Re: Need feedback from soc.men re: moderated group proposal
- From: jik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan Kamens)
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:56:12 +0000 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I don't read soc.men. Judging from the
soc.men traffic which has been bleeding into news.groups
recently, I have no desire to do so. I am responding only
because the message quoted below was a response to one of
mine, so I feel compelled to rebut. I will not see any
response you post to this message.
"PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx> writes:
That said, people engage in pre-consent for things all the time
and we don't think it's unusual: Military service or boarding an
airplane come to mind.
Your analogy is ludicrously flawed.
People who enter the military or buy a plane ticket explicitly
consent to the conditions of the contracts into which they are
entering, said conditions being explicitly provided to them.
In contrast, except in particularly sexist or repressive
countries and religions, marriage contracts do not require
either party to provide sex upon demand. Please feel free to
provide proof to the contrary.
There is a simple option for a woman
who wants to reserve the precious right to deny a man sex:
Don't get married. Yes?
This statement assumes the conclusion, i.e., that marriage
implies irrevocable consent to sex, and the statement is
therefore pointless in this debate.
Having said that, the notion that a woman cannot get married
and still preserve the right to decline to have sex on
specific occasions with her husband is, quite simply,
uncivilized and barbaric.
Even so, even under the current watered
down laws in most states, ALL married men are guaranteed
one sexual encounter otherwise the marriage is void.
Um, no. It is true that in some states, either party to a
marriage can petition for a marriage to be annulled on the
grounds that it was never consummated. That is rather a
different thing from saying that the husband is "guaranteed
one sexual encounter." Courts rarely compelling specific
performance in general, and I've certainly never heard of any
modern court compelling a woman to provide sex to her husband.
Please feel free to provide proof to the contrary.
Many women admit that they don't want the man to constantly
seek approval from them, everytime, even if they aren't married.
So a real man grabs his woman by the hair, drags her to the
bedroom, throws her on the bed, and has his way with her? And
woman just *love* that, eh? I think not.
It is not difficult for a man to suggest the idea of having
sex to one's wife without "getting a verbal or written
agreement before every sexual action they initiated." It is
not difficult for a man to understand, based on his wife's
reaction, whether her response to his suggestion is "no." Any
man who deserves to be called that respects his wife's wishes
when she says no. And any man who doesn't is a rapist.
We're not talking about ambiguous situations where the wife
never makes it clear to her husband that she's not interested.
Yes, I'm sure those occur, but to pretend that that's *all*
that occurs and thus it's never rape is simply ludicrous.
We're talking about, for example, when the wife repeatedly
screams, kicks, scratches, and tries to get away from her
husband any other way she can, and he holds her down and
forces her to have sex with him.
That you can claim with a straight face that that's not rape
is simply and utterly astounding.
The Pope agrees that men have the right to sex from their wives.
* Many people, myself include, believe that Catholic doctrine
on marriage is inherently misogynistic, so citing Catholic
doctrine to support your position isn't going to work so well
for me.
* Stating that men have the right to sex from their wives is
rather different from stating that men have the right to sex
from their wives *whenever they want it*, which is what you
are claiming when you assert that wives do not have the right
to ever deny their husbands sex.
* Catholic doctrine prohibits spouses from *unreasonably*
denying sex to their spouse. Catholic doctrine *does* permit
a wife to refuse sex to her husband on specific occasions for
certain reasons. Note this comment from
http://www.trosch.org/the/daterape.htm: "While few in number,
there are some women who enter into marriage and then deny
sexual intercourse from some sense of fear or for some unsound
reason. There is a point of time and circumstance in which
some exercise of force would not be considered rape." The
converse is that in the normal case, the exercise of force by
a man to obtain sex from his wife WOULD be considered rape
under Catholic doctrine.
Perhaps perpetual sexual sharing and consent seems like a trap to
some but that's true of marriage overall, yes?
No.
Little has changed
for men even in modern times when it comes to the financial
responsibilities they accept in marriage that are difficult to seperate
themselves from later. It's considered perfectly acceptable to force
men to provide for a woman who no longer "voluntarily" provides
him sexual pleasure as he pays alimony and child-support. That's
slavery. So before we argue that so-called marital rape is wrong,
we should acknowledge that marital slavery is wrong too.
This is an irrelevant digression into a totally different
topic.
Summation:
1) Pre-consent is still consent.
No.
2) Men are guaranteed one sex act, by law, under marriage. No ifs,
ands, or buts.
No.
3) Women themselves don't like men to ask for sex every time.
Irrelevant.
4) The Pope agrees.
No.
5) Justifications for marital rape do not address the marital slavery
men endure.
Irrelevant.
Please direct followups to soc.men.
Perhaps you ought to learn how to use a Followup-To line.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
.
- Prev by Date: Re: suggested form of moderation for soc.men.moderated
- Next by Date: Re: Let's pretend we're dead
- Previous by thread: Re: Need feedback from soc.men re: moderated group proposal
- Next by thread: Re: Female molesters get less jail time!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
