Pharyngula

Posted by: Roel | August 19, 2009 7:45 AM

A little odd that rape inside marriage needs a special law. I presume the Bahamas already have a law against rape. But once again the bigots think that laws don't apply to them.

Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | August 19, 2009 7:50 AM

In the Bible, women are chattel, listed in the family ledger among jars of wine, children, goats. . .

Posted by: Harry | August 19, 2009 7:53 AM

Religious zealots do not lead their lives by their sacred text they just select the bits that suit them to justify their immoral behaviour. I don't think that the bible says that christians have to be gun-totting, illiberal, uncaring racists but that is what they often are.

Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | August 19, 2009 7:55 AM

Let us not forget that not only are women the PROPERTY of their husbands - their only hope at Heaven(tm) is through atoning for Eve's transgression in The Garden(tm) through the pain of childbirth.

/snark

Posted by: Abstruse | August 19, 2009 8:09 AM

Slaves, obey your masters.

And by slaves I mean anyone with a vagina.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | August 19, 2009 8:13 AM

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man's body is his wife's and her body is his. How could he rape her?"

But that's masturbation and will make baby jesus cry!

Posted by: Daniel Priestley | August 19, 2009 8:15 AM

A shocking, but unfortunately common belief even in supposedly progressive states. For instance, marital rape was only outlawed in the UK in 1992 by the House of Lords in R v R.

As a law student I remember reading the transcript in disbelief both at the defence barrister's arguments that marital rape was not possible as a result of the 'one flesh' theory (supported by four cases where the husband had been acquited on that basis), and that it was legal in a state which was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights for a husband to rape his wife until only a few years ago.

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 19, 2009 8:18 AM

Religious thinking is certainly not innocent here, but what upsets me is different. Those people seem to think that rape is sex. Sorry but it's not. Rape is violence. It's not similar to making love. It's similar to beating.

Posted by: patientia | August 19, 2009 8:22 AM

I hope everybody who claims that there can't be rape inside marriage gets sodomized by his wife with a strap-on.

Posted by: Andy | August 19, 2009 8:24 AM

@John in 10, I was just reading a book review in a recent issue of Science that the Minoan civilization wasn't actually the matriarchal paradise it's been made out to be. According to the work reported in the review, much of the image of the Minoan's ideal society is unfortunately the result of wishful hopes for a return to a mythical golden age of reason (and the image has since been warped and adopted by all sorts of movements, from feminism to facism).

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 8:27 AM

John - that would be great if it did. But straight legal equality isn't the whole story. For instance, technically rape is illegal in the US, but because of societal attitudes, rapists often are often not convicted if the victim happened to be drunk or wearing overly attractive clothing. Because of that, most rapes aren't reported because the victim can't stomach going through the extra victimization of slut-shaming. On the other hand, even if convicted, the rapist can go on to do things like get cute roles in movies, or if all he's done is beat the hell out of a woman, he can still be nominated for acclamation on a children's tv awards show.

Posted by: Robert McClelland | August 19, 2009 8:29 AM

I hope everybody who claims that there can't be rape inside marriage gets sodomized by his wife with a strap-on.

I was thinking the same thing. I bet these misogynist bible thumpers would change their tune pretty quick if taking a giant dildo up the butt became part of a husband's duties toward his wife.

Posted by: piglet | August 19, 2009 8:33 AM

It always amazes me how being in a relationship can alter your legal rights. Rape should be criminal - regardless of the relationship status of the people involved. In Australia if you assault your partner it is considered a civil offense - court issues a domestic violence order - but if you assault anyone else it is a criminal act. At #15 - agree completely - rape isn't about sex, it's about control and power...

Posted by: Michelle R | August 19, 2009 8:37 AM

@Carlie #24:
There was an update in this case.

http://consumerist.com/5339304/marriott-drops-its-your-fault-claim-in-rape-case

Posted by: Laurel | August 19, 2009 8:40 AM

Marital rape: Illegal in all 50 US states since 1993...depending on how you define "rape," of course.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/309895/marital_rape_an_under_reported_and.html

Posted by: Ploon | August 19, 2009 8:41 AM

Fun historical fact: the statute being revised is probably a left-over from colonial times. In the UK (!) marital rape wasn't a crime until 1991. It's crazy but it's true.

Posted by: pikeamus | August 19, 2009 8:47 AM

@ Ploon:

I was told that just a couple of days ago. It boggles the mind. I really thought that it was just backward islamic theocracies that didn't acknowledge rape inside marrige. I guess western societies haven't come as far as I thought they had.

Posted by: speedwell | August 19, 2009 8:49 AM

OK. My husband and I are to be considered legally ONE FLESH, but my fetus and I are completely separate entities? Hmmm. Seems I can't get an abortion, but if I surgically excise my husband with a scalpel, I'm really just cutting myself?

Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | August 19, 2009 8:52 AM

Man, for fucks sake. I was gona write something here about how wrong it is and how it shouldn't be happening etc etc. But when you really think about it, this is happening right now, today, were supposed to be a civilised nation i just don't understand how it's even a bill going through. How is every man that rapes ANYBODY not going to fuckin jail? It keeps hittin me more and more how much of a fuck up the bible is and how much influence it still seems to have, i can imagine the people in that government must know it's wrong, but they assume the religious people should have a chance to discuss their point of view. WELL FUCKING NO! Their opinions aren't as valid as others. Sigh, i just dunno what to say, Those poor fucking women. If a girls raped in marriage and her husband isn't gonna be put in jail i should think her and her mates shud grab him, tie him down, then anally penetrate him with a large pole. After all their married right? It isn't rape...

Posted by: speedwell | August 19, 2009 8:55 AM

Treat marriage as a crime worthy of being punished by rape, and see how many intelligent women want to get married after that. Way to preserve the institution of marriage, Bahamas.

Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 9:00 AM

Most religious folks of liberal bent will be quick to insist that this interpretation of the Bible is just plain wrong, and they will point to passages which seem to indicate that women are to be respected, treated as equals, and so forth. The problem, they say, is not Christianity -- or even religion in general -- it's people. People will distort God's words in order to justify those things they want to do, for non-religious reasons.

Though this sounds plausible, the liberal theist has to recognize that this rule of thumb regarding "finding what you want to find" applies just as much to them, as it does to others. They're cherry-picking, interpreting, and rationalizing an ancient text in order to make it fit in with their own agenda. The fact that this agenda is a more enlightened, humane, reasonable one doesn't make it more likely that this is what God really meant people to find in the text. There's no rule that says God has to be a secular humanist himself.

By agreeing that an appeal to "God" is the right way to settle this dispute, the liberal Christians have set the argument up on a stage that nobody can win. Every last freaking believer thinks that they are the seekers who simply try to understand God, and the other people are the ones who are using God in self-seeking ways. Other people may believe God is on their side, but they've chosen to be on God's side. It's so easy and simple, looked at this way. But only for the believer.

From the standpoint of the world, this matter of faith can't be arbitrated through reason. Scholarship won't help. The Bible is supposed to be a living text, where God speaks to the reader, and the wise reader knows the right way to listen.

Religion makes problems intractable. It takes the matter away from what works in the world, and throws it off into some Big Picture revealed to the initiated. One side then agrees with God, and the other side doesn't. So all we have to do is determine which side is which. Good luck.

Posted by: Nangleator | August 19, 2009 9:05 AM

I'd like to start marketing 'revenge kits' for wives in the Bahamas. Rufees, duct tape, and the largest strap-ons commercially available, along with a video of how to inflict the most painful, humiliating degradation on one's own flesh.

Of course, while one's own flesh is still taped down, it would be perfectly within one's rights to invite over some friends...

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 9:11 AM

I'm fascinated by the common lack of integrity shown by those who wish to denigrate something or someone they oppose (all the while insisting they hold the moral high ground, of course). Claiming that the Bible is misogynistic because its ethics reflect the time it was written is irresponsible (as is the claim that Darwin was racist, by the way). Indeed, Christianity saw explosive growth in its early years in large part due to its progressive attitudes toward women (for the time). Similarly, Darwin was progressive for his time.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 19, 2009 9:14 AM

I don't know them, but honestly, how could anyone deserve such heartless bastards?

Few people, if any, can escape the views of their society. These men may not be the monsters you think they are.

Posted by: MosesZD | August 19, 2009 9:17 AM

I thought a wife was a partner, not a slave.

You've been reading the wrong bible, then. She is your property as you paid your fifty shekels, or some other suitable price, for her, I presume. And, btw, at 0.26 shekels to the US dollar "good Christian brides" haven't been this cheap in centuries... ;)

Posted by: kryptonic | August 19, 2009 9:19 AM

patientia #17

I hope everybody who claims that there can't be rape inside marriage gets sodomized by his wife with a strap-on.

Robert McClelland #23

I was thinking the same thing. I bet these misogynist bible thumpers would change their tune pretty quick if taking a giant dildo up the butt became part of a husband's duties toward his wife.

What makes you think they would consider that a bad thing?

Posted by: Endor | August 19, 2009 9:22 AM

"Few people, if any, can escape the views of their society. These men may not be the monsters you think they are."

Not quite. if they think they can abuse their wives in this way and see nothing wrong with it, they are monsters. They simply don't think they are monsters. Even If they are just 'average joes' for this particular culture, that does nothing to mitigate the harm they are causing if they act on these sickeningly misogynistic beliefs.

Posted by: bcoppola | August 19, 2009 9:23 AM

Robocop (#45)

You are correct that it is a mistake to judge the past by today's standards. However, the problem is that we have people still living by those old and now retrograde standards...and trying to enforce those ancient standards in current law and mores.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 19, 2009 9:26 AM

I like the third one - Lorena Bobbit should have tried that excuse in court.

Posted by: pete | August 19, 2009 9:29 AM

#34, I found it funny on the link you posted that the wording was calmed down from (NIV) "for he has violated her" to (gods word translation) "since he raped her" to the (KJV) "he hath humbled her". The term Violated, implies force, whereas Humbled, implies calm, or calmed down. I'ts amazing to me how different bibles are worded differently, simply to excuse there idiology.

Posted by: David | August 19, 2009 9:31 AM

This is ridiculous. I thought everyone knew that the flying spaghetti monster has decreed that a man can do as he please with his wife...as long as he is wearing full pirate regalia.

Posted by: MosesZD | August 19, 2009 9:32 AM

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 9:11 AM

I'm fascinated by the common lack of integrity shown by those who wish to denigrate something or someone they oppose (all the while insisting they hold the moral high ground, of course). Claiming that the Bible is misogynistic because its ethics reflect the time it was written is irresponsible...

No, the word you're looking for is "accurate." It is ACCURATE to say the bible is misogynistic. Even when the church, in it's early days, was progressing toward egalitarianism and equality, it was short-lived and parts were re-written to make women, once again, subservient, voiceless creatures.

(as is the claim that Darwin was racist, by the way).

At one time he was. I think as he refined his theory he came to put much, if not most or all, in the dustbin of fallacious beliefs and attitudes.

But, beyond that, Darwin's racism (actual or imagined) still has nothing to do with his theory. If Darwin was a racist, it still doesn't put evolution in a bad light. Hell, if Darwin was a pederast, it doesn't put the Theory of Evolution in a bad light.

The theory and the man are not the same.

OTOH, the Bible is the Bible. And while there are thousands of textual variants, the ones we use today are pretty much misogynistic in their message. From the Adam's rib creation to some of the forged Epistles of Paul.

Posted by: JG | August 19, 2009 9:34 AM

#15 and #25:

We might all be better off if you didn't introduce, into a discussion of how delusional beliefs really hurt people, the delusional belief that (most) rape is not largely about satisfying sexual desire.

There is an elephant in the room here. One obvious explanation for such attitudes toward marital rape is that, evolutionarily, no reproductive potential has been coopted, i.e. if somebody was going to knock her up, it was that guy anyway.

Of course we ought to stop marital rape, but I expect that it's intricately tied up with evolved dispositions, and that a solution will require the complex balancing pressures of advanced civilization to achieve. (Not simply repeating a syllogism enough times.)

Anyway, it's a bit ironic when our most barbarous evolved dispositions are what is being defended by religious people who oppose the concept of evolution.

Posted by: Erp | August 19, 2009 9:40 AM

As one person pointed out marital rape was considered an oxymoron in all states in the US until quite recently. The view was that the "I do" was an irrevocable agreement to consent to sex on the part of the woman. This did not begin to change in any US state until the 1970s. It wasn't until 1993 that North Carolina banned it. In many states though it is still not treated the same as rape between unmarried people (e.g., a man can legally have sex with his wife in some if she is unconscious and incapable of giving consent).

Posted by: Andy C | August 19, 2009 9:45 AM

Incredible how the word "No" can cause so much confusion in some people. Reading the rest of the article, I find Ms Clarke's comment just as incredible; "she is never supposed to say no". Staggering.

Posted by: extatyzoma | August 19, 2009 9:48 AM

this 'one flesh' business: so if a woman decided to bite off her husbands penis during fellatio shes really only biting off her own penis and as sado masochistic as that would be its totally ok!!!

Posted by: Jen | August 19, 2009 9:49 AM

Long time lurker, first time commenter. Here in Sweden there is a huge debate going on around this right now. Rape within marriage has been illegal since the 1960s if I remember correctly, but naturally very few cases go to trial (his word against hers, no evidence etc). The other day a prosecutor (being interviewed about the Swedish supreme court's new ruling on evidence in rape cases) said that rape within marriage is more of a misdemeanor, and is not something you should go to jail for. Huge uproar of course. Today he was given half a page to explain himself in one of the big newspapers, but instead of retracting his comments, he said that not having sex against anyone's will is a great "social rule" but that it belongs in a book on etiquette rather than in the law. Yeah, he really said that. I hope he's forced to resign.

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 19, 2009 9:51 AM

Not quite. if they think they can abuse their wives in this way and see nothing wrong with it, they are monsters. They simply don't think they are monsters. Even If they are just 'average joes' for this particular culture,

Would you conclude that half the men in the 1930s (decade picked randomly from early 20th centuary when this belief was probably widespread) were monsters?
I don't think you have to be nothing less than a heartless bastard to believe something like this, as awful (and obviously wrong to us) as it is.

that does nothing to mitigate the harm they are causing if they act on these sickeningly misogynistic beliefs.

Not an argument I think anyone will make here.

Posted by: Jackal | August 19, 2009 9:52 AM

I have to disagree with those who say rape is only about power and not sex. You can't dismiss the fact that men enjoy the sexual pleasure of rubbing their penises on flesh. If it weren't also about sex, rapists wouldn't orgasm.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 9:59 AM

Whats wrong with these people?

What's wrong with people like Mrs. Sweeting is that she's never, ever been put in a position of being forced into something she doesn't want to do, and has absolutely no capacity for empathy for people who have.

Robocop - try googling "Prairie muffin". (Safe for work, honest). As has already been said, there are an awful lot of people who are still trying to live by those misogynistic rules and force other people to do so, too. (See also: abortion debate)

the wording was calmed down from (NIV) "for he has violated her" to (gods word translation) "since he raped her" to the (KJV) "he hath humbled her". The term Violated, implies force, whereas Humbled, implies calm, or calmed down.

And of course both of them translate to: uppity bitch got what was coming to her and he showed her a thing or two.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 19, 2009 10:05 AM

"Claiming that the Bible is misogynistic because its ethics reflect the time it was written is irresponsible (as is the claim that Darwin was racist, by the way)."

Fine. The people who subscribe to biblical views on the treatment of women today are misogynists. Better?

Posted by: Rob W | August 19, 2009 10:08 AM

Phyllis Schlafly believes a man has PROPERTY RIGHTS over his wife's vagina. And Washington University gave her an honorary degree last year.

These people really are stuck in the bronze age.

Posted by: RHM | August 19, 2009 10:11 AM

I found these quotes to be particularly sad and disturbing:

[blockquote]"If a man wants to have sex with his wife he is supposed to [have sex with her] regardless of what the circumstances [are]. I don’t see why he should be charged with raping his own wife, she is never supposed to say no," said Ms. Clarke.

"If I were married and my husband wanted to have sex with me I wouldn’t stop him, [because] I’m not supposed to, even if I was tired or feeling sick, I wouldn’t tell him no."[/blockquote]

Woman=toilet. Non-sentient, non-feeling, not human.
I don't know what caused these women to have such little regard for themselves, but I can't help but suspect religious doctrine helped mold and cement it.

This bill may be needed because marital rape is not recognized as rape in the Bahaman court system, and I hope it passes for that reason, but it won't help women such as those quoted. Perhaps it will help their daughters and granddaughters, who will see the law in place, and see themselves as something other than property.

Posted by: Dan L. | August 19, 2009 10:12 AM

For those looking for past societies that have treated their children fairly well, look into marriage among the Iroquois and other native American tribes from the midwest. From what I understand, the families were matrilinear to the point that "divorce" consisted of the wife dumping the husband's possessions outside the door.

Not that it would have been a feminist's paradise either, but there are some interesting attitudes there.

Also, prior to about 700 AD, Japan had as many female emperors as male emperors.

Posted by: CalGeorge | August 19, 2009 10:14 AM

"The Bible tells me..."

You, too, can use the Bible as a substitute for a conscience!

Posted by: mattb | August 19, 2009 10:16 AM

I have to hand it to Mr. Sutherland, the man knows his Bible.

Posted by: Roy | August 19, 2009 10:21 AM

what... the... HELL?

Most days, I can't relate to the ignorance of religious arguments.

But days like this I start making lists of island countries that I'd like to sink beneath the waves, all Atlantis-like.

(Is Texas an island country yet?)

Posted by: Endor | August 19, 2009 10:28 AM

"Would you conclude that half the men in the 1930s (decade picked randomly from early 20th centuary when this belief was probably widespread) were monsters? I don't think you have to be nothing less than a heartless bastard to believe something like this, as awful (and obviously wrong to us) as it is."

I fail to see the distinction. If someone (male or female) believes is it okay to treat someone else in this fashion, how can it be claimed that's somehow not monstrous? If they believe it, chances are they're acting on it – meaning they're rapists - or wouldn't step in if they witness it being acted on – meaning their accomplices. How does that prevent someone from being a monster? I'm not clear on why we should be reticent to call it what it is.

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2009 10:30 AM

robocop the heretic:

Claiming that the Bible is misogynistic because its ethics reflect the time it was written is irresponsible (as is the claim that Darwin was racist, by the way).

Well the bible is misogynistic and racist and lots of other things. That is just a fact.

However your claim that it's ethics reflect the time is major heresy*. According to the fundie xians, the bible is the inerrant word of god, good for time and eternity. Every word is true. If you were a fundie, you would have been excommunicated by now.

The problem is that some xians treat the bible like it prescribes how we should live today, millions of them in fact. So they spend their time trying to live a bronze age lifestyle and trying to force everyone else to do the same. And women get treated like chattel or worse. The bible was also one of the major rationales for US slavery before the civil war.

Darwin, irrelevant. He was just a great scientist but no one worships him or spends one day a week repeating his words to captive, bored people and claiming he was infallible. He got a huge amount right about science and gets credit for that. He got some things wrong and people point it out and so what.

*It's also correct. The world has moved on in the last several thousand years.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 10:35 AM

Christian Domestic Discipline (the gentlemanly art of wife-spanking) was pastor approved and practiced by some church members.

This is a big part of the prairie muffin movement. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. You want to get spanked while wearing crotchless pantaloons, fine, but don't go saying it's God's will for you to do so.

Posted by: calico | August 19, 2009 10:39 AM

Some of us may find this barbaric, but it's NOT common sense. This is how women were treated here in the US and Europe before probably the 1880s on to around turn of the century. We were the property of our husbands and we couldn't even vote until Womens' Suffrage. It was not "rape" because marital relations was part of our job and not something we had a right to say no to.

We can say we're outraged, but even today women make about 70% of what our identical male counterparts make doing the exact same job. We're fired if we're suspected to be pregnant. We're called a "bitch" if we act firm, the same behavior which in men is seen as "powerful". Before we vilify other cultures, I hope we don't forget the ongoing inequalities women still face in the US. And if you don't believe it isn't happening in America, check out groups such as the Amish & Mennonite who see women as only babymaking machines & cooks. But they tell us it's ok -- it's what God intended.

Posted by: Annasbones | August 19, 2009 10:41 AM

easy one: don't want to get raped? Don't get married.

Posted by: SuperCorgi | August 19, 2009 10:47 AM

Wow, this is really horrible (and the fact that a woman made one of the comments and thinks that such treatment is her due is even more horrible).

It's just business as usual for people that are steeped in patriarchal religions. Men are the ones in control and women are chattel. For a look at an interesting society, where women are largely in control, there are the Mosuo in China. One member on the JREF boards worked with this ethnic group when he was living in China. There is no marriage in this society. http://www.mosuoproject.org/main.html

Posted by: Heidi | August 19, 2009 10:48 AM

That said, I agree that the Bible's views of women are wrong by our standards. But it's also deceptive and irresponsible to evaluate it by our standards.

But isn't the bible supposed to be the inerrant word of god? So doesn't that mean we're talking about god's standards, rather than the standards of the time? In which case, has god changed his standards just because we did, or is he still cool with Women as Property?

Posted by: EPC | August 19, 2009 10:56 AM

This reminds me of the the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Head of Household concept. The idea is that in the Bible God rules Jesus, Jesus rules man, and man rules woman, so that's how it should be in the home.

A buddy of mine married a witness. His fiancée and I had a number of amusing/fascinating/disturbing conversations about what her married life would be like with my buddy as head of her household. Here's a composite:

Me: So you have to do whatever he says, regardless of your own desires, beliefs, or opinions?

Her: Well, I would hope that we'd be able to discuss issues that were important to the family but in the end he would be the one making decisions.

Me: Suppose he ordered you to greet him at the door when he got home from work, and insisted that you do so bare-ass naked, on your knees, with your mouth open, a sizzling steak in one hand, a chilled beer in the other, and an ashtray balanced on your head. Would you do that?

Her: Well, I would hope that he wouldn't ask me to do something like that...

Me: But if he did? And he absolutely insisted?

Her: Well, as his wife it would be my duty to do what he asked me to do, but I'd hope that he wouldn't make that kind of request.

Me: So if he did then every day at 4:55 you'd strip down, grab a beer, a steak, and an ashtray, and head for the door?

Her: Well, I would hope I'd have good enough sense not to pick a husband who's be like that. I'd hope that he'd be willing to discuss things first. But if he insisted, then yes, I'd have to do that.

The really shocking thing about this whole conversation is that this is an intelligent, educated, successful woman who'd done very well on her own, yet she planned to surrender all control of her own life to my buddy as soon as he put a ring on her finger. What's even crazier is that it was *her* idea. He's not a Witness, he'd never heard of Head of Household, and he thought the whole thing was nuts, but she insisted that it was her duty to be his slave. Talk about brain washing...

Thankfully we were able to (more or less) convince her just how silly she was being, and by the time they finally tied the knot she told me that Head of Household was more or less out the window. Good thing for her, because with my buddy in charge of everything they'd have probably ended up homeless.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 19, 2009 10:59 AM

That said, I agree that the Bible's views of women are wrong by our standards. But it's also deceptive and irresponsible to evaluate it by our standards.

Then your argument is with Christians, not with us. We treat the Bible as just another piece of historical literature. They treat it as a holy book.

Posted by: cargocult | August 19, 2009 11:06 AM

Interesting example, but that perspective is not exactly unique to religious sectors - scientifically-inspired practitioners of eugenics would probably also oppose this law, since "the duty of the citizen is to produce the best possible children for the benefit of society", and for the woman to refuse to participate in the process is a crime against nature, etc.

After all, Social Darwinists and eugenicists believe that:

"To produce fine children in greater numbers, we must first of all have some basis of knowledge to go on as to what makes men great or small, honourable or unworthy, healthy or degenerate in physique."

Assuming that the state has pre-approved the marriage, i.e. conducted genetic compatibility tests between the two partners, than the duty of the woman is to accept sex, for the good of the nation and the human race.

Total bullshit, of course, but it does show that 'scientifically-inspired' atheists can be just as idiotic as religious fundamentalists.

The real issue here is the rights of the individual, something that both authoritarian atheists and religious fundamentalists have no respect for - they're both social throwbacks.

P.S. if this pisses you off, keep in mind that the above is a very common argument that the Creationist idiots pull out in an effort to discredit all biological sciences - a smear by association PR technique.

P.P.S. Did you know that the word 'propaganda' comes from the "Society for the Propagation of the Faith" set up by the Church in 1822? Today, both religious and atheist power structures put propaganda techniques front and center.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 11:10 AM

Except in one extreme a person is being assaulted and violated, and in the other one, not so much.

Carlie,

I was not trying to connect them. Simply pointing them out as extremes of what can go wrong in a marriage in sexual terms, which of course is only a reflection of things going wrong in other terms.
Been there, done that.(not the rape bit,mind you)

Posted by: gr8hands | August 19, 2009 11:12 AM

Robocop, there were people back when the bible was written who rightly felt that slavery was evil, that mistreatment of women was evil, that mistreatment of children was evil, that mistreatment of animals was evil. They just weren't the ones writing the bible. Those who did write the bible were evil.

Everyone knows examples of people who fought against the common wisdom of their day, who knew that customs of the day were wrong. "That's just how we do things here" is never a defense for evil. It is a frequent excuse offered, but holds no ethical, moral or intellectual water.

Calling something "evil" or "misogynistic" doesn't depend on the culture of those doing the evil or misogyny.

Posted by: M Murphy | August 19, 2009 11:16 AM

It's a shame none of the arguments seem to be:

"I can't believe we're even arguing over this, rape is barbaric and we're living in the 21st century, or I thought we were."

Posted by: pensnest | August 19, 2009 11:18 AM

Jackal @77

The point is that a man who wants to have consensual sex with a female will, you know, obtain her consent. If her consent is unimportant to him (and really, why would any man *want* sex with an unwilling partner? Seriously, why?) and he has sex with her despite her not wanting to have sex with him—ie, he RAPES her—he is putting his own 'needs', his own desires, above hers, and exercising power over her by making her consent and her feelings and her autonomy over her own body *irrelevant*.

Notice that? She no longer has the right to determine what happens to her own body. Her power of self-determination, her own right to decide who gets to put his penis inside her, is taken from her by the rapist.

No doubt most rapists get sexual pleasure from what they are doing. Quite probably their power over their unwilling victim augments their sexual pleasure. Ick. The urge to rape is not "I want to exercise my power over that female", sure; the urge to rape is "I want what I want and what she wants doesn't matter". (I ask again—why would any man want sex with an unwilling, unready, even unconscious woman? Why? Apparently many do.)

The fact that men are, by and large, in a position to take what they want, is the exercise of power, and that is why we describe rape as being about power, not sex.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 11:22 AM

Argh misspelled name. Sorry.

Lynna makes a good point - some women will go along with it, because the alternatives are hell after death and often also hell on earth. Not exactly a free choice.

Posted by: cargocult | August 19, 2009 11:23 AM

Notice, to that this kind of thing isn't limited to Christian fundamentalists - see this from the BBC, Aug 16 2009:

"An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law.

The original bill caused outrage earlier this year, forcing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to withdraw it. But critics say the amended version of the law remains highly repressive."

It's a real travesty - but the underlying agenda is not about religion, but rather about controlling people and securing power:

"What matters more to Karzai is the support of fundamentalists and hardliners here in Afghanistan whose support he thinks he needs in the elections."

This is really the issue - there are plenty of lazy men in authoritarian systems who simply don't want to share their power and wealth with anyone - and with no rights for women, that locks out half the competition.

"Women's groups say its new wording still violates the principle of equality that is enshrined in their constitution."

"It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children."

The same thing applies in Saudi Arabia, our 'good ally' and 'loyal partner in the region" - husbands are legally allowed to rape their wives, and women raped by strangers are whipped for their 'crimes'.

That's why we should reduce relationships with these regimes (including Israel) - they refuse to support the separation of Church and State.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2009 11:25 AM

Yawn, CC still needs to make a first cogent point. Waiting for that to happen is boring, as it has been weeks now.

Posted by: Mu | August 19, 2009 11:29 AM

While it's easy to make fun of the bible thumpers on this one, what really enabled the introduction of "marital rape" is the general acceptance of "no fault" divorces. An accusation of marital rape would have been an easy "cause" for a divorce, completely negating the (at the time prevailing) position that if you're faithful to your spouse you're not at fault. So, even if it sounds like the reverse should happen, by removing the "incentive", it became possible to actually change the law and punish marital rape.
As for claiming the Bahamas are in the bronze age, the Bahamas abolished slavery 30 years before the US, so if they now take 30 years to catch up on this new concept, I give them a waiver.

Posted by: anti.theist317 | August 19, 2009 11:32 AM

Religion is a collaboration of worthless, meaningless, asinine, stupid, false, unnecessary, dangerous and outdated ideas & concepts that stupid modern people believe.

That is of course you think it is cool to rip children from public schools teach them they are broken, evil and sinful or beat your wives for cutting off sex.

Afghanistan just passed a similar law. The women who protested against it were pelted with rocks - go religion!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/04/15/2009-04-15_women_protesting_rape_law_in_afghanistan_pelting_with_stones_by_angry_mob.html

I'd rather my kids grow up racist than religious if I had to pick. The KKK would look like a boy scout troop if a true comparative study was done.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 11:34 AM

The idea that rape isn't about sex because it's not a consenting act of love is illogical. Making love is a subset of sexual behavior. Rape is a different subset. Don't let's pretend rape is just violence or control or power because we prefer to think of sex as making love and not the other way around.

(Note that this is not to say rape is in any way okay.)

Posted by: djt | August 19, 2009 11:36 AM

A few paragraphs from "When God Was a Woman"

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html

Certainly appropriate for this thread.

"The couple so designed was placed in the Garden of Eden - paradise - where the male deity warned them not to eat any of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To the ancient Hebrews this tree was probably understood to represent the sacred sycamore fig of the Goddess, the familiar asherah which stood beside the altars of the temple of the Goddess and Her Baal. The sacred branch being passed around in the temple, as described by Ezekiel, may have been the manner in which the fruit was taken as "communion." According to Egyptian texts, to eat of this fruit was to eat of the flesh and the fluid of the Goddess, the patroness of sexual pleasure and reproduction. According to the Bible story, the forbidden fruit caused the couple's conscious comprehension of sexuality. Upon eating the fruit, Adam and Eve became aware of the sexual nature of their own bodies, "And they knew that they were naked." So it was that when the male deity found them, they had modestly covered their genitals with aprons of fig leaves.

We are perhaps all too familiar with the last line of the decree, which announced that from that time on, as a result of her sin and in eternal punishment for the defiant crime which she had committed against the male deity, her husband was awarded the divine right to dominate her, to "rule over" her, to totally assert his authority. And in guilt for what she had supposedly done in the very beginning of time, as if in confession of her poor judgment, she was expected to submit obediently. We may consider here the more practical reality that, once the economic security of women had been undermined by the institution of male kinship, women were forced into the position of accepting this one stable male provider as the one who "ruled the roost."

...

Posted by: Charmed | August 19, 2009 11:39 AM

The redress is obvious.

If a marital rapist is acquitted (or never indicted) under the "one flesh" doctrine, and that man is found dead by his wife's hand, the woman must not be charged, but immediately be put into counselling for attempted suicide.

Posted by: tc | August 19, 2009 11:40 AM

I'm surprised that anybody is surprised.

Until the 1970s, every state in the Union had a spousal immunity to charges of rape. In Maryland (where I live now) I heard the exact same arguments during the 90s when the Maryland Legislature was debating whether to change the law. There is still a "first-strike" loophole in the domestic abuse law: You can't break the spousal immunity against testimony until the second charge of abuse.

"It can't be rape if you're married" is still something I hear occasionally, particularly from people over 40 who grew up under the old rules.

If you really believe that "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" is part of the governing document of your life, marital rape is hard to imagine.

It is easy to dismiss other countries as being somehow less civilized, particularly if you ignore your own recent history.

tc>

Posted by: laurie | August 19, 2009 11:40 AM

Carlie at 88, The hamburger analogy is great! That would be great to use in front of a jury. Too bad it's not self-evident to so many people though!

Posted by: Paul Claessen | August 19, 2009 11:42 AM

Geesh, the THINGS you can defend by quoting the bible!

I wonder how difficult (or easy!) it would be to get Ken Ham to confirm, that, based on biblical grouds, yes, it's absolutely permissable for him to rape his wife. (Raping the dinosaur she rode in on, is probably an abomination though).

Posted by: Daniel Priestley | August 19, 2009 11:47 AM

Robocop (84):

Today’s standards have nothing to do with it.

A contemporary of the writers of the Bible with similar views as they would not deny that the Bible is misogynistic*; the key difference is that while they would defend such a view, we would condemn it. The fact of female inequality as advocated by the Bible would not be denied, the only contentious point would be whether it was merited.

And the misogyny throughout the Bible would certainly be difficult to deny; it goes beyond merely viewing women as the ‘weaker sex’ and worthy of protection. There are no chivalrous and gentlemanly sentiments in the Bible, Old or New; women are viewed as being little more than a man’s chattel. You only have to look at the Ten Commandments (which I don't think Jesus repealed) where women are listed alongside animals and other property of a man's neighbour that he must not covet.

In any event, given that the subject that we are posting on relates to whether marital rape is possible and the fact that much of the denial of its possibility is founded upon biblical arguments, it is not 'irresponsible and deceptive' to apply today's standards to the Bible, but necessary.

As for Darwin, he certainly viewed certain other cultures as inferior (such as the Australian aborigines), but he also considered the members of those cultures as being of the same species as himself and capable of attaining to the same heights of western civilization in time.

* I am using misogynistic in the much broader sense of being discriminatory and oppressive towards women. I do agree that you are correct in stating that the strict meaning of the word is hatred towards women, but let’s not quibble about definitions any further!

Posted by: Nick Lamb | August 19, 2009 11:48 AM

Endor, the problem is that you're certain your ethical judgement overrides but have no justification. You're only as right about that as you would be if you claimed to be stood in the absolute center of the universe.

Allow me to channel a 23rd century observer briefly:

People like Endor were monsters, unconscionable beings who "posted" in Internet "forums" and the blogs. Although Endor was a product of the 21st century it would be erroneous to pretend that they weren't a monster just because so many others held similar views. A right-thinking person would have recognised the importance of transfuzling and supported it, rather than accepting the status quo of non-transfuzling.

If you start transfuzling now, the 23rd century observers may decide you reformed in later life and were "comparatively civilised". Unfortunately in the 26th century, transfuzling will be universally regarded as barbaric and you will replace Hitler as a byword for evil. Oops.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 11:48 AM

@ 142,

apparently, married men in the bahamas are so contemptible that they can only reproduce their genes by raping their wives.

While that generalizion might seem tempting, I am sure it is wrong.

Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 19, 2009 11:49 AM

I wouldn't say that women are being objectified. By the same logic that they are using, women have the right to rape men that they are married to.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 11:53 AM

re my 149,

generalization,even !

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 11:55 AM

littlestripes (#136)

Rape isn't really about sex, though. It may be the ACT of sex, but it's not about sex. It's about control and power, using the act of sex. There is a difference.

Yes, it's really about sex. You might as well say that making love with a condom on isn't about sex because it's not done to procreate. Rape is part of human sexual behavior. A really disgusting part, but it's nonsensical to pretend that it's just violence involving genitals when the motive on the rapist's part is generally some form of sexual release and/or forced reproduction. And even though the victim's experience is wholly different, it still has consequences for how the victim relates to sex from then on and can result in pregnancy for female victims. Yes, rape is also about power but that doesn't magically move it out of the "sexual behavior" category.

Posted by: Islander | August 19, 2009 11:58 AM

Robocop-

I just can't buy into the argument that the bible was written to reflect the times, so we should withhold judgment. Is it or is it not believed to be devinely inspired? Jefferson, Darwin, and Lincoln were certainly not evil, but they didn't claim to be holy and all-knowing either; if the bible is supposed to be the word of god, then claiming it should be changed because it's wrong about something is to say god is wrong. Jefferson, Licoln, etc. never claimed to be infallible, so it's reasonable to say they were just brought up in that mindset.
If some faiths want to ignore what the holy scripture says about slavery or women, great, but it's perfectly reasonable to say a book which claims to be the only truth is full of shit when it clearly is not inspired by anything good.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 19, 2009 11:59 AM

Robocop @130,

During that exact period, Christianity saw explosive growth because it treated women so much better than the cultural norm

Again with the soft bigotry of low expectations.

It's questionable to what extent your assertion is true, as you really ought to know. (True as a universal, that is; doubtless there were individual Christians who treated women decently in those days, and some of them might even have been men). And it's highly questionable that this was the reason, or even one of the primary reasons, for 1st c. CE Christianity's growth.

But let's assume, arguendo, that your assertion is completely correct. In which case: thanks, 1st c. CE Christianity! Indeed, let's be generous: thanks, some aspects of Christianity and some Christians, for being better than the then-prevailing cultural norm; down to, oh, round about the Enlightenment.

We'll take it from there, though.

Posted by: Traffic Demon | August 19, 2009 12:02 PM

David @ #61

"This is ridiculous. I thought everyone knew that the flying spaghetti monster has decreed that a man can do as he please with his wife...as long as he is wearing full pirate regalia."

Don't know where you got that, but your knowledge of Pastafarian beliefs is sorely lacking.

From the Gospel, I'd Really Rather You Didn't #4
"I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change."

Posted by: littlestripes | August 19, 2009 12:03 PM

"Yes, it's really about sex. You might as well say that making love with a condom on isn't about sex because it's not done to procreate. "

That doesn't make sense. It's still the act of sex even if there is a condom. Sex isn't all about procreation. Bad analogy.

But just because the ACT of sex is used, doesn't mean it's ABOUT sex. When someone rapes someone, they are trying to take agency away from the victim. It usually DOESN'T have to do with a form of "sexual release" -- it's about the ACT (power over someone else) rather than the end (orgasm).

Again, it's not really ABOUT the sex, even if sex is used. Also, you can rape someone with objects, not just penises. Replace a penis with a broom handle, if you must – a rapist is trying to dominate over the victim, and take away a victim’s agency, choice, and personhood.

Posted by: CelticLC | August 19, 2009 12:04 PM

I shouldn't post when I have just woken up, apologies for the spelling errors, it should say *consensual

Posted by: No BS | August 19, 2009 12:16 PM

* NEWS FLASH *

The Honorable Pastor Tom Estes has declared his blog "An atheist free zone". Upset at the apparently willfulness of "vile-god-hating" atheists, and his epiphany concerning logic built upon a false premise, he did what we all have been expecting him to do... close off those voices who disagree or point out his errors.

Congradulations Tom !

And we all wish you a hearty " FUCK OFF " from everyone here at the station.

* We now return you to your normally scheduled blog *

Posted by: anti_supernaturalist | August 19, 2009 12:19 PM

What’s wrong with the god of the big-3 monster-theisms?

What’s not to love about xianity? Could it be garbage like this:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 NIV

Whoa! Change ‘childbearing’ to bearing a son and you get Freud’s solution to the so-called Electra Complex. Neurosis = Sin.

When will this morally diseased xian "good news" suffer its much needed extinction?

the anti_supernaturalist

Note: No doubt Darwin was a sexist and a racist. He could not extract himself from the views of his social class and its Victorian prejudices. But, Darwin's theory of natural selection combined with Genetics provided all the material necessary to end the social diseases of sexism and racism. That's moral progress as well as scientific progress -- today we have higher standards of honesty. Your non-existent god is no excuse.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 19, 2009 12:23 PM

@ 167,

The Honorable Pastor Tom Estes has declared his blog "An atheist free zone".

Since his brain is a thought-free zone anyway this news isnt overly exciting.
I wish more xtians would witness this spectacle of another liar for jesus lying his ass off here,it might convince some of them that they are wasting their lifes.
The pastor Tom has really been one of the best examples of a lying xtian scumbag for a long time on here,and thats saying something.

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 12:27 PM

145: " The fact of female inequality as advocated by the Bible would not be denied, the only contentious point would be whether it was merited."

I agree. I would note, however, that the Bible contains more progressive ideas than is commonly assumed, especially here. The idea that women could be leaders -- deacons (deaconesses), that there is no male or female in Christ, that a husband was required to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and must submit to her too, for example.

157: "Is it or is it not believed to be devinely inspired?"

The nature of Biblical inspiration (being "God-breathed") has been debated for more than 20 centuries. You think you've settled it?

By the way, you might recall that Adam was God-breathed too and he was pretty far from inerrant.

159: "It's questionable to what extent your assertion is true, as you really ought to know."

Everything is questionable. But how exactly is the research I linked in error?

"Indeed, let's be generous: thanks, some aspects of Christianity and some Christians, for being better than the then-prevailing cultural norm; down to, oh, round about the Enlightenment.

"We'll take it from there, though."

The Enlightenment's track record isn't all that great either -- as with Christianity (and most everything else) -- amazing positives, horrible negatives, and everything in between. We're talking, ultimately, about people, after all.

Posted by: mikecbraun | August 19, 2009 12:32 PM

"How can you rape what is yours?" asked the man standing in water with a handkerchief on his head.

"Yours?" If I even dreamed about saying something like that, my wife would rape me with a ball peen hammer, and she'd be justified in doing so.

Posted by: Dianne | August 19, 2009 12:39 PM

I myself like to think of my personal relationships in a less Machievellian light.

That's nice, but if you move to the Bahamas you can force a woman who is married to you to have sex with you whether she wants to or not. Go for Afghanistan instead and you can also deny her permission to work and starve her if she disobeys you. Oh, and you'll have sole custody of any children you may have. Even in the US, you'd have a much easier time getting away with raping a woman who is married to you than one who was not and if you were convicted the penalties would likely be less severe.

Now, you personally may be a nice guy who would never do any of that, but why would you want that sort of power over your partner? Power corrupts, as the saying goes and having power over someone, even if it's never used, warps the relationship. Yes, I know that there are practical issues and sentimental issues, but marriage is still a creepy business. Maybe if gay marriage were widely accepted it'd be less so: take away gender and it might all seem a bit more like forming a partnership rather than being bought/acquiring a piece of property.

Posted by: Steven O | August 19, 2009 12:43 PM

""It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don't think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one - one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland."

So then sex within marriage is really just masterbation? Isn't that a sin too?

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 12:53 PM

So then sex within marriage is really just masterbation? Isn't that a sin too?

Steven O for the win.

Posted by: James Sweet | August 19, 2009 1:03 PM

Now, you personally may be a nice guy who would never do any of that, but why would you want that sort of power over your partner?

I'm sorry, but I just think this is specious reasoning. Every day we make decisions that potentially puts us in a power relationship, and one that could be abused -- we can't afford to live our lives in constant fear of entering such a power relationship. Should I not be a father to my son, because I could abuse him? The parent-child relationship is clearly one with a huge power imbalance. Should I not ever accept a promotion at work because I might abuse my authority to coerce a subordinate? Should Obama have refused the presidency because current precedent gave the executive branch unjustified wiretapping powers?

I suppose you could make an argument that, in the case of marriage, one can embrace the meaning without the (somewhat corrupt) gov't endorsement. In fact, it would be an interesting protest against the prohibition on gay marriage if straight couples were to avoid/dissolve marriage in solidarity.

However, in my case, since I earn income and my wife doesn't, the tax implications are thousands and thousands of dollars per year -- so I quite literally can't afford to be ideologically pure on this issue :) Since the symbol of marriage is meaningful to us, and since there are currently tremendous practical benefits towards allowing that symbol to be government sanctioned, it doesn't seem hugely wrong to me to participate in that, while steadfastly opposing the ways in which the current governmental sanctioning is broken or corrupt. Such as:

Maybe if gay marriage were widely accepted it'd be less so: take away gender and it might all seem a bit more like forming a partnership rather than being bought/acquiring a piece of property.

I agree with this entirely, and in fact hadn't thought of it quite this way before. It is not just a civil rights issue for LGBT individuals, but it is also a civil rights issue for women since it is yet another step in eroding the historical misogyny associated with marriage.

Meh, I suppose one thing that separates me from other atheists is that I actually don't have a problem with ritual and tradition as long as it is not mandatory and is vigorously questioned. For example, since getting married, my wife (also an atheist, but from a Jewish family) and I have enjoyed reciting the Channukah prayer and lighting the candles during that time of year. This is something that we enjoy and reminds us of our roots, and I think it's entirely harmless. (Though I probably wouldn't be able to handle it if that God-ass-kissing stuff weren't in Hebrew... heh...)

I absolutely 100% understand people who don't want ever to get married. The various reasonings makes sense to me in an abstract way. I just bristle a bit when people suggest that maybe I ought not to have gotten married. I do what works for me, you can do what works for you, you know? As long as nobody is being harmed -- and really, I can't imagine that I would be any more likely to rape my wife because I thought I might avoid jail time -- I think that is the least dogmatic way of approaching it.

Posted by: Happy | August 19, 2009 1:15 PM

@beta
"I feel like people in this thread are equating marital rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence as a religious problem"

They aren't. The point is that the people in the above-mentioned article were using religion as *justification* for their barbarity.

@anti_supernaturalist
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."
(1 Timothy 2:11)

A better translation is "a woman should *receive instruction* in quietness and full submission". Which makes this little bit of wisdom from the Lord all the more uplifting.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2009 1:23 PM

#77:

A lot of rapists don't orgasm- in fact, many of them can't sustain an erection through an entire attack. These types are more likely to murder their victims out of embarrassment and (perceived) humiliation at the hands of Woman. They're often serial rapists/killers.

I don't agree with the idea that sexual pleasure and violence need to be two distinct categories, however. The crux of the issue is that they often aren't, and we need to look very hard at why and set up a society where we're not neurally wiring people to get off on violence.

Posted by: TiG | August 19, 2009 1:32 PM

Has anyone else noticed the weird Schrodinger's Cat aspect of this? The wife is the wife, and the husband is also the wife, but wife is not the husband...what if you put her in a box with poisoned cat food? Is the husband alive and dead at the same time??

Oh, and thanks for the link Carlie, regarding the Marriott. I let my friends know so we can all blast their customer service reps with outraged letters. I hope they back off from that position and let the poor woman be.

Posted by: Laura | August 19, 2009 1:43 PM

#62 - "It never ceases to amaze me that people believe we can't be moral without the bible. I'm stunned people can be moral *with* the bible."

I was not raised with any type of religious influence and have not read the Bible other than a few passages and quotes from those that have. I consider myself to have far more morals than someone who thinks rape is OK under any circumstance.

I learned on my own through experience to treat people the way I would like to be treated. The Bible seems to just make things more confusing. The more I hear about the Bible, the more I think it is the BIg Book of Lies and Excuses.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 1:44 PM

TiG - later Michelle R linked to that they did indeed back down, but did it with the whole "It wasn't us who said it, it was the insurance lawyers" dance-around. Never mind that they did nothing to counter that particular statement until they got roundly spanked for it by people writing in and complaining. They could use a few more angry rejoinders to remind them not to do it again.
link to an update.

Posted by: Bitchplease | August 19, 2009 1:51 PM

"I would note, however, that the Bible contains more progressive ideas than is commonly assumed, especially here. The idea that women could be leaders -- deacons (deaconesses), that there is no male or female in Christ, that a husband was required to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and must submit to her too, for example."

This is not a progressive idea. The original text does not mention anything about husbands submitting, just about them "loving" (Another contradiction in the Bible, if there's supposedly no "male nor female in Christ.) What I read in those cherry picked verses is just more stupid bullshit about women submitting to their husbands in the same way cruxiJeebus suffering naked for our sins of masturbation and gay sex. It's still selling the same bill of goods--female submission and sadomasochistic suffering for imaginary "sins".

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 2:03 PM

@10 John

I don't know about equal status, but Old Kingdom Egyptian women had the right to own and dispense with property (a very important marker of women's status) & I think in general held a good position in society.

Over the centuries in Egypt, women's status eroded.

Contrawise, the Zoroastrian Persians outlawed slavery and enhanced the status of women over time, until the eventual destruction of their civilization by barbarian hordes.

Posted by: The Other Elwood | August 19, 2009 2:04 PM

I would say that marital rape is impossible, while qualifying that anyone who would rape a spouse is not a husband worthy of the title. The moment he is violent, the marriage should be over--legally, religiously and practically. He should be thrown out and given the same punishment any random stranger would receive--plus forfeiture all of joint property.

My wife and I agree in principle that marriage vows imply the right to sex on demand--at least for us. However, those same vows include a notion of love that would never think of forcing something that should be thought of as a gift. Let's say I own a flower shop. If my wife wants flowers I will almost certainly bring her some; more than likely before she even before she even has a chance to request them. If she feels a need to break into the shop in the middle of the night to get that bouquet, something is terribly wrong with the relationship--wrong enough that it should not continue for another minute.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2009 2:05 PM

OMFG really?
If you say no, it does not matter who it is the answer is no.
Bible terms or not, no is no is no....
What happens if the were about to get a divorce, or maybe the man was abusive, or he was drunk? There are so many different possibilities.
If I tell my husband no, and he does it anyway, he no longer respects me, he no longer loves me, and has disobeyed God.

Posted by: Anti.theist | August 19, 2009 2:11 PM

# 185 "@anti_supernaturalist
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."
(1 Timothy 2:11)

A better translation is "a woman should *receive instruction* in quietness and full submission". Which makes this little bit of wisdom from the Lord all the more uplifting."

@ #185

Receive instruction(the instruction is obey) while being quiet and submissive - during and after the rape.

I'd rather my daughter join the KKK than submit to the ignorance of religion.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 2:12 PM

@17

Ah, but that's sodomy, and hence a crime against nature.

Writing to you from Flori-duh, where "oral and anal sodomy" was a crime I think until the Supreme Court told the states to get their noses out their citizens' beeswax in 2003.

Posted by: Stanton | August 19, 2009 2:22 PM

The idea that women could be leaders -- deacons (deaconesses), that there is no male or female in Christ, that a husband was required to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and must submit to her too, for example.

Then how come there has never been a female Pope, or that raising the idea of ordaining women in the Catholic Church is grounds for excommunication?

Posted by: Bitchplease | August 19, 2009 2:33 PM

Here's that "progressive" passage in full:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

Erm, yeah...no.

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 2:37 PM

195: "This is not a progressive idea. The original text does not mention anything about husbands submitting, just about them 'loving'...."

You might want to re-read Ephesians 5.

"Then how come there has never been a female Pope, or that raising the idea of ordaining women in the Catholic Church is grounds for excommunication?"

Once the Canon was institutionalized by a powerful, institutional church, revelation was deemed static by the powers that be (probably the better to control the masses).

Posted by: LadyH | August 19, 2009 2:40 PM

Oh yeah, he was an atheist as well, so don't think misogyny is a one trick pony.

Posted by: CriticalAtheist | August 19, 2009 2:43 PM

Despicable. Luckily for those women their husbands can only rape them 3 weeks out of the month.

Posted by: LadyH | August 19, 2009 2:46 PM

Thank you Priya :) It happened 2 years ago and yet it still rips me to shreds thinking about it. It's sad to think that I don't even have the worst story.

Posted by: MelM | August 19, 2009 2:55 PM

Being married does not give one the right to assault the partner.

Posted by: BenYitzhak | August 19, 2009 3:03 PM

Happy, in response to post #144, that preview doesn't have a page 321. It stops at 287.

From here: http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm in the section "The Marital Relationship"

"Marital sexual relations are the woman's right, not the man's. A man cannot force his wife to engage in sexual relations with him, nor is he permitted to abuse his wife in any way"

Posted by: DRamos | August 19, 2009 3:07 PM

I rape my husband.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 3:17 PM

@77

Agreed, Jackal. "Rape is about violence" is an oversimplification. I think it was adopted because some people couldn't mentally separate themselves from the perp ("rape=sexy sexy time") and thus couldn't understand why it was so distressing to the victim (="I've just been brutalized").

Sometimes rape (whether the penetration is penile or with some other object) is an act of domination (which doesn't mean it's non-sexual--Kissinger: power is the greatest aphrodisiac); sometimes, it has an explicitly sexual motive.

Some rapists cultivate a delusion that they're sexual gods and their victims actually threw themselves at them and the act was consensual. Others are deeply disturbed and deliberately inflict pain on others. And then the probable majority of rapes in the first world are perpetrated by slightly-sociopathic young people who are only looking to gratify themselves and show no apparent empathy for others. These are the most underreported rapes. Perhaps society protects these rapists because older men think "that could have been me/I did that too" and anyway, who's to say she wasn't "totally into it at the time" and only regrets it later, even though she was dead drunk and briefly regained consciousness to break her nails scrabbling to get away?

Posted by: MelM | August 19, 2009 3:20 PM

This religious barbarism can't go away too soon.

Posted by: gr8hands | August 19, 2009 3:24 PM

Robocop, you need to re-read Ephesians 5, because it does not tell husbands to submit to their wives. The closest you get is verse 21 "submitting to one another in the fear of God." [buzzer] Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Your piffle in #131 and #174 clearly demonstrate that history is not a subject you're well acquainted with, nor is simple research. Bitchplease is quite correct to point out some of your flaws ("No results were found for deaconess in the version(s):King James Version." doing a search from www.BibleGateway.com).

jesus himself didn't do anything specifically to help women's lot in that era, except to make it slightly more difficult for them to be divorced by their husbands. He never undid any of the 10 commandments. He never said they were anything other than property (of their father, then of their husband). He never repealed any of the uncleanness laws regarding menstruation. He never said to stop following jewish law (according to the bible, jesus was born a jew, lived as a jew, and died a jew, without ever overturning any jewish laws: Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."). He never challenged the mistreatment of women by saying to stop, or that it was wrong -- the closest you can come is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

No, jesus was no champion of women's rights.

As for #131 where you rant about

But because they weren't progressive enough for you, Mr./Ms. Holier-Than-Thou, the Biblical authors were evil. And Jefferson was evil. Darwin was evil. Lincoln was evil. FDR was evil.

Please, take your medication before you explode! Logic clearly isn't your strong suit either.

But, as a matter of fact, anyone who advocates the kinds of evil promulgated by the bible in regards to women (gays, children, slaves, etc.) would be advocating evil. Jefferson's having slaves was evil, for instance. Bitchplease is right to point out that none of those other people claimed to be god (a god, or the god). Hopefully you can see that makes a bit of a difference.

I always smile when someone is foolish enough to accuse me of being "Holier-Than-Thou" because it is a clear indication of some mental retardation on their part. Robocop, you are no exception to that.

Posted by: Happy | August 19, 2009 3:29 PM

@BenYitzhak (#222)
The link works for me. Anybody else having a problem? If they are, I'll give a brief summary of the Mishna:
A woman is acquired in 3 ways: money, contract, or sex. The rabbis then argue over how much money. The next 3 portions deal with how to acquire a Hebrew slave, Canaanite slave, and cattle. At least "woman" was first on the list...

And quoting modern apologetics for ancient, misogynistic, evil bullshit is laughable. Also, doesn't the fact that they even have to actually say those apologetics tell you something!? "A man is not permitted to abuse his wife in any way". Gee, how would I ever know that without God's wise wisdom???

Posted by: scrabcake | August 19, 2009 3:35 PM

Ok, robocop. I have a bone to pick with you. Maybe for the first fifty years of Christianity were progressive before Paul decided to put women in their place because they had too much influence in the church. Or maybe it never was. Most of the early apocryphal tales involve women doing absolutely anything to stay virginal, valuing virginity over life and happiness of herself and others.
The Egyptians were quite progressive for the time, *before* the old testament. Women weren't equal, but they did have property rights: they could own property and were entitled to a third of the communal property on divorce. Divorce inheritance rules were fairly well developed. Women could also be professionals although we see a lot fewer of them in these roles.
So yeah. The Bible? Progressive? Compared to WHAT?

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 3:39 PM

@88

From what I understand, the families were matrilinear to the point that "divorce" consisted of the wife dumping the husband's possessions outside the door.

Apparently, she could get another brave in a minute. Matter'fact he's coming here in a minute.

Posted by: TheBear | August 19, 2009 3:42 PM

@robocop:

Yes, you could of course just read the last part - totally ignoring that the text is quite explicit and clearly says it's an uneven relationship with the man as the dominant part.

If you're totally dishonest that is (either to yourself or others - I'm not quite sure who you're trying to fool).

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 3:53 PM

@118

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You don't have to read far in the classical literature or pick up much anthropology or archeology to see that the claim that the depravity in the Babble is "just the times" is complete bollocks.

If it was "just the times," then why did the Xtians (and later the Muslims) aggressively roll back human rights once they gained political power?

I know this is Godwining myself, but even in slave-owning Rome (note: in some cultures of antiquity, slavery was illegal), the intelligentsia, who owned slaves themselves, condemned the abuse of slaves in no uncertain terms ... meanwhile, Christer slave owners were arguing in the 19th century that it was legal, right, and moral to slice a man's back to ribbons for "disrespecting" a white person.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 4:07 PM

Robocop @131

You're nuts. Try reading something other than Xtian apologetics and get back to us in a few months.

Personally, if whisked back in time, I would life in the Persian Empire or in soggy Roman Britain (pre-xtianity) 1000 times over life under the orthodox god-kings.

Not only were they awful to women (and homosexuals), they had a mad-on for killing anyone whose views on life and religion varied ever so slightly from their own.

Some ideas that could get you killed:
Believing Jesus was just a really cool dude, not god.
Believing Jesus was actually a god, and without any corrupting human nature.
Being a priest of any competing sect, ie devotee of Diana, of Athena, of Aphrodite, of Serapis...
Worshiping your family gods (lars) in the privacy of your own home.
Refusing a "friendly" suggestion that you and your family go in for a baptism.
The list goes on and on!

Posted by: Doug the Primate | August 19, 2009 4:09 PM

Pensnest @#121 raises an important question: "Really, why would any man *want* sex with an unwilling partner? Seriously, why?" What has long puzzled me is HOW can any man have intercourse with an unwilling partner?? Intercourse requires an erection, and nothing kills an erection faster than rejection. Contrarywise, nothing is quite as stimulating of an erection as a willing partner, especially an enthusiastic partner willing to be seductive. Some have said in this thread that rape is about power over another, power to harm and degrade another, and only incidentally about intercourse. But my perplexity remains: how can a man get an erection at the prospect of degrading or harming another person?

Perhaps I am just naive, but I don't think so, as I am nearly 60. There was a time when I was naive, and very young. To say my wife at the time was willing would be to commit the fallacy of underdescription (eg: Jane Goodall is a primate studying anthropology; and someone killed by gunshot just died of accute lead poisoning). She was both demanding, and not giving. So much for that relationship.

But about my question: are rapists simply sociopaths? Likewise, a question for women commenters here: assuming that simply being presented with a willing male partner is not sufficient to induce lubricity, what *would* induce it in a demanding and ungiving woman?

I will stay tuned for comments. Peace to all.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 4:16 PM

@165

Easy. She wishes to raise children and doesn't wish to do so in poverty ...

AND she doesn't have a trust fund.

Since the last proviso covers about 99% of all women (maybe 98% in the US), even if only 25% of women want to raise children and not do so in poverty, that's still a lot of women wanting to marry.

Maybe same-sex marriage is opposed by pinhead men fearing softening in human slave market...

Posted by: Christie | August 19, 2009 4:18 PM

I presume if they're one flesh that means she can legally kill him in response - it's just like a voluntary amputation, right?

For that matter, I agree with whoever said it's really messed up that a woman's child isn't "her flesh" but her husband is. WTF?

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 4:29 PM

@174

The idea that women could be leaders -- deacons (deaconesses)

That lasted about as long as it took for the orthodox to murder the last gnostic.

From a historical point of view it's less "big deal" and more "footnote".

Just looking at something like marriage contracts, it seems to me that women's position in society horribly degraded from the time of the Pax Romana to the time of Xtian dominion. Of course, freedom of women related to social class ... now you get into more complicated territory. I don't know that peasant women in feudal Europe were relatively more oppressed than peasant men, but with such an abysmal life expectancy you can't exactly say that life was good.

I can recall items like rich widows controlling lots of property in Roman history, also the right to divorce, while under Roman Catholic regime in 14th century widows were under great pressure since only a son could dispose of property--as a woman, she could not.

At the very end of the pagan era a woman from a well-off family could be a Hypatia (unmarried, career intellectual) but in the Holy Roman Empire the best you could hope for was to write poetry or music in a convent (and maybe have your name scrubbed off the attribution, later), a Hildegaard von Bingen, perhaps.

Gosh, even in basic human rights perspective pagan Rome wins... yes they had slaves, yes there was a revolt, but poor citizens were given bread every day (and some other things--a sort of hybrid socialism/patronage system). In Xtian era the destitute were reduced to beggars and in England were even imprisoned for the crime of being homeless (even if they had some sort of pathetic internant trade). All sanctioned by Gawd, of course.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 4:32 PM

To pile on here: if nobody in the past had any inkling marital rape was wrong, then why does the Kuran have to come up with all these tortured justifications for it?

People who think that forcing someone against their will isn't rape are monsters, even if it isn't of their own doing, and I still fail to see why we should be reluctant to say so.

Posted by: littlestripes | August 19, 2009 4:36 PM

"" I recall being with some adolescent males discussing the fact that rape had crossed their minds. They made it clear that the motivation was their sex drive, not a drive for domination."

Also, you really aren't making any sense. How can it not be a "drive for domination" when rape is, at its core, DOMINATING YOURSELF OVER ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? You can't rape without dominating. Period. It's impossible. So tell me, how is it not about a drive for domination? They wouldn't consider RAPING (aka dominating) if it wasn't.

They'd either masturbate or find a willing partner.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 4:50 PM

@243 little stripes:

Disagree.

Given the general empathy deficiency of teenage males, I think you're attributing cognitive faculties to them that they do not possess

Oh hell no. Why would they need to RAPE -- therefore DOMINATE A WOMAN -- if it was just about their sex drives? If it was just about their sex drives, they'd get a nudie mag and masturbate. If they have to RAPE, they are trying to control a woman and are getting off on that control. Period.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 19, 2009 5:10 PM

Robocop,
Perhaps the idea that some people may exercise evil thoughts and behaviors while not being wholly evil is an idea you should consider. The idea that people who are mostly evil can be capable of some good is another idea to keep in mind. Thank you, President Lincoln, for signing The Emancipation Proclamation. No thanks for your racism, however. (See how I did that? I didn't lump everything together as if it were the same thing simply because it came from the same person. I recognized the value of each. Not that hard, actually.)

If you are attempting to argue that at one time rape was not an immoral act, I must tell you that I disagree with that kind of moral relativism. It is highly possible that many or most people were wrong--actually, objectively wrong--for a long time. See: flat earth.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 5:17 PM

littlestripes (#164)

That doesn't make sense. It's still the act of sex even if there is a condom. Sex isn't all about procreation. Bad analogy.

I'm emphasizing how arbitrary your definition is when you exclude rape from sexual behavior but don't exclude things like non-reproductive sex.

Also, you can rape someone with objects, not just penises. Replace a penis with a broom handle, if you must – a rapist is trying to dominate over the victim, and take away a victim’s agency, choice, and personhood.

And you can use objects during loving sex as well. Object rape isn't inherently non-gratifying sexually to the rapist just because it isn't his or her own body part.

(#243)

If it was just about their sex drives, they'd get a nudie mag and masturbate. If they have to RAPE, they are trying to control a woman and are getting off on that control. Period.

WTF? Is it not part of a person's sex drive to wish to have consentual sex with another person rather than masturbating? How does the desire for sex with another person magically become about control and nothing more when it fails to take into account the other person's freedom? This is exactly why I find your position silly; it requires a leap of logic. Understanding rape as sex better explains the spectrum of rape, from the sort like religious sanctioned marital rape where the rapist thinks he's entitled to sex from his wife, to date rape, to stranger rape, to rape used as a form of torture or genocide in war, etc. While control is also part of rape, to make it into the definition turns rape into a caricature where the rapist is always striving for a negation of the other person's will rather than simply* not respecting it. The former happens, but so does the latter.

*This is not to say that what's simple for the rapist is therefore simple for the victim.

~*~*~*~*~
Endor (#177)

Also, rape is not about sex. Rapists aren't just desperate, horny men who can't help themselves. ... It's an act of hatred, contempt and/or apathy towards another, which is where the sexual gratification lies.

Begging the question a bit in the second sentence there, don't you think? It's not as though the rapist needs such inanely simplistic motives in order for rape to be about sex. And you contradict the first sentence in the last. If it's not about sex, why mention sexual gratification as though it's a motive to rape?

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 5:34 PM

I'm hearing crickets in response to #223.

Not even someone talking out of their ass--that's surprising.

Come on, I know I didn't make all those "expose" articles up.

Posted by: littlestripes | August 19, 2009 5:42 PM

"I'm emphasizing how arbitrary your definition is when you exclude rape from sexual behavior but don't exclude things like non-reproductive sex."

I said rape isn't about sex. It's about control and power, using sex. There is a difference. Again, you CANNOT rape without dominating. To say that raping someone is not about domination is illogical, since rape is domination, always.

"While control is also part of rape, to make it into the definition turns rape into a caricature where the rapist is always striving for a negation of the other person's will rather than simply* not respecting it. "

Uh....but that is what a rapist is doing! It's not that they are "simply not respecting it"! A rapist is taking away a person's agency, choice, free will, and denying them of their personhood (by taking away their control). The rapist IS always striving for a negation of the other person's will. That is the very definition of rape.

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 5:44 PM

253: "If the original hebrew was in any way still relevant to modern times, there simply wouldn't be so many fucking versions of texts for morons like yourself."

You have a real gift, Icky. Even this moron knows that the New Testament (the object of discussion here) wasn't written in Hebrew, but in Greek. And, if you think the translation I quoted is in error somehow, you might explain how ("our sister Phoebe, a diakonos of the church of Cenchreae").

For one approach to submission question (though the Biblical "experts" here will no doubt ignore it):

http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/pdf.php/rebecca/000046.pdf

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 5:55 PM

253: "hmm, would those sentiments agree with all the other versions?"

Icky, majority vote doesn't decide matters of scholarship, donchaknow. By essentially all accounts (from Bart Ehrman to much more conservative scholars), the NRSV is the best translation going, the translation of which was led by Princeton's Bruce Metzger, the leader in the field at the time (and for decades until his death). Here's what it says:

Romans 16:1: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae...."

But I'm the moron....

Posted by: DarkMage2.0 | August 19, 2009 5:58 PM

If you follow that logic, then if a woman kills her husband, it's not considered murder because she has killed her own flesh, it's considered suicide. And since there's no laws against suicide, she can go free. Not a bad comprimise if a husband want's to rape her.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | August 19, 2009 6:14 PM

Little stripe said "A rapist is taking away a person's agency, choice, free will, and denying them of their personhood (by taking away their control). The rapist IS always striving for a negation of the other person's will."

I agree, its a terrible crime.

Little stripe said "That is the very definition of rape.".

No, if that were true then forcing someone to clean your house, or to give you their money would be rape. It is not rape unless sex takes place.

Littlestripe said "You act like, just because they didn’t say “we hate women!” that they don’t hate women. They wanted to (jokingly or not) RAPE women."

Well, unlike you I don't claim to have been able to read every rapist's mind. I do however know what they said and they didn't express any sentiment that they hated women, they expressed how the desire for sex was making them crazy and how although they knew rape was wrong that the thought had entered their minds.

Littlestripe said "Raping a woman means dominating her. Period. You cannot rape a woman without dominating her. It is impossible."

I agree. By the same token, sometimes that domination is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I can see its very important to you that no one believe that - why is that?

Someone said "Rape isn't about not being able to get laid. I know some rather pathetic and horny men who have never once even gotten close to rape*.".

Probably most men wouldn't consider raping, that doesn't mean that some men aren't motivated to rape by a desire for sex. I know its fashionable to not believe that, but I don't understand why.

Posted by: Robocop | August 19, 2009 6:24 PM

275: "Speaking of scholarship, Robo, what say you to the claim by many Christian apologists/Babble scholars that 'deaconess' means 'the wife of a deacon'?"

I couldn't begin to take on Bruce Metzger. But if Phoebe's title came from her marital status, why didn't Paul greet her husband too, especially if his was the power position?

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 6:34 PM

I agree with you that the dodge is silly ... I just disagree with you that there being deaconesses--if there were deaconesses--is the ace in the hole you think it is. I mean, if women must remain silent in church, why are we even having this discussion? Do I care if it's a 2nd century redaction? The church, such as it was, did not have much power in the 2nd century.

Your claim is that the church ballooned in membership b/c it was progressive. I see a church that ballooned at swordpoint after all progressiveness was decisively stamped out.

Posted by: Anri | August 19, 2009 6:51 PM

Robocop sez:

"Once the Canon was institutionalized by a powerful, institutional church, revelation was deemed static by the powers that be (probably the better to control the masses)."

I want to make certain I understand your point before I draw any conclusions from it.
You believe that the revelation of the bible is incomplete, yes?
And that further revelation has occurred since then?
May I ask where that's been recorded?
And, rather more to the point, how one is able to tell what is revelation and what's just voices in your head?

Or if not, when that revelation ended, and why?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 6:58 PM

Robocop, you have a text with one single verse that says husbands and wives should submit to each other, and dozens of verses about how women should submit to men, be silent in public, get forced to marry someone who rapes them, who can be bought and sold by their fathers, etc. and so forth. Heck, there's an entire story where a guy offers to hand his daughters over to an angry mob to be raped and killed instead of two strange men who have just stopped by and he's the good one who is being holy and whose attitude we should emulate. So there's one verse that suggests mutual submission; so what? It's far outweighed by all of the anti-woman verses.

Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 7:06 PM

Oh, and Robocop, don't forget the story about how God was joshing around and told some guy to kill his kid and he was totes going to, without the mother having any say in the matter, or the story about the girl who had to deal with her fiancee marrying her older sister because her dad said so, or the story about how God was joshing around again with Satan and killed a guy's wife (and kids) but it was all ok because he got replacements and one wife is just as good as another, or the one about how a woman got tempted and was the cause of the DOWNFALL OF ALL OF HUMANITY. There's a reason all the women's bible study books focus on Esther and Ruth; they're really the only two women who make out well in the bible, and they have to go through hell to get there.

Posted by: Anri | August 19, 2009 7:09 PM

Ben Yitzhak sez:
"I don't know that you can blame all misogyny on religion. Yes, I think that religion does contribute to the culture of misogyny, but it is not the sole distributor. There are a myriad of secular sources as well. I can't say that getting rid of religion wouldn't also get rid of the culture of misogyny, but only because it's just so difficult to imagine what would successfully rid the world of religion."

You are, of course, correct that not all misogyny stems from religion. What religion does, however, is it gives a nice, soft, fluffy whitewash for the misogyny.
It becomes a lot more acceptable to publicly state that women are inherently unclean, and responsible for the ills of the world if you can point to a book that everyone is supposed to revere and say 'I don't know myself, but god says...'

Removing that cove, or at least shipping away at it a bit, is a worthy goal.

Posted by: not a gator | August 19, 2009 7:10 PM

@284

Well, there's Judith, but even the Bible thumpers admit she's made up.

(Her name, amusingly, is Yehudit, or "Jewess", emphasizing the symbolic/nationalistic nature of the story. Made for some awesome 19th century paintings.)

Actually, Esther is probably made up as well. Full of historical details that turn out to be bogus.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 7:25 PM

littlestripes (#264)

I said rape isn't about sex. It's about control and power, using sex.

And saying that is as arbitrary as saying non-reproductive sex isn't about sex.

Again, you CANNOT rape without dominating. To say that raping someone is not about domination is illogical, since rape is domination, always.

You are confusing the necessity of control with control as intent and motivation.

The rapist IS always striving for a negation of the other person's will. That is the very definition of rape.

So you deny the existence of rapists who are looking for sexual gratification and simply do not care that they are denying the person they rape the choice not to participate? (Note: I'm not asking if you think that all rapists fit this definition, I'm asking if you think any can.)

(#267)

You would not rape if you did not desire dominating women. It is not primarily about sex, otherwise they wouldn't have to DOMINATE A WOMAN to get it.

Someone, like the uncaring rapist above, could rape without desiring that domination. If one doesn't care about the other person's feelings, then why would an unwilling partner be either an incentive or a turn off? And if one did desire dominating another person, there are consentual ways to do that, both sexual and otherwise, so why rape? Certainly some rapists find the unwillingness of the victim a particular draw, but it's hardly necessary as an incentive.

(#269)

It also places blame on women: Well, if women only gave out, men wouldn't have to rape!!

Do you think that blame falls on the woman if rape is about sex and sexual access? Is that why you're hostile to the idea? Because it's a non sequitur. To acknowledge that rape is a natural part of human sexuality in no way absolves rapists, and it especially doesn't then cause blame to fall on the victims.

Men don't rape because they can't get laid.

It's not the only reason, of course.

~*~*~*~*~
BlueMonday (#265)

Yes, there is a sexual component to rape, but the driving force is control or power--not sex.

See, the problem I have with this position is that it actually undermines the situation of victims like women in the article. The husbands who rape because they think they have a right to aren't likely to be motivated by the control element. If, in their minds, the wife is already obligated, then there's no need to consider control. For them, sex with the wife on a day when she doesn't want it is the same as sex on a day she consents. So if rape has to be driven by a desire for control or power, and the husbands aren't motivated by that, can you logically say the wives are raped?

Posted by: LadyH | August 19, 2009 7:31 PM

LadyH: Did the louse get prosecuted?

Sadly no, PZ. I went the next day to the police station because he had been calling me incessantly (after I left) and even tracked me down to where I was and I had to scream at him on the street to leave me alone. I told the officer that I wanted a restraining order. The officer immediately told me that I should just go home and wait til things cooled down. He then explained to me how his ex-wife had slept around and was now homeless and on welfare (really, should I know this?) I asked to see a cousellor, whom I told the story to and the cop decided to be nice enough to call my ex and tell him to stop harrassing me, which he finally did. By the time I realized that reporting a rape was not the same as charging one for it, I was too intimidated to go back. I still want to do it, but there are several factors that keep me from moving forward. I am unable to hire a lawyer due to being unemployed and I am unemployed because of the severe anxiety and depression that arose from the attack as well as the months preceding it (childbirth/jobloss). I feel like the shell of a woman who used to be a hard working professional that could support her family, and now can't even make the attempt to go outside sometimes. The tough part is, I know it's only the fear keeping me back, but it's as if that fear is an impenetrable wall that surrounds everything.
I wasn't married to the bastard, thank FSM, but that didn't stop him from thinking I was his property.

Posted by: BenYitzhak | August 19, 2009 7:41 PM

Is it really a major source? I can see how it might be, but that seems really hard to quantify. You can't say all of Christianity contributes to misogyny, just because parts of the bible are misogynistic, can you? And what of the religions that promote equality, however few and minor they may be? How would one conduct a study to see how much of a culture's misogyny is religiously motivated? Is there a control group of a culture without religion? Is that necessary?

"It becomes a lot more acceptable to publicly state that women are inherently unclean, and responsible for the ills of the world if you can point to a book that everyone is supposed to revere and say 'I don't know myself, but god says...'"

There is no book everyone reads the same way and everyone reveres. The people who interpret religious texts that way do so because they want to interpret the texts that way. If they were not using religious means to say so, they would be justifying their behaviour with bad science.

Would getting rid of religion also get rid of bad science? I know there is secular bad science, people who decide that since their studies don't show that such and such is unhealthy, they won't publish those studies.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 19, 2009 7:53 PM

So, to summarize: the Get-Sex-Free-Any-Time card* is really what the "sacred institution of marriage between a Man and a Woman and God and Jesus and the Bible" is all about. I'll think about that next time I see any conservative bloviating about it.

* For the man only, of course

Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 19, 2009 8:06 PM

I confess that when I read the post title “Men & women Divided Over Sex Bill” I laughed a bit and wondered which one thought they had been charged too much. Then I read the post and all the humor drained out of me.

Posted by: Zillian | August 19, 2009 8:30 PM

Forcing her to submit is what gets him off, not the sex act itself.

I have to say that while I generally DON'T think rape is about sex (which definitely depends on how you define "sex" as well), I can't agree with this statement. It happens, that much is certain, but you can't say it applies in every single case.

Example: My boyfriend once got scarily close to raping me. Now, he stopped and apologised before any harm was done and appeared to be genuinely mortified by his own behaviour, but the only difference between him and a guy who DOESN'T realise what he's doing in time is a little bit of awareness. It was clearly sex that he was after, especially since he is generally not the type of person who would desire power at all. So why would I assume that a person who does the same and only lacks that extra bit of awareness is motivated by something completely different?

I think there are many people, both male and female, who desire sex so much that they occasionally forget to consider the other person's feelings - but only men are taught that they can act on those desires, which is the real problem. If you continue to say that rape is always about power, not sex, then those who really ARE motivated by sex will not feel guilty. People need to realise that it doesn't freaking matter WHY you're doing it because it is always WRONG.

Posted by: Judas | August 19, 2009 9:19 PM

I guess once the bride's father "gave" her away she became a chattel to the groom...

Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | August 19, 2009 10:20 PM

You know, sometimes people say, "Of course sexual orientation is innate. Being gay is so difficult, who would choose it?"

Stories like this remind me that, while being gay can be difficult, being a straight woman is no picnic, either. I think if sexual orientation were a choice, I would still choose to be a lesbian. Because at least my fellow lesbians usually don't assume they have a God-given right to rape me.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 19, 2009 10:27 PM

@290
Your argument in that case would work only if it were common behavior for married men to rape their wives when sex was denied. Plenty of married men or men in long-term monogamous relationships are denied sex--some regularly--and they do not respond by raping their partners. This applies to men in many cultures (short of the intense brainwashing that some may undergo). Their partners turn them down, they may get upset, they may cheat, but many men do not operate off of the impulse to physically dominate. It's not even on their radar.

Most of the men I know who have been married have been required to go without sex for long stretches at a time--and they do not force their wives into sex. That is because they do not feel the need to exert that kind of control over their partners. Some of them have turned to adultery to assuage their sexual passions, because what they needed was sex. Some have divorced over it. There is always another way to get your rocks off if you want. Rape is domination, not a response to lack of sexual opportunity.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 10:54 PM

Cath the Canberra Cook (#291)

Rape is masturbation during violent domination.

Rape doesn't always require violence. Non-violent, coerced sex is still rape. And given that rape involves at least one other person and given that some victims experience arousal, have sexual dysfunction afterwards or can get pregnant or contract an STI, "masturbation" only works as an analogy for the fact that only the rapist wants the sex.

And since anyone who wants to masturbate can just go ahead and do that anyway, the distinctive thing about rape is the violent domination.

The distinctive thing about rape is that it's non-consentual or coerced sex. That's all it needs to be. Trying to make it into something else or something more specific works against victims.

~*~*~*~*~
Tammy (#299)

Forcing her to submit is what gets him off, not the sex act itself.

So what happens in rape that's not premeditated? The rapist goes from trying to get sexual release to trying to get off from forcing the victim when that person says no? Doesn't make sense.

~*~*~*~*~
Zillian (#300)

People need to realise that it doesn't freaking matter WHY you're doing it because it is always WRONG.

Indeed, and this really goes to the heart of what I'm trying to argue.

~*~*~*~*~
Blue Monday (#306)

Your argument in that case would work only if it were common behavior for married men to rape their wives when sex was denied.

Why would it have to be common? All it takes for is for a man to feel so entitled to sex with his wife that her consent is not a consideration.

There is always another way to get your rocks off if you want. Rape is domination, not a response to lack of sexual opportunity.

I'm not denying that there are other ways to get off. All I'm saying is that, in the situation I brought up (or rather, that the article brought up), domination is not the motivation because submission is expected no matter what. Rape can be a response to being refused sex and it's still rape and it's still unacceptable.

Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 11:05 PM

A. Noyd, (my bold)

I'm not denying that there are other ways to get off. All I'm saying is that, in the situation I brought up (or rather, that the article brought up), domination is not the motivation because submission is expected no matter what.

I don't think you've expressed yourself well*, but I take your point, I think.

Paraphrasing your contention: The motivation is a righteous sense of entitlement (in your example) rather than an assertion of dominance.

Of course, what the motivation of a rapist is is not independent to the experience of the victim who suffers the act.

--
* Literally: One party cannot be submissive without the other being dominant, of necessity.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 19, 2009 11:48 PM

John Morales (#310)
Close enough. The motivation in the example is a desire to have sex. The "righteous sense of entitlement" is what won't let refusal get in the way. But yes, a large part of my point is the problem of motivation of the rapist vs. the experience of the victim. Focusing on the former in order to define rape, especially while restricting it to a particular set of motivations, rewrites or denies the victim's experience. I should not have stressed motivations myself as much as I did in #156, but I was irritated by the attempts to deny that part of rape. Bad me, on that.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2009 12:32 AM

I'm posting as a lifelong committed feminist and I have to say, Carrie is spot on.

I think it's a mistake to act as if a strict separation exists between the eros motivating sexual and violent behaviors. Nothing could be more clear from even a cursory examination of human sexuality: violence is experienced as highly erotic and is highly eroticized in various cultures, to different degrees and in different ways.

THIS is, in fact, the very essence of the problem. Until we sort out exactly how we've managed to get our wires crossed, so that sexual pleasure during intercourse and violence are often intimately linked for some people, we will never chip away at what second wave feminists rightly called "rape culture." We already have some good clues; neglect and abuse during infancy and childhood seem to correlate with violent crime later in life, men who are fed misogynist messages about female "submission" such as those we've been discussing in the Bible are more likely to rape, and a culture and legal system that tends to blame victims of rape or doesn't recognize "soft" or "non-violent/coercive" forms of rape like date rape or spousal rape is a major factor.

I think posters are right to point out that the dogmatic "sex is about DOMINATION" mantra has ultimately done a disservice to rape victims over the past 20 years since it was widely adopted into the folk psychology. This is because it feeds the perception that rape is primarily perpetrated through excessive force or by strangers in alley ways who are looking for innocent virgins to sully.

In reality, a woman is far more likely to be raped at home, by someone she knows, and in circumstances where her rapist need not resort to weapons or beatings. The methods of coercion used are typically far more subtle and insidious, and the psychology of the rapist far more sick and twisted--studies have shown that most rapists actually don't even believe they're rapists at all. They think their victims are actually enjoying it, that s/he wants it, and that they've done nothing wrong!

Posted by: LadyH | August 20, 2009 1:26 AM

"LadyH, I don't think you need to forgive yourself for acquiescing to coercion, nor to forgive your assailant."

Oh, no worries there. I only blame myself for trusting that he wouldn't go as far as he did. I couldn't make myself believe that he was controlling me until that day, and I paid a price for it. Lesson learned. What gets me is that he doesn't understand now why I won't deal with him. He truly believes that I consented :P Stupid bloody idiot. . . unless it's a show to his family that he couldn't possibly do anything like that, which they swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

It's tough talking about this, especially on a site that I see as an escape into sanity. Please keep writing PZ, whatever you do. It gives me hope that there can be a better, saner world . . . well, except for the idiots.

Posted by: Sara | August 20, 2009 5:11 AM

This is so disgusting.

And the patriarchy's little helper ("Ms. Sweeting") ain't helping any :(

Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2009 6:47 AM

Captain Obvious @319, not in so many words, but there is Leviticus 18:22.

PS if you read this thread, you'll note your handle seems eponymous. :)

Posted by: LadyH | August 20, 2009 10:37 AM

#317

Ironicaly, my ex used to remark about how the poor don't get justice :P

Posted by: not a gator | August 20, 2009 12:31 PM

@292

My heart goes out to you LadyH. I've been through major depression, and the effect it has on you is very real.

Is there a women's shelter in your area? Or a branch of La Red? I'm just suggesting an alternative by which you might find free or low cost counseling, at least temporarily, since given your history you probably don't qualify for public assistance. IANAD, but I'm thinking you could use someone to talk to, maybe some CBT, and probably anti-anxiety medication at least for a while.

Have you looked for a pro bono lawyer, or talked to anyone at your local law school?

Just remember, prosecution is important, but the best revenge for you is living well.

(And that cop is a complete pig. He intimidated you at a very vulnerable time. In an ideal world, he'd be explaining a citizen's complaint to his supervisors right now.)

Posted by: not a gator | August 20, 2009 12:42 PM

@299

That's quite the claim there, Tammy. Please cite research in reputable journals to substantiate.

Until you can do that, I will quite frankly be suspending belief.

PS: so, somebody did PET scans of a rapist in flagrante delicto? Really?

Posted by: AntiK | August 20, 2009 1:15 PM

Going to the Bahamas to get married, before this bill kicks off. Be back later! :D

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2009 2:16 PM

A note to PZ based on feminist blogging standards, feel free to take it or leave it.

You might want to put a warning something like this: [Warning to victims of violent crime: possible trigger follows] at the top of posts about rape or sexual violence. This way, people who have been raped have the option of not reading along and possibly triggering an episode of PTSD or just having a really shitty rest of the day.

Posted by: LadyH | August 20, 2009 3:55 PM

Hey Not a Gator,

I so wish I could take a job. I did try once: I got a secretary job and had to stop after one day. Stuff that would seem like ordinary stress to someppl was unbearable for me. It's the most frustrating thing. I WANT to work, I just can't :( I think part of it is burnout. I used to work as a game developer so I basically did 14 hour days 6 days a week for 3 years, one of them pregnant. I think the only reason I managed it was because work was less stressful than home :P I am trying to get out of the house more tho. I do housework for my mom and sew costumes for ppl every once in a while.

Posted by: Anti.theist | August 20, 2009 4:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

The bible supports rape some say. It is obvious the bible does not! This lie is easy to demonstrate with :a specific version of the bible, prayer, understanding of ancient culture/philosophy, a concordance, a fairly decent education, personal interpretation, personal revelation, an unwavering belief that no matter what evidence is presented you will never accept your god, not that one, is real - she is god and she is only good. The following might not hurt too: referencing material from bias educated christian scholars who received their PHDs from christian universities who can and do clearly demonstrate why a 2,000 year old documented and well understood sexist history of christianity is wrong. Such christians were acting against her omnipotent will, on drugs or just acting out on their free will.

Once you convince yourself something is true it is not difficult to believe it. Those scholars are wrong.

Like another person said I do not understand why people are angry, outraged or shocked. The bible has for thousands of years taught us that women are not the equal to men. The bible has effectively taught us how to deal with lippy women(kids too), when to rape them and how to limit their rights. Rape according to the bible is a tool god in all her glory has provided man with to keep them women in line. Despite the lies modern day theists want you to believe god wants you to rape her women - read the bible it is there.

Betty presents the argument much better than I could.

AT

Posted by: SC, OM | August 20, 2009 5:04 PM

I think it's a mistake to act as if a strict separation exists between the eros motivating sexual and violent behaviors. Nothing could be more clear from even a cursory examination of human sexuality: violence is experienced as highly erotic and is highly eroticized in various cultures, to different degrees and in different ways.

THIS is, in fact, the very essence of the problem. Until we sort out exactly how we've managed to get our wires crossed, so that sexual pleasure during intercourse and violence are often intimately linked for some people, we will never chip away at what second wave feminists rightly called "rape culture." We already have some good clues; neglect and abuse during infancy and childhood seem to correlate with violent crime later in life, men who are fed misogynist messages about female "submission" such as those we've been discussing in the Bible are more likely to rape, and a culture and legal system that tends to blame victims of rape or doesn't recognize "soft" or "non-violent/coercive" forms of rape like date rape or spousal rape is a major factor.

Just to be clear, this does not apply to the BDSM subculture. For example,

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120126317/abstract

Your post is unclear on this, so I don't know if this slippage is present. If so, this thinking has real effects for people in this group, from shaming them for "abnormal" sexual interests (which hardly seems liberatory) to legal consequences in custody battles, etc. Consensual sexual play is not the same thing as real coercion or sexual violence.

Posted by: Itakru | August 20, 2009 6:54 PM

That's it--I'm officially going to become a lesbian.

Honestly, I don't know where men (specifically those that wrote the Bible) get the idea that women BELONG to them. Actually, apply that to women, blacks, and anyone else who at one point has ever been confined to slavery. It's sickening, and it happens because the Bible says it's okay, so people think it's okay. No offense to any Christians reading this, but I don't plan on founding my views on a bunch of words and myrrh-induced hallucinations.

Rape is not sex. Rape is abuse. Rape is a means of controlling someone. Sex/lovemaking is physical intercourse based on consent between two people, main word being consent. Rape, regardless of status or sexuality or anything else, is nonconsensual, the people involved made no agreement, and it is a criminal offense no matter how you look at it. People are not property; people are people. The attitudes of those quoted in this article make me sick.

Posted by: Smokey Demon | August 20, 2009 9:35 PM

Stupid comments such as many of the above are what made me decide that any thinking person should be eiter an atheist or, at most, an agnostic. Men have been trying to excuse their bad behavior since Adam supposedly said, "she made me do it!" Muslim men are supposedly so unable to control themselves that the mere sight of a woman's hair or face could cause them to jump her bones right then and there! Take your misogynistic beliefs and do anatomically impossible things with them.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 21, 2009 12:29 AM

BlueMonday (#339)

I don't think entitlement automatically softens the will to dominate, which is what it appears you're implying.

Disclaimer: Nothing I'm about to say is an attempt to soften rape or excuse rapists.

I'm saying that entitlement can make the willingness to dominate irrelevant to motive. Domination is made necessary by the definition of rape, but it doesn't have to enter the rapist's mind as an explicit need the rapist wants to satisfy. Many of the stories in the comments of the blog article pensnest linked in #323 outline how casual rape can be to both the rapist and the victim.

If rape has to be about wanting to dominate, then anyone who is motivated to force sex due to feelings of entitlement, convenience, apathy towards the victim's wants, etc. aren't "really" rapists. I don't think you actually believe that, but it's possible for a rapist to take it that way and assume what s/he did wasn't rape. It's also possible for a victim to take it that way and assume s/he wasn't raped or won't be believed.

The men in the article have a concept of rape, but they don't associate that concept with what they do to their wives. Marital rape is within the natural order of things according to their culture. However wrong their culture is to teach that, it is what they use to interpret the world. Concepts such as "pathologically domineering" could arguably fit our culture, but not cultures where dominance is unquestioned and normal. Trying to raise awareness of rape by pointing to dominance, much less dominance as a motive, might not make sense to people. You have to speak to what people actually believe.

Posted by: Mackenzie | August 22, 2009 8:25 PM

@ Rorshach #106:
What's wrong with not consummating a marriage? It's not something asexual couples are likely to do, for instance.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 23, 2009 1:51 AM

So, Jack, are you willing to let your wife fuck you up the ass with the biggest strap-on she can find, anytime she feels like it? Or do you think you should be allowed a choice in the matter? If the latter, why do you think women aren't worthy of the same choice?

Posted by: Yahzi | August 23, 2009 10:10 PM

Jack Vermicelli said: "Obviously, if a party to a marriage is unhappy with the marriage, they have the liberty of terminating the marriage agreement. That said, "rape" as such shouldn't be prosecutable if the "have and hold" euphemism or any such term were understood to be part of the nuptial compact."

Jack, you're talking like a lawyer, but not a competent one. If a spouse does not provide sexual satisfaction, then that is grounds for divorce. In legal terms, the remedy for failure to adhere to the contract is the dissolution of the contract. The remedy does not include violent seizure of assets. Nor does the contract reduce a person to assets. No where in the contract does it state that a signing party's constitutional rights and liberties are subject to forfeiture; and if it did so, it would be an illegal contract.

Maybe you think child abuse shouldn't be prosecutable, as long as the parents understood that they owned the fruits of their labor.

Posted by: Zoodiaboona | September 1, 2009 9:38 PM

http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/users/17324 pornhub albany

Posted by: Women Expert | September 7, 2009 1:34 AM

Thanks for this. I saw an article and thought it was nuts but you have done a terrific job at pointing that out.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 1, 2009 5:05 PM

Decisions decisions. Pornhub redtube, or pornhub albany? I've been to Albany...wait, here's a biology one, "zootube"...

ew