Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, May 23, 2015.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I thought the suggestion, Capracus, made was silly. Maybe only trying to ruffle some feathers. Hence, I made a more unrealistic suggestion. Plus it was a movie quote! (Or documentary.)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Nation building with prostitution? (I'm thinking on a broader scale than the things that were mentioned.)

    Hypothetically, say in the entire world, except one country, prostitution was legal and recognized as a freedom... (Prostitution may be a human rights issue anyway.)

    This one country is at war with whatever, and loosing territory. It could then seem viable (to liberate the population) to send in prostitutes and encourage prostitution.

    This, of course, is, fictitious and I haven't looked too deeply on the subject. (In another thread I was looking into prostitution's correlation with the second law of thermodynamics -yes, I sometimes like bewildering conversations.) But, in Afghanistan, it won't work. However, if selling sex wasn't so frowned upon in Afghanistan, it may help stop other crimes like human trafficking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Afghanistan

    I had to make a fictitious argument as I can't visualize prostitution as a war/nation building tactic. Religion, politics, yada yada yada. And with my morning coffee it is sometimes refreshing to break from the shackles of reality.


    Last edited: Sep 24, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    You don’t think pedophiles have the same rights of protection as other members of society? If you were to assault a pedophile, would you expect not to be arrested? Our armed forces and law enforcement agencies are tasked with protecting all citizens, regardless of their criminal background, unless of course the state sentences them to die.

    NATO is in Afghanistan to protect the non-insurgent segment of the population, which includes the entire spectrum of that society, from innocent children to adult criminal pedophiles. NATO’s mission is to militarily defend that society from the various insurgents, not cure it of its various social ills. If NATO considers it in the best interest of their mission to overlooked certain human rights violations by government officials, they do it. If NATO considers it in the best interest of their mission to risk civilian casualties, they do it. These are the kind of things that militaries have justified in the name of strategic advantage throughout history, and still do to this day.

    At what cost to their mission? I would say that NATO has made the calculation that placating government officials is more essential to their goal than addressing these sexual assaults, however unsavory it may be to you or me.
    So individuals who willingly participate in prostitution are slaves? I would consider anyone willing to engage in prostitution in order to alleviate the suffering of others to be heroes.

    But if they are engaging in sex with willing adults it’s no longer pedophilia. Problem solved.

    If NATO considers it necessary to placate these government officials, my reasoning is that they do it in a way that takes the element of slavery out of the equation. Willing prostitutes are no more slaves than willing military personnel are, they are both there to perform their respective missions.

    How is it slavery when adults engage in consensual sexual activity? And how is such adult activity considered pedophilia?

    Like I mentioned earlier, if NATO considers placating these individual to be in their best interest, then why not try to do it in a way that replaces the unwilling boys with willing adults.

    The movie industry does it, the porn industry does it, and I’m sure the legal prostitution industry does it as well.

    Unfortunately the realties of warfare don’t presently offer that luxury. Collateral damage is still an unavoidable element of military targeting, and ethical compromise is sometimes necessary to gain strategic advantage.

    Again, you’re confusing willing, state sanctioned prostitution with forced sexual slavery.

    It was the USSR that established one of the most sophisticated special services in the world, which trained female spies to seduce men. There has been a book put out recently about sex spying. A girl named Vera narrated the story about KGB and how they recruited pretty girls, promising them that they would have all kinds of welfare imaginable, if they would agree to fulfil their civil duty and become sex agents. They were trying to deliver them from any shyness or shame, teaching them sex techniques, showing perverted pornographic videos. Girls were supposed to be able to execute any task. A lesbian orgy was one of practical classes, teachers would join that orgy too, the whole event was filmed and then the tape was discussed in detail by the whole group of participants.

    “We were told that we were soldiers and that our weapon was our bodies. When the training was finished, we became sexually sophisticated women, we were ready to sleep with any man, if there was such an order for that,” – Vera said.


    Nations are often willing to do far worse things than satisfying pedophiles in times of war.

    You still don’t grasp the dynamics of the situation. NATO personnel are not in charge of the Afghan security members, it’s not their mission to police them for human rights violations. If the Afghan government is unwilling to address these violations, which seems to be the case, then all NATO can do is try to offer some acceptable alternative. They could be paid not to abuse the boys, or as I suggested, given willing adult sexual substitutes.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Which means we lose. I mean, who exactly are they there protecting? The delicate sensibilities of the government officials and police officers who commit these acts? Or the citizens?

    State sanction prostitution to serve as 'fuck holes' for paedophile police officers? Yes, that would be tantamount to sexual slavery, not to mention human trafficking.

    Whose suffering are they alleviating? The children being held as fodder for sexual predators? Or the predators who apparently need to have sex with children to be able to perform their duties?

    And what of the suffering of the young men who look like boys to serve as 'comfort' men for these paedophiles? Or do they not really count?

    I cannot believe what I am seeing.

    You are literally saying that paedophiles should be rewarded with sex with young men who look like boys. That's not problem solved. That is just shifting the issue.

    And that makes it okay, in your opinion?

    Actually, yes it does offer that luxury. We refuse to support their police officers if the practice continues. Withdraw funds. Instead of sitting by and doing nothing or providing them with young men who look like boys because heaven forbid, a paedophile doesn't get to 'get off'.

    In a country where homosexuality is illegal? You think young homosexual men who look like preteen or teenage boys are going to be willing to out themselves and face being ostracised by their community, not to mention face death or arrest by the police officers they are meant to be sexually servicing while pretending to be boys? Really?

    And it is sexual slavery, because these young men would not have a choice. The issue with the practice of Bacha Bazi is that it isn't young looking boys they want. These are actually groomed paedophiles who are actually attracted to young boys. Not young men who look like young boys.

    If a future Afghan government can achieve a balance between the Taliban, who strictly enforced anti-pedophilia laws but harshly oppressed women, and the current administration, which has put an end to the hard-line Islamic subjugation of women but has allowed bacha bazi to reach shocking levels, Afghanistan’s dismal human rights record may improve.

    An additional strategy for combating bacha bazi is to attack the issue from an ethno-cultural standpoint. Identifying key tribal elders and other local powerbrokers who share the West’s revulsion towards such widespread pedophilia is the first step in achieving lasting progress. As is true with women’s rights, understanding Afghanistan’s complex social terrain and bridging its cultural differences is necessary to safeguard the rights of adolescent boys.

    The Afghan government’s acknowledgement of bacha bazi and subsequent outreach into rural Pashtun communities, where the legitimacy of the government is often eclipsed by the power of warlords and tribal elders, will also be critical. The most important breakthrough, of course, will come when the Afghan government, police, and military rid themselves of all pedophiles. If the central government can ensure its representatives at the local level will cease their engagement in bacha bazi, the social norms are bound to change as well.

    Instead of enabling them, they should be removed from their positions of power and stripped and put in prison for raping children. Not rewarded with young men who look like boys to serve as their fuck toys.

    And this makes it okay?


    NATO and the allied forces should not be rewarding paedophiles for being paedophiles for the 'greater good'.

    Your acceptable alternative, instead of standing up to these paedophiles and imprisoning them and stopping the practice, is to enable and encourage the practice by providing them with "willing" male prostitutes who look like young boys. For God's sake! You are literally living up to the term male privilege at this point. Your so called acceptable alternative would risk the lives of those young men who you believe should be willing to provide their bodies to service paedophiles. Your proposition is vile and shameful. I've heard some fucked up things from defense lawyers in trying to excuse their paedophile clients in my time, but you are actively advocating for the enabling and protection of paedophiles and providing them with teenage looking young men to satisfy their urges. That isn't an acceptable alternative. Especially in light of the fact that homosexuality is illegal and you are willing for young gay men or even straight men to become veritable fuck toys for paedophiles who are in positions of power and are able to shoot and kill them without repercussion instead of.. Oooohh.. I don't know.. Strip them of their power and throw them in jail for their horrendous crimes.

    No offense, but at this point, perhaps you should just stop talking. How anyone can propose what you have proposed in this thread and on this subject is revolting.
    Kristoffer likes this.
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    "I had a boy because every commander had one," Mestary, a former commander of the Northern Alliance that fought against the Taliban, said in a PBS documentary, "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan," in 2010. "There's competition amongst the commanders. If I didn't have a boy, I couldn't compete with the others." (from the cnn article)

    "First we deal with the war and then look into bacha bazi" or words to that effect that were given to the UN investigator that she said in the documentary as the subject is taboo. Is it a crime to overlook human rights violations and international law when the Afghan government itself overlooks it? Many Afghans are scared of the boy solicitors. Does NATO have a right to deal with the issue? Do they need the cooperation of Warlords and such to fight the Taliban and so overlook the pedophilia?

    I had not seen this (disturbing) documentary before today
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2015
  9. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, tough to watch.

    Duncan Hunter and Vern Buchanan are backing them up.

    “A decision on Martland’s future rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, whom, I am told, is fully aware of the many appeals on Martland’s behalf. I have to believe that he’ll do the right thing and put one of our most elite and ethical warriors above an admitted rapist.”


    “The only people who should be punished and discharged from the service are the ones who created and condoned the immoral practice of ignoring child rape on a U.S. military base,” Buchanan said.

  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    The UN security council would have to permit whatever actions to be undertaken for violations of international law. I can't really think that any nation of a security counsel to support extortionist pedophiles.

    I really can't understand what's going on. Afghanistan is a mess.

    I also haven't been looking much into Syria:

    The 12-year-old girl has since escaped to a refugee camp after a harrowing 11 months in captivity. "He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God"


    Don't know a lot about the medium, but I've also read the same reports elsewhere.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2015
  11. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Afghanistan was a mess before the Russians invaded. Pretty much once you left Kabul, it was tribal rules and customs with their inter-tribal fighting ongoing.


    It seems likely Bacha Bazi, in some form, has been a part of Afghanistan for a very long time. I heard some things about it back in the mid-70s, though not the detail offered by these documentary's. It is also possible that the practice was further corrupted via the Russian/taliban occupation (driving it underground) as in historic practice vs current practice. Its obvious from the wiki portion that homosexual/pedophile practice did occur on some levels:


    Non-consenting? For me, that implies some kind of recognition of sexual contact. But that is speculation on my part.
  12. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Good link. In the documentary the makers hinted at some of the cultural elements that fuel this sexual mentoring/slavery, but didn’t go into much detail.

    This report does.

    Pashtun Sexuality


    This article summarizes some of the findings of the report.

    For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.

    Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

    "How can you fall in love if you can't see her face," 29-year-old Mohammed Daud told reporters. "We can see the boys, so we can tell which are beautiful."

    Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life at home. A favored Afghan expression goes: "Women are for children, boys are for pleasure." Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

    That helps explain why women are hidden away - and stoned to death if they are perceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But the pedophiles explain that away. It's not homosexuality, they aver, because they aren't in love with their boys.


    Basically it’s a clusterfuck of culture that’s led to this behavior, and my somewhat facetious suggestion of employing special forces of prostitutes to moderate it would be piss in the ocean in light of the scale of this tradition. The report noted that even the hard line stance of the Taliban against these practices wasn’t enough to eradicate it, so it’s not surprising that NATO is reluctant to address the issue as well, especially when doing so might significantly hinder any chances they have of successfully dealing with the insurgency.
  13. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Ashraf Ghani, Afghan President, Vows to Crack Down on Abuse of Boys

    “Our Greek and Turkish heritage have generated periods of long practice,” he said. “Those require a large cultural-social dialogue that require purpose and energy.”

    "Alexander the Great conquered much of Afghanistan starting around 330 B.C., bringing with him ancient Greek cultural practices that died out in their homeland millenniums ago. And though the sexual abuse of boys was a feature of life in the Ottoman Empire, it faded in the 19th century and is no longer accepted in Turkey."

    So what. We had disgusting ancient practices, as well. Slavery was just fading in 19th century and you wouldn’t hear us using that as an excuse.

    That’s equivalent to them coming here and arming NAMBLA.
  14. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    You dont think Ghani is just saying what it takes to keep American support (and money) on his side? Personally, I dont put a lot of stock in his reaction to this current rehash of something thats been being talked about for the last 10 years and deeply entrenched in Afghanistan culture.

    Nothing will change. A few heads will roll to make a 'show for the coalition' but nothing will change overall. Unless we are willing to stay put for 50-100 years and keep boots on the throats who define the cultural norms of that region.
  15. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Something changed. They're back.

    The Taliban are back on the radar in Afghanistan again — this time in Kunduz

    “Making matters worse was the weaknesses in the Afghan forces. Kugelman says there's rampant drug abuse in the ranks as well as illiteracy and large desertion rates. As a result, he says, Afghan forces could not fight this insurgency on their own.”

    Hmm…he forgot to mention the pedophiles. Maybe their pederastic cerebral dysfunction inhibits their fighting abilities, eh?
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    I am unclear on what your point is. From the article:

    “This wasn’t a total surprise,” he explains. “Really, since 2013, the Taliban and affiliated militants have been trying to build a presence in the northern regions.”

    Like I said, its would take 50 - 100 years of our boots on their throats to ensure the powers that control the 'culture' of Afghanistan adhere to a civil lifestyle:

    From 2013:

  17. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    My point is that we will be there for the long haul. Pakistan is too important. They have nukes. The Afghan Army’s shortcomings and corruption will force us to stay or it will be Iraq all over again. Even before this happened in Kunduz, we had already made decisions that reflected our support of a more cooperative president, Ashraf Ghani.

    If we're going to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, we should support the officers involved. It’s part of our nature to want to punish people who do bad things. It's a deterrent.

    I think it was MacIntyre who said, "The barbarians are not at the gates but in fact have been governing us for some time."

    "Child sexual abuse is not “culture.” It’s barbarity. And for Americans to do nothing about it – and even to tolerate it on U.S. military bases – should turn our stomachs."

  18. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Afghanistan is irrelevant in regards to Pakistans nukes. Two separate issues. To demonstrate, we did not go into Afghanistan until 2001:


    Anyways, while I think Pakistan is very dangerous due to its muslim extremists and issues with India, I would need more supporting evidence to consider our being in Afghanistan tied into Pakistan; after all, the weapons for the mujahedin went through Pakistan via US sources to fight the Russians and Pakistan.
    I assume you are talking about Quinn and I agree.

    Sexual abuse (child or adult) most certainly can be a part of a culture. Just like human sacrifice has been a part of various cultures, or cannibalism, or arranged marriages, or honor killings, or the KKK or witch hunts. Culture can be barbaric. It is much easier to stop a psychopath than it is to abandon a 'cultural tradition'.

    So my question to you is, how far are you willing to go to end the horrific aspects of middle eastern culture(s)? Are you willing to abandon the girls/women and allow the taliban to take over to save the boys from predators? Are you willing to put 100K troops on the ground as an occupying power for 50-100 years until the myth is dead?

    And what do you do about the borders?


    Dont get me wrong, I dont support these crimes against people. I think its horrific what goes on in these places. But I am sure we do not have the fortitude it would take to make this place (afghanistan) safe for women and children.
  19. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Just read a little bit on the U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    Yeah, I guess you're right. That is the topic. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Praise Jeebus for Christian marital advice..

    Meet Larry Solomon and his Biblical Gender Role website..

    From dealing with the wife saying "no" to sex, and listing the only reasons she can say no, to his claims that he is not advocating raping one's wife (despite his argument that there is no such thing as marital rape) and that all he is talking about is the husband having sex with his wife who does not want sex, but has "yielded" to sex.. Yielded.. Wow..

    The horror story goes on and on..

    "Should a Christian wife fake it?"

    Many Christian wives ask “If I give him sex that should be good enough, I should not have to give him sex and also pretend to like it! That is ridiculous!”

    Do we think it is ridiculous when a salesman gets to his job even if he does not feeling like selling cars that day and the minute a customer walks in they have to put a big smile on and act like the world is wonderful while they try and sell their products? Of course not.

    There are many times in life that we just have to put on a smile, put our best effort forward even when we don’t feel like it, and sex with our spouse is no exception to that rule.

    What about the husband who comes home from a tough day at work and his wife wants to go on about drama in her sisters or girlfriends life? He could care less about it. But he has to put on the smile and fake like he is interested in it.

    For men when it comes to sex – you appearing to enjoying it (whether it is genuine or not) is huge part of what makes sex pleasurable for a man.

    If a man feels like he has pleased his wife in bed, he gets up and it just makes his day. Its more than just the physical release, a man is on cloud nine after sex if he feels he has pleased his wife.

    If a man feels like he can’t please his wife in the bedroom it will deeply affect his self-esteem and his confidence.

    You might feel as a wife “But I gave him sex when he wanted it!”, but if he feels that you were displeased during sex you may have given him a physical release, but you just added a psychological load to his mind. You can literally ruin your husband’s day by giving him sex but making him feel like a horrible lover, or that you did not desire him in bed.

    "Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not the mood?"

    You are not being selfish when you act on your God given sexual urges and initiate sex with your wife. Even if your wife is not in the mood, but she yields to your advance anyway, you ought to take it.

    You should NEVER, EVER feel guilty for initiating sex with your wife.

    Remember this principle when it comes to sex in your marriage. It is not just you, or your wife that need sex as individuals, but your marriage needs sex. While sex levels may go up and down from time to time, when sex completely ceases in a marriage the marriage will die. Sure you may still live together, but the connection between the two of you will be gone, and you both will expose yourselves to dangerous and sinful temptations by doing so.

    Let me also be clear, that much of this advice I am giving to you is for Christian couples, where both the husband and wife profess faith in Christ, and believe the Bible is the Word of God. See my next post 8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal where some of the steps could also apply to an unbelieving wife.

    The haters of the fact that God says sex is to occur if either the husband or wife want it will immediately scream “Rape” when I tell you as a Christian husband, that you ought to take the sex from your wife even if she is not in the mood.

    The little phrase they neglect that I have stated is “if she yields”.

    I am NOT advocating for a husband to physically force his wife to have sex with him.

    I will address the situation if she does not yield in my next post.

    But I will say this, despite American laws to the contrary, Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as “marital rape”. In the Scriptures, the only way rape occurs is if a man forces himself on a woman who is not his property (not his wife, or concubine). A man’s wives, his concubines (slave wives taken as captives of war or bought) could be made to have sex with him, no questions asked.

    Now the Bible states that if a man did take one of his female slaves, he had to make her at least a slave wife (a concubine), which gave her a certain status above a normal slave. She had the right to be fed, clothed and the right to regular relations with him even he had other wives. She also had to be given the full rights of a daughter, if her father-in-law had purchased her for his son. I realize this entire scenario is appalling to our modern western notions, but I choose to not challenge God’s wisdom in the laws he gave. If you want to argue with God about this at the judgement, be my guest

    He then goes on with pictures of a woman's face to indicate the 'mood face'. Type two is the face of a woman not happy and really not wanting to have sex. This, I guess, is the advice to get her to "yield"..

    Many of us husbands, but not all, will take the grudging acceptance, where she yes, but with a bad attitude.

    Believe it or not, I have seen bloggers and others online say that a man is raping his wife if he has sex with her, knowing she is not in the mood, even if she grudgingly yields. Anything short of her happy consent in their view, is rape. I have asked several good Christian women about this, including my wife and sister-in-law and they just laughed at such a ridiculous notion.

    But if your wife’s reaction is anything but a happy or grudging yield to your sexual advance, you need only follow up her response with “is that a no?”

    And perhaps throw in “do we need to sit down and refresh our minds with what God’s Word says about sex in marriage?” If your wife is not a Christian, a reference to the Scriptures may fall on deaf ears so you may just want to leave it with the first question “is that a no”, and then see my next post that will deal with how to handle unbelieving wives.

    Your wife has two choices
    Her first choice is to react to your “is that a no” question by grudgingly giving in. This is what I mean by, if she is not in the mood, but yields anyway, then just take it, knowing that both you and your marriage need the sex.

    Her second choice is to react to your “is that a no” with a “Yep, it’s a no”. In that case you have to move to a different strategy that with I will address in my next post, “8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal”.

    [Part 1]
  21. Bells Staff Member

    [Part 2]

    Tragically, this particular 'blog' 'page' whatever you wish to call this freak show, had one poster in the comments section describe being raped by her husband. She was seeking advice and help. I put in the paragraphs to make it a bit easier to read..

    My husband and I have been married for 9 years. When I was pregnant with our first child we sat down and had a discussion about sex. I told him while I was pegnant there would be time I probly would not want to have sex and if he did I understood and I would be willing to fullfill my duty and his desires………well it all went down hill from there. I understand what the bible states. I and a Christian however he is not. That being said when sex began to be painful because of pregnancy he did not care. I would recieve comment, it will only take a few minutes, I’ll be quick, what ever. I took it. Did not hold a grudge. Got past it. The problem is, it has never stopped.

    My husband does have sex with me whether I want it or not, all of the time. It has tainted our marraige and sex life to the point of disgust. Even when I would cry, he would still have sex with me. I can read a book and he will still have sex with me. I have tried to tell him how this makes me feel, I have begged and plead ed with him, not to do this to our marriage, that I feel like his horor, or his piece of trash, he does not care, I have told him this is not love, this is not biblical love, I do not feeled loved, he does not care. I hate when he touches me. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. I became so deep in depression because of it. I will be so sad and heart broken after, he actually will ask, what is your problem. I even went as far as to get drunk so I could have sex with him. Guess what….he thought that was the best idea ever, so he would make sure I would have enough alcohol in me to have sex. Even when I said I wanted to stop drinking, he would always make sure the fridge is full. When I would beg to see a counsler, I would get a guilt trip, of 100 reasons why I shouldn’t or can not.

    Now I am so numb to it all, I put a pillow over my face, and say just get it over with. And still I am trying to be a Godly wife. So please tell me how this is not sin. How this is not rape, or abuse of some sort. Because in my mind I feel like I am living with my molester everyday. Yes he says he is sorry, he does try to get me in the mood. You can definity tell when he want wants it, it is the only time he comes up behind me and holds me, and the nonstop sexual Comments, like why dont you come sit on my lap. Gross. And If I dont have sex with him the sighing and whining is sooo overwhelming. It becomes a punishment. When im upset after, I get you told me to do it, I dont know why your so upset. I can go on and on. So as a Christian women do I just keep taking it and keep the smile on my face pretending everything is ok when it is killing me inside? And just a side note, I am not a feminist, I am very biblical when it comes to God’s way, and not being in this world but of this world. So I do get what you are saying about not denying your husbsnd of sex. But what do you do when it has turned into what yes I would call rape.

    Larry dealt with this comment with a blog post of its own...

    "Is my husband raping me?"

    To summarise this one.. Apparently no, he was not raping her. Larry told this poor woman that she was the sinner, that she was wrong to deny him sex once she had healed, that it is for her to meet his demands for sex when he wants it, that it was her role as his Christian wife, to satisfy him and keep him satisfied. Worse yet, he told her that she was a sinner for refusing sex or not wanting sex and for being disgusted while he raped her. But Larry does not call it rape. No, there is no such thing as marital rape according to Larry.

    I am going to take what I see in her story, and try and break it up into various questions that are raised both by her husband’s behavior as well as hers.

    Question 1 – Was the husband wrong for having sex with his wife while she was pregnant and in pain?
    It depends. Had he just had sex with her in the last few days? Then perhaps he should have put her need to not experience more pain and discomfort ahead of his need for sex. But if she had been in pain for weeks or a month and he finally came to her and said “Babe I need this, I promise I will make it quick” – then she should have put his need for sex above her need to not experience additional discomfort.

    Sometimes though a woman cannot have vaginal intercourse for medical reasons beyond just discomfort. For instance most doctors advice women not to have vaginal intercourse for 6 to 8 weeks after giving birth. If a man were to try and have vaginal sex with his wife during this period it would be highly painful for her and it might cause complications with her healing process. But that does not mean a woman cannot meet her husband’s sexual needs in other ways during this time. God has given her the ability to manually or orally satisfy her husband in order to meet his sexual needs. Christian wives ought to do this for their husband’s during this post birth period, and for that matter any other period when they may not be able to physically have sexual intercourse with their husbands.

    Question 2 – Was the husband wrong for having sex with his wife even when he knew she did not want to?
    As I have said before, I have never advocated for a Christian husband to force himself upon his wife. But contrary to what feminists and other marital rape accusers say – there is difference between a husband convincing his wife to let him have sex with her and him physically forcing himself upon her.

    Rather than hash this out again here – I have answered this entire issue from a Biblical perspective in the my article “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood”. But the short answer is no he is not being selfish for having sex with his wife simply because she is not in the mood. The Bible is clear that for the purposes of sex “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” – I Corinthians 7:4.


    Is her husband raping her or abusing her by having sex with her when she is not in the mood?
    Aside from his physically harming her by forcing himself upon her no he is NOT abusing his wife from a Biblical perspective. Even if he did physically force himself upon her – it is IMPOSSIBLE Biblically speaking for a man to rape his wife. Abuse? Yes. Rape? No. For a larger discussion of the Biblical impossibility of marital rape I refer you again to my post “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood”.

    If he convinces her to yield her body to him, then no sin has been committed on his part. But it is very possible that even if she yields to him – there is still sin on her part. If she acts disgusted by him and acts like he has no right to have sex with her – then the sin lies squarely in her court. She needs to eliminate the terms “rape” and “molester” from her vocabulary regarding her husband’s sexual advances toward her.

    To round it off, he also provides a list of advice for what the husband should do if the wife says "no" too many times or refuses sex on too regular basis.

    "8 steps to confront your wife's sexual refusal"

    This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If people want an example of rape culture, of power, purity, meekness, that site has it by the bucketload. In fact, that is all this website is about. Be prepared to want to purge your eyeballs with something that may cause temporary blindness afterwards.
  22. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Bleach isn't temporary enough.

    What a sick fuck.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Oh believe me, Kristoffer.. There are things posted in that website that are, well.. there are no words that can accurately describe it.

    The whole notion of making her "yield" is bad enough. Larry has advice for the husbands who have had to get their wives to yield and she is not enjoying the sex..

    But what if you have tried everything you can as husband but your wife refuses to do her part and look inward at things she can change in herself to help herself enjoy sex more and cultivate a desire?

    What if she agrees to sex grudgingly and refuses to “fake it” but instead displays her displeasure the entire time?

    First of all, your reaction of being upset at the displeasure on your wife’s face during sex that she has grudgingly agreed to is completely normal.

    You need to realize that this is a physical need that you have as a man. You also need to realize that whether your wife knows it or not she needs to have sex too. Your marriage needs sex at regular intervals. If you don’t have sex with your wife at regular intervals, even sometimes when she is not in the mood but consents anyway, you will open yourself to temptation. You will find yourself becoming distant from your wife, because this is the primary way that you as man feel closeness with your wife.

    But even if you realize and accept this truth that you need sex and it needs to happen even if your wife refuses to “fake it” and bury her wrong attitude then what?

    The secret of enjoying grudgingly given sex from your wife
    Focus your eyes on her body, not her face. Focus on the visual pleasure you receive from looking at her body and physical pleasure you receive from being inside your wife.

    I know you love your wife, most of us as men love our wives. You want to connect with her physically AND emotionally during sex. But your wife is the one refusing to connect with you emotionally, so you have to concentrate 100% on the physical side.

    Let me try and explain this in another way. In Greek mythology there was a monster woman named Medusa. She was a cursed and hideous creature and if men looked upon her face they were turned to stone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I know you love your wife, most men love their wives. But sin is ugly. Your beautiful bride’s face becomes ugly during this sinful time that she is grudgingly giving you sex as she grimaces wanting you to “just hurry up and get it over with”.

    So like the men who could not look at Medusa’s face otherwise they would be killed, realize that if you look on your wife’s face when she is displaying a sinful attitude toward sex it will kill your sexual pleasure and may actually make it much more difficult for you to achieve the physical connection and release that you need. Again you know you want that emotional connection too, but your wife is the one who is in sinful rebellion against God’s design for sex in your marriage and is refusing to emotionally connect with you.

    Just think about this for a moment..

    He advises men who are raping their wives after coercing or making "yield" into sex to simply not look at their faces when they are having sex with their resisting wives, because that might decrease the man's sexual pleasure. So instead, just look at her body instead and draw pleasure from that, because her upset sinful face might just turn him off..

    As Cote notes at Jezebel:

    Heed Larry’s words, guys. Don’t allow your sinful monster-wife to kill your godly boner or turn your dick to stone. It is written that men should shoot their wads; never forget that.


    Ah yes. Herein lies the key: fully and flagrantly objectify your wife. Imagine her as a faceless orifice, a sex doll to be used in your Christian ejaculatory efforts. I mean, she started it.

    Not just that, Larry also has advice on controlling one's wife..

    Should Christian wives fear their husbands?
    You talk about “dread” and I read your posts on that subject. In the Christian faith we have a similar concept when it comes to God that we are to “fear” him. This is not some sort of scary fear (like God is a monster), but it is a reverent fear.

    This is why the Bible tells women to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22) – literally a wife is to submit to her husband as she would unto God himself. She is commanded by God to “see that she reverence her husband” (Ephesians 5:33). The English word “reverence” in that passage is a translation of the Greek word “Phobeo” which literally means “to fear or be afraid” or “to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience”. In fact most of the time that Greek word “Phobeo” is translated as “fear” throughout the New Testament.

    So should a wife Biblically speaking have a little healthy fear or dread of her husband?


    Today most Christian wives have ZERO fear or dread of their husbands even though the Bible commands them to. In fact I would argue that in most Christian marriages men are the ones who fear their wives.

    Men show their wives they are either afraid to lose them (be alone) or afraid of the prospect of divorce and the financial or child custody repercussions that it may bring.

    Guessing keeping her afraid and fearful probably helps with her yielding.

Share This Page