Asmondgold reinvents anti-fornication laws from first principles

Based Grok is back

Apparently it’s “chud” these days to reinvent woke feminist anti-marriage propaganda from first principles. > Husband is a fat loser ugly bastard whose desire for his own wife is portrayed as uniquely grotesque and predatory. > Traditional marriage portrayed sexual slavery. (Don’t ya know she’s a strong independent girlboss who don’t need no man!) > Wife is reduced to an inanimate object with no agency at all, having absolutely sexual no desire for her own husband. > Biblical marital obligation’s portrayed as completely one-sided, completely ignoring the other half of the traditionalist argument that the wife also has the SAME right to claim sex from her husband (again, women portrayed as sexless victims). > Men are ALWAYS horny and only in the most predatory way possible. A woman would NEVER want sex from the man from whom she accepted a marriage proposal. > Nice-guy™ Jesus who conveniently tells you to ignore his own scripture and be a “good person” by just following the vague cultural standards of the time. > Also completely ignoring the caveat that has been made over and over again by the Trad side that physical abuse against either spouse is obviously wrong and condemnable even if we’re not labeling it as “rape” within a marital context. At that point we’re simply making a category distinction, not excusing spousal abuse or domestic violence. Next thing y’all are going to be demanding that my wife and I go to HR and submit “affirmative consent” forms every time we want to touch each other. Oh wait… we did, it was our marriage license. Normally I like Hafuma’s work. He’s very talented. But when he gets too emotionally heated he shoots from the hip and starts making very half-baked strawman arguments. Premium shitposting seeks to understand the opposing argument so you can more accurately make fun of it.

Everybody on this nigga for defending traditional Christian marital duties when they should be on him for using an act of marital sodomy as his example😜

All of this could easily be fixed by simply criminalizing fornication again BTW

By this definition I would not classify strictly as an abolitionist, despite the fact that I share their end goal: that being that the ideal number of abortions is precisely ZERO. Where I emphatically disagree with the “no incrementalism” approach, is that it is a perfect example of perfect being the enemy of good. If no perfect solution is immediately available, but any manner of less than perfect solutions can be implemented NOW, those less than perfect measures will still save unborn lives that would otherwise be lost if nothing at all is done. Those types of “abolitionists” also tend to boycott the political process entirely unless we get exactly what we want. And this is counterproductive. Boycotting politics is just the fastest way of losing, because you’re refusing to compete. It would be far more effective to proactively organize and compete rather than withdraw.

When my wife and I took the vows at the alter, we were both well aware that we were giving each other full and irrevocable consent as part of a permanent sacramental union. She has rights to my body as I have rights to hers. @AI_EmeraldApple, notice how you conveniently left out @TemplarsVoice’s inclusion of the wive’s right to her husband’s body and instead you only focused on the husband. Perhaps was done unintentionally, but if so, it would mean you have failed to understand the point @TemplarsVoice is making. The obligations of marriage are a two-way street. Each spouse has duties to the other. @TemplarsVoice correct that from within the traditional Christian moral framework, Scripture says that neither spouse should withhold sex from the other except when mutually agreed upon for a temporary amount of time. (In the Catholic Church we also have the extremely rare category of Josephite marriages, in which both spouses have taken a lifelong vow of celibacy, but that’s another topic entirely). Naturally, communication within the marital relationship is absolutely important. If my wife wanted to be intimate at a time when I was too exhausted from work or something, I could negotiate with her and promise to make it up to her tomorrow or some other time. If she’s not in the mood, sometimes I have to put in a little effort to seduce her into the mood. There is give and take. But we are both very conscious of our duties to each other and are very proactive about fulfilling those duties. The problem with applying modern “consent” culture to a Christian marriage is that the sacrament of holy matrimony is not just another phase of dating that you can enter into and just retroactively revoke at a whim. That implies that you never intended to fully give yourself to your spouse in the first place, which could mean the marriage itself was never valid. In the circumstances you’ve been implying, where one spouse is inflicting physical abuse or violence upon the other, that can certainly be condemned in its own right. But in that case we are making a category distinction. We would not be saying that acts of violence or abuse against one’s spouse (husband or wife) are acceptable. Far from it. We would be saying that applying the specific label of “rape” to such acts within marriage distorts what marriage itself is, and implies that the vows entered into at the alter can be withdrawn at any time. But if we’re giving edgy hot Christian takes here, mine is that we should just legally reclassify all sex OUTSIDE of marriage as rape. Have fun with that one.