Sunday, October 18, 2009

Marital Rape?

As suggested in last post- I think that this issue from that prominent blog is of greater importance. Greater than the penile circumcision issue- 1 Cor. 7:19. Because there are greater penalties. Yet it garnered fewer comments than the penile issue.

It is also my intention to publish a subsequent post on the specifics that were avoided by that blog. Because they too are fundamental. And are avoided to great detriment.

Now, it seems most everyone at that blog was in agreement with this new definition of rape. And this new definition seems to appeal to women generally. But oddly enough, does not appeal to most (98%) women where this new definition was to be made law recently (and not to some odd Ronnie V., commenting at that blog either :).

In the latter link we are told by a native lobbyist that this new definition of rape- does not appeal to those who are "uneducated and do not know their rights". In other words, does not appeal to those with 'no sense and no sense of entitlement'. Unlike our much more enlightened modern culture. Our much more entitled culture.

Well, I'm entitled to my opinion- aren't I?
Well, let's see how enlightened we moderns truly are on this issue.

Seems we only got this enlightened a couple decades ago. And seems that the U.N. has been pushing this new enlightenment for little more than a decade. That a different definition was held by English Common Law long before the new definition. A definition that was adopted by those Puritans back in the 17th century. Those alleged unenlightened ones of the Westminster Assembly. Those folks that were uber-scholastic.

Yet, it may be that those modern U.N. folks truly are standing on the shoulders of the Puritan giants. And it may be that Barack Obama really does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize :)

But is it possible that our modern media has generated more heat than light here? That we can't even handle basic definitions of marriage anymore? That we are inept at handling categorical distinctions? As even our wild and wonderful Wiki admits- us modern geeks are guilty of tremendous "conflation". Guilty of shallow definitions. Shallowness that those Puritans held in great contempt.

But let's talk about the changing definition (boundary stone) of rape.

Till recently, rape was defined as "the carnal knowledge of a woman [not wife] forcibly and against her will". A definition which would have acquitted Lot's daughters (Gen. 19:33) of the crime.
The definition now appears to be, "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive". A much, much wider definition indeed. A definition which would undoubtedly convict Lot's desperate daughters of rape.

As you may have read in the link, Wiki gives credit to the feminist movement of the 70's for this new definition.
Wiki suggests that this new definition also kind of 'came-in-through-the-back-door'. As an appeal by a separated woman- for the English Common Law to protect her derrière. An appeal to recognize separated women as darn-near-divorced. Indeed, a category that the Puritans never recognized when defining marriage. Because the Puritans had a clear definition of marriage. You were either married or you were not. They did not straddle the Tiber. And were not averse to granting divorce as Rome is. Because the Puritan's authority (God's Word) does not recognize a woman as a little-bit-married.

And as a result of this appeal by a separated woman back in '91- the old definition was deemed "common-law fiction" by the newly enlightened judge. And it was now possible for a separated woman to charge her darn-near-divorced husband with rape.

After prying open this back door- the front was unlocked from the inside. And since all women are equally entitled- women were soon granted the right to say "No" even if the woman was not darn-near-divorced.

As a result, there is now very little distinction between consent inside or outside of the marriage bond. To put this another way, married men are now allowed to have sex 'whenever she allows me to have sex' just as unmarried men are now allowed to have sex 'whenever she allows me to have sex'.

And that's the tricky part. You see, currently you only need her testimony that she actually said "No" within the year (currently being upgraded to 6 years in California). And that would be sufficient evidence for a man to serve a life-term (more than 6 years) for rape. Yup, as the above image suggests, they "can destroy you" if they want. And you may not see it coming.

Which is not to suggest that married women should not have recourse to other charges like... assault! It is just that allowing them the charge of marital rape is specious. It only has the appearance of truth.

Yet is claimed that this new definition should be endorsed by the modern church- because the heart of modern man has gotten so corrupt. A utilitarian and unhistorical claim. And by no less than Bishops!

But let's look at what our creator actually mandates.

When God said, "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18)- did actually God mean, "I will make her a helper suitable for her"? To suit him when it suits her?

When God said, "He shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one-flesh" (Gen. 2:24)- did God actually mean "Man and wife may be joined as one-flesh during the moments that they are of one-mind"?
However few those moments may be?

Or did God grant the man or woman the right to say "No" to vaginal sex when she was menstruating?- Lev. 15:24
Recovering from childbirth?-Lev. 12
Or "No" to some other type of sex when he couldn't get it up?
Does true love not require this great a sacrifice?

Or did God change His one-flesh design after seeing how "corrupt" man's heart could possibly be?- Gen. 6:5
Surely He was surprised by this turn of events, wasn't He?

Or, more directly were there any explicit allusions to this type of rape in the Bible?
How about any implicit allusions to this type of rape in the Bible?

Closest parallel I can think of- is King David's fickle wife publicly berating him. -2Sam. 6:20
An effective way of saying "No" (and giving King David a limp pickle for her)- on such a joyous day.
And an effective way of giving herself no children- with which to play.

Or what about Job's fickle wife, after now having no children with which to play- suggested Job, "Curse God and die!".  An effective way of saying "No" on such a difficult day.
And I suspect an effective way of denying her more children. Indeed, I suspect that when the Lord restored Job's fortunes "two-fold", that He provided Job a more fair wife- to give him seven sons and three "fair" daughters. - Job 42:10-15

In closing, it is my contention that those who commit to this one-flesh design of God (a design where you cannot rape your own flesh)- are obligated to one-flesh responsibilities. And are subsequently entitled to His "very good" one-flesh blessings.

And those folk too fickle to commit to His design of marriage?
Those folk afraid of one-flesh obligations?
Those fickle moderns living common-law?

Well... why should they be entitled to:

Automatic beneficiary status?
Automatic citizenship status?
Automatic division of assets?
Automatic pension division?
Automatic spousal support?
Automatic child support?

When they clearly prefer to be autonomous?

How grateful I am to God- for violating my autonomy.
That He came and sought a sick soul like me- when I did not seek Him- Romans 3:11
That He came to suit a prick like me- when I did not suit Him- Zec. 3:4
That He became one-flesh with me- when my flesh was dead and rotten -Romans 6:5
And will ever be one-flesh with me- when all else is forgotten-Romans 8:38-39

I Thank God for such a glorious rape- of my sick and fickle will.
May He continue to rape my fickle heart- and make my autonomy nil.