Regarding Marital Consent

So, there seems to have been some misunderstanding on my marital consent post, it was short and to the point to avoid being twisted. Maybe it was too to the point, so here’s parts of a Twitter conversation with Dave Futrelle (who kindly deigned to mock my words) that may clarify some things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 comments

  1. Pingback: Regarding Marital Consent | Manosphere.com

  2. “I assume they have agency period. Dave would deny them agency by denying them the ability to make a contract.”

    There’s your problem.

    Women don’t have agency. The question is how best to handle that.

  3. To put it more precisely – women aren’t full adults and aren’t treated that way by anyone.

    When it comes to contracts they’ll never be held to their word because literally no one expects that of women.

    The traditional reaction to this was to make a husband responsible for his wife – but to also grant him authority over her. Once that happens the issue of marital consent goes away because women find a man with authority over her very sexy.

  4. I noticed that you make the mistake of arguing on their terms. They keep implying that you’re saying that it’s okay to rape your wife, to which your only answer should be the refrain “…but there’s no such thing as marital rape.” Don’t try to convince these wastes of breath. They don’t want to be convinced, they just want to scapegoat you.

  5. Arguing with progressive is largely pointless because they change the definition of words as it suits them, thus negating the point of a debate. If you really want to challenge them then you must stick to the dictionary definition of the words and challenge them with the definition whenever they try to re-define words.

  6. Pingback: Regarding Marital Consent | Reaction Times

  7. If the implied sex in the marital contract is not included, so that there is a guarantee of fidelity without a guarantee of sex, then fidelity to the marriage is null and void. The concept of marital rape does exactly that. A couple might as well simply live together.

  11. @Free Northerner
    What is your justification for going from the fact that marriage is contract in which love (more precisely the sexual mockery of the concept) and sex are implied to exact details regarding sex that you claim are a part of that contract?

  12. This futrelle guy is a typical gamma sissy-boy who uses the debate tactics of a teenage girl, while imagining himself to be clever.

    Don’t bother trying to explain things to a fool. Fools only desire to confuse speech, not clarify it.

    Additionally, mr futrelle is basically a coward – he only can keep the illusion of debate alive by pretending to not understand what words mean. And you can be sure that where there is intellectual cowardice, real cowardice is not far behind. I assure you, he is absolutely dominated body and soul by every woman in his life.

    The man is not his own person. Pity him.

  14. Y’all are right, it was probably a waste of time, but I enjoyed it.

    @ Liss: No exact details. Sex is promised; the exact nature of it is not. Aberrations that are not standard sex are not promised.

  15. @Free Northerner
    But you have given exact details regarding sex: you went from spouses promising to have sex with one another by becoming married to each spouse promising to have sex with the other spouse whenever the other spouse desires it.
    To clarify using your bank analogy: the first is the equivalent of making a deal with the bank to pay them 1000$ and the second is the equivalent of making a deal with the bank that they can enter your house whenever they feel like it and keep taking money from you until they get 1000$.
    The first type of contract does not imply the second type of contract, so I’d like to hear your justification for claiming that in marriage the first type of contract implies the second type of contract.

  16. Liss, you don’t really think that the marital contract merely consents to sex one time, to consummate the union? How much sex is implicit in the marriage vow?

    There are two basic types of contract you make with the bank: a loan agreement and a deposit agreement. In the first case, the contract is expressly limited to repayment of the principal plus accrued interest, and ends when the principal is repaid. In the second case, the contract is limited to the right to withdraw the deposit amount (plus interest, if applicable), and ends whenever the total is withdrawn.

    I don’t think Christian marriage, a one-flesh union, maps well to either analogy above. Is there a point at which the terms have been fulfilled and the marriage ends? Is there collateral to secure against default?

  17. I find it amusing how Futrelle showed his complete social incompetence and bias by automatically assuming that all men would expect deviant sex with their wives. It shows exactly what is on his mind, brought out for all to see by the line of questioning that he used in the shaming/reframing attempt.

    A chilling look into his creepy and twisted mind.

    @Liss – another attempt to shame-and-reframe. I have to state that you show quite graphically your social incompetence, in being unable to distinguish between what is considered socially acceptable and what is not. The fact that you attempt to reject and nitpick and twist a perfectly-comprehensible analogy into absurdity is symptomatic of female/leftist mind-games.

    If you were socially-conscious your statements would not be said, because they would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Overall: It is fantastic how the lunatic fringe telegraph their inanities and insanities to all. A brilliant forewarning of what’s in their minds. As intelligent men, it is vitally necessary that we be constantly alert for these warning signs and be ready to expose them for what they truly are: a diseased mindset.

  18. @craig
    I don’t think marital contract contains consent to sex at all, but a promise/vow to have sex.
    I should point out that I’m talking about marriage as a general concept as it exists today, not merely about Christian, one-flesh union, marriage; for that one you have the Bible to tell you want to know (although when it comes to Christian marriage the husband cannot refuse pegging and other deviant sexual activity, as Free Northerner claims, because the husband doesn’t have the authority over his body, his wife does).

    @BlackPoisonSoul
    1. Neither psychoanalysis nor ad hominem are valid arguments in a discussion.
    2. I did not reject, nitpick or twist Free Northerner’s analogy as I did not use his analogy at all, but instead merely utilized the theme of his analogy to make another.
    3. Should you really be trying to psychoanalyze others while having a name like “BlackPoisonSoul”?

  19. How can one make a solemn public vow for something and not thereby consent to it? Fingers crossed? In court, they call that willful perjury.

    “Whenever the other spouse desires it” is not an unlimited right per 1 Cor. 7, but it has a strong presumption of validity, much stronger than “whenever oneself also desires it”. The other implied promises of marriage (see below) are also held to a similarly high presumption of validity. It is not presumptively considered violence or abuse per se for one spouse to pressure the other to carry out a licit marital obligation, and sex is a licit marital obligation.

    As for hypotheticals about deviant sexual activity, I hold to Catholic Christian doctrine regarding what practices are licit within a marriage. It’s in the Catechism; you can look it up online. Neither spouse has the right to coerce the other into sin.

    Our overall societal problem is that marriage as it was understood from antiquity until about 1960 doesn’t really exist today in Western law. I’m not talking about the Catholic sacrament between baptized Christians but mere natural marriage itself as understood by pretty much every pre-1900 civilization, even those that allowed polygamy. With rare outlier exceptions, all these held that marriage intrinsically consists of a reciprocal vow of lifelong obligation, including:

    (1) consent to live together openly as man and wife, with the lifelong obligation to provide primary support and care for one another;

    (2) consent to sexual relations as a matter of course, barring natural impediments;

    (3) consent to the obligation to provide support and care for all minor children resulting from marital sexual relations;

    (4) consent to sexual fidelity;

    Note how each of the first four articles being consented to follows directly from the article preceding it — spousal role necessitates sexual access, sex leads to children, child support necessitates fidelity. You can’t delete (2) from the implicit marriage contract without undermining the rationale for (1) and rendering (3) and (4) moot.

  20. @Liss

    3. “Know thyself.” I do know myself. It is very evident in my choice of name, visible to all as a heads-up warning – is yours? Thank you for the ad-hominem.

    3a. For the record: I know myself because I undertook an extremely thorough (and difficult) look into my motivations and drives and various aspects of my personality. Have you? Again, thank you for the ad-hominem.

    3b. Thank you for the opportunity to hit you with two ad-hominems right from the beginning (three counting this one).

    2. FreeNortherner’s example of the bank was defining what is “socially acceptable”, as in it is not acceptable for a contract with a bank where the bank would overstep the bounds of expected contractual behaviour. Similarly a sexual relationship would not overstep bounds of expected social behaviour and decency into deviation, which was what Futrelle was automatically assuming (and claiming) that FreeNortherner was espousing.

    2a. You then twisted the analogy by implying that FreeNortherner’s analogy meant that he espoused sex within marriage as a free-for-all, “drop everything and do it with me NOW” situation. Basically that he was saying the marriage contract WAS all about one partner unilaterally stepping over acceptable boundaries – you even conflated the two. Read your own writing thoroughly.

    2b. Psychoanalysis (Refer #1 below): This thinking is coming from the mentality of the marriage contract is *only a promise to have sex occasionally with the spouse*, on a *when I feel like it* basis. In bald fact you literally stated that it was only a promise, not something set in stone: “you went from: spouses promising to have sex with one another by becoming married – to each spouse promising to have sex with the other spouse whenever the other spouse desires it”. (Hyphen and colon added by me for clarity.) A promise can be broken at any time, whereas something set in stone can never be broken.

    2c. FreeNortherner’s analogy was of a bank: on a regular basis, not on some nebulous wishy-washy never-never nor some brutal and random mugging. Your mindset is the wishy-washy never-never (tomorrow never comes/break a promise at any time). Futrelle’s was the brutal (and deviant) random mugging.

    2d. FreeNortherner’s was on a reasonable and regular basis that did not overstep socially-acceptable boundaries – which was what he was stating. Yes, that statement was socially-implied – though personally I felt that his statements were quite eloquent. I caught his implications of what was socially-implied immediately.

    2e. The problem is that you, Futrelle, and FreeNortherner are working from different mindsets of what is implied as being socially-acceptable. In addition, both yourself and Futrelle are automatically assuming that everybody is going to overstep these socially-acceptable boundaries (ie be unreasonable). And further that FreeNortherner was espousing such overstepping. He was not. Yet you both immediately went on attack.

    2f. This is why you need to psychoanalyse at all times (Refer #1 below).

    1. Any time is appropriate to psychoanalyse anyone. That way you can determine exactly where they are coming from thinking-wise and deal with the implied thinking that lies behind the statements and assertations they make.

    1a. You stating that I was inappropriately psychoanalysing and ad-hominem attacking you was actually because *you didn’t like that I caught you out and called you on your bullshit*. This is something that a (sarcasm) nice little boy (/sarcasm) would never do. I am not a nice little boy: Refer to #3 above. By the way, thank you for the sub-rosa ad-hominem, here’s one in return.

    1b. It is not for you to determine what is and isn’t appropriate in a discussion. Those assumptions have been socially-developed over centuries and are now socially-implied. As examples: it is not appropriate to shout somebody down while they are talking, scream obscenities, punch or kick someone, stick your fingers in your ears and loudly sing “la-la-la I can’t hear you!”, or censor their speech for a nebulous reason along the lines of “I don’t like what he’s saying/he’s upsetting me”.

    1c. It is especially not for you to determine what is and isn’t appropriate in a discussion when it has been proven that you are attempting to frame said discussion in a manner that benefits your speech/points while restricting (aka censoring or muzzling) the speech/points of others. Refer to #2 above and #1b above.

    Also: Refer to my prior post, and both your posts, and this post, and cogitate thoroughly upon why this post/answer is even necessary.

    The TL/DR short version: Don’t try to snow me under with your bullshit, I am fully cognisant of that female tactic of bellicose obfuscation and browbeating. I am also fully aware that to women, whoever buries her opponent under the most irrelevant garbage wins. Try your tactic elsewhere with someone who has less of a clue.

    Here are several ad-hominem attacks, so that you can feel especially outraged at me for beating you repeatedly over the head with a stick (aka mansplaining to infuriate you further) and so you can feel special too:

    • Anybody with a social clue would not require me to explain this all in nose-picking detail. (Did you catch the mockery there.)

    • Anybody with a social clue would realise the inherent assumptions of decency and common-sense implied in the social fabric of our society. (Except you.)

    • Anybody with a social clue would also apply said inherent assumptions sensibly. (Notice that I am implying that you are incapable of such discernment and delicacy in your social interactions. This implication is obvious to all, yet I feel it must be explicitly stated so that you don’t miss it.)

    • Anybody with a social clue would not be so deliberately obtuse. (That’s especially gotta sting.)

    Your lack of social ability makes types like you a laughing-stock. This is why I point this out to all reading this. This is why I laugh at you. This is why I am mocking you. This is why every person reading this should mock you.

    This is why you should not come back until you can hold a sensible discourse.

    Overall: You make a fine example to men of what is subtly wrong with women, in their thinking and their female-centric assumptions which permeate our twisted and sick society. This is why I point this out. Beginners need to learn to see this: and everybody starts out as a beginner.

    Nor am I being subtle or sub-rosa about any of it.

    Nor do I feel bad about verbally attacking and “being mean” to a girl. You can try to pull that card to gather some sympathy from other readers if you want. Good luck.

  21. @ Liss; I’d respond, but BlackPoisonSoul and Craig already answered well.

  22. @craig
    It can be done, because – as I tried to explain in my bank analogy – the details of a contract matter.
    A contract to pay the bank a 1000$ within a year, a contract to pay the bank 83.33$ every month for the next 12 months and a contract that the bank can take money from you whenever they feel like it until they get 1000$ are all different contracts despite having nearly identical basis.
    A vow to have sex can mean anything from vow to have sex whenever either partner desires it to vow to have sex whenever both partners desire it to vow to have sex for the purposes of procreation only to vow to have sex once on even days; it all depend on the details.

    As for deviant sexual activity, you may hold to Catholic doctrine, but what Free Northerner used to justify that there cannot be marital non-consent in Christian marriage is 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, which clearly states that “husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
    Furthermore he also states that person cannot commit a non-consensual act upon their own flesh and that according to Mark 10:6-9 husband and wife are one flesh.
    Now, if the husband doesn’t have the authority over his own body and indeed his flesh is in fact his wife’s flesh than how can he not consent to pegging if she desires it?

    @BlackPoisonSoul
    1. The reason why I dislike your attempt to psychoanalyze me (or any attempt to psychoanalyze an opponent in a discussion for that matter) is because it is a form of psychogenetic (if not THE form) and ad hominem fallacy and therefore does not constitute a valid argument.
    While you are correct that it is not up to me to determine what is and isn’t appropriate in a discussion, unless I’m older than 2000 years it wasn’t me that determined that usage of fallacies isn’t in the best interest of a proper discussion and shouldn’t be used.
    2. Free Northerner’s analogy was about fulfillment of contractual obligations, while mine was about differences between contacts that have nearly identical basis and how one of those contracts doesn’t imply the other. They are two different analogies; get over it.
    As for social acceptability and free-for-all sex; this is what the claim that there can not be non-consent in marriage opens door to and it is ultimately upon one partner in a relationship if it becomes that.
    While you may claim that contract of marriage is based upon reasonable basis and the assumption that one partner will not overstep socially acceptable boundaries the fact of the matter is that this reasonable basis and socially acceptable boundaries are unwritten rules that are as such hardly, if at all, recognized by the law and so if the concept of marital non-consent is removed and one partner decides that free-for-all sex is what they desire the other partner has no valid legal defense against it.
    3. You name scream a lot of things (primarily “Look at how edgy I am.”), but self-knowledge isn’t one of them.

    It is funny you should accuse me of obfuscation and browbeating when your entry into this discussion consisted only of psychoanalysis and ad hominem.

  23. Liss, you really need to rethink your obsession with sodomy via objects. There is no divergence between Free Northerner’s view, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and Catholic doctrine on this point: neither spouse has a right to coerce the other into sin, nor a duty to follow the other into sin.

    But since you brought it up, all Catholic Bibles include 1 Corinthians, and 7:5 states, “Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.” (That the word ‘defraud’ is used in the Douay translation should give you some idea of the weight placed by the Church on maintaining relations.)

    The marriage vow is not accompanied by a schedule of payments to be initialed by each spouse at the altar. Clearly marriage has much implied content in the definition, and that is the point of this discussion. By your illogic, the vow is honored if the wife refuses sexual relations over forty years of a completely sexless and barren union, because she has said “not now” every single time without ever actually saying “never”. No serious person believes this. One can only conclude that your argument is not serious but purely emotional.

Leave a Reply