"It might be true that a husband will be more likely to slap his wife, force her to have sex with him, or commit some other form of low-level violence, than a stranger would. But using that as an argument against marriage is like saying we need to encourage children to be autonomous from their parents because they are more likely to hit their children than a stranger would. At some point, people have to interact on an intimate level, and the bonds of marriage and family provide the safest place for that interaction.
Let us also note that — barring repetition of the act — it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger. Anytime you remove the danger of the first case by weakening family bonds, you increase the likelihood of the second case. When considering whether to remove a dependent from a family situation, we should be very careful that we are not putting them in an even more dangerous situation, or at the mercy of people who don’t have their best interests at heart."
72 comments
it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger.
What moon logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Being betrayed by those you trust is MORE traumatic, not less.
"at the mercy of people who don’t have their best interests at heart."
as if the Catholic church has ever had anyone's best interests, other than their own, at heart.
The Catholic church acting less like an outlet for spirituality and more like a political lobby that supports traditional, conservative, oppressive social institutions. Un-fucking-believable .
Related fact. While it is untrue to say that all pro-lifers are motivated by their hatred of women, the pro-life position of the Catholic church is clearly part of a pattern of misogyny. I will believe that they really care about the unborn child when they start working for the equality of women everywhere, beginning with their own clergy.
""It might be true that a husband will be more likely to slap his wife, <b>force her to have sex with him</b>, or commit some other form of <b>low-level violence</b>"
Force her to have sex with him.
Low-level violence.
What?
Oh, Catholics. I try to think as well of you as I can. I know Catholics who would agree as whole-heartedly as any of us that much of what their church does is bullshit. And then we get references to rape as "low-level violence".
It is never right to "commit some other form of low-level violence" to a spouse. And it is never okay to force a spouse to have sex, NEVER! I think it'd be even more traumatic for a child to see his/her father slapping/assaulting or forcing his mother to have sex than a stranger.
A healthy relationship is based on trust, not fear.
it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger.
This is why I'm glad I'm not Catholic any more. If traditional catholicism means being OK with husbands beating wives, then I don't want to have any part of it.
It's far more traumatic to be treated badly by someone you love & trust than by a complete stranger. Does anyone really think that a wife is going to keep loving & trusting her husband after he sexually assaults her? At the very least, such an act would put a strain on the marriage, at the most it would end in divorce with the husband in jail & the wife in therapy. That's far more trauma than a woman being assaulted by a complete stranger & then having the loving support of her husband to fall back on.
I was married to a sexually abusive christian man for ten years. It most certainly is NOT easier or less traumatic because you know your attacker - it's WORSE because it was done by someone you trusted.
Rape apologist dumbass motherfucker.
Why would anyone want to slap a stranger, let alone a member of their own family?
It must be a Christian thing.
Why would anyone want to sexually assault a stranger, let alone a member of their own family?
It must be a Christian thing.
Why would a man punch a stranger, let alone his own brother?
It must be a Christian thing.
I wonder if it's because basic communication skills are poor with the sort of person who believes in sky fairies so that they must resort to violence?
Why would a father want to sexually assault his young son, let alone somebody else's young son?
It must be a Catholic Father's thing.
The above post can be taken out of context, however, upon reading the whole article, I can say without fear of contradiction, that it's pure horseshit.
Read this one extra carefully. On the surface, it doesn't seem that horrible. Nowhere does the quote advocate marital rape or claim that it is a husband's right to do that to his wife. Even the second paragraph could be stretched a bit to be less offensive.
Then you realize that this person is merely using that as an excuse for the woman not to leave her husband for any reason, including abuse. If that's the case, then fuck off, Alte.
so, an abusive husband has the wife's best interest in mind?
you just made a very convincing argument against marriage!
The revolting cold-blooded way that this writer (who presumably never has to face any of these things himself) writes off violence and rape, amounts to a tacit endorsement of these things.
"Anytime you remove the danger of the first case by weakening family bonds, you increase the likelihood of the second case." NO. That does not follow.
The thing that really annoys me is the style of writing. The writer isn't brave enough to just come out and say "rape and violence are fine, as long as they take place within families" so they have to use circumlocution and nice-sounding phrases. Disgusting.
Fucking rape apologist.
that is all.
I can't even begin to enumerate the logical fallacies in this statement. It's like one of those kid drawings in Highlights Magazine - find all the hidden objects bullshit! We could start with Argument from Authority and go from there, but it's quicker just to categorize this as butt gravy for the eyes.
You should read the rest. A woman writes that she hears her neighbor being beaten, and hears her screaming. Alte tells her that intervening would probably cause more harm, and that the best thing she could do is to pray for the neighbor, or have a man talk to her husband. What a crock of BS.
Yeah, slapping people around really shows you have their best interests at heart.
Rape and beatings are not 'low-level violence'.
I'd argue that it could be more traumatic to get beaten up by a family member as opposed to a total stranger, because it involves betrayal of trust.
You are a tool who needs to be anally raped with a cactus. Don't worry, it's just a bit of low-level violence to prove I have your best interests at heart.
I would rather be slapped by a hundred strangers than to be slapped by my mother and incur the feeling of having shamed someone who poured her sweat, blood, and tears into raising me and sustaining a family. Those ten strangers don't know me or what I've been through, nor I them. A stranger slapping me is unpleasant and will leave a shitty taste in my mouth, but it is forgivable.
My mother, on the other hand, has seen me grow up every step of the way and has basically dedicated her life to seeing that mine turns out well, just as her parents did and continue to do for both of us. To have her slap me, something she has never done and I hope never will, would be to basically say that she is ashamed and upset enough with me to do that. That would crush me.
But to suggest that it would in any way be at all okay for her to go beyond that, to hit me, to abuse me, is to basically spit on the idea of the ideal parent-child relationship as being loving and nurturing. And that is disgusting.
"Let us also note that barring repetition of the act it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger."
Is it? Is it really? Is it really? Really is it?
Remember kids, it's not rape if you're married to her.
It looks like the Catholics are also starting to fundify. When any religion starts to bleed members, the hardliners always have a nasty reaction.
That's Catholic doctrine in a nutshell for you: Marriage is good, and ending it for any reason is very, very bad.
Same bullshit rhetoric that my non-Catholic brother-in-law used to keep my wife's sister (Catholic) from leaving him - by telling her that according to her religion it's a sin against God to divorce your husband.
I apologise for my religion. I assure you, none of the Catholis I know would say stuff like this, ever, and the vast majority would punch Alte in the face for this.
Incidentally, that majority includes myself and my entire family. -punch-
"or at the mercy of people who don’t have their best interests at heart."
We all know that when your husband rapes you, it's just because he's putting your best interests at heart.
>>Murdin
The Catholic church acting less like an outlet for spirituality and more like a political lobby that supports traditional, conservative, oppressive social institutions. Un-fucking-believable. <<
Don't blame all Catholics for this.
Alte is a Traditionalist Catholic, which is a minority group within the church that disapproves of the reforms introduced during Vatican II (so almost 50 years ago now). Wikipedia informs that they make up 0.1% - 1% of the Catholic population, depending on how they are defined.
Nearly all Catholics would be just as offended by such abuse apologizing as you are.
"The_L
LESS traumatic?! Betrayal in such a way by a person you love is LESS traumatic than being slapped around by a stranger?! On what fucking planet?"
The way you put it absolutley not but lets be brave and admit that in the event of marital rape the chances are its more grey than black or white.
Still to admit that goes too close to approving of marital rape so we wont.
[#1270509
Anon
>>Murdin
The Catholic church acting less like an outlet for spirituality and more like a political lobby that supports traditional, conservative, oppressive social institutions. Un-fucking-believable. <<
Don't blame all Catholics for this.
Alte is a Traditionalist Catholic, which is a minority group within the church that disapproves of the reforms introduced during Vatican II (so almost 50 years ago now). Wikipedia informs that they make up 0.1% - 1% of the Catholic population, depending on how they are defined.
Nearly all Catholics would be just as offended by such abuse apologizing as you are.
3/23/2011 1:11:24 PM]
Plus, many TradCatholics are splinter-groups that aren't even "In Communion"/associated with today's offical Roman Catholic Church...The Vatican with it's Vatican 2 reforms, Novus Ordo Mass, acceptance of evolution/science, appologizing for all the Inquistions/witchhunts/Crusades/anti-semitism, & Ecumenicalism (though ol' Pope Benny seems intent on undermining it)...seems a bit too "Radical Commie Pinko Liberal" to these TradCatholic clowns. Even a staunch stuffed-shirt, NeoCon Emperor Palapatine clone like the Pope is too Left-Wing for them!
> for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger
It was fairly common for me and my brother to hit each other when we kids, but not since we've become adults. If he punched me now I would truly be shocked, shocked beyond any thought of retaliation, because I think there is nothing we could disagree about so strongly as to engender violence between us.
On the other hand, if a stranger punched me I would have no qualms about punching the bastard back.
You live in a very warped world, Alte. Bad family background, eh?
Considering a well adjusted human with no religious affiliation and no belief in Gods.
Atheist = Happy to a be human. Glad to make the most of his or her one chance of life. Largely of a moderate disposition.
And when considering a Christian. Probably other religionists as well (they know who they are).
Deeply religious man = Unhappy to be a mere human and is disparaging of most other humans. Can't wait to become a ghost. Unhinged savage and unrestrained monster. Is only able to sometimes hold himself or herself in check through his or her faith in the odd beliefs that encourage his or her insanity in the first place.
@Anon : Hm. I was talking about the Catholic church, as in the institution, the higher clergy, the ideologues, not about believers as a whole. And the Catholic church has a very long history of using its "spiritual" position as a purely political tool. Actually, it was arguably created for that goal.
It might be true that a husband will be more likely to slap his wife, force her to have sex with him, or commit some other form of low-level violence, than a stranger would. But using that as an argument against marriage is like saying we need to encourage children to be autonomous from their parents
Isn't that what it's supposed to happen wether a child has abusive parents or not?
"But using that as an argument against marriage is like saying we need to encourage children to be autonomous from their parents because they are more likely to hit their children than a stranger would. At some point, people have to interact on an intimate level, and the bonds of marriage and family provide the safest place for that interaction."
no, actually, it's not like saying that AT ALL.
>>Murdin
@Anon : Hm. I was talking about the Catholic church, as in the institution, the higher clergy, the ideologues, not about believers as a whole. <<
The institution and the higher clergy were the ones who approved the reforms of Vatican II. The Traditional Catholics are the ones who decided that the cardinals were being too liberal.
Dante, in his organization of Hell, reserved the tenth circle of Hell - the lowest - for those who betrayed people who trusted them. He found them much worse than people who were simply violent toward strangers. Those, he put in only the seventh circle. His reasoning was that mere violence is something that any animal could commit, while betraying trust was a particularly human failing and therefore a perversion of one's God-given intellect. A Catholic would find Judas much worse than a common murderer.
Let us also note that barring repetition of the act it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger.
LOL...says you, who has probably never lived through any of that.
\\Let us also note that barring repetition of the act it is less traumatic for a child to be slapped by his mother than by a stranger, for a man to be punched by his brother than by a stranger, or for a woman to be sexually assaulted by her husband than by a stranger.\\
You sure about that, skipper? I personally can see the bonds of trust being broken being pretty goddamn traumatic.
And besides, it still doesn't justify downplaying or turning a blind eye to the problem.
My response in one word....
*BRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPTTTHHHHH*
...well, a sound, actually (with a bit of a smell, 'scuse me).
Why does that person think that being harmed by a close person is less traumatic than by a stranger?. It's actually the contrary, for a number of reasons. First, because it was done by a person who you trusted and you have feelings for. With a stranger, you owe him or her NOTHING. Second, because that person can fetch you sooner or later and you feel the trauma much more than a total stranger, who maybe can't find you in any way or shape. In fact, most crimes are done by close relatives or friends, not by strangers. GO FIGURE.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.