U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage

I wonder what you guys call a man refusing to have sex with their wives...

A cheater..??


This is all BS and you all know it..! I smell a freaking feminist around...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Human beings are certainly animals.

Of course we're animals; I said wild animals.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I would say the facts disagree with you. Human beings do need to express their feelings physically with another person.

I would say that facts strongly agree with me.

I've never raped a woman, nor have I ever used a prostitute, but I'd be lying if I said that I have been able to have sex with a woman every time I've had a strong sexual urge.

In fact, my strong sexual urges where I've ''had to make my own arrangements'', statistically, must outnumber my strong sexual sexual urges that have been physically expressed with another person.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is our number one need above all other things including food and personal safety. Human beings constantly put their lives at risk in pursuit of sexual gratification. We risk our marriages, our lives, our careers, our reputations, and our very health for a few moments of gratification. "Survivial of Species" outranks all other innate instincts.

Of course it's our number one need. None of us would be here today if that wasn't the case.

In no way does this justify rape inside or outside of marriage or a serious relationship.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Those other random times where she is not quite in the mood, she still winds up enjoying herself.

That line really sounds creepy; I'm sure I've heard that ''argument'' before.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I make every effort to please my wife in every way emotionally, financially, physically, and intellectually, and I expect the same from her, and I don't think it is too much to ask.

Exactly.

You provide her well, thus leaving her the unenviable choice of providing her body as a glorified sex toy, or you going out and having sex somewhere else.

Coercion and blackmail.

Originally posted by IAF101
How is desiring one's mate even when they aren't particularly in the mood disrespectful ? How is helping your spouse fulfill and satisfy their urges being a sex toy ?

Well, call me old-fashioned, but half of the enjoyment of having sex with someone that you have feelings for is making your partner enjoy it in equal measure.

Why would some knuckle-dragging neanderthal possibly want to use their partner as a sex-toy ?

I think I just answered my own question: because they are knuckle-dragging neanderthals.


There is nothing disrespectful about desiring your partner when they are not in the mood; the disrespect comes from expecting them to provide their body as property to meet your desires.

This idea is disgusting, and I can't believe that people believe that this ''rape'' in their relationship is acceptable.

Originally posted by IAF101
That's like saying you would only do the dishes/walk the dog/cook/do the laundry/pick up the dry-cleaning etc for your spouse only when you feel like it and not when you aren't in the mood! That's not a marriage, that would be a room-mate arrangement (not even room-mates would stand for that these days! ) .

No that's not like that at all.

Your argument is ridiculous, and you are using an absurd analogy in an attempt to ''justify'' violating one's sexual partner.

Originally posted by IAF101
Sure, violently forcing your partner into sex when they don't want to, is absolutely condemnable and tantamount to rape but having sex with a disinterested/tired/unwilling partner is certainly not rape~!

Did you just include ''unwilling'' in your last statement to justify spousal rape ?

Surely, an ''unwilling'' sexual partner is included in the dictionary definition of rape ?


I can't believe there are so many people around with these prehistoric views.

Originally posted by Laurauk
Threatning to go else where, if your partner does not consent to sex,is emotional abuse. Those in here who advocate this should be ashamed of yourselves and you should hang your heads in shame.

Damn right.

It's blackmail, and blackmail is despicable.


A ''man'' who gives his wife an ultimatum: have sex with me or I'll go somewhere else, is an obnoxious runt ( please substitute the ''r'' in runt with another letter, the one after the ''x'' on the keyboard should do ).


In a marriage, the husband and wife will share a number of things: children, house, money etc.

By threatening to cheat on his wife unless she puts out, the ''man'' is asking her to choose between the loss, or half-loss, of everything, and reluctantly offering her body for, more than likely, 1-minute of her husband's urges.


These people who attempt to justify this behaviour really make my blood boil !

Originally posted by Laurauk
Inequality towards women in sports also,as highlighted with the two tv sports presenters and a sports reporter making sexist remarks with regards to a assistant female referee, which has lead to one sports tv presenter being sacked, and the other two being suspended. I suppose there is no inequalities here also eh. Doesnt mater where you go, Equality for females in the UK has a very long way to go. And that fact cannot be disputed.

Well, I don't mean to stray off course, but your assertion can easily be disputed.

In fact, your example contradicts the overall claim that you are making.


Richard Keys and Andy Gray, the two presenters at the centre of the sexist remark fiasco, have been sacked.

The fact that both of these long-standing presenters/commentators have been sacked for sexist remarks, surely shows that large sports media companies, such as Sky, take a strong stance on this ?

You can't stop someone from making a racist, sexist or homophobic comment, so all you can do is take action against it; as Sky have done.


So your example shows that British sports media do take this issue seriously, therefore contradicting these particular claims about sexism in sport.


Also, your comments about unequal pay don't stand up to scrutiny.

Paying someone differently, based on their gender, is illegal. If some women are getting paid unequally because of their gender, then there are clear legal avenues that they can go down, where they will get remuneration and correct pay.

Once again, you can't stop a man paying a woman less for her work. It's up to the aggrieved party to do something about that.

If some women are unwilling to complain or report unequal pay, then the problem will persist.

Just as crimes won't be dealt with if victims don't report them to the police, then unequal pay won't stop unless the victims report the perpetrators to the relevant authorities.


I mean, what exactly are you complaining about in terms of unequal pay ?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Just to let you know, I've starred your post because I agree with everything you have said.

It's scary to see the attitude of some men (and even women) who are under the impression that a wife should provide sex to her husband/partner whenever he feels like it.

Don't get me wrong, I personally believe sex is a very important part of any relationship and in my opinion if that desire to make love to your partner fades or even disappears then I believe that partnership should be ended.

You can love someone but not find them physically attractive and I reckon that's not right, some degree of physical attraction should always exist. For example, I have one male friend who I can honestly say that I love; I don't find him physically attractive as I don't swing that way but I can appreciate his looks.

Anyways, I'm going off the point here, but yeah well done

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Wrong One was sacked the other resigned, and the sports reporter was suspended from reporting on any games of football. He knew his position was in jepoardy after maing those comments in the first place, is why he telephoned the Assistant Referee and apologised to her.

You can't stop someone from making a racist, sexist or homophobic comment, so all you can do is take action against it; as Sky have done.

Yes you can, It is called Hate Crimes, unless you have missed this being brought into UK Law. And it can carries a heavy jail sentence to go along with it.

reply to post by Laurauk


Hang on Laura, comparing a tongue in cheek comment to hate crimes is a little over the top to say the least.

I know full well that women make similiar stereotypical comments about men.

reply to post by Laurauk


I agree with you on most things but come on, if ever a mountain has been made out of a molehill it's this farce over the Sky presenters.
Ok it was all a bit 1970's and they deserved to be reprimanded, but to lose their jobs?
Just a bit OTT methinks and definately done to appease the PC brigade.
There was no malice intended at all.
Great strides have been made in this country to eliminate sexism in the workplace, let's not get carried away.
And are we men to take offense every time a woman takes the piss out of men's inability to multi-task or our insensitivity or whatever?

Back on topic.
The enforcement of sex on anyone, by any means is wrong, end of story.
As such it is rape.
Rape is inexcusable in any shape or form and anyone found guilty of such an act should be punished to the maximum.
Rape is a totally abhorent crime, marital status is irrelevant.

Oh, and I would hate to think that any woman felt that beholden or indebted to me that she would have to provide sexual services.whenever I wanted regardless of her wishes even if she was my wife or not.

reply to post by Freeborn


Agreed.

Pretty much all I have to say to be honest, I agree with all your points.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Well, call me old-fashioned, but half of the enjoyment of having sex with someone that you have feelings for is making your partner enjoy it in equal measure.

No, I wouldn't call you old-fashioned, you're just naive about marriage and sex. And quite frankly have bought into the penny romance novel idea of sex that is at best a pubescent fairytale.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Why would some knuckle-dragging neanderthal possibly want to use their partner as a sex-toy ?

I think I just answered my own question: because they are knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

What a typically obtuse feminist observation of the sexual dynamics in marriage!

Yeah, sure, sex is best with both parties involved actively and thats what people ideally want every time but with people working 60 hour weeks and the stresses of modern life, sex might not always be something both parties are going to be participating every time it happens. However, that doesn't mean it is not-consensual or is conducted under duress. Further, after the 500th roll in the hay so to speak, sex is not the romanticized chocolates and candles affair, sometimes its just a physical urge that needs to be satisfied so you can get to sleep and go to work the next day! And being able to providing sexual relief to your partner is an act of love, especially if you know they would be frustrated otherwise and it would sooth them physically If you consider how sexual frustration affects relationships, it is far more healthy for a wife to ease her husbands sexual urges (or vice-versa) than to deny his advances or let him sort it out himself because that's just going to throw up more walls towards intimacy and introduce an air of sexual frustration into the relationship that as time goes on will lead to more resentment and ultimately lead people elsewhere.

What I find most interesting is your audacity at labeling what other consenting adults choose to do inside their marriages as them being equivalent to being a "sex-toy" ! So if my wife makes me dinner and since I don't pay her to do so does that mean some numbskull can call her my "indentured cook" or my "slave" ? Or if I were to wash her car or pick up her dry cleaning, would the same idiotic labels apply to me ?? Why is sex some sanctified act that makes it so different ? Especially if all the above actions are consensual like the sex then they are hardly different in their nature.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is nothing disrespectful about desiring your partner when they are not in the mood; the disrespect comes from expecting them to provide their body as property to meet your desires.

This idea is disgusting, and I can't believe that people believe that this ''rape'' in their relationship is acceptable.

How is being open about one's urges and expecting sexual satisfaction in a marriage "disrespectful" or even unreasonable, especially when marriage implies commitment and fidelity ? And who said anything about "providing their body as property" ?

If one's spouse isn't going to satisfy their sexual needs, then what point is there to this contract of commitment and fidelity other than being a handy tool to limit STDs? I hear condoms can do the same too and they cost a LOT less!

And if one's spouse doesn't feel the need to reciprocate to their partners need what makes you think it is a true marriage in the first place? Because, what you're saying sounds a lot more like "abuse" than anything I'm saying. Your feminist idea that a woman should expect her husband to be absolutely receptive to all her needs and she can deign to grant whatever she wishes, whenever she is in the mood to her husband is nothing but "abuse" and is laughingly called a "marriage" under your absurd ideology.

Why is it "disgusting" ? Just because you define "rape" to suit your own ridiculous philosophy ? You can keep calling it that if it suits your philosophy and by doing so you can mock and devalue the gravity of suffering of all the REAL rape victims who have been violently and brutally assaulted in REAL rape cases.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
No that's not like that at all.

Your argument is ridiculous, and you are using an absurd analogy in an attempt to ''justify'' violating one's sexual partner.

The only thing ridiculous here is your understanding of marriage and your comprehension of the English language.
How is having consensual but non-participatory sex with your partner a "violation", especially if there is no coercion to accept ? And speaking about ridiculous, who exactly are you or anybody else to define this as a "violation" when two consenting adult parties who offer each other the same courtesies don't deem it to be anything of the sort ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by IAF101
Sure, violently forcing your partner into sex when they don't want to, is absolutely condemnable and tantamount to rape but having sex with a disinterested/tired/unwilling partner is certainly not rape~!

Did you just include ''unwilling'' in your last statement to justify spousal rape ?

Surely, an ''unwilling'' sexual partner is included in the dictionary definition of rape ?

Surely, you aren't really this obtuse are you ? Because I quite clearly offered various other synonymous alternatives to describe what exactly I meant! Surely, everybody can see that I mean "unwilling" as "being not inclined to" but willing to be persuaded into and not in the sense of "involuntary". Again, I hardly refer to spousal rape which is by all legal definitions non-consensual and nothing like what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can't believe there are so many people around with these prehistoric views.

I on the other hand, can quite easily believe how there are so many misguided people who parrot neo-liberal feminist ideology without really having any real understanding about themselves or relationships. People who are quite willing to be second class citizens in relationships; too afraid to be open about their urges and their needs and too deluded about their their supposed roles in a relationship to ask for what they need in order to make a relationship work.
Little wonder then that amongst all this clap-trap, more and more people end marriages without every being honest with each other about what they want.

I have sex with my wife all the time when I'd rather be sleeping, I'm not a rape victim... if you never "put out" when you're not in the mood than you're selfish (not "empowered").

Originally posted by Laurauk
Wrong One was sacked the other resigned, and the sports reporter was suspended from reporting on any games of football. He knew his position was in jepoardy after maing those comments in the first place, is why he telephoned the Assistant Referee and apologised to her.

How come the ''wrong one'' was sacked ?

Andy Gray was the one who was shown to have made not just 1 - but about 3 or 4 - sexist comments.

Originally posted by Laurauk
Yes you can, It is called Hate Crimes, unless you have missed this being brought into UK Law. And it can carries a heavy jail sentence to go along with it.

No, you are completely missing the point...

You cannot stop somebody from discriminating against another person.

So your whinging about women not getting paid the same as men, goes in one ear, out the other, and gets put out with the rubbish.

You just haven't got anything relevant to complain about anymore.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I agree with you on most things but come on, if ever a mountain has been made out of a molehill it's this farce over the Sky presenters.
Ok it was all a bit 1970's and they deserved to be reprimanded, but to lose their jobs?

Just a bit OTT methinks and definately done to appease the PC brigade.
There was no malice intended at all.
Great strides have been made in this country to eliminate sexism in the workplace, let's not get carried away.
And are we men to take offense every time a woman takes the piss out of men's inability to multi-task or our insensitivity or whatever?

You're absolutely correct.

While Keys and Gray were a little bit naughty in their comments, they were just expressing some thoughts that a lot of football fans were thinking.

We all know about explaining the offside rule to women, with the accessories of a remote control, salt canister, and any other object you can find.


And Keys was absolutely spot-on about Karen Brady pulling the ''gender-card'' in relation to her shameful conduct in attempting to oust Avram Grant from his job as manager of West Ham.


Women just don't understand sport, let alone football.

Football, like a yorkie bar, is a matter for men to discuss at a later date:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ee34f5e5cf1.jpg[/atsimg]

If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband, and he forces her to, it's obviously rape! I don't care what nationality you are (I'm not going to touch the subject that he's muslim with a 20ft pole), rape is rape.

We all know that Muslim males can take multiple wives, so this crap about rape in marriage, coming from a religion that endorses multiple wives, is even more retarded. If wife number 1 doesn't want your sorry ass tonight, go beg wife number 2 etc etc.....
It's all about power and has nothing to do with healthy sexual relations between a loving couple.