Our completely incorrect biology lesson today comes not from Chateau Heartiste or The Spearhead or EvoPsychBullshitBeliever997 on Reddit but from an actual elected official with influence in the real world: Republican Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri, currently his party’s nominee for Senate.
In a recent interview with KTVI-TV, the Fox affiliate in St. Louis, he explained that the ladies just don’t get pregnant from rape — well, “legitimate rape” anyway. As he put it:
From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, this whole “rape as birth control” thing is not actually, you know, true:
Akin’s claim is one that pops up occasionally in social conservative circles. A federal judge nominated by President Bush in the early 2000s had said similar things, as have state lawmakers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. …
According to a 1996 study, approximately 32,000 pregnancies result from rape annually in the United States, and about 5 percent of rape victims are impregnated.
Talking Points Memo notes that this isn’t the first time Akin has suggested that
some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused “in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,” according to … the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Akin: making up shit to deny rape victims their rights since 1991!
Currently, Akin has a big lead in the polls over his Democratic rival, sitting Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Here’s the relevant portion of Akin’s interview; you can find the whole thing at the Talking Points Memo link above.
I kind of hope Akin stays in the race, just because he’d be the easiest to beat. Every time he opens his mouth, he helps McCaskill. McCaskill was happy when he got the Republican nomination, and his views on “legitimate” rape shows why she thinks he’s the weakest opponent. But if he does step down, I’d be happy about that, too. As long as he doesn’t become Senator, that’s the most important thing.
I liked what Obama said, from BigMomma’s link:
Amen to that!
sunshinemary: You do realize that any of you who are men could have such a thing happen to you, right?
Only if I raped someone. Because, contra the bullshit of the rape apologists (such as yourself) false allegations of rape are rare.
I have had sex I regretted. I’m pretty sure some of the women I’ve had sex with probably decided it was, on reflection, not the best of sexy-times and, as a result, not worth repeating.
None of them has ever accused me of rape. That means more to me than your fantasies of “rape by regret”.
Moreover, if a Christian can’t rape a spouse, then a marital rape law is nothing for them to worry about. It’s no skin off your nose, unless you think everyone ought to have to abide by the rules of your religion; as legal mandate.
sunshinemary:
So… mutual consent is only required for the refusing. If he doesn’t want to put out she has the right to force him… right?
What if he refuses for more than some little while? What if he isn’t interested often enough… is that abusive?
Is that grounds for leaving him?
If not, then you aren’t making it an equal sharing of possession.
And… per your previous comments, where the man is the master, and has the final say… how do you reconcile your conflicting interpretations?
sunshinemary…. The FRS is your go to source for support on claims of false rape?
And how is it you (a woman) feel fit to contradict a male pastor? Esp. as you are telling me (a man; a Christian man) about matters of religion?
@ Seraph
Yeah, I get the impression that Mary and many others like her are completely nonplussed when the response to their Bible verses is “so? why should I care” rather than “well in my opinion verse X contradicts that”. Which is good in that it limits their ability to do political damage, but very odd to observe. These people are on the internet – you’d think they’d have noticed that there are a lot of people who don’t much care what the Bible says.
So I wonder, if, according to sunshinenary, a woman’s husband decides he wants to invite all his buddies over to watch him do her in their living room, is that ok? Has she, by consenting to marry him, consented to doing that, too? According to Christianity? What if she just came down with the stomach bug from hell and moving makes her want to vomit, it’s ok if husband is like, roll over and let me do you?
When you say marital rape doesn’t exist, you’re saying that this shit isn’t rape either. It perfectly ok, it’s what your husband signed on for.
And hey guys, it’s really not hard to tell if someone is consenting! They do stuff like climb on top of you, wrap legs around you, make out with you, say “omg I want you”, tear your clothes off, and when you start sexing them, they act like they like it! If you’re paying attention to your partner and you give a shit about their pleasure, it is the most obvious thing in the world when they really want you. If its not obvious, then you need to stop and ask what’s up.
sunshinemary:
Way to bear false witness. The bolded portion is what he said. Sexual behavior. Are you seriously saying that he meant mere words were sexual behavior?
If so… we Heaven help you, because that level of failure to comprehend is something a person who is a “professional writer” can’t really afford.
@ Pecunium
Pastor Driscoll clearly says in the last sentence that sexual assault does not necessarily have to involve physical contact.
On the issue of a Christian woman correcting a pastor – women are to be silent and not teach in the congregation; this does not mean they can never discuss scripture with a man or disagree with him although she ought to heed Paul’s admonition to ask her own husband about it at home if she is in doubt. HOWEVER, I am not disagreeing with Pastor Driscoll on a theological matter but rather on a sociological matter.
On the issue of mutual consent to abstain from sex: the husband and wife must both be submitted to God first and foremost. He must not choose to withhold sex from her for long periods of time because it is specifically prohibited in Scripture for him to do so. He is of course the master of the wife, but he must not lead her into sin nor be in sin himself.
You still haven’t explained why those of us who are not part of your particular sect, or who’re not Christians at all, should care about what the Bible says about any of this, or your interpretation of what it says. You also have not explained why, if you recognize that non-Christians have the right to order their lives differently, you keep showing up here and making sweeping moral statements.
Little miss sunshine has no problem speaking on behalf of women who aren’t part of her sect.
Source.
I see in her previous post she also makes reference to a “perfected Jew” (i.e. one who has converted to Christianity) so she’s a real class act on many fronts.
sunshinemary: He says it’s acts of coercion that makes it assault. That requires being in the same space.
On the issue of a Christian woman correcting a pastor – women are to be silent and not teach in the congregation
That’s parsing it pretty fine. Are you saying the congregation only exists when all are assembled in church? Sort of puts the lie to the idea that, “wherever two are gathered in His name” doesn’t it? Because I’d say two people talking scripture are, “in His name” and so constitute part of the “Congregation of Christianity”.
I am not disagreeing with Pastor Driscoll on a theological matter but rather on a sociological matter.
Nope. You are disagreeing with him about rape, which you are discussing, not as sociology, but religion. Otherwise Paul’s comments aren’t relevant.
He must not choose to withhold sex from her for long periods of time because it is specifically prohibited in Scripture for him to do so. He is of course the master of the wife, but he must not lead her into sin nor be in sin himself.
Ah… so the “mutual consent” required is… the man’s to have, or not. It’s not actually mutual.
Still missing that passage where Paul states, “I say this as a concession, not as a command.”
It is not a prohibition, but a recommendation.
SHIT!! Blockquote fail again!! 🙁
Curious how it’s different in Judaism: spouses can’t engage in sexual relations except by mutual consent, although the husband is charged with a special obligation to please his wife sexually. No such thing as having the right to the other person’s body, because lovemaking by spouses must of necessity have the proper emotional component; it’s sinful otherwise. In fact, even consensual sex is forbidden if the husband and wife bear any resentment towards one another or are in an ongoing conflict. (Thus, sex as an act of making up and sweeping things under the rug is forbidden; must resolve the underlying conflict first.) There are a lot of things in Orthodox Judaism that I find retrograde and highly objectionable, but I think this part of it is quite enlightened. Who knew becoming a “perfected Jew” meant finally engaging in marital rape and treating one’s spouse like a soul-less property, whose feelings are worthless and may be ignored?
Yep, and he’s not wrong. He’s talking about the “era of the internet” where you can violate consent by sharing photos/videos/information without permission of your partner, or film them without them consenting, or a whole raft of disgusting shit that a decent person would never do to anyone without their wholehearted consent.
But that you apparently think would be perfectly fine for man to do to a woman as long as he got some guy in a robe to say some words over them both once.
You are everything that disgusts me about Christians.
Pam, you cursed! Better not vanish for a while or Mary will assume that your husband is punishing you. She may even praise you for showing proper subjugation.
Lemme try that one again…….. don’t want cloudiah’s eyes to bleed 😉
Still missing that passage where Paul states, “I say this as a concession, not as a command.”
It is not a prohibition, but a recommendation.
Of course. So if the master decides that the wife needs a good “roguering” (isn’t that what you good Christian Domestic Discipline folks like to call it?), who is she to disagree?
Ha ha, thanks! 🙂
@CassandraSays,
I am contrite [hangs head in shame]
I currently do not have a husband (twice married and twice widowed), and have no inclination to get married again. I have never felt happier, more relaxed, and at peace since not having a man in the house demanding my undivided attention whenever I had a free moment for myself.
Lord only knows how I manage to take care of the house, both inside AND out, without a man to tell me what to do! /sarcasm
I’m serious, Mary. When last we met you were bearing false witness against a neighbour.
That’s a serious offence, according to the Bible. If a Christian continues willfully sinning after being made aware they’re sinning, the Bible says to shun them, and HARD.
You’re STILL bearing false witness against Sandra Fluke.
https://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/20-reasons-for-a-woman-to-remain-a-virgin-until-her-wedding-night/
When you were already told that she was discussing women taking hormonal BC for health reasons, not for sex.
HEALTH REASONS.
So you continue to bear false witness.
Your own Bible tells me to shun you.
Can you give me one single reason to ignore the Bible in this area, Mary?
Howard: You forgot to remind Mary that Sandra Fluke is Married.
So even if it was true that she needed lots of BC because she was fucking up a storm, it was legitimate sex, unless Mary is alleging Ms. Fluke is cheating on her husband.
Although I don’t play it any more I did play D&D for a while in my tween years, and it always amuses me to try to apply D&D classifications to people/groups of people.
Quiverfull is definitely lawful evil, as is Mary.
LOL!!! Ummmmmmmmmmm………no. Women were created to be co-rulers of the earth, right alongside men. Genesis 1:26-28
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
In a sinless state, women should be perfect, equal partners with their husbands, not subservient lackeys to them. In our fallen state, women will yearn for their husbands, even though relations with them may consequently result in increased pain in childbirth, and, in turn, men will desire to rule over their wives.
Why oh why do these fundies insist on perpetuating our fallen state as if it were righteous.
AND……….. wait for it……….. it was sex that she was strictly and biblically prohibited from denying to her husband!