This article has given me the rage - what fuckwits believe this shit ?

[PaddingtonStareBare]

www.mic.com/articles/127405/christian-website-perpetuates-a-dangerous-myth-about-marital-rape?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=WHFacebook&ts_pid=2&utm_content=inf_10_285_2

Their answer is that a Christian husband wouldn't be abusive, so it is all just irrelevant.

You should maybe send them the stuff that this "christian" man has written about how christian husbands should feel entitled to behave, see how they respond to that, treacle

I've seen this attitude on general forums as well. Not surprised, all the abrahamic religions are mosogynistic at heart, though some people ignore those bits. What I find sad is when women support these kinds of attitudes.

okay so this is obviously crap beyond all belief...BUT...the law has only recently changed in this area - so those people who take their moral cues from secular law rather than 2000 year old books are only marginally ahead and don't really have the right to point and shame others.

Those people who find their morals internally rather than from either secular law OR 2000 year old books have of course been on the case with this one for some time....

Whenever I read any of this extreme fundie stuff it makes me think that the people at the top of these movements have some kind of sick fetish for control and get off on the fact that they are leading hundreds of people to live in this way.

You can see it in some of the child "discipline" abuse guide books. It's not a simple "Beating is good because it instils fear and is an effective punishment" (though that would be bad enough) but it's "Carefully remove your child's clothing and place them in X exact position, and select X implement which is exactly 0.3 inches wide and hit X number of times with X force until X type of crying occurs."

Seriously creepy, overly detailed, and fetishistic. The wife stuff is the same. I don't think any Christian manuscripts suggest or condone beating your "disobedient" wife but there are several fetish sites which do, (as part of a consensual BDSM lifestyle kind of thing) and honestly, if you compare the two it's pretty fucking difficult to tell them apart, except that the BDSM stuff has a fairly comprehensive bit about actually consenting to sex and anything involving violence

More recent English law up to the 1991 law change and how today most Christians and Muslims interpret the same religious law is that whilst the rape itself was legal using any force to get it is illegal/immoral which is why up to 1991 in the UK marital rape type offences could be prosecuted anyway as it is hard to rape a wife without some violence if she does not agree to it (although not impossible).

I'm not sure about that last bit IceBeing unfortunately. I think a lot of people who "find their morals internally" were to be found at the time of the change in the UK law saying "it's just political correctness gone mad, if you don't want to have sex with someone you shouldn't have married them". They tended to call it "common sense" (a phrase which has always made my hackles raise).

Misogynists can take any form. So not all women haters are Christian and thus not all Christians are women haters. It's just misogynists like to hide behind masks of religion/tradition to perpetrate their aggression against women/children. It gives them extra power and control.

treaclesoda I don't know what sort of church you belong to but when DH and I got married (just over 15 years ago) the vicar said quite frankly that he did not use the 'obey' part in the marriage service, and that if anyone felt they needed to include it they should think extremely carefully about what sort of relationship they were in. This was standard CofE.

(The Roman Catholic priest at my parents' church however was very concerned with suggesting that we should live apart for six weeks before the wedding. The utter impracticality of this combined with his evident lack of, dare I say it, common sense put me right off a Catholic wedding).

this is the Old testament which is a religious tract of its time - as I am sure you know shock

No, Mollie, it isn't from the old testament. It's in two of Paul's letters (at least) - haven't read it for many years but try Ephesians and/or Colossians?

wol1968 it's a Presbyterian Church. And ironically the reason I go to it is because I find it quite liberal compared with the church I was raised in. But not liberal enough, frankly.

I've just read the advice for wives that someone linked to further upthread. And actually it was nowhere near as bad as the misogynistic advice for husbands. I certainly don't believe that it is a wife's duty to 'perform marital duties' for her husband. But to my surprise there was a lot of advice there that ties in pretty closely with what I've read over the years in women's glossy magazines - get to know your body, try to get into it even if you're not in the mood, show your husband how to please you etc. And they seem very keen indeed on masturbation and oral sex, which surprised me.

Pity all that advice was totally undone by the bit about how even if you are in pain, it is your duty to have sex

And in fact the general notion that it is your duty and his right.

But I was just quite surprised by all the stuff about how women should enjoy it. I though these types were quite disapproving of women enjoying sex.

Blimey. If you dig around in that site there is some quite disturbing stuff. He seems to correlate the status if wives and children with that of slaves for example and in face his views onhow he would approach abuse of a wife by a husband (including his own daughter) are drawn from the biblical status of slaves. It is so outrageous, it is fascinating that anyone could try to justify this crap.

biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/07/01/how-a-christian-wife-should-handle-a-controlling-husband/, for example.

Honestly better not to click on and share this utter bilge IMO. The author will only take it as a positive sign.

Oh right. Hadn't thought of that - whoops.

Oh too late. Well you could click on it via a donotlink: www.donotlink.com/h8au

Since I already clicked, here's his (appalling) opinion on the concept of rape.

www.donotlink.com/h746

You can also prefix any link with www.donotlink.com/ if you want to make your own and/or visit any websites without clicking an unidentified link.

It's frightening stuff - it reads like parody But it's not.

Under donotlink I looked at his website.

How about this little gem?

But while both have dominion over the children, the father is the one who retains ownership of them and the mother’s authority over the children operates under her husband’s authority over her.

I did call him one sick bastard higher up the thread. He is truly sick. I believe he is seriously mentally ill.

I don't believe he is mentally ill. I believe he hates women though. And is determined to make as many women's lives a misery as he can. And even better, he can tell them it's for their own good and make them complicit in their own abuse. It's perfect for someone who hates women on the scale that this man does.

I don't think he hates women as much as some of the people who comment on his site do though, scarily.

Actually, I think a man who hates women (or a woman who hates men for that matter) are mentally ill, because it is so irrational.

This is not some odd occasional nutter. It is most men in many parts of the world. It was English law until 1991. It is the view of many in Islam. It is very prevalent and of course something we need to guard against.

It seems this site might be fake (I.e. Someone who's not a Christian but wants to stir up trouble!)

www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/10/is-biblical-gender-roles-a-big-hoax/

Whether a fundamentialist misogynist, or shit-stirring atheist, the person writing this stuff is pretty twisted.