapy a few times? That's a huge red flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.