Can Marital Rape Be a Woman's Fault?
by Heather Koerner on 02/28/2009 at 8:12 AM
We appreciate the passionate discussion that followed this post, for your heart-felt comments. The conversation, though, has become more polarizing than we feel comfortable with, and so we need to close down the comments. Thank you for understanding, and for wrestling with what Heather has written.
Over at the Octomom post, the comments took a decided turn around this concept found in 1 Corinthians 7:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
What I cherish about all of Scripture, and this one in particular, is the worth it gives to women. Other religions or cultures may see women as property, but not our God. He calls us heirs. When we marry, we are not the property of our husband, but we are one with our husband. We give ourselves to our husbands just as they give to us. It's just beautiful.
But this section of Scripture can also concern some. You can read the comments for yourself, but the post's discussion led one frustrated young woman to e-mail us and ask:
"I want to weep. We really are going to say to women who have been raped by their husbands that it was their fault [because their bodies are their husbands' and they sinned by not fulfilling their husbands' sexual needs]?"
So, the answer to this young reader is, quite simply and quite emphatically, no. Marital rape cannot in any way be justified.
The believing husband is commanded to love his wife just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. He is commanded to love his wife as his own body because "no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 tells us--patient, kind, not self-seeking and always protecting. The very act of forcing a wife to have sex violates all of these commands: it takes instead of gives; it hates and hurts his own body; and it is the height of self-seeking, impatient harm.
Bob Lepine puts it this way in The Christian Husband:
"A husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church will be selfless, not selfish...A selfless husband is always considering his wife's needs .. If he's in the mood for romance, he considers the kind of day she has had and does not insist that she be intimate with him. Rather than dwelling on his own needs, he considers her needs too."
What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin "cause" his sin?
Emerson Eggerichs writes in Love and Respect:
"First, you must get to the place where you can say, 'My response to my spouse is my responsibility.' In my own marriage, Sarah doesn't cause me to be the way I am; she reveals the way I am."
Reminds me of Mark 7:20-23.The closest example I can think of is my children. If they are disobedient, or disrespectful, or steal or get drunk, are they sinning? Absolutely. Does that mean that if I beat them unconscious that I can say, "Yes, I sinned and my sin might have even been worse, but they need to look at their own sin." God forbid that I would have the arrogance! To assign blame for my sin to those I am commanded to protect and lead spiritually? The root of this sin is my selfishness and rage, not their sin.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs.
We are commanded to give ourselves up for one another, for the benefit of one another. The command is not license to demand for ourselves.
Sexual intercourse is a beautiful and important part of a marital relationship. When it's approached selfishly, it's absolute acid to the relationship. When, however, it's approached with a giving, 1 Corinthians 13 attitude, it's a wonderful, enjoyable bonding of two souls.
That's our standard. That's our hope. Dear reader, I hope I answered your question.
1. Adam said the following at 9:25 AM on Feb 28:
Heather,
I would agree with most what you are saying. It makes me wonder if "causation" is the best terminology to use here. I am wondering if "relationship" might be a better term. For example, while it is true that the child instigating the bully does not necessitate the bully beating him up, it is true that the two actions are related. Maybe it might be even better to say that one sin could be an ungodly *reaction* to another's sin. If the sin of the instigator is not there, will the bully react to his sin? Obviously not.
I also understand what you are trying to say about sin having a never ending line of causation in this sense. However, I guess what I am saying is that each side needs to deal with their own sins, and not be blame shifting. I guess my concern is with people who are victims and want to paint themselves as sinless, simply because they are victims. It is not thinking in this way because of trying to shift the blame, but in terms of personal self-examination, which scripture does command.
When we go into this situation with a self-righteous attitude, we are likewise going against the very idea of love itself, because we are saying that Jesus Christ did not need to die for my sins, because I am automatically sinless when someone else does something horrible to me. That goes totally against the gospel, which is the the very way in which we know love, since the whole reason Jesus was sent to die is because of our sin.
2. J. said the following at 10:39 AM on Feb 28:
Thank you for posting this, Heather. This issue was a very necessary thing to clarify, and you did an excellent job.
3. Craig M. said the following at 11:30 AM on Feb 28:
Wow, Heather, what an insightful, reasoned, moral and compassionate post. We tangled over sex issues ("Boats or Votes") some months back, but this is one of the best things I've seen on here for a long time.
4. Tami said the following at 12:16 PM on Feb 28:
Adam wrote: "If the sin of the instigator is not there, will the bully react to his sin? Obviously not."
Have you ever been teased, picked on, or bullied? Do you know what it's like to be harassed for no (seeming) reason besides existing and "displeasing" a bully who wishes to gain a false sense of power by putting someone else down? Surely you can't say a bully is justified in bullying someone for his or her physical characteristics, interests, or what the bully determines as "weakness". And that is just what a bully does.
5. IMO said the following at 1:28 PM on Feb 28:
Adam,
I'm sure most of us on here don't even have words to begin to explain our disdain for your comments.
I know I seriously don't even know where to begin.
I guess that's why Heather wrote a blog. To set the record clear.
6. Alex C. said the following at 2:58 PM on Feb 28:
wow. Great post! I must admit the title of the blog made me a little aprehensive, but I think you tackled the topic very well ^^.
I think Adam does bring up a great point. In our society today, it seems that its *impossible* to be regarded as BOTH a victim and sinful at the same time. Anyone can see this by just sitting through a talk about date rape or something. No one even wants to hear suggestions that the victim's actions might have contributed to they're being taken advantage of. And its the same with a lot of other things too; if your a victim then its never your fault, is the thought process today.
7. Lola said the following at 3:27 PM on Feb 28:
No!
8. Bek said the following at 4:19 PM on Feb 28:
A couple of points/food for thought off the top of my head that I'd like to throw out
1) That verse is, if I remember correctly, in the same letter as the verse about how it is better to marry than to burn with passion. If Paul is advocating marriage as a means to prevent sexual sin by providing a righteous context in which for sex to happen, it makes sense that he wouldn't think well of husbands and wives refusing to let their marriage provide the context.
2) The verse says that the wife's body belongs to the husband, but the husband's body also belongs to the wife. Immediately, this shows marital rape to be against whatever Paul was trying to say. If her body belongs to him you could argue that he could have sex with her anytime he wanted, but since his belongs to her also, she could chose that he doesn't have sex with her anytime she doesn't want him to. I think it's probably intended to be more like the parts of a body stuff...that both partners need to properly consider the other's needs (in this case, physical desire) and work together for the good of the 'body', in this case, the marital unit of man and wife together.
9. Kate said the following at 4:34 PM on Feb 28:
Adam says: "I guess what I am saying is that each side needs to deal with their own sins, and not be blame shifting."
I agree with you that any abused person (like anyone else) needs to address and take responsibility for his/her own sins, whatever they may be. It is true that relationships can be dually abusive, as in both partners physically and emotionally abusing/sinning against one another. Each person's offenses are their own, however, and each person is eternally held responsible for what he or she has done no matter why they did it or what the partner also did. Two partners can both be guilty of violence and rage while in a fist fight, but the act of rape itself cannot be the sin of the raped person... it is the sin of the perpetrator! It does not make sense to say otherwise... that somehow the abused person is also to blame, has caused, or is morally responsible for abuse enacted upon them.
I'm not sure you are trying to say that they are, but it is very hard to tell because it seems like you are blurring specific acts of spousal rape/abuse with any and all sins done by spouses against one another, and seeing it as a situational whole or the relationship as one giant "sinful event" instead of a cluster of specific sins.
Sure that raped/otherwise abused partner may have sinned a lot against the partner before violent acts occurred, but those are separate offenses, even if back-and-forth sins between partners may in some way be seen as "leading up" to an awful climax like rape. Sure the relationship is unhealthy and both partners probably contributed in different ways to its being that way.
I will take your kid/bully example and similarly say that the event of the kid getting beat up is not sin done by the kid. That violence the sin of the bully. The kid may be sinning in the "provoking" by mocking him or spreading gossip, etc... but actions done by the kid that "provoke" the violence can also be entirely benign and not sinful, like maybe the kid befriended somebody the bully didn't want him to befriend. Sure the kid's behavior preceded getting beat up whether he was sinning or not, just like even being present on the playground in the same place and time as the bully w/out a suit of armor did. But the kid would only be responsible for the sins he actually did, of say gossip, not for the bully's sin of violence. Just like a wife who's been raped by her husband is still responsible for lying or being mean or whatever she might have done to him in their relationship, but she is not responsible for her husband's sinful action of raping her.
I don't know if this makes sense to you. I don't know anyone who thinks being the victim of domestic violence is like a "get-out-of-hell-free card" that excuses the victim for all wrong things he/she has done in that relationship (as you seem to be suggesting). Perhaps you are motivated by your personal experience in arguing this? I do know a lot of people who do not understand the intricate ways in which relationships can be co-abusive, or that women can abuse men though.
I noticed you wrote that you had been abused by women and that your healing from this involved understanding what you were contributing to these problematic relationships. I am glad you came to understand more about how these dynamics work and took the responsibility to change your wrong approaches. Indeed this is part of healing and stepping out of a pattern of abusive relationships for anyone and I am glad you are trying to portray this to others. At least, I think this is really what you are trying to say through these arguments? But I still think you are mixed up in your understanding of something like "fault/implication/blame/responsibility/?" held by the victim for the sin done against them by another, as conveyed in this particular thread anyway... and this is why it seems like people are not understanding the other part of what (I think) you are trying to say.
10. DannieA said the following at 5:07 PM on Feb 28:
Thanks for this....I had the same thoughts as the person who wrote to you, I can't believe something as criminal as rape would still be viewed by some as the woman's fault. I may take a break from the Line...unfortunately this was a little triggering for me.
11. Leah said the following at 8:50 PM on Feb 28:
Adam (1) - I really must ask, do you know what you're talking about? Have you ever had experience in a school, or in a youth group? Because your statements clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge about bullying. Most of the time, the victim has done NOTHING. Many bullies pick their victims at random; usually a victim they can easily have dominance over. Here are just some instances of bullying that I've witnessed/read about where the victim did nothing...
- A boy pushed in front of a girl in the line for the water cooler. She complained to a leader, and when the boy was told to go to the back of the line, he went mental and tried to punch the girl who he'd pushed in front of.
- Some teenage girls thought another girl was a loser. They bullied her, teased her, harassed her via sms, and she eventually killed herself. She'd never done anything to the other girls.
- Some teenage girls are insecure in their family life or about their own self-image. They see another girl- someone they call their friend- and tease her and make up names for her, derogatory of her appearance. All she's ever done is be their friend.
Stop trying to insist that everytime someone commits a sin against a person, the other person must have sinned first to provoke the other person. It's JUST NOT TRUE.
It's got NOTHING to do with saying victims are "sinless" or "don't need Jesus". It's only saying they did not do anything to justify the awful thing that happened to them. That has nothing to do with the other sins in other areas of life.
The point of telling victims they're innocent is to prevent them feeling blame about what has happened to them, when they must NEVER be blamed. Why? Because the offender is perfectly able to control his actions and decide for himself whether to abuse/bully/harass the victim. Nobody has forced him to. We are not telling the victims they are perfect and have never done anything wrong in their life. We're telling them they've not done anything to deserve THIS PARTICULAR OFFENCE. And if you think that's somehow not true, then... wow. Just wow.
DannieA (10) - I understand how you feel... the people who have expressed these opinions are just... ridiculous... completely ignorant... but I'd encourage you not to ignore the Line itself over the idiocy of some of the commenters.
12. Elisabeth said the following at 9:02 PM on Feb 28:
Thank you so much for addressing this very sensitive issue. I was absolutely horrified by the comments on the other thread and am so glad to see this talked about.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thank you.
13. em said the following at 10:01 PM on Feb 28:
Very, very well said. Thank you for addressing this topic so clearly and biblically. I wish more pastors and teachers would do so.
I had one of the most gentle, mild mannered, meek professors on the staff of the college I attended. I am still a little shocked by his assertion that there is no such thing as marital rape. His argument was that your marriage vows create a contractual obligation to fulfill the sexual desires of your partner and that since sex is a necessary and understood component of marriage, that marital rape is a misnomer created by modern feminists. At the time, I hoped he was joking to provoke a dialogue - but he wasn't. I later learned that more than a few pastors teach the same thing.
What a cruel thing to say. I absolutely agree w/ you, Heather, that each spouse having rights over the others body includes the right to tell them "no." Now, persistent sexual refusal is wrong - that's the point of the passage. But each one is not to look only on his own interest but also on the interest of others. The other commands of Scripture also apply to the sexual relationship in marriage. There is little more selfish than rape - and the betrayal is all the worse in a spousal relationship - when the person you are supposed to be able to trust more than anyone else in the world forces themselves on you in the most intimate way.
For Christian leaders to justify marital rape or deny that it even exists is nothing less than a betrayal of the image of God.
14. Shannon said the following at 10:15 PM on Feb 28:
Adam from the Octomom thread:
"if husband or the wife has to demand sex or rape their spouse, their spouse has sinned..."
To argue that a person ever has to rape someone, as if that would then be sex, and not a completely separate act of violence, in the form of sex, is mindblowing...
But Adam, I think you are making an argument you don't want to be making. Of all the men in the world whose relationships are in trouble and feel they aren't getting as much intimacy as they want or need, how many of those men rape their wives? I think the average guy who's feeling deprived will perhaps be depressed, sad, angry, lonely, confused. But he isn't going to rape his wife, because the vast majority of men are not rapists.
But you seem to be arguing that a man whose wife denies him intimacy can become a rapist fairly easily, as a matter of last resort. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that the type of man who would rape is wife is one who wouldn't first be abusive in other ways first?
Why would any woman want to have sex with a man who could so easily turn violent?
15. Marie said the following at 10:30 PM on Feb 28:
OK, Adam, were you ever bullied? Do you have any idea what it is to go home and cry and wonder what is wrong with you for hours, trying to imagine why everyone is so mean to you when you've tried your hardest?
Most victims of rape spend years feeling guilty, feeling like it was them that did something wrong. Most victims of bullying feel the same way. Your "careful self-examination" that you propose is almost never done on the part of the bully or rapist but is almost always there on the part of the emotionally hurt one, the victim.
There is no justification for this kind of behavior. God is love, and any action not done out of love for another person therefore is not of God.
We all sin, yes. We all know that already. However, one person's sins never justify another person's sins, and I have very rarely seen a case in which they truly caused another person's sins. They may be used as justification, but the source of the sin was in the heart of the sinner.
16. Denny said the following at 10:40 PM on Feb 28:
Hello,
This is an interesting post. Dennis Prager had the same discussion on his show back in Jan. after publishing 2 articles ( http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2008/12/23/when_a_woman_isnt_in_the_mood_part_i?page=1 and http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/12/30/when_a_woman_isnt_in_the_mood_part_ii ). He devoted a show debating 2 liberals ( http://dennisprager.townhall.com/blog/g/72d5f625-d600-47f6-9dc6-f205178e20d1 ).
My question/comment is can the word "rape" be applied to 1 Cor 7? Certainly there are situation where the husband rapes the wife but in the context of 1 Cor 7 and the discussion in this thread, it is more like the man wants to have sex and the woman is not in the mood. Should that situation be qualified as "rape"? Take an example, if one day I wake up and not feel like going to work and my wife pushes me to go, can I say she threaten and bullied me to go to work? I think that would be an absurd characterization. I am not equating this with rape but it seem the word "rape" is an emotional word that is being used on just about any situation where it does not seem appropriate.
17. Jesse said the following at 1:01 AM on Mar 1:
Kate (#9), thanks for the post. That's a great explanation of the issues that are really in play here I think.
Personally, I never once thought Adam was implying the action of rape itself can ever somehow be the fault of the person being raped. What I took from it was the greater point that we should all be able to look into our own hearts and see how our sins may be contributing in even the smallest way to a bigger problem or have the potential to cause someone else to sin much more egregiously. Now I don't know if this was Adam's intent and I'm by no means trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but nonetheless I thought he did well at articulating that greater truth.
Let me throw an example out there that I think parallels the discussion at hand. If I see some random guy I don't know trespassing on my lawn and I pull out a gun and shoot him dead on the spot, that's an inexcusable overreaction to a small transgression. In no way did the man give me just cause to kill him. In no way can I try to justify what I did with "well, he started it by being on my property!" I'm just plain guilty and deserve the due punishment.
BUT, nonetheless, was that guy wrong to be on my property without permission? Yup. A miniscule error in comparison, yes, but still an error. Pointing this out does not make the trespasser at fault for my reaction or let me off the hook because of his action.
18. Sara said the following at 1:10 AM on Mar 1:
Adam,
For a person with an angry and a restless heart--which is all of us sometimes--there will *always* be ways out, or ways to trace our sins back to something other than ourselves:
You had a bad day; it's been a long winter; you're underappreciated; you've got a headache; you lost your wallet; someone was rude to you...
It's crazy to say, "I wouldn't have sinned if I wasn't provoked." Almost nobody sins unprovoked! If you're strong, you can decide that even though the world has dealt you a lot of garbage, the buck stops with you: you're not going to keep passing it around.
The good thing is that if you can just hold out, offering up grace and forgiveness when you're mad usually ends up being just as good for you as it is for the other person!
19. Helkias said the following at 1:29 AM on Mar 1:
Making excuses for sin is not an original by Adam (in the post). The original Adam made excuses for his eating of the forbidden fruit. We really have to examine ourselves because the book of James tells us we're tempted by our own selfish desires. In the unredeemed me was the potential to do all manner of evil, given the right opportunity. It's not the fault of opportunity, it's me. Take a look at our supreme example of human sinlessness Jesus. He was tempted just like I am but he was sinless. Because he's holy. So I agree with heather in that temptation reveals the true you, and if you rape your wife, you are a rapist.
20. Jo said the following at 2:55 AM on Mar 1:
Oh Adam, come on. I usually appreciate your comments, but honestly, you're just digging a bigger and bigger hole every time you post on this one.
I do understand (I think) what you're trying to say. People are responsible for their own sin, and someone else's worse sin towards us doesn't take away our guilt for the sins that we committed against them. That is true. And learning from our mistakes is important, I agree.
However, firstly, just because something is true doesn't mean that it is the most helpful thing to say. If a woman has been raped, the first thing you say to her is NOT, "Do you think your sin might have contributed to this?" Talk about kicking someone when they're down. You seem to be over-blowing this possible minor aspect of the situation while de-emphasising all other bigger ones. Not to mention that many (most?) rape victims ALREADY feel guilty, ashamed and responsible for what has happened to them. Their problem, then, is the opposite to what you think it is.
Secondly, you seem to be ignoring people who have said, rightly, that there are times (I would argue probably MOST times) when domestic rape has absolutely nothing to do with the wife witholding sex. Rape, as so many people have pointed out, is about power and control. You've changed tack now and started talking about women who know what they're getting into when they marry these men - but again, it's just not always true. Please, please, just acknowledge that sometimes the wife has done NOTHING to contribute to the husband's crime. Sometimes she has absolutely NOTHING to repent for or learn from. Sometimes it really IS all his fault.
Thirdly, 1 Cor 7 doesn't suggest that the husband can demand and be entitled to sex whenever he fancies it, regardless of his wife's needs. There are MANY situations I could think of where a wife would be perfectly justified in refusing sex, and no husband in his right mind would ask for it.
I don't see how you can be disagreeing with anything Heather wrote. I suspect that your continued arguing is less abut disagreeing and more about wanting to win the debate and not lose face. That motivation can be forgiven when we're debating the meaning of a verse or some political issue - but not when we're talking about something like this.
21. Kathryn said the following at 4:49 AM on Mar 1:
It is not thinking in this way because of trying to shift the blame, but in terms of personal self-examination, which scripture does command.
When we go into this situation with a self-righteous attitude, we are likewise going against the very idea of love itself, because we are saying that Jesus Christ did not need to die for my sins, because I am automatically sinless when someone else does something horrible to me.
woah Adam! How did you come to the point that victims paint themselves sinless? While they are sinful, their sinful state does not and will never justify rape. In fact, thanks to God's grace, any punishment that we may deserve has been paid by Jesus on the cross, and should never be paid to us in the act of rape.
You are not saying these things, but this is what it sounds like you're saying. We are told to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. If a husband is mad at his wife and perceives her as an enemy to be raped (because I can't see how else he could justify doing it), even then he ought to love her.
The wife can be blamed for some things. But never for being raped. I don't think you realise how callous you sound.
22. Eve said the following at 9:45 AM on Mar 1:
Wow.
After going back and reading the whole conversation that started with octomom, I had to post. I am so glad Heather decided to address this issue. I also think post #11 and #20 made excellent points.
I volunteered at an advocacy center. My job was to answer a crisis hotline and to go to the hospital with rape victims. I would sit with the victims for the long process of collecting forensic evidence. It would be me, the survivor, and the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner in the room. I have done this for all ages: 2 months to 65 years. I have done this for girls and BOYS.
As someone who has worked extensively with people who have been raped, I would like to point out a flaw in the idea that marital rape is about sex. It isn't.
Marital rape is like any other rape.
Rape is about POWER, not about sex. If a woman withholds sex, it is NOT usual for a husband to rape her.
Rape is about exercising control and having power over the victim, just like bullying.
If the desire to own, posses, and control your wife is so overwhelming that you rape her, you can be sure that the husband is not treating her like Christ treats the church.
Christ gives us a choice to reject or accept him.
23. Anakin Niceguy said the following at 9:59 AM on Mar 1:
Let's look at what the Bible says, shall we?
Interestingly enough, the very passage under consideration - 1 Cor. 7:3-5 and the concept of women not depriving their husbands comes right after 1 Cor. 7:1-2. Paul clearly states that married people need to have sex in order to avoid fornication. This view is accepted by many commentators.
Now if the Apostle saw causality between one sin and another (fornication) (see v. 5 and the remark about Satan), who are we to say there is no causality? In Galatians 5:26, we are told not to provoke one another. Then there is Mark 9:42. The Bible clearly shows that you can be accountable for causing other people to sin.
Leah says:
The point of telling victims they're innocent is to prevent them feeling blame about what has happened to them, when they must NEVER be blamed. Why? Because the offender is perfectly able to control his actions and decide for himself whether to abuse/bully/harass the victim.
Tell that to the Apostle Paul who advised the Corinthian ladies to have sex with their husbands so they wouldn't go after the temple prostitutes.
If I march in an Afro-American neighborhood with a bed sheet on and get the stew beaten out of me, am I entirely innocent? I suppose that according to the logic of some female commentators here, I must be. A victim is innocent not because they are a victim, but when they truly haven't done anything wrong.
Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that. We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture. We are called to stand on the truth of the Bible.
Now, here is the problem I have with many people in a discussion about an emotionally-charged topic. They don't think, they don't analyze, they don't calmly consider what the other person is saying. I share Ted's frustration with people who don't carefully read what I am saying.
My prediction? I suspect that someone is going to accuse me of downplaying or justifying rape. It's already been done with Adam. The two choices put forth here seem to be (a)Assume a woman's behavior has absolutely no impact on how men act or (b) Be a misogynist who justifies rape. The feminists would be proud of how some play the victim card here with the inane false dilemmas proposed.
24. Alex C. said the following at 10:05 AM on Mar 1:
replying to Leah, post #11
I think what Adam was referring to was a situation in which a bully picks on someone, and then that someone retaliates against the bully, by beating them up or whatever. At least that was my first thought, since the word "instigation" does sound, itself, like bullying. But maybe I'm completely wrong *reads his post again*.
But to go along with that train of though, I'd give a somewhat fantastical literary example, think Carrie White from Stephen King's Carrie (gets made fun of and embarrassed by fellow students, retialates by burning the gym down). And I think just because the bully is now "the victim" of a retaliation, doesn't mean we should completely ignore the things the Bully was doing before. To give what I think would be a more concrete example of that; look at the Columbine shootings. When thate event happened, I recall that very few people wanted to talk about bullying (the shooters had apparently been picked, and were considered outcasts). Most people just wanted to talk about violent video games.
and before anyone asks, yeah, I have been bullied. I was a bully magnet almost my entire school career.
25. Becky said the following at 12:14 PM on Mar 1:
Why does (most) everyone assume that a husband would rape his wife for the simple reason that she has withheld sex from him? Rape is not about sex, its about power and control. I would wager that if rape has occurred there are a lot of other serious problems within the marriage and its gone way past anything 1 Cor. 7 was talking about.
To say that she some how provoked him is the same argument that abusers use. "I hit her because she did xyz..." Is that justifiable to?
26. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 1:02 PM on Mar 1:
In a strict sense, no person can truly *cause* another person to sin. I am responsible for my own actions, and even if someone sins against me, I don't *have* to sin against him/her in return.
If I am ever married in the future, and I desire physical intimacy but my wife does not, and she does not fulfill my desires, I will *never* be justified in violating her. To do so would be to treat her as a receptacle for my self-centered lust, rather than as a sister in Christ, made in the image of God, who is also, in God's providence, my wife.
Marital intimacy is something to be joyfully shared, not demanded and "taken." Now, we should be willing to share, even sometimes when we don't feel like it, out of love for the other person... but if we choose not to do so, our choice should be respected. It's a two-way street of sacrificial, Christ-like love.
27. k. said the following at 1:12 PM on Mar 1:
Anakin, the second part of your name is a misnomer. Your response isn't the intellectual, detached one that you claim. Rather, it is immature and poorly thought out. I'm trying to think of a polite way to say this: I'm skeptical that you have actual, first-hand experience with the subject matter in question.
Our first responsibility is for ourselves and our actions. If you recall in Genesis, Adam's attempt to blame Eve for his sin didn't exactly go over very well. We all have the capacity to make choices. It's why adult survivors of sexual abuse do not get free passes to abuse children, in their turn. First and foremost, we are responsible for our own actions, and for our responses to others.
Sex is a multi-layered, complicated subject. But Ephesians says "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Christ DIED for the church. You really think He's going to be impressed if someone goes without sex for a night?
28. Elisabeth said the following at 1:56 PM on Mar 1:
"But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. " (#23)
The "fallout" of withholding sex should NEVER be rape. Ever. EVER. End of a marriage, divorce, perhaps, an affair, etc. But never rape. Rape is the violent violation of the very essence of a person. Rape is not "avoiding fornication."
To be quite honest as a married woman, I would much rather my husband sinned by fornicating with someone else than by raping me if I was to withhold sex from him.
29. IMO said the following at 2:14 PM on Mar 1:
Anakin Niceguy-
Do you know anybody that's been raped?
30. IMO said the following at 2:25 PM on Mar 1:
PS
Anakin Niceguy,
It's pretty insulting to sit here and say that those in opposition of you and Adam "don't think, they don't analyze, they don't calmly consider what the other person is saying."
"But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices."
So if a woman refuses sex to her husband, she should expect to be raped? And she should be ready to take the responsibility for that "stupid choice" of hers?
Well I guess in Islamic countries, it's ok for the women to be raped, beaten, and acid tossed in their faces because they were not obeying one Islamic rule or another. It's justified then, right?
I honestly cannot believe that there are people out there, like you and Adam, that truly have thought these arguments out and have a full-blown opinion on the matter...willing to defend yourself so firmly. Perhaps in real life you should keep these opinions to yourself...becuase I believe you have the ability to drive people away from the Gospel and Jesus Christ.
Just look at the comments at this board. People are disgusted..and dismayed. And these are godly people we are talking about.
You are pushing them away from even Boundless.
Here's a tip: keep your opinion to yourself and I'll pray that your (Future) spouse does nothing to warrent a rape from you.
31. IMO said the following at 2:27 PM on Mar 1:
The bullying example is just plain bad.
Sex and the intimacy involved and the violation of that is just on a completely different playing field.
32. Tami said the following at 2:38 PM on Mar 1:
In a Christian marriage, there is a much, much better way to deal with your issues than sinning by means of rape. A higher way. A holy way. The Christian has options that are completely out of the pathway of sin. Rape has no place or excuse in a marriage, in any case. An explanation is not a justification.
1 Corinthians 10:13 (NASB): No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
Romans 12:17-21: Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
33. Jo said the following at 2:38 PM on Mar 1:
Anakin: "We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture."
'Feministic' is unfair. Since rape victims are far more often women than men (not exclusively, I know), we are assuming the hypothetical wife as the victim in these comments. But that doesn't make people's defence of the wife 'feminist'. The victim's gender is irrelevant to the discussion. We're not defending her because she is a woman, we're defending her because she has been sinned against in the most horrifying way by the person who has vowed to love and cherish her.
I think you're as guilty as anyone of not 'carefully reading' what people have said. I for one clearly stated that Adam was right in certain places. Sins are related to other sins, and we do need to look at the sin in ourselves.
For example, if I am rude to you and you punch me, we are both guilty of our individual sins. The point is that I am not guilty of YOUR sin. I am not responsible for your act of violence, though I am certainly responsible for my rudeness, and my rudeness has clearly been a factor in your retaliation. Causality is a tricky word. Did I make you angry? Yes. Did you have a choice about how to respond to that anger? Of course. And how many other people have contributed to your tendency to respond to anger with violence? Are all of them also responsible for my black eye?
Nothing happens in isolation, and God will judge us fairly. It is good to become aware of our weaknesses and failings, and that happens as a natural part of our walk with Christ. But the bottom line is that there is NEVER any justification for sin, period.
I do think as well that it would be helpful to talk more about this issue of 'withholding sex' and what it entails. Is it withholding if the wife or husband is feeling unwell? Is it withholding if they graciously say they would rather not right now, for whatever reason? If one spouse is 'in the mood' does the other have to drop everything and satisfy them right away, as if humans were just machines with no control over themselves...? Or does withholding, as mentioned by Paul, refer to particular motivations for refusing sex, or to persistent repeated refusal rather than a one-time event?
34. khalil said the following at 2:58 PM on Mar 1:
To #23, Anakin Niceguy
I'll bite. You wrote: "Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune." Rape victims are NEVER at fault for the violence done to them. Can they put themselves in less than ideal situations? Yes, we are all capable of that. It still doesn't justify the crime of sexual assault that is done to them.
You also wrote, "But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices." This is where I am going to meet your expectation...with this statement you are allowing for rape to occur and accepting of it as a "consequence" of the wife's selfishness. Using your example lets say the wife is being selfish and withholding sexual contact from her husband (no current or past abuse implied). Her behavior does not justify her husband taking "sex" by force(rape). As others have mentioned rape is not about the sex, its about control. She may have provided a "reason" but that does not give him just cause to do as he wishes.
Rape, in whatever form you look at it, is not a feminist issue. Most rapists are men, but most men are not rapists. If looked at appropriately rape is a male issue and needs to be addressed by men. This is not a politically correct, Oprahfied, or wussified view of this issue. I have read what you have said and also feel frustration with the uninformed.
In my post from "Octomom" I linked to some sites, here they are again:
Check out Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org), The White Ribbon Campaign (www.whiteribbon.ca), and One in Four (http://www.oneinfourusa.org/) for some information on ending sexual assault from a male's perspective.
35. jd said the following at 3:39 PM on Mar 1:
Eve #22 made a very important point that seems to be ignored by many of the people posting comments. Rape is not about sex... it is an act of violence... no matter whether a husband is raping his wife or another man rapes her. I think it would be helpful if one of the Boundless authors addressed this!
What if a child is raped? How could someone possibly argue that a child's behavior could provoke such a horrible act?
Thank you for this post Heather. I think this was my favorite part...
"What I cherish about all of Scripture, and this one in particular, is the worth it gives to women. Other religions or cultures may see women as property, but not our God. He calls us heirs. When we marry, we are not the property of our husband, but we are one with our husband. We give ourselves to our husbands just as they give to us. It's just beautiful."
:)
36. Patricia C said the following at 3:49 PM on Mar 1:
I find it very alarming that so many of the men here are excusing marital rape as something that is the woman's fault. It's the same amount of callousness as sitting down with a child who's spent a lifetime being sexually abused and saying "Now, Sally, if you just try to not be so good looking, daddy won't hurt you like that." That's not even the issue as daddy's problem is that he needs to be in control. Other than getting away from the father, there is no way to get out of this situation. Likewise, the wife can try to do everything she can to please her husband but if he is inclined to control through rape, every effort will be in vain. She may not be sinless but she is, unless she leaves, powerless to prevent marital rape. Anyone who thinks likewise is either naive or in denial. And yes, I believe the vast majority of marital rape cases are due to control and for anyone to say she had it coming because she married a guy with control issues, is missing the point entirely. It's still wrong and undeserved. For the protection of your future wives, I pray God will help you see that too.
37. jd said the following at 3:58 PM on Mar 1:
#23 "Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that."
Are you saying that one of the instances that a woman might be at fault for being raped is acting like a selfish jerk???
I don't think you understand the seriousness of rape or the mindset of a person who would commit this crime. Your comment comes across as cold and ignorant at best...
38. Leah said the following at 5:08 PM on Mar 1:
Alex (24) - no, Adam said For example, while it is true that the child instigating the bully does not necessitate the bully beating him up, it is true that the two actions are related. Note "The child instigating the bully". That suggests the victim has somehow done something to provoke the bullying he is now receiving. I was saying that often, in fact probably a majority of the time, the victim has done NOTHING.
Anakin Niceguy (23) - of course women can do things to lessen the temptation for their husbands. But if they don't, it doesn't justify the man's sin if he decides to do that. Besides, my original point is that often, the woman might have done absolutely nothing to "provoke" the rape. She might be having sex with him several times a week. That doesn't stop a rapist. Go and have a look at what Eve (22) said. If a man rapes his wife, the issue isn't sex. It's power.
I'm not saying they're innocent because they're a victim. I'm saying they're innocent because nothing they have done deserves what has happened to them.
39. Shannon said the following at 5:34 PM on Mar 1:
But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices.
Anakin, you think she deserved to be raped. You are saying you think she asked for it.
Not only are you so TOTALLY WRONG, you don't even seem to GET that most women who are raped by their husbands are already being abused; the husband rapes to control, along with the rest of the abusiveness. Withholding is not a part of the equation.
Honestly, do all of you men really think the average man is so easily pushed to become a rapist? Why do you think so little of your own gender?
40. Chris said the following at 6:36 PM on Mar 1:
Anakin Niceguy writes:
Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that. We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture. We are called to stand on the truth of the Bible.
later....
I share Ted's frustration with people who don't carefully read what I am saying.
My prediction? I suspect that someone is going to accuse me of downplaying or justifying rape. It's already been done with Adam. The two choices put forth here seem to be (a)Assume a woman's behavior has absolutely no impact on how men act or (b) Be a misogynist who justifies rape. The feminists would be proud of how some play the victim card here with the inane false dilemmas proposed.
Well, let's make sure that I'm not misunderstanding you. Please pardon the requotes, but I want to make sure I'm correctly interpreting what you've written.
Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices.
The structure of the above paragraph seems to imply that 1) women are at fault at least in some cases ("many times" as opposed to "always") and 2) women who withhold sex from their husbands have to live with the consequences. Since these are all in the same paragraph (and you used the conjunction "but" to link the two statements), I read this as rape can be a consequence of withholding sex and women who do so should have to live with the results of their actions if said results include rape.
If I'm wrong, please clarify your statement or point out where I'm interpreting things incorrectly.
41. rachel said the following at 7:04 PM on Mar 1:
Anakin Niceguy, comment #23
First, Galatians 5:26 specifically discusses the sin of provoking someone because of one’s own pride and “vainglory”.
Second, in Mark 9:42, Jesus warns his disciples not to treat “little ones”, or those overlooked and despised by the world, with contempt or disdain. In context, the disciples had just been arguing about who among them was “the greatest”.
And finally, taken as an entire chapter, 1 Corinthians 7 describes the freedom, mutuality, respect, and holy love married couples are to have with each other, despite our sinful tendencies. You are taking verses from this passage to create a picture of marriage that actually stands in sharp contrast to the one Paul describes.
42. Kelly said the following at 8:05 PM on Mar 1:
You know, the idea of having to give my husband that *every time he desires it*, lest I be withholding it from him and therefore sinning, scares me SO MUCH.
No, I'm not married (and am a virgin) but I once had a boyfriend who pressured me every single day for it. He'd been married before and said that every day, perhaps twice a day, was normal for him.
When he proposed, I could see our future together: me giving him my body every morning because that was what he expected of his wife, and I would *have* to do it because that's what a wife would do for her husband. Otherwise he'd stray and it would be my fault.
---
That's the main reason I'm terrified of marriage.
43. Daniel B said the following at 10:41 PM on Mar 1:
khalil thanks A TON for those links.
<< The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband >>
This is one verse I wish could be translated more effectively. It's hard to make sex sound more deflating than to describing it as "doing a duty"
44. BDB said the following at 11:39 PM on Mar 1:
The bullying example is not completely invalid. For one thing, the people who commit rape are the same ones who bully others whenever they can get away with it. This might be their neighbors, their family, local kids, the customer service rep who is unlucky enough to wait on them.
They are adept at manipulation, always probing to see what they can get away with. Typically, they will target those who are isolated and unable to fight back.
45. Georgia said the following at 8:45 AM on Mar 2:
Kelly,
I understand your fears based on the way married sex has been presented to you. The idea that as a wife you must give yourself to him whenever and however he wants, with no consideration for your feelings or body, is appalling and frightening.
But I want to tell you it does not have to look like that. I am married to a man who, above all, RESPECTS me. I'm working full time and going to grad school at night, and to be honest, often I'm just too tired. Instead of pressuring me, my husband HELPS me. By doing the dishes, making dinner, or encouraging me to go take a hot bath, he shows me that he loves and respects me. And I find then that I'm often able to find the energy I need. ;)
That's the true beauty of marriage. When we sacrifice for each other, putting the other's needs ahead of our own, we usually find that our own needs are being met as well.
A man who loves like that is out there, Kelly. Hold out for a man who values you and your needs above his own. I assure you that you will find great joy in meeting his needs as well. :)
46. Scott said the following at 8:48 AM on Mar 2:
This entire thread is a clear example of how different people perceive the world, and how people can unintentionally offend and insult each other without even realizing it.
Some of the men (and I will speak only about the men; I'm already treading into a minefield as is) have fallen into the trap of the logician. That is, while their statements may or may not be true, their have failed to communicate empathy with the victim. As seen from the resulting comments, this perceived (I will say perceived, most men really aren't unfeeling, cold-hearted people, we just really suck at communicating it) lack of feeling has incited quite a few of the women, understadably so.
I can't pretend that I know anything close to what the pain is of being raped, or the feelings associated with it. My deepest feelings go out to those who know someone or have personally experiened being raped, or harassed, or misused sexually in any way.
Is there some truth to what some of the men are saying? Yes and no. There is some personal accountability for causing others to sin. Does that mean that they deserved the sin, or that it is their "fault"? NO. Absolutely not! Even if a woman was a jerk to her husband her whole life, it *NEVER* justifies rape. Ever. At the same time, the wife is making it harder for the husband just in everyday life. While she is not at "fault" for any sin the husband causes, at the same time, she is guilty of disserving another, and causing another believer in Christ to struggle with temptation. Let me repeat: This statement in no way justifies rape, or any sin the husband does to the wife. It is not the victim's fault. God deals with the sins you have committed by yourself, and only those. God will not look at rape and say "oh you caused it, you should feel ashamed". He weeps with you in your pain, and will be your comfort and shelter.
There, I hope I was able to communicate something without being an uncaring jerk. Ladies, before you pour your vitriol on me, please remember that I tried at least =/. (caveat: if I am wrong theologically, go for it, you can do whatever you want)
47. Ted Slater said the following at 9:20 AM on Mar 2:
We appreciate the passionate discussion that's taken place above, for your heart-felt comments. The conversation, though, has become more polarizing than we feel comfortable with, and so we need to close down the comments. Thank you for understanding, and for wrestling with what Heather has written.