Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which - while common knowledge - is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.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."
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.
Seriously. This. Just have a nice session with your hand if it'll kill you to not finish...Firstly, when I say stop, I MEAN stop. At what point does "Stop penetrating me" mean "you're not allowed to finish"?
Well I'm sure glad I'm not a fundamentalist, then.Not so. The only biblical grounds for divorce are A) sexual immorality and B) abandonment.
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.
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
Consent is considered given inside a relationship whose main feature is the correct place for sexual activity.
I don't believe roofies were an issue in the Old Testament,
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.
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.
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.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.
Actually it is PENETRATIVE sex without their consent. Check almost any law dictionary.Look, rape is sex with someone without their consent.
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.
Of course. That is a result of Adam's fall. We are all naturally disposed to sin in any of a number of ways.Did you know that many of us are naturally predisposed to cheat?
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.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.
(college girls I'm talking to you)
This seems to be rather contradictory.are children pretending to be adults and doing things that society should be telling the THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING.
This is from a (Supposed) pamphlet from the 1890s. While the language is more 20th century, it accurately portrays the Victorian attitude: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.
......
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.
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...
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
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.Where is the love between the couple within marriage? The Song of Solomon had not been translated in 1890?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?