₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
Marital rape is real. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Your bodily autonomy rights remain even in marriage.

Can a woman refuse a man physical intimacy from the very inception (vow taking) of marriage? Does "bodily autonomy", mean that a husbands access to his wife's body is only if and when she says so? Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

I don't agree with the term marital rape as it serves to essentially hollow out marriage. And withholding sex is equally contrary, will "marital rape" be twinned with "withholding sex"? If for some reason it descends into real harm or violence, then perhaps assault could be considered. But that should never be in view in a Christian marriage.

....very well said. Pretty much articulates the Christian position. Hope all's well.

bukatyne:
In a Christian marriage, there is nothing like marital rape; rape here defined as sex without consent because the marriage vows give both parties everlasting consent. 1 cor 7 captures it well; the husband's body belongs to the wife and the wife's body belongs to the husband.

This is different from the cultural position that a husband owns his wife's body because he paid bride price or he is the head.

The ownership is mutual and equal.

That said, there is sexual abuse which includes:
> Withholding sex without reason
> Deliberately not satisfying your spouse
> Carrying out sexual acts intended to demean or dishonour your spouse
> Using sex as a bargaining chip
> Mocking your spouse for their legitimate desire of your body
> Deliberately not taking care of yourself or ignoring their legitimate request to tend to your body etc.

Which can be perpetuated by the husband or wife.

Like I said above, Christian marriages.

TV

TV01:
➜ Can a woman refuse a man physical intimacy from the very inception (vow taking) of marriage?
➜Does "bodily autonomy", mean that a husbands access to his wife's body is only if and when she says so?
➜The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.
➜I don't agree with the term marital rape as it serves to essentially hollow out marriage. And withholding sex is equally contrary, will "marital rape" be twinned with "withholding sex"? If for some reason it descends into real harm or violence, then perhaps assault could be considered.
➜But that should never be in view in a Christian marriage.....very well said. Pretty much articulates the Christian position. Hope all's well.

1. Yes! Marriage is not the selling or abdicating of one's right to bodily autonomy.

2. Yes, it does!

3. The term conjugal rights in typically used in reference to incarceration.

4. Every human being—whether in marriage or outside of marriage—has a right to withhold/protect his/her body from acts that are perceived by the individual as violation/abuse. Rape is violence, and violence exists in and outside of marriage.

5. It does not matter your religious disposition in this. The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right which even religion cannot override.

Madam if you angry with husband and refused to open legs its ok, but if you are denying your husband sex for no reason please kindly park out so that oga can bring another wife.. simple

Carndidlaydid:
That UGo is a big time rapist apologist


How can you compare that with forcefully having sex with someone's daughter

Men are so evil and unreasonable

*Some men•

Kobojunkie:
Don't get the government involved so women can continue to suffer injustice after injustice in marriage. In fact, it should be normal for a man to rape his children after raping his wife and maybe even the house help while he is at it, abi? You religious/traditional nutjobs are just vicious beings underneath it all. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

You are right. The government should absolutely be involved in marriages. But why just stop at sex? Government should monitor your bank accounts and ration your food also

I buy television come keep for house, television talk say you no go turn me on today I no dey mood for important match wey I wan watch.., ok na. Why, television why?,,,

Blkpanda:
✓ You are right. The government should absolutely be involved in marriages. But why just stop at sex? Government should monitor your bank accounts and ration your food also

Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes! Marriage is not the selling or abdicating of one's right to bodily autonomy.

Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect. Taking vows is but the first step. If not consummated, a marriage can be deemed void

Kobojunkie:
2. Yes, it does!

No it does not, as entering into a marriage confers "conjugal rights" on both parties - more in the next response.

Kobojunkie:
3. The term conjugal rights in typically used in reference to incarceration.

You clearly did not read or understand what you posted - it's by definition!

Conjugal rights refer to the mutual rights and privileges between two individuals arising from the state of being married . These rights include mutual rights of companionship, support, comfort, sexual relations, affection, joint property rights and the like.

Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach. Not to say force should come into play either. Hence my point about discussion, understanding and mutual agreement.

Conjugal rights are considered such that even when one partner is incarcerated, the right should be accommodated. Why should one party suffer due to the offence of the other? And the state acknowledges that allowing this will help maintain the union, which is beneficial to society - conjugal rights being used in conjunction with incarceration doesn't mean they are derived from it - back-to-front thinking.

Kobojunkie:
4. Every human being—whether in marriage or outside of marriage—has a right to withhold/protect his/her body from acts that are perceived by the individual as violation/abuse. Rape is violence, and violence exists in and outside of marriage.

The very act of getting married means the spouses understand that sexual intimacy becomes a mutual right and it is a violation to wilfully withhold it without cause and\or agreement. Sexual intimacy is not violence and violence should not be used to access it - I make no reference to peoples kinks.

Kobojunkie:
5. It does not matter your religious disposition in this. The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right which even religion cannot override.

Yes, it is. But you agree to mutually vary\share that right with another when you get married.

You didn't respond to this -

Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

Kobojunkie:
Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

The government is to serve the people and are themselves fallible. There should be checks to ensure that they don't conjure up rights and crimes that violate relationships and institutions - especially those that existed before any government.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other man's consent. Abraham Lincoln

Government itself is founded upon the great doctrine of the consent of the governed, and has its cornerstone in the memorable principle that men are endowed with inalienable rights. Leland Stanford

TV01:
Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect.

..Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach. ...

This is where you are supposed to remember you said "to a degree" and the statement "consent not being unreasonably withheld"

Easyincome24:
The issue of marital rape is alarming in our society.

The problem is if she speaks out no one will believe her.

They will be like how can your husband rape you?

This is actually happening.

Can one reports her husband of marital rape?

Sure, you can report, but would they hear and act on it? No

And should they act on it? I hesitate to answer because it therefore means that people should not marry as they would be open to accusations and reports.

But if her case is True then she should proceed via a civil suit to obtain damages from her to be ex husband because that marriage is over.

TV01:
➜Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect. Taking vows is but the first step. If not consummated, a marriage can be deemed void
➜No it does not, as entering into a marriage confers "conjugal rights" on both parties - more in the next response. You clearly did not read or understand what you posted - it's by definition! Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach.
➜ Not to say force should come into play either. Hence my point about discussion, understanding, and mutual agreement .
➜Conjugal rights are considered such that even when one partner is incarcerated, the right should be accommodated. Why should one party suffer due to the offence of the other? And the state acknowledges that allowing this will help maintain the union, which is beneficial to society - conjugal rights being used in conjunction with incarceration doesn't mean they are derived from it - back-to-front thinking.
➜The very act of getting married means the spouses understand that sexual intimacy becomes a mutual right and it is a violation to wilfully withhold it without cause and\or agreement. Sexual intimacy is not violence and violence should not be used to access it - I make no reference to peoples kinks.
➜Yes, it is. But you agree to mutually vary\share that right with another when you get married. You didn't respond to this -
➜ The government is to serve the people and are themselves fallible. There should be checks to ensure that they don't conjure up rights and crimes that violate relationships and institutions - especially those that existed before any government.

Look up your Legal code to see that it does no such thing the reason being a fundamental human right is what that is. Even in marriage, both remain individuals in the eyes of the Law.

2. That isn't true since divorce from marriage is also legally recognized.

3. If you state that one partner CAN NOT unilaterally refuse, then what you are insinuating is that both partners are forced into this conjugal rights agreement due to being married, are you not?

4. Well, non-incarcerated people know to seek divorce if not happy with the state of the marriage, not force themselves on the other partner. Incarcerated individuals on the other hand are typically limited in what they are capable of hence the reason why the term is typically used in connection with the incarcerated.

5. Marriage exists as an agreement between the two parties involved. This means your mutual sexual rights are dependent on the agreement between both individuals (unforced consent is necessary) in the marriage. You can only claim that right if and only if both parties agree (unforced consent is necessary).

6. Yes! A man or woman's body, regardless of marital status, is his/hers to give to whomever or not.

7. That is why you have your legal code, the compendium of laws that everyone including those in government is to abide by.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you are supposed to remember you said "to a degree" and the statement "consent not being unreasonably withheld"

My posts made that clear I believe.

TV01:
The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

Sounds like consent to me? Do let me know if I'm missing something.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Look up your Legal code to see that it does no such thing the reason being a fundamental human right is what that is. Even in marriage, both remain individuals in the eyes of the Law.

Again, not true. Legally and religiously (biblically in my worldview), married couples are not simply treated as "2 individuals" - as though not married. In some instances, maybe, criminal offense, voting etc, but in many, and the most meaningful, inheritance, kinship rights, child custody, they are not. And by now you should have grasped that the very act of marriage means you agree that your spouse has conjugal rights, which includes the right to physical intimacy. That is not something that is discussed after the fact of marriage, it is inherent in entering into the estate of marriage. If you don't get that, you don't get marriage, or, are speaking of a different form of marriage.

Kobojunkie:
2. That isn't true since divorce from marriage is also legally recognized.

Legal divorce is the end of a marriage and with divorce the mutual rights and privileges are voided.

Kobojunkie:
3. If you state that one partner CAN NOT unilaterally refuse, then you are insinuating that both partners are forced into this conjugal rights agreement due to being married, are you not?

No, they are not forced. There is an á priori agreement by entering into a marriage union, which confers mutual privileges, rights and responsibilities on the spouses. Agreeing to marry means you accept the conjugal rights of your spouse. Not the possibility of intimacy after the marriage.

Kobojunkie:
4. Well, non-incarcerated people know to seek divorce if not happy with the state of the marriage, not force themselves on the other partner. Incarcerated individuals on the other hand are typically limited in what they are capable of hence the reason why the term is typically used in connection with the incarcerated.

You appear unable to distinguish between mutually agreed sexual intimacy and rape. Conjugal rights permitted during incarceration are not forcing couples to have intimacy, or forcing one against their wishes. It is allowing the mutual agreement to persist despite the situation.

Kobojunkie:
5. Marriage exists as an agreement between the two parties involved. This means your mutual sexual rights are dependent on the agreement between both individuals in the marriage. You can only claim that right if and only if both parties agree.

Marriage is the agreement - and confers mutual rights, privileges and responsibilities, including sexual intimacy. To infer one can "marry" and then decide never to have physical intimacy, lacks an understanding of marriage, legal or biblical - as in both instances it is not completed\can be voided if not consummated.

Kobojunkie:
6. Yes! A man or woman's body, regardless of marital status, is his/hers to give to whomever or not.

Yours sounds more like an ideological position. You are free to it, but it doesn't change the particulars of marriage. Certainly not biblically and not legally as it currently stands.

Kobojunkie:
7. That is why you have your legal code, the compendium of laws that everyone including those in government is to abide by.

There are limits to government intervention and quite frequently we have bad governments and bad laws. They are not infallible and their reach should not become overreach. That's all.


TV

TV01:
My posts made that clear I believe.

Sounds like consent to me? Do let me know if I'm missing something.

TV

You are right. This is truly the consent I was looking for in your statement

TV01:
➜Again, not true. Legally and religiously (biblically in my worldview), married couples are not simply treated as "2 individuals" - as though not married. In some instances, maybe, criminal offense, voting etc, but in many, and the most meaningful, inheritance, kinship rights, child custody, they are not. And by now you should have grasped that the very act of marriage means you agree that your spouse has conjugal rights, which includes the right to physical intimacy. That is not something that is discussed after the fact of marriage, it is inherent in entering into the estate of marriage. If you don't get that, you don't get marriage, or, are speaking of a different form of marriage.
Legal divorce is the end of a marriage and with divorce the mutual rights and privileges are voided.
No, they are not forced. There is an á priori agreement by entering into a marriage union, which confers mutual privileges, rights and responsibilities on the spouses. Agreeing to marry means you accept the conjugal rights of your spouse. Not the possibility of intimacy after the marriage.
You appear unable to distinguish between mutually agreed sexual intimacy and rape. Conjugal rights permitted during incarceration are not forcing couples to have intimacy, or forcing one against their wishes. It is allowing the mutual agreement to persist despite the situation.
Marriage is the agreement - and confers mutual rights, privileges and responsibilities, including sexual intimacy. To infer one can "marry" and then decide never to have physical intimacy, lacks an understanding of marriage, legal or biblical - as in both instances it is not completed\can be voided if not consummated.
Yours sounds more like an ideological position. You are free to it, but it doesn't change the particulars of marriage. Certainly not biblically and not legally as it currently stands.
There are limits to government intervention and quite frequently we have bad governments and bad laws. They are not infallible and their reach should not become overreach. That's all.

There is no need to go around and around with this. The Law is clear on the fact that the individual retains his/her fundamental human right even in a marriage situation — that right is retained until even death. Your personal religious delusions cannot strike this out or nullify it in any way.

Also, the law makes clear provisions in the case that a person feels that his right is being denied him. In the marital case, you can file for restitution of conjugal rights through the courts or better yet divorce. There is no reason why anyone should think it makes sense to force their will on another human being, no matter the familial/marriage bond that may exist between them.

Definition: Conjugal rights refer to the rights and privileges that come with being married. These include mutual rights of companionship, support, comfort, sexual relations, affection, joint property rights, and more. If these rights are lost, it can also mean a loss of consortium. The term is often used in reference to incarceration, where some states allow for "conjugal visits."
When two people get married, they have certain conjugal rights. For example, they have the right to live together, share property, and make decisions together. They also have the right to have sexual relations with each other.

In some states, if one spouse is incarcerated, they may be allowed to have conjugal visits with their spouse. This means that they can spend time alone together in a private room and have sexual relations.

These examples illustrate how conjugal rights are the rights and privileges that come with being married. They include both emotional and physical aspects of a relationship, such as companionship, support, and sexual intimacy.

Kobojunkie:
There is no need to go around and around with this. The Law is clear on the fact that the individual retains his/her fundamental human right even in a marriage situation — that right is retained until even death. Your personal religious delusions cannot strike this out or nullify it in any way.

Also, the law makes clear provisions in the case that a person feels that his right is being denied him. In the marital case, you can file for restitution of conjugal rights through the courts or better yet divorce. There is no reason why anyone should think it makes sense to force their will on another human being, no matter the familial/marriage bond that may exist between them.

Perhaps read and digest the snips and extracts you have posted thus far - "conjugal rights conferred by marriage" pretty much sums it up.


Cheers
TV

TV01:
➜Perhaps read and digest the snips and extracts you have posted thus far - "conjugal rights conferred by marriage" pretty much says it all.

As usual, you religious folks only seem to pay attention to bits and pieces that align with your particular delusion, ignoring the rest. 🙄🙄🙄

Are all these long stories a way of saying that if a spouse says no to sex and the other person forces them into the act, that it’s not rape? You guys really can’t be serious.

We can talk about how it’s unfair to agree to be married to someone and refuse to have sex with them.
We can talk about how marriage means you’re agreeing to be only sexual partner they have and thus their expectation of having (hopefully blissful) sexual experiences with you is normal.

But we can’t gloss over the real fact that sometimes, some things can happen in a relationship that affects a partners mind or body in such a way that they’re not willing in the moment to have sex. Any attempt at that time to force them into sex is rape.

Pls……🙄🙄🙄

bukatyne:
In a Christian marriage, there is nothing like marital rape; rape here defined as sex without consent because the marriage vows give both parties everlasting consent. 1 cor 7 captures it well; the husband's body belongs to the wife and the wife's body belongs to the husband.

This is different from the cultural position that a husband owns his wife's body because he paid bride price or he is the head.

The ownership is mutual and equal.

That said, there is sexual abuse which includes:
> Withholding sex without reason
> Deliberately not satisfying your spouse
> Carrying out sexual acts intended to demean or dishonour your spouse
> Using sex as a bargaining chip
> Mocking your spouse for their legitimate desire of your body
> Deliberately not taking care of yourself or ignoring their legitimate request to tend to your body etc.

Which can be perpetuated by the husband or wife.

Like I said above, Christian marriages.

I love as you put the last disclaimer, so you wouldn't enter one chance.

Marital Rape itself is a symptom of a problem that people are not speaking loudly about, It means either of the partners is not sexually attracted to one another, usually anyone who withholds sex without reason or use it as bargaining chip is because they are not really in love with their spouse and married for different reasons other than love.

It is a common thing for women to marry just to add the marriage tag to their name, I dare say based on personal experiences seen that most women aren't even in love with their husbands, they found someone ready and willing to settle down and decided to marry. They hope to grow in love, some do & others don't as it becomes a 50/50 chance.

Before people get frustrated with spouse withholding sex, it must have been happening consistently for a long time. I wouldn't want to believe that just one night or couple of nights that your partner is tired from work stress & you're all up in her face that you guys must have sex. It has to be an underlying issue before the actual frustration comes in.

Kobojunkie:
Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

Good try moving the goal posts. This was the original claim I’m mocking you for

“The more we keep getting the government involved in marriages, the more that sacred institution becomes useless and not worth it undecided”

No mention of crime, simply mocking you for your dependence on your owners government

And government is not responsible for crime inside or outside your home, the parties involved are. Government is not your daddy

Blkpanda:
✓ Good try moving the goal posts. This was the original claim I’m mocking you for
“The more we keep getting the government involved in marriages, the more that sacred institution becomes useless and not worth it undecided”
✓ No mention of crime, simply mocking you for your dependence on your owners government
And government is not responsible for crime inside or outside your home, the parties involved are. Government is not your daddy

I didn't move the goalpost. Simply reasserted the place Government has always occupied in the live of people. Before you ever dreamt of marriage, you were an individual in the eyes of the Law. You expected under the Law. Even after marriage, you remain an individual under the Law, only with a marriage tag/status ticked in your profile.

2. Government is the party responsible for ensuring crimes reported are properly investigated and prosecuted. That is the world of Government, not individuals. Rape is a crime; marital rape is equally rape, a violation of the right of an individual.

Capernum:
That you have the mind to ever report your husband for forced sex shows the reason why you are worthy of rape.

Cococandy please explain this

cococandy:
1. Are all these long stories a way of saying that if a spouse says no to sex and the other person forces them into the act, that it’s not rape? You guys really can’t be serious.

2. We can talk about how it’s unfair to agree to be married to someone and refuse to have sex with them.

We can talk about how marriage means you’re agreeing to be only sexual partner they have and thus their expectation of having (hopefully blissful) sexual experiences with you is normal.

3. But we can’t gloss over the real fact that sometimes, some things can happen in a relationship that affects a partners mind or body in such a way that they’re not willing in the moment to have sex. Any attempt at that time to force them into sex is rape.

Pls……🙄🙄🙄

1. Rape I.e. sex without consent cannot happen in a marriage as the estate confers automatic consent to both parties.

2. Some instances actually allows for refusal to have sex with a spouse. It is always unfair.

3. Sometimes, a partner is not willing to have sex. However, they are obligated to discuss their concerns with their partners. Are there times when a spouse is been unreasonable/unfair and wants to force the other party? Then it is assault/battery/bodily harm depending on what was done. It is however not rape because both parties have automatic consent to the other party.

TV01:
Can a woman refuse a man physical intimacy from the very inception (vow taking) of marriage? Does "bodily autonomy", mean that a husbands access to his wife's body is only if and when she says so? Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

I don't agree with the term marital rape as it serves to essentially hollow out marriage. And withholding sex is equally contrary, will "marital rape" be twinned with "withholding sex"? If for some reason it descends into real harm or violence, then perhaps assault could be considered. But that should never be in view in a Christian marriage.

....very well said. Pretty much articulates the Christian position. Hope all's well.



TV

Happy new Decade, TV TV!

How are you and family?

We are well at our end.

tosinhtml:
I love as you put the last disclaimer, so you wouldn't enter one chance.

1. Marital Rape itself is a symptom of a problem that people are not speaking loudly about, It means either of the partners is not sexually attracted to one another, usually anyone who withholds sex without reason or use it as bargaining chip is because they are not really in love with their spouse and married for different reasons other than love.

2. It is a common thing for women to marry just to add the marriage tag to their name, I dare say based on personal experiences seen that most women aren't even in love with their husbands, they found someone ready and willing to settle down and decided to marry. They hope to grow in love, some do & others don't as it becomes a 50/50 chance.

3. Before people get frustrated with spouse withholding sex, it must have been happening consistently for a long time. I wouldn't want to believe that just one night or couple of nights that your partner is tired from work stress & you're all up in her face that you guys must have sex. It has to be an underlying issue before the actual frustration comes in.

Your post strangely assumes that only women withhold sex or that all men are reasonable not to sexually abuse their wives.

My post was very neutral; men & women commit all the vices above. The Church is littered with stances of both parties in all manner of vices.

bukatyne:
1. Rape I.e. sex without consent cannot happen in a marriage as the estate confers automatic consent to both parties.

2. Some instances actually allows for refusal to have sex with a spouse. It is always unfair.

3. Sometimes, a partner is not willing to have sex. However, they are obligated to discuss their concerns with their partners. Are there times when a spouse is been unreasonable/unfair and wants to force the other party? Then it is assault/battery/bodily harm depending on what was done. It is however not rape because both parties have automatic consent to the other party.

They can discuss, they can reach a compromise etc etc. I think all of that goes without saying. Especially if they’re interested in making the marriage work. All that compromise, discussion etc is even bare minimum.

But the moment one party said no and the other forces them, then it’s rape. Dressing it up as assault doesn’t give it a different meaning.

My previous comment was for the benefit of others. Not you.
I’m not interested in going back and forth with you on this topic. I know your stance on it and our views do not align. You cannot convince me. I cannot convince you. It’s pointless bantering.

Tightpussy2024:
Cococandy please explain this

I wish I could but I don’t speak derangement.

For your sanity, act like you didn’t see it

cococandy:
They can discuss, they can reach a compromise etc etc. I think all of that goes without saying. Especially if they’re interested in making the marriage work. All that compromise, discussion etc is even bare minimum.

But the moment one party said no and the other forces them, then it’s rape. Dressing it up as assault doesn’t give it a different meaning.

My previous comment for the benefit of others. Not you.
I’m not interested in going back and forth with you on this topic. I know your stance on it and our views do not align. You cannot convince me. I cannot convince you. It’s pointless bantering.

The lack of interest in bantering this topic is mutual.

In a Christian marriage, there is no rape because automatic consent is given. It is clear in the Bible and Christians understand that.

bukatyne:
Happy new Decade, TV TV!

How are you and family?

We are well at our end.

Has it really been that long? Ah!
We are all well thanks - I trust likewise.

Scripture is whole and biblical marriage sure. Men are enjoined to “love their wives like their own flesh” – where then is forced s3x? It says each spouse has unfettered access to the body of the other (possession) – where then is refusal?

In practice, due consideration will have to be given to how we satisfy (please) each other. Asymmetrical drives, differing desires, physical health or capability amongst a possible host of other issues will all come into play. Anyone that always has sex exactly when they please and how they want, is likely not in an opposite sex, spousal relationship or, should hurry up and release that bestseller already!

Each couple will agree and grow in understanding as they mature and their situation changes. But the basis however remains the same – a mutual desire to please and satisfy. In a lifelong committed relationship, is forcible intimacy really a long-term strategy? Likewise, is claiming bodily autonomy as a right to deny your spouse intimacy sans any other legitimate reason or cause??

A worldview that presents men and women as antagonists, falls short conceptually, let alone practically, proffering solutions where there are no problems.


TV

Kobojunkie:
I didn't move the goalpost. Simply reasserted the place Government has always occupied in the live of people. Before you ever dreamt of marriage, you were an individual in the eyes of the Law. You expected under the Law. Even after marriage, you remain an individual under the Law, only with a marriage tag/status ticked in your profile.

2. Government is the party responsible for ensuring crimes reported are properly investigated and prosecuted. That is the world of Government, not individuals. Rape is a crime with marital rape is equally rape, a violation of the right of an individual.

We are having two different conversation. I’m focused on the government involvement part.

But regarding marital rape your entire arguement is rooted in you are an individual. How do you feel about corporal punishment for children and abortions?

Blkpanda:
➜We are having two different conversation. I’m focused on the government involvement part. But regarding marital rape your entire arguement is rooted in you are an individual.
➜How do you feel about corporal punishment for children and abortions?

That is simple! Because in marriage you have two individuals under the law still. Marriage does not make you into God. You are still two individuals under the eyes of the Supreme Law.

2. A child is an individual and a citizen under the eyes of the Supreme Law. Under your criminal code, physical assault against another individual is a criminal offense, is it not?

As for abortion laws in Nigeria, I am not too certain where it is given Nigerians have yet to make a clear decision on such things as far as I know it.