Asking for it

[Gathomas88]

No, I'm promoting people doing their duties.

And if they will not?

What then, pray tell? :roll:

No, it isn't. You really should try to learn what you're talking about before you go spouting off.

*Ahem*

Annulment (Catholic Church)

Deliberate deceit about some personal quality that can objectively and gravely perturb conjugal life (canon 1098)

Conditional consent; the condition must concern the past or present (canon 1102)

Force or grave fear imposed on a person to obtain their consent (canon 1103)

A serious lack of the discretion of judgment at consent concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be given (canon 1095 n.2)

Marriage to a person who, for an extended period of time, refuses to perform the marital duties they promised to uphold could easily be construed as falling under either of these.

 

[Paleocon]

And if they will not?

What then, pray tell? :roll:

Then they are immoral.

*Ahem*

Annulment (Catholic Church)

​

Marriage to a person who, for an extended period of time, refuses to perform the marital duties they promised to uphold could easily be construed as falling under either of these.

If a person could be proven to have intended such deceit (they told someone about their plans), then yes.

But annulment never applies retroactively based on facts and circumstances arising after marriage. That's pretty 101.

 

[Gathomas88]

Then they are immoral.

So why are you celebrating the posts of individuals who support taking sexual satisfaction under such circumstances by force? :roll:

If a person could be proven to have intended such deceit (they told someone about their plans), then yes.

But annulment never applies retroactively based on facts and circumstances arising after marriage. That's pretty 101.

Nonsense. It can apply whenever the Church deems it to apply.

 

[Paleocon]

So why are you celebrating the posts of individuals who support taking sexual satisfaction under such circumstances by force? :roll:

What are you talking about?

Nonsense. It can apply whenever the Church deems it to apply.

Well the Church deems annulment to be based on the circumstances in place at the time if the wedding.

 

[Gathomas88]

What are you talking about?

....

A woman is supposed to submit to her husband.........thanks to stupid progressives, the concept of fidelity and submission have been bastardized!

Exactky. Finally, someone with sense.

:2wave:

Well the Church deems annulment to be based on the circumstances in place at the time if the wedding.

Historically speaking, that has not always been the case, nor is it always the case today.

Again, the Church may rule what it deems appropriate. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

 

[Paleocon]

....

​

:2wave:

I think you need to stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

Historically speaking, that has not always been the case, nor is it always the case today.

Sure. You win. You've successfully beaten reality and won the Internet. Now go home.

 

[Gathomas88]

I think you need to stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

What else could "submission" possibly mean in this context? Are you going to make her "submit" if she will not?

Don't run your mouth simply to hear the sound if you are unwilling to own up to the implications of your own statements. You can't have this both ways.

Sure. You win. You've successfully beaten reality and won the Internet. Now go home.

The first worthwhile statement you've made all night.

 

[Paleocon]

What else could "submission" possibly mean in this context?

That she should do her marital duty. I thought that was pretty obvious from the context.

Are you going to make her "submit" if she will not?

Don't run your mouth simply to hear the sound if you are unwilling to own up to the implications of your own statements. You can't have this both ways.

You're the only one talking about forcing anyone to do their duty.

 

[Gathomas88]

That she should do her marital duty. I thought that was pretty obvious from the context.

You're the only one talking about forcing anyone to do their duty.

Let's look at the actual statements you've made in this thread, shall we?

A) You've stated that a married woman has already "consented" to anything her husband might do with her by the merit by her being married.

B) You basically cheered when someone chimed in suggesting that a woman should "submit" to sex whenever her husband wants it, and face consequences otherwise.

C) You would not consider a woman categorically refusing to perform her marital duties as being grounds for ending a marriage.

Don't lie. Don't quibble. Don't double speak.

How, precisely, would you suggest such a willfully "frigid" wife be handled?

Because right now, "hold the uppity bitch down and have your way with her" seems to be about the only thing that would make sense given your viewpoint. Are you suggesting that they both simply sit and rot?

 

[Paleocon]

Let's look at the actual statements you've made in this thread, shall we?

A) You've stated that a married woman has already "consented" to anything her husband might do with her by the merit by her being married.

B) You basically cheered when someone chimed in suggesting that a woman should "submit" to sex whenever her husband wants it, and face consequences otherwise.

C) You would not consider a woman categorically refusing to perform her marital duties as being grounds for ending a marriage.

Don't lie. Don't quibble. Don't double speak.

How, precisely, would you suggest such a willfully "frigid" wife be handled?

Because right now, "hold the bitch down and have your way with her" seems to be about the only thing that would make sense given your viewpoint. Are you suggesting that they both simply sit and rot?

I do not condone the use of force in such a case. Mickey did not support the use of force in such a case. I never implied that I supported the use of force in such a case.

It might be grounds for separation (IDK), but I'd doubt it for the obvious reason that separation wouldn't fix the problem.

 

[Gathomas88]

I do not condone the use of force in such a case. Mickey did not support the use of force in such a case. I never implied that I supported the use of force in such a case.

I flat out don't believe you.

Quite frankly, opposition to the use of force doesn't even make logical sense given your stated position on consent. Why would such a thing be wrong if it is already assumed that she has given consent to all sexual acts by the means of her consenting to marriage?

 

[DiAnna]

I do not condone the use of force in such a case. Mickey did not support the use of force in such a case. I never implied that I supported the use of force in such a case.

It might be grounds for separation (IDK), but I'd doubt it for the obvious reason that separation wouldn't fix the problem.

Separation would certainly fix her problem.

 

[Paleocon]

I flat out don't believe you.

Quite frankly, opposition to the use of force doesn't even make logical sense given your stated position on consent. Why would such a thing be wrong if it is already assumed that she has given consent to all sexual acts by the means of her consenting to marriage?

Just to clarify, a person has a right to have sex with their spouse, they don't have a right to do any sexual act to them.

I admit that I'm not sure precisely why the use of force would be wrong, but Aquinas said so, so it probably is.

I would think it has to do with force being opposed to the expression of love which sex is, or some such.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)

The man who is just married has, in virtue of the betrothal, a certain right in her: wherefore, although he sins by using violence, he is not guilty of the crime of rape.

 

[Gathomas88]

Just to clarify, a person has a right to have sex with their spouse, they don't have a right to do any sexual act to them.

I admit that I'm not sure precisely why the use of force would be wrong, but Aquinas said so, so it probably is.

I would think it has to do with force being opposed to the expression of love which sex is, or some such.

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)

The man who is just married has, in virtue of the betrothal, a certain right in her: wherefore, although he sins by using violence, he is not guilty of the crime of rape.

Long story short, any sexual act done to a woman (or any person, really) without her express and willing consent is held to be morally wrong. It is considered to be especially wrong when such an act must be facilitated through the use of physical force expressly against the stated or implied will of the woman in question. This is the case regardless of whether she is married or not, and regardless of whether the perpetrator of such acts happens to be her husband.

In common vernacular, this is known as "rape." You're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[MickeyW]

That's ridiculous. In war torn countries, rape is a team sport. In India last week the teenage sisters of a man who had fled the village were ordered to be raped by the village tribal council. Rape is so common in places like India and Pakistan that women are protesting in the street that women/girls who are raped are not only blamed for their own rape, but are punished for it by lashing, being forced to marry their rapists, and even stoning. Those and many other "societies on this earth" not only allow rape, they actually prescribe it as punishment for the deeds of their male relatives.

That's those 3rd world countries for ya....

 

[MickeyW]

Well according to you - you have to give your body over to your wife and whatever she demands. If she was to **** you up the ass with a huge strapon ****, by your viewpoint, you have to let her - moral obligations and all.

Hmmm....you have a very vivid fantasy life it seems. Too much exposure to Miley Cyrus?

If a certain woman won't have sex with you, find a different one.

No one has the right to take it by force.

Didn't say that.

If a woman is submissive, as a good wife should be, no force is needed.

 

[LadyMoonlight]

Rape rates were not lower back when people had more morals, they were simply reported less due to the stigma attached, the woman being blamed, the shame. Women were often blamed for allowing themselves to be raped, the police had little sympathy and often neither did society. Many women kept quiet about rape / incest (which was rife) because the support was not there and the feelings of shame could be overwhelming.

 

[roguenuke]

In order for the premise of the OP to be true, then strips clubs must by definition, be havens of rape.

Nudist colonies and nude beaches should have the highest incidents of rape per 1000 women than any other group of people. Pretty sure rape and sexual assaults are pretty low in most such places.

The Naked Truth About Nudist Resorts: What Really Goes On Inside | Luxury Vacations by JustLuxe

 

[SlevinKelevra]

uhhh, which one is it?

so when you get married someday, your wife can peg you whenever she wants?

Yes.

No, that has very little to do with what I've said.

Sodomy is an execrable abomination. No one has any right to perform such an evil thing upon any person, with or without consent.

since just a few posts ago, you said "Yes" she can.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Hmmm....you have a very vivid fantasy life it seems. Too much exposure to Miley Cyrus?

suggest you re-read the conversation. Paleocon said his (hypothetical future) wife can peg him 24/7

It appears he didn't know what that means and backpedaled.

 

[roguenuke]

Agreed.

But if you've got a rapist out stalking women in the bars and clubs of a particular city who do you think is more likely to become a target?

A modestly dressed woman who is sober or a drunken woman who is dressed provocatively?

Depends on a lot of things. Which type of women is the rapist attracted to? Do the women look vulnerable? Women who are in a bar, sitting quietly by themselves in the corner, with no friends around and who look like they aren't going to fight back, in jeans and a t-shirt or long skirt and blouse, probably would be considered a much better target than a girl in a little tight skirt, with one or more people hanging out around her. Neither is asking to be raped nor making themselves more open to rape. Being alone in itself is probably the biggest thing that makes anyone vulnerable to rape, but people fail to just mention that. It doesn't matter what she is wearing, whether she is drinking or not, or anything else. A woman alone is more vulnerable.

 

[roguenuke]

Tell that to opportunistic or serial rapists.

You see, for law abiding, rational, decent people, your post above makes perfect sense.

To a criminal, it just doesn't, they are laughing at you....and their rebuttal is...."she was just asking for it and I gave it to her."

Just like they laugh at Universal Background Checks for guns.....and all other laws.

Many serial rapist tend to have a "type", which could be absolutely any trait or connection. A rapist would say that an old woman, sitting in her rocking chair at home, in a night dress, knitting an afghan was "asking for it".

Texas Serial Rapist's Bizarre Obsession - ABC News

Rapists do not fit into neat little boxes, at all. In general though, what a woman is wearing puts her at no greater chance of being raped because she can't possibly know what any particular rapist might be interested in. Her age, race, hair color, eye color, profession, abilities, skills, background, anything can make a woman "vulnerable" to a rapist.

 

[nota bene]

Depends on a lot of things. Which type of women is the rapist attracted to? Do the women look vulnerable? Women who are in a bar, sitting quietly by themselves in the corner, with no friends around and who look like they aren't going to fight back, in jeans and a t-shirt or long skirt and blouse, probably would be considered a much better target than a girl in a little tight skirt, with one or more people hanging out around her. Neither is asking to be raped nor making themselves more open to rape. Being alone in itself is probably the biggest thing that makes anyone vulnerable to rape, but people fail to just mention that. It doesn't matter what she is wearing, whether she is drinking or not, or anything else. A woman alone is more vulnerable.

I've mentioned this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...nds-like-commonsense-me-3.html#post1064983909

 

[nota bene]

Many serial rapist tend to have a "type", which could be absolutely any trait or connection. A rapist would say that an old woman, sitting in her rocking chair at home, in a night dress, knitting an afghan was "asking for it".

Texas Serial Rapist's Bizarre Obsession - ABC News

Rapists do not fit into neat little boxes, at all. In general though, what a woman is wearing puts her at no greater chance of being raped because she can't possibly know what any particular rapist might be interested in. Her age, race, hair color, eye color, profession, abilities, skills, background, anything can make a woman "vulnerable" to a rapist.

I can't remember the state, but a few years ago there was a serial rapist whose victims of choice were older ladies, and I mean in their late 60's and older.

 

[Paleocon]

Long story short, any sexual act done to a woman (or any person, really) without her express and willing consent is held to be morally wrong. It is considered to be especially wrong when such an act must be facilitated through the use of physical force expressly against the stated or implied will of the woman in question. This is the case regardless of whether she is married or not, and regardless of whether the perpetrator of such acts happens to be her husband.

In common vernacular, this is known as "rape." You're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be.

Marriage is express consent.

Rape rates were not lower back when people had more morals, they were simply reported less due to the stigma attached, the woman being blamed, the shame. Women were often blamed for allowing themselves to be raped, the police had little sympathy and often neither did society. Many women kept quiet about rape / incest (which was rife) because the support was not there and the feelings of shame could be overwhelming.

Note that there is no evidence for this wild speculation. It is simply based on your own assumptions. All of the actual evidence (police reports and the like) shows that rape rates were lower.

uhhh, which one is it?












since just a few posts ago, you said "Yes" she can.

Given that I'm not a sexual pervert, I admit to lacking intimate knowledge about the meaning of such euphemisms. I didn't know what "peg" meant.