To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.
49 comments
This is a crock. Your own bible has nothing about losing ones virginity being a 'sin' Adultery, yes. Premarital sex? No. The only concession is the woman may not marry a different man until 10 months later to make sure she isn't pregnant.
Loss of virginity isn't a green light for rape. And you are an asshole saying it is.
This creep wants to go out with an excuse for raping women. He should be locked up, and arguably should be raped himself in prison.
That is, assuming he has 'entertained the possibility' of sex with a woman or a man. In which event he cannot be considered a wholly innocent victim.
On the other hand, one suspects that he has never had sex in his life, or even knows what it is about, even if he is more than 14 years old. In which event he can be considered a total twat, living in a fantasy world bolstered by his completely fucking stupid and twisted ideas of what Christian-inanity means.
fergus
So Voxy, premarital sex is morally equivelent to rape in your world, or eating too much ice cream for that matter (as Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.)
Internal consent?
No means no, what part of that don't you understand?
It saddens me to think I have to share this planet with you.
"[...] if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by [...] the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. "
Isn't this kinda anti-woman? Sort of?
"Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins."
So, mortal sins are just sins?
I love the way he focuses on "internal consent." Opens the door to saying "but officer, I though she was asking for it. Just look. She's dressed so as to show off her calves. Why, her skirt is barely to her knees. Dressed like a proper little streewalker she was. How can you blame me for getting confused by her mixed signals?"
This is such disgusting and most importantly SHALLOW, moralising. Whenever someone makes statements like this about sexual morality, what they are doing is attempting to make the appearance being moral, without actually doing anything useful or beneficial to anyone. Instead they make these extravagant moral claims - the more extravagant, the better - because people within their belief system are impressed with it. However, they find themselves frustrated when other people are not impressed in the slightest.
I can do it too, look: "tap-dancing is a moral abomination, and anyone who even taps their foot to a piece of music is morally equivalent to someone who rapes them"
Aren't you ever so impressed with my superior morality? No? Well you can burn in hell then!
Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins.
I've read the argument in total. The man is attacking not the rape victims but those who dare to say rape is imoral outside of christian values. He is on a rape apologist, he is a moron who uses the example of rape to make the point that atheists can not form moral absolutes that are different from christian ones, and therefore all should bow to his god. A prety slack argument in my oppinion. His point is that the Bible is the first and only place where rape is considered a sin, and that any other philosophy can not be used to acceptably establish rape as a fully imoral act. Not, in my opinion, a rape apologist but as I stated a moron.
Her lips say no, no, no but her heart says yes, oh, yes.
The romance subplot of thousands of movies since 1939.
It's the difference between giving a homeless person $20 because you want to and having them mug you for $20.
Ah, fuck it, he won't get it.
"Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic"
If I understand correctly, he's saying that anyone who wants sex AT ALL is not a victim if they get raped, even if they're entertaining the idea of sex with Brad Pitt and get raped by Creepy McHerpes.
Traditional Western Morality included slavery, paedophilia and improper hygiene.
No hierarchy of sins is a stupid concept. A child lying about a broken window is inherently different about a politician lying about the case for a war.
To put it more clearly,
I really wish you would.
"Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins."
It should. Killing or rapeing is never better than lying.
The greater good
Also:
If all the sins are equal, why is the Bible more lenient with, for example, somebody who provokes a miscarriage than with a person who kills or steals?. Second, if she´s raped, it means that sex is against HER WILL, and, therefore, not a sin. You know, for a sin to exist, there must be free will. And anyway, do you consider that a liar deserves to be robbed?. Same logic here.
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.
