Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

On which I must edumacate Vox Day…yet again!

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on August 26, 2009

It’s been quite a while since I had my mini fights with Vox Day. Now he has done and made me mad yet again, although this time it is not a skeptical/atheistic issue. This time it is about the Bahamas legislation about marital rape! So what does Mr. Vox think about this issue?

First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.

*clearing throat* WHAT? On what planet does Vox live to make such a statement? Does he even understand what rape is? Rape is forcing another person, against their wish, to perform various sexual acts. Anyone can force someone else to do it! Marital status does not have anything to do with it. Furthermore, on what alternate universe does consent mean “unlimited access to my body regardless of my wishes“? I have gotten married myself, and I have been a witness in other people’s weddings and never have I heard the bride consent to her body being the unquestioned property of her husband. Never! The arrogance and stupidity that is betrayed by these words “there is no such thing as marital rape” is gigantic. I’ve known Vox Day was a sexist from his many blog entries, but this puts him right there with Ahmadinejad.

Vox let me educate you on this issue:  People are sovereign over their own bodies. Marital consent does not confer unlimited rights to the husband over his wife’s body. He does not have unlimited access to it. Every sex act requires consent by both parties, during every particular instance. If force is used to get sex it is rape, regardless of who is forcing who. Is that clear enough for you?

This isn’t a religious issue, although many on both sides will attempt to view it that way, it’s a simple matter of when consent is revocable and the specific form that revocation must take. I invite those who believe that consent may always be granted and revoked at will to consent to join the U.S. Army, then attempt to withdraw their consent.

Oh Vox, you’re so full of shit! First, it is a religious issue. Here is how people in the Bahamas are justifying the same position Vox is taking:

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

“Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape,” he said.

“I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?” asked Ms. Sweeting.

Do you see a trend her Vox? Each and every opponent is specifically invoking the Bible or the church in their twisted opposing of the law. You’re only being a bit smarter (or more cowardly one may say) than them by not publicly voicing the same sentiment.

Secondly, your army analogy is too stupid to even waste time on it, but alas I must unless I be accused of not addressing your point. Consent takes many forms, but usually what one consents too is specified before said consent is given. In the army case you consent to join with the knowledge that you can only leave under certain circumstances. It is not an at will relationship. In a marriage consent is also given with specific knowledge, and being a sex slave to your husband’s desires is not part of what most women consent to, and claiming otherwise is patently stupid and can only be defended with equally stupid arguments…or religious ones. Pick and choose your poison!

The attempt to create a legal concept of “marital rape” is no less than an attempt to destroy the basic concept of marriage. If the husband or the wife has no more claim to the spouse’s body than anyone else, then the marital vows are meaningless and the marriage is a charade. Once consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended.

There goes the “they’re redefining marriage” nonsense again! When will you stop with the bullshit Vox? You just contradicted everything you said so far. If once “consent is withdrawn, the marriage has ended” is true as you say, then the moment the wife does not consent to sex the marriage is over, thus the husband no longer can have her; she is no longer his property which is basically the point you’re trying to drive home, thus the using of the force to take her constitutes rape! And this is by using your logic! See this is what happens when you try to prostitute logic and reason to your predetermined conclusions, you get egg on your face! Most sane people do not constitute non-consent on specific occasion to mean marriage is over, thus the term marital rape. Still married and being raped by your husband. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

But, once married, neither husband nor wife has the right to reject the other’s marital claims. This does not mean that it is wise for anyone to abuse one’s marital rights, as doing so on a regular basis will tend to lead to the legally correct abrogation of those rights. One is always free to respect the other’s wishes and refrain from exercising one’s rights in the same way that most Americans fail to exercise their right to bear arms most of the time. But failing to exercise one’s rights is not the same as failing to possess them.

Oh I see, so only raping your wife on a regular basis is an issue, a rape here a rape there are all part of a healthy marriage right? And one is not always “free to respect the other’s wishes” one is bound to respect the other’s wishes, especially when the other’s body is at stake! And stop with these false analogies that only make you look stupider than I think you are. The right to bear arms has been specifically given to Americans; the right to unlimited access to my wife’s body has not been given to me, specifically or not! Come on Vox, you can’t be that dumb!

Men contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective brides on this issue. If a woman believes in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry her!

Yes Dr. Phil! I actually would like to take this chance to turn this piece of crap advice around. Women contemplating marriage would be wise to sound out their prospective husbands on this issue. If a man does not believe in the concept of marital rape, absolutely do not marry him! Oh, and post Facebook updates on the jerk so no other woman can fall prey to him!

That the “marital rape” concept is not only legally oxymoronic, but deeply undesirable for both sexes, is exemplified by its implications for sex that by definition precludes consent. Let’s face it, any man or woman who believes in the criminalization of wake-me-up sex is not an individual with whom any decently hedonistic being would want to be saddled for a lifetime.

This is moronic! Not being raped is deeply undesirable? Yeah, I remember reading about all those women who had the misfortune of being almost raped and had to live with the void that a missed opportunity at a good rape leaves behind. Now on to the “wake-me-up sex” thing. I can only assume that what Vox means is the practice of gently waking up your sleeping partner so that the two can engage in sweet lovemaking! Sweet!  Unfortunately, reason fails Vox yet again. By definition wake-me-up sex involves waking up the other person, so that one may proceed to have consensual sex with them. He’s talking as if he thinks it means inserting your penis into a sleeping woman without waking her up, or her knowing what has happened, kinda like in the date-rape scenario. The former is perfectly fine Vox, because a recently woken person can still give consent, or not! The second is rape.  Should I draw a diagram for you Vox?

Skepquote of the day

Posted in Skepquote by Skepdude on August 19, 2009

It looks to me as if being brought up with a belief in the literal truth of a misogynistic document like the Bible can inculcate the evil idea that women are possessions, and that marriage is an act of handing over a woman’s bill of sale to a man. I thought a wife was a partner, not a slave.

PZ Myers

Child rape survivor saves ‘virgin myth’ victims

Posted in News by Skepdude on June 8, 2009


Hope was 14 years old when her uncle raped her.

Betty Makoni founded the Girl Child Network to help Zimbabwe's young sexual abuse victims.

Betty Makoni founded the Girl Child Network to help Zimbabwe’s young sexual abuse victims.

“He trapped me to the ground and covered my mouth with his hand,” said the 18-year-old from Zimbabwe. “He threatened to kill me if I ever told anybody.”

So, she kept quiet.

“After a while people around the villages started saying that I looked pregnant,” she said.

Hope was not only pregnant, but her uncle had infected her with HIV.

Like many young girls in Zimbabwe, Hope was the victim of a widely held belief that if a man with HIV or AIDS rapes a virgin he will be cured of his disease. This so-called virgin myth, perpetuated by Zimbabwe’s traditional healers, has led to the rape of hundreds of girls, according to UNICEF. Some of those victims are too young to walk, much less protect themselves.

Betty Makoni has fought for nearly a decade to protect her country’s young girls from sexual abuse. And she’s witnessed some of the worst cases of the myth in action.

“The youngest girl I ever came across was a day-old baby who was raped,” said Makoni, 37.

Through her Girl Child Network (GCN), Makoni has helped rescue 35,000 girls from abuse — including Hope; thousands more have found an empowering community and a public forum in which to speak out.

“Ten girls per day report rape cases,” she said. “It means if we keep quiet, at least 3,600 girls per year may just be contracting HIV and AIDS.”

Makoni’s own tragic experiences fuel her fierce determination.


The immorality of the Catholic Church

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on March 5, 2009

In Brazil at least. A 9 year old was allegedly raped by her stepfather and impregnated with twins. It was decided that it was on her best interest to abort the fetuses.

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound girl.

“She is very small. Her uterus doesn’t have the ability to hold one, let alone two children,” Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

This would make perfect sense to any rational brain that has not been poisoned by religious dogma of course.

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section.

“It’s the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder,” Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.

I see, it is the law of God. And he must work in mysterious ways if he allows a pervert to rape a 9 year old, and if that wasn’t bad enough allows her to get pregnant, and if that wasn’t bad enough allows her to get pregnant with twins, and if that wasn’t bad enough allows this to happen in a time in her life when her body cannot properly handle a pregnancy, and if that wasn’t bad enough wants to force her to go through with the pregnancy that her little body can’t handle without very probable permanent damage.

All knowing, all loving, right? And this is the being that we are supposed to get our morals from? Tell me this dear Catholics , do you agree with Mr. Miranda the asshole? Is this stupid idiot’s statement, morality in your eyes? Is this morality in your God’s eyes? Are you not ashamed that this person is speaking on behalf of Christians? Because if you’re not, you deserve to suffer  not  this poor little girl. You know the only times where I hope there is a just God is when people like Mr. Miranda open their foul mouths, because then I would know that he would in fact burn in hell for eternity. Unfortunately, that does not seem very probable.