My head may literally explode one day

[eeemkaaayy]

Just as religious or legal prohibition doesn't stop all bad things from happening IRL, religious or legal sanction doesn't stop all good things from happening. So yes, decent husbands existed prior to 1983. I would argue that the attitude that marital rape wasn't really seen as "true" rape was more common.

My comments about why a woman might marry a rapist was referring to the ancient Israelites 3,000 years ago. At THAT point in time, yes, as gross as it sounds, some women may have felt that marriage at least provided some sort of support. I'm not aware of any documented cases of this rule being put into effect in the Israelite/Jewish community.

Ah, okay. I had got the vibe that you had moved on from Israelite/Jewish into general life.

[dpndetfarm]

I can't speak to the NT OT part of this discussion, but for those who think marital rape has been frowned upon for a hundred years I have some disappointing news. In the US marital rape has not been a prosecutable offense for very long:

On July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one

section of the sexual offenses code. In 17 states and the District of Columbia,

there are no exemptions from rape prosecution granted to husbands (Indiana is

one of the 17 states with no exemptions). However, in 33 states, there are still

some exemptions given to husbands from rape prosecution. When his wife is

most vulnerable (e.g., she is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious,

asleep, etc.) and is legally unable to consent, a husband is exempt from

prosecution in many of these 33 states

Here is the link:

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/US_History_of_Marital_Rape.pdf

This is an interesting tidbit. Unfortunately not a surprising one:

In a study of battered women, Bowker (1983) found that they

ranked clergy members as the least helpful of those to whom they had turned for

assistance.

These fundi women really don't stand a chance of "just saying no". I sure hope one of the fathers questions to a potential courter is "on a scale of 1 to 10 what is your sex drive"? and that they have given their daughters the same test! Snort! :doh:

[2xx1xy1JD]

I can't speak to the NT OT part of this discussion, but for those who think marital rape has been frowned upon for a hundred years I have some disappointing news. In the US marital rape has not been a prosecutable offense for very long:

Here is the link:

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/US_History_of_Marital_Rape.pdf

This is an interesting tidbit. Unfortunately not a surprising one:

These fundi women really don't stand a chance of "just saying no". I sure hope one of the fathers questions to a potential courter is "on a scale of 1 to 10 what is your sex drive"? and that they have given their daughters the same test! Snort! :doh:

It's not about sex drive.

It's about respect for the wife and her right to control her own body. It's also about the fact that a decent guy shouldn't WANT to sleep with a partner who wasn't clearly into it, no matter how horny he is.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Lissar:

I think we've reached the limits of the ancient Israelite history discussion for tonight. I'm really trying to focus on stuff that can be objectively proven, or at least reasonably deduced from the available evidence. The final text of the Talmud was committed to writing by 1,500 years ago. We know that it existed as an oral tradition prior to that, and that the Gemara part of the Talmud consists of the statements and debates of prominent rabbis. We can date some of those discussions. What's less clear is whether the rabbis were breaking new ground, or merely presenting the interpretation/practice that was traditionally followed. There are some places where it is clear, but in other cases it is not.

Off to do trial prep and deal with my kids after the first day of school...

[desertvixen]

I liked the one commenter April, who brought up that it isn't the wife's fault if the husband gets into porn.

And you know, Lori is right. The wife doesn't need to "confront her husband's sin". She needs to TELL him that what he does makes her uncomfortable, and he SHOULD stop doing it out of basic respect for his wife.

My body belongs to me. I can't understand why all these fine, upstanding men want to have sex with someone who is not into it.

[dpndetfarm]

It's not about sex drive.

It's about respect for the wife and her right to control her own body. It's also about the fact that a decent guy shouldn't WANT to sleep with a partner who wasn't clearly into it, no matter how horny he is.

2xx1xy1JD, I understand that, however, since these women won't ever have the right to control their bodies they should at least be paired up with someone who is "into it" roughly the same amount.

As to your assertion that a decent guy shouldn't WANT to sleep with a partner who clearly isn't into it, there IS no such guy. I think what you meant was they shouldn't feel they are entitled to act on their desire to sleep with a partner who wasn't into it. My husband often wants to sleep with me when I am not into it. He just doesn't feel like he's entitled to act on that desire.

[B5SnowDog]

2xx1xy1JD, I understand that, however, since these women won't ever have the right to control their bodies they should at least be paired up with someone who is "into it" roughly the same amount.

As to your assertion that a decent guy shouldn't WANT to sleep with a partner who clearly isn't into it, there IS no such guy. I think what you meant was they shouldn't feel they are entitled to act on their desire to sleep with a partner who wasn't into it. My husband often wants to sleep with me when I am not into it. He just doesn't feel like he's entitled to act on that desire.

Wow, I hope you just worded that awkwardly. You make your husband sound like he has the desire to sleep with an unaroused partner but just doesn't act on it. That's a far cry from someone whose timing doesn't match yours.

[2xx1xy1JD]

2xx1xy1JD, I understand that, however, since these women won't ever have the right to control their bodies they should at least be paired up with someone who is "into it" roughly the same amount.

As to your assertion that a decent guy shouldn't WANT to sleep with a partner who clearly isn't into it, there IS no such guy. I think what you meant was they shouldn't feel they are entitled to act on their desire to sleep with a partner who wasn't into it. My husband often wants to sleep with me when I am not into it. He just doesn't feel like he's entitled to act on that desire.

What I mean is that my husband may want sex, but he doesn't have any desire to have it with me if he sees that I'm not aroused. If it's clear that my mind is elsewhere, or that I'm not comfortable, or that I'm on the verge of falling asleep, it instantly kills the mood for him. He wants an active, responsive partner.

[dpndetfarm]

Wow, I hope you just worded that awkwardly. You make your husband sound like he has the desire to sleep with an unaroused partner but just doesn't act on it. That's a far cry from someone whose timing doesn't match yours.

I'm saying my husband finds me attractive and is generally turned on by my body. I have no doubt there are many nights that he wants to sleep with me. There is nothing wrong with that. He has a higher sex drive than me. All I am saying is there are no repercussions when a couple has respect and equality. A pairing like this could, and probably would, be disastrous for the woman. I am not saying the behavior of fundy men is OK. I am just saying that if the woman will have to submit she might at least be matched with a man who wants it the same or less than her.

Not that it matters, because a fundy father doesn't really care if his daughter has any sex drive so it's a pointless discussion. I just don't think it's a horrible thing for a man to want to sleep with (be turned on by) a woman who is not interested. It's just not OK to act on it.

--------------------------------

Just saw your next post with your example. That is more clear to me. Thanks. Whether I made myself clearer or not may be debatable. My thoughts are so clear in my head. Unfortunately the translation to writing sometimes doesn't go so well. :oops: