Dr. Ruth: Women can't say no to sex once naked in bed

[quatona]

I would suggest that several of you who think that stopping right at the edge is no big deal do a google search and read up (educate yourself) on the "point of ejaculatory inevitibility."

Which - while common knowledge - is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Nobody said that a guy can or should stop [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] beyond the point of no return.
It´s just not the topic.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd stop. Because I'm not a rapist.

Then I'd ask "what's wrong?" because I have basic human empathy, and recognise that whatever is wrong enough to make her say "stop", is probably more important than getting off.

This is a good answer.

 

[Cearbhall]

Firstly, when I say stop, I MEAN stop. At what point does "Stop penetrating me" mean "you're not allowed to finish"?

Seriously. This. Just have a nice session with your hand if it'll kill you to not finish...

Not so. The only biblical grounds for divorce are A) sexual immorality and B) abandonment.

Well I'm sure glad I'm not a fundamentalist, then.

 

[Tina W]

Wew! This thread is something LOL. But yeah for some people a safe word that really means stop will have to be established ahead of time because for some people "stop", "wait", or crying does not mean stop, it means the opposite, it means Oh My Goodness or wow this is amazing.

And Dave wow that's definitely abusive. I'm glad she got some help. For some reason I was thinking people in this thread was talking along those lines like what your wife was doing too. LOL That's why I was like what? LOL I would think most women would want to please their husband or partner as much as possible, not take away from it. But I see the point being made in this thread now.

 

[D2wing]

Exactly. Human beings still have a strong animal component, the Reptile Brain. Please feel free to Google and read up on it. This is nothing new. Look at physical fights between adults, Road Rage, Murder, Rape, Crimes of passion... these things occur on a daily basis in every city in the world...

I feel a lot of people in this thread live in the hypothetical world of "should". And I will agree with you in principle and theory, absolutely. But my arguments are more in terms of REALITY. ANd I apply my reasoning to all my aspects of life. I do not put myself in these sorts of situations because not every person is going to have Zen like control over their Reptile brain. ANd I definitely would never exacerbate a situation to such an extreme point.



I couldn't agree more. Most of my arguments though were trying to delve more into the "Why" and the "how" though many in this thread seem content to wave my arguments away with a "should" counter.

"should" is a very dangerous world to live in. There is nothing more dangerous than thinking you are in the world of "should" and then one day stumbling into the real world. Regardless of your sex, if you delight in teasing to such an extreme level and putting yourself in these sorts of situations, you are playing with fire and one day you will get burned.

Lastly, though majority of my arguments in this thread have been concerning sex, my real argument is concerning any EXTREME situation in which you pit the Reptile brain against the Cognitive brain in such a way that the Reptile brain "may" override the Cognitive centers due to the extreme nature urgency of the situation. This is one reason why companies have learned the hard way to fire people on Fridays so that the person can cool down over the weekend, that is, allow the cognitive brain to override the Reptile brain. Why companies have developed an entire process of firing people that minimizes the chance of violence.

So in conclusion, I'm not arguing the right or wrong of legality of this, I'm arguing the actuality of this. People in this thread need to realize that not everyone is like you, not everyone is as highly morally evolved as you, and if you want to live in the world of "should" then you will have a rude awakening when you stumble into the real world.

I likely know more about the reptile brain than you do. My point is that rape is rape. Reptile brain is not an excuse. Also a moral person is able to control his himself even when aroused.
Instinctive responses are nearly always a defensive response or survival response. Physical aggression is a reptile brain response but not sexual in a normal person.
So no, not a valid excuse, a contributing factor possibly.
But I do agree with the point that an highly aroused male may not stop even though he knows he should during the sex act itself if he lacks self control. Before the sex act anymoral person should have enough control to stop. That doesn't mean he will.
A girl being in bed naked with a guy is asking for trouble and her chance of stopping the guy can be nil depending on the guy.
As far as the girl forcing sex with a guy is so unlikely I won't address it. Been there did not happen.

 

[MInTheGap]

Rape is violent, abusive, and wrong... And yet the bible apparently makes all sorts of apologetics towards rape. The concept of "marital rape" straight up does not exist within the bible, and the idea that a woman is responsible for getting raped if she doesn't scream loud enough is horrifying enough without getting into the way it blames the victim (what about roofies, or a quick blow to the back of the head?), but when you consider that a woman's virginity is a matter of life and death in the old testament, the way this law on rape is handled is downright horrifying.​

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible making "all sorts of apologetics[sic] towards rape". There is no concept of "marital rape" in the Bible because "marital rape" is a contradiction of terms. 1 Corinthians 7, which I referred to above, states that a marriage partner's body belongs to another, and that the only reason that a spouse should deny another sexual access is due to fasting and prayer, and that even that should not be for a long time. Consent is considered given inside a relationship whose main feature is the correct place for sexual activity.

I believe that the test for screaming was definitely a test for consent. If she is begging to have someone help her, she was being raped. This is a much clearer test than did she say yes and then say no, or decide a week later that she really didn't want it. I don't believe roofies were an issue in the Old Testament, but I'm sure either that or attacking a person would definitely be taken into consideration-- as would wounds to a body. But that isn't what this thread is talking about. We've gotten to the point where a man and woman can have sex, say they enjoyed it, and then decide later on that one of them didn't and now it's rape. This is ridiculous.

There's nothing gray about it. In fact, what's happened is that we've gotten rid of most of the "gray area", and made it clear: sex without consent is rape. It's a clear-cut, easy-to-understand definition that offers very little wiggle room. There's nothing "gray" about the above situation - if consent is not given, it is not sex, it is rape.​

Except when it's not. Whether it's mattress girl or others where they were all consenting during it, and then deciding to wield it as a weapon later.

The clear cut, non-grey standard was and still is marriage as the only place for acceptable sexual activity. Before marriage it's fornication and a sin. While having a marriage partner with someone else it is adultery and a sin. With the same sex person it is sodomy and a sin. Taking someone by force is rape and it's a sin. It's only a mess because men and women want to sin, and that makes it a mess.

 

[The Cadet]

Rape is violent, abusive, and wrong... And yet the bible apparently makes all sorts of apologetics towards rape. The concept of "marital rape" straight up does not exist within the bible, and the idea that a woman is responsible for getting raped if she doesn't scream loud enough is horrifying enough without getting into the way it blames the victim (what about roofies, or a quick blow to the back of the head?), but when you consider that a woman's virginity is a matter of life and death in the old testament, the way this law on rape is handled is downright horrifying.​

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible making "all sorts of apologetics[sic] towards rape". There is no concept of "marital rape" in the Bible because "marital rape" is a contradiction of terms. 1 Corinthians 7, which I referred to above, states that a marriage partner's body belongs to another,

Hmm... So the bible makes no apologetics towards rape, and also there's nothing wrong with raping your wife?

Look, rape is sex with someone without their consent. Nothing about marriage ensures that you have constant or permanent consent. Ergo, if your wife says no, and you do it anyways, it's rape.

and that the only reason that a spouse should deny another sexual access is due to fasting and prayer

How 'bout "I just don't feel like it tonight, honey"? Does this go both ways? If you refuse to let your wife peg you, are you not fulfilling your husbandly duties?

Consent is considered given inside a relationship whose main feature is the correct place for sexual activity.

Yeah, see, here's where the evolution happened. We realized that consent is fragile, and that it must be given but also can be withdrawn at any time. It's not the kind of thing you can just assume is always present. If you have sex with your wife and she is not consenting to you, guess what: it's rape.

I don't believe roofies were an issue in the Old Testament,

Alcohol was. See also: Lot and his daughters.

We've gotten to the point where a man and woman can have sex, say they enjoyed it, and then decide later on that one of them didn't and now it's rape. This is ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that that is acceptable. Let's not confuse abuses of the law with the law itself, eh? If the sex was unfun, it was bad sex. But if you consented, and did not revoke that consent during intercourse, guess what: it ain't rape! And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

Before marriage it's fornication and a sin. While having a marriage partner with someone else it is adultery and a sin. With the same sex person it is sodomy and a sin. Taking someone by force is rape and it's a sin. It's only a mess because men and women want to sin, and that makes it a mess.

No, it's a mess because human sexuality is messy and complicated. Did you know that many of us are naturally predisposed to cheat? That monogamy simply is not the "default setting" for homo sapiens? That some of us are naturally attracted to the opposite gender, rather than our own? Did you know that the most sexually charged part of a human's life is also the same part where we are very, very bad at making intelligent long-term decisions?

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not sure what you mean about the bible making "all sorts of apologetics[sic] towards rape". There is no concept of "marital rape" in the Bible because "marital rape" is a contradiction of terms. 1 Corinthians 7, which I referred to above, states that a marriage partner's body belongs to another, and that the only reason that a spouse should deny another sexual access is due to fasting and prayer, and that even that should not be for a long time. Consent is considered given inside a relationship whose main feature is the correct place for sexual activity.

That's all fine and dandy theologically, but my rights are not limited to what men in the ancient world thought I should get. Their opinions are irrelevant. Marital rape is real. And illegal.

 

[Dave-W]

Look, rape is sex with someone without their consent.

Actually it is PENETRATIVE sex without their consent. Check almost any law dictionary.

 

[Dave-W]

There is no concept of "marital rape" in the Bible because "marital rape" is a contradiction of terms. 1 Corinthians 7, which I referred to above, states that a marriage partner's body belongs to another, and that the only reason that a spouse should deny another sexual access is due to fasting and prayer, and that even that should not be for a long time. Consent is considered given inside a relationship whose main feature is the correct place for sexual activity.

It does not appear in the bible for another reason altogether. The bible was written by Jews who grew up with the sense that sex was a wife's RIGHT and a husband's obligation. That assumes the wife would be the agressor. Since "rape" has to involve penetration on the part of the agressor, and women do not have that equipment; it was a non-issue.

But wives could (and did) file suit in court to get more sex out of their husbands. Frequency was written into the language of the marriage contract and could be legally enforced.

 

[Dave-W]

Did you know that many of us are naturally predisposed to cheat?

Of course. That is a result of Adam's fall. We are all naturally disposed to sin in any of a number of ways.

 

[Cearbhall]

The clear cut, non-grey standard was and still is marriage as the only place for acceptable sexual activity. Before marriage it's fornication and a sin. While having a marriage partner with someone else it is adultery and a sin. With the same sex person it is sodomy and a sin. Taking someone by force is rape and it's a sin. It's only a mess because men and women want to sin, and that makes it a mess.

It's a mess because we're animals and natural selection hasn't removed all of these desires. Despite these desires, there are social reasons why these behaviors have been deemed wrong or inadvisable. Primogeniture was a big one for fidelity.

 

[flicka]

I agree about to a point. Let's use 10% just to be neat. There will be people of both sexes who "freak out" at the last minute or once they are getting ready to go. It happens. The bigger issue is behavior on the average though, the majority, the 90%. It is NOT acceptable and normal for everyone (college girls I'm talking to you) to think they can just fool around right up until the point of sex or even start having sex or complete the act then change your mind. That is a horrible WRONG thing to teach and believe but we've turned it around and call it "victim blaming" now when it's anything but. So much of the "unwanted sex" going on these days are children pretending to be adults and doing things that society should be telling the THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING. You're either a grown up and owning your actions and learning from your mistakes, or you are a child who needs to be kept away from it. There is not a whole lot of middle ground but it's become nearly impossible to tell anyone. Thankfully I told my daughter.

 

[Cearbhall]

(college girls I'm talking to you)

are children pretending to be adults and doing things that society should be telling the THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING.

This seems to be rather contradictory.

 

[FelipeOliveir@]

I would not do sex with my wife if she did not, but I certainly end in masturbation if I stayed for a long time without having sex (with my wife denying). Now I have seen many marriages without sex among Christians, especially after the children, my parents are an example of a couple who does not have sex. I wonder women do not know they have to have sex in marriage? They do not like sex? Or is the repression that Christians suffer and many are trained to see sex as something dirty, even within marriage? It seems to me that many churches and pastors do not care for that matter, make a lot of pressure on the couple to marry and when it comes the problems, everyone jumps out, give no advice. If marriage is to live without sex, why get married? Just to show the world that it is an adult and has responsibilities? Or just to have kids? Honestly, every day that passes I lose more and more the desire to get married and even prepare for marriage, I see that many married are in the same situation when they were single.

 

[Dave-W]

I wonder women do not know they have to have sex in marriage? They do not like sex? Or is the repression that Christians suffer and many are trained to see sex as something dirty, even within marriage? It seems to me that many churches and pastors do not care for that matter, make a lot of pressure on the couple to marry and when it comes the problems, everyone jumps out, give no advice.

This is from a (Supposed) pamphlet from the 1890s. While the language is more 20th century, it accurately portrays the Victorian attitude:

http://depts.washington.edu/psy210/1894.html

......
On the other hand, the bride's terror need not be extreme. While sex
it at best revolting and at worse rather painful, it has to be
endured, and has been by women since the beginning of time, and is
compensated for by the monogamous home and by the children produced
through it. It is useless, in most cases, for the bride to prevail upon the
groom to forego the sexual initiation. While the ideal husband would
be one who would approach his bride only at her request and only for
the purpose of begetting offspring, such nobility and unselfishness
cannot be expected from the average man.

Most men, if not denied, would demand sex almost every day. The wise
bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly
during the first months of marriage. As time goes by she should
make every effort to reduce this frequency.

Feigned illness, sleepiness, and headaches are among the wife's best
friends in this matter. Arguments, nagging, scolding, and bickering
also prove very effective, if used in the late evening about an hour
before the husband would normally commence his seduction.

Clever wives are ever on the alert for new and better methods of
denying and discouraging the amorous overtures of the husband. A
good wife should expect to have reduced sexual contacts to once a
week by the end of the first year of marriage and to once a month by
the end of the fifth year of marriage.

By their tenth anniversary many wives have managed to complete their child
bearing and have achieved the ultimate goal of terminating all sexual
contacts with the husband. By this time she can depend upon his love for
the children and social pressures to hold the husband in the home. Just
as she should be ever alert to keep the quantity of sex as low as
possible, the wise bride will pay equal attention to limiting the kind and
degree of sexual contacts. Most men are by nature rather perverted, and
if given half a chance, would engage in quite a variety of the most
revolting practices.
.....
One heartening factor for which the wife can be grateful is the fact
that the husband's home, school, church, and social environment have
been working together all through his life to instill in him a deep
sense of guilt in regards to his sexual feelings, so that he comes to
the marriage couch apologetically and filled with shame, already half
cowed and subdued. The wise wife seizes upon this advantage and
relentlessly pursues her goal first to limit, later to annihilate
completely her husband's desire for sexual expression.

 

[Catherineanne]

lets be clear, we aren't talking about two people in bed naked equating to sex...

no we are talking about two AROUSED people lying naked in bed.

Her quote is:



and as unpopular as it might be to say so, I have to agree with her.

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

At some point we need to be held accountable for our actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't put yourself in the above position.

The universal rule for "no sex" is keeping the underwear on. That rule has been firmly established since Junior High for crying out loud. Other than that, both of you "agreeing" prior to being naked to take things only so far is also acceptable. Anything other than that is just way irresponsible for either party to allow things to get that far without intending to have sex...

Imagine those same people in bed and someone else walks in; perhaps a parent, or even their own young child.

Would they still not be able to stop themselves? I think not; they would stop all right, no problem at all.

People are not animals; we have self control and we have shame, and no means no, regardless of the situation or the clothing involved.

 

[FelipeOliveir@]

This is from a (Supposed) pamphlet from the 1890s. While the language is more 20th century, it accurately portrays the Victorian attitude:

http://depts.washington.edu/psy210/1894.html

That explains a lot. Many women attitudes nowadays, even some of my age in more traditional and rigid doctrines churches.

Where is the love between the couple within marriage? The Song of Solomon had not been translated in 1890? And the advice of Paul? (the couple must have sex, that every man has his wife just not to sin)

I find it incredible how people add and take Bible words to create their own rules and doctrines.

No one thought that these are erroneous doctrines? No one questioned the supposedly unquestionable authority of the pastor? These people did not pray? Not heard the voice of God? I did not read the Bible for themselves?

I came to the conclusion that reading and meditating are two completely different words (what is not obvious to many people), it still seems that most Christians do not even read the Bible. Or read in a hurry just to say they've read, read for obligation and not to know God, be intimate with God it seems that they read the Bible because the pastor orders, because parents oders, not for themselves wish to listen God's word.

Meditation is much deeper, you start to see how rich is the Bible, and how far we are from the ideal, but at the same time we realize that no matter how long we are in the church (10, 20, 50 years), we will always have something to improve.

Doctrines are poor, you can quickly follow them, and as a result begins to feel holier than the other brothers in Christ and higher than in people who are in the world.

 

[Dave-W]

Where is the love between the couple within marriage? The Song of Solomon had not been translated in 1890?

LOL. I used to have a set of Benson's Commentaries - the set my dad used in seminary. (He was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) My brother Wayne now has them. They were first published in England about 1860, and the Preface to the Song of Solomon was very telling. It was said EVERYTHING in this book MUST be taken as allegory of Christ and the church. To take it literally (i.e. talking about married sex) was unthinkable and sinful.

 

[FelipeOliveir@]

This is from a (Supposed) pamphlet from the 1890s. While the language is more 20th century, it accurately portrays the Victorian attitude:

http://depts.washington.edu/psy210/1894.html

I remembered of eclesiastes 7:15-17

Balance is the key to a good life here on earth, while we are still here.
God made man in balance, too much sodium and you have high blood pressure , lack of sodium and you have hypotension.
Balance, why people don't care about that?