Saturday, April 6, 2013

On misogyny

A woman at Susan's place made some very forthright statements accusing a onetime female blogger of misogyny.  I considered each of them.
1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

Emotional and physical abuse is not valid grounds for a Christian to divorce his spouse. The only valid reason for the Christian to divorce is sexual immorality on the part of the spouse. To claim otherwise is provably false.

2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet.

3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually. The only acceptable reason is for prayer, and then for a short time only. It is eminently clear that your morality, such as it is, is Churchian, it is neither Christian nor Biblical.

4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

It is no more misogynous to assert that women should not be granted the privilege of voting than it is hateful to children or foreigners to assert neither of them should be given the privilege.

5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

This is certainly impolite and perhaps even inaccurate. But not necessarily indicative of hate.

6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

This is indicative of potential misogyny. It’s also stupid. Men are superior in many ways. And women are superior in many ways.

7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

This is not misogyny, these are simple and easily verified facts.

72 comments:

I define me said...

Vox, could you reference scripture supporting "It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually." Not because I disagree, but for ammo against churchianity in the future.

RJJ7 said...

@I define me

I think Vox may be referencing I Corinthians 7:4-5.

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

As always, read up on the surrounding context, as people can wriggle the words around to say just about anything, if you give them the rope.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a sensible legal arrangement would be to deny the vote to anyone belonging to a household in which income is more than half paid by the government. Too much "skin in the game" for fair voting.

Jehu said...

The case from Scripture for Vox's position on this issue is pretty much airtight, as is the weight of Tradition. When Scripture and Tradition both agree, Zeitgeist is to be crushed like a bug. When it isn't, you've got churches full of heretics being taught by worse heretics. Who was it that said that Hell is paved with the skulls of priests?

DaveD said...

I keep having the discussion about divorce/remarriage. There are 3 reasons, count them: THREE, that a formerly married person can get remarried and it NOT be adultery. Sexual immorality, your spouse divorces you because of your faith, your spouse is dead. An argument could be made that if the 1st marriage and divorce were before you got saved, its under the blood like everything else and start fresh.

Misogyny: Anything that makes a woman feel bad about women.

DD

Anonymous said...

The work around I've seen for I Corinthians 7:4-5 is to focus on the wife having power over the husband's body. Since she has this power, she can say 'no sex for the husband's body' and be following scripture.

Anonymous said...

"Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body."

Vox: "Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet."

This is an important point often lost on married couples, especially on married women.

For a man, sex is really the only tangible benefit marriage gives him. Anything else he gets from a marriage are either burdens or can be obtained without tethering himself to a wife. For example: it's often said that children are a benefit to a man. It seems crass to say it, but children are every bit the burden that they are the benefit, at least to a man. Children are a source of great joy to a parent. But it falls to the father to see that his children are fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, civilized, controlled, disciplined, played with, nursed, protected, cured from illnesses and diseases, and provided with medical care.

It's said a wife gives a man companionship. But a man can (and should) seek out companionship with other men. It's also said a wife keeps a home for her husband; but he doesn't need to marry for that either. He can keep a house himself or hire others to do it for him.

It's also said a man can get sex outside of marriage. Some, perhaps even many, can. But sex outside marriage can be fleeting and transient, and ultimately unpredictable and unreliable. It's also not morally acceptable for the Christian man.

This is why up until the middle part of the 20th century most US states had no laws outlawing marital rape. A woman under those laws was held to give standing consent to sex to her husband. He was entitled to sex from his wife, and she was required to provide it to him.

Now, we have told men that they are not entitled even to the most fundamental building block of marriage, its raison d'etre for a man, and its sine qua non for a man -- sex. We've told men that they can't expect sex from a wife at reasonable intervals. So even this one thing, this one benefit, that a man gets from marriage, he is now being told he has no right to it.

Why, pray tell, would any man marry at all if he cannot expect the one thing, the one benefit, he gets from the deal?

Just last year Vox had a post on this blog about a man who wanted a promise from his betrothed that she'd have sex with him at least twice a week. She balked at it. I don't know if they married, but the point is that men, especially Christian men, marry for exclusive sexual access to one woman. Men are not going to marry and take themselves off the market if they can't even get a reasonable guarantee that the one benefit available to them won't be reasonably available.

Why should any man marry a woman who can't guarantee the man she loves that she'll have sex with him? Why should any woman expect any man to marry her under those circumstances?

deti

GF Dad said...

I have a friend who decided that her highly narcissistic , hard drinking (and probably aspergers) husband was a danger to her and her daughters. She claimed that she had prayed about it and god was okay with her leaving. I cautioned her that she could leave for a season, but reconciliation must be the goal and that remarriage wasn't an option unless he had committed fornication. She gave me the standard line that it was in god's hands.
That was over a year ago and she has shared with me and my wife the gory details of her spouse's actions since then. I don't disagree with her - the guy is a jerk and I have seen her grow as a Christian the past few months and he hasn't. But she told me she had filed for divorce back in March.
I believe her when she tells us she thinks it is god's will for her to divorce and I also believe there isn't another man involved, but I've told my wife that a hamster bathed in prayer can still be a hamster.

I define me said...

lets say a female denies sexual access, is a man free to pursue other women? Despite what church preaching says, I found no biblical evidence that a man may have only one wife.

Cail Corishev said...

Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

This is the usual bait-and-switch, with the second sentence talking about something different from the first. It doesn't follow logically to say that, because a woman is obligated to provide her husband with sex on demand, he has a right to force her. But that's the logical leap they always make: if she's obligated, then he has the right to rape her anytime she says, "Could we wait until later; I need to take this cake out of the oven in 5 minutes." Decent people don't want women to be raped, so they water down her obligation or pretend it doesn't exist.

I just finished some work for a client, and now he's obligated to pay me. If he refuses to pay me, I don't have the right to break into his house and hold his kids for ransom until he coughs up the dough. He's breaking a contract, and I have recourse through the law to pursue that, but not carte blanche to take it however I want.

So it seems reasonable, in the case of the marital debt, to say that the wife's obligation doesn't give the husband a right to rape her. If she withholds sex unreasonably, she's breaking the marriage contract. The problem today is that the husband is the one who has no recourse, because the law gives him no way to either enforce the contract or renege on his side of it, because the courts don't recognize her obligation even if she states it in the vows. He can't withhold the support that he promised in exchange for sex, so he's just out of luck.

William Smith said...

Vox,
You noted that:
"Emotional and physical abuse is not valid grounds for a Christian to divorce his spouse. The only valid reason for the Christian to divorce is sexual immorality on the part of the spouse. To claim otherwise is provably false."

My understanding of things is that when Jesus makes the claim that there is no grounds for divorce except for πορνεια in Matthew 5:32, he means more than just fornication. The most immediate supporting evidence for this is 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 where Paul says that if a Christian is left by an unbelieving spouse they are "not enslaved" or "not under obligation (7:15)." If this is so, then it seems that Paul allows for an interpretation of Jesus' statement which extends the valid grounds of divorce beyond simple sexual misconduct. Though I suppose that an unbelieving spouse who leaves is ultimately immediately suspect in that regard.

In general though, the average Christian pays no regard to Jesus' words or Paul's interpretation of them. The most common reason for divorce I've heard is "it was too hard." Which is interesting because Jesus makes the point in Matthew 5-7 that those who build their lives on his word (including his word about divorce) will be able to weathering all storms (including the last judgment).

Geoff

Cail Corishev said...

I believe her when she tells us she thinks it is god's will for her to divorce and I also believe there isn't another man involved, but I've told my wife that a hamster bathed in prayer can still be a hamster.

No kidding. It must be nice to have a direct hotline to the Big Guy like that, so you don't have to check with any authority figures more knowledgeable than yourself, or look to see if what you're planning is in accord with Christ's teaching. Just pray about it until one day it "feels right" to do what you wanted to do all along, and assume that's the Spirit working in your gut and not last night's lasagna.

I know, I'm being flippant, and behold the massive power of prayer and all that. But if that's all you're going by, while ignoring any other source of guidance (because those might contradict you, usually), then yeah, your hamster is probably gonna start to sound divine after a while. That's just human nature.

Danger Will Robinson said...

I believe her when she tells us she thinks it is god's will for her to divorce and I also believe there isn't another man involved, but I've told my wife that a hamster bathed in prayer can still be a hamster.

At all costs, keep this creature from socializing with your wife. Once a woman gets stuck in the divorced briar patch she starts looking for others to join her.

Rex Little said...

the courts don't recognize her obligation even if she states it in the vows. He can't withhold the support that he promised in exchange for sex

As the marriage contract is defined and enforced by law in the US today, it isn't an agreement to exchange support for sex. It has nothing to do with sex. Anyone over the age of consent is legally free to have sex with any consenting adult (one exception: incest), or to refuse sex, regardless of the marital status (or the gender) of either party. As for support, the contract imposes that obligation on the husband only if he makes more money than the wife; if she makes more, she's the one who will be paying support in the event of a divorce.

Marriage has nothing to do with child support either; your legal rights and obligations with respect to your children are the same whether or not you're married (or were ever married) to their other parent.

The (legal) marriage contract today is really just an agreement to form a two-person economic partnership, to pool resources and share them equally while that partnership lasts, and to divide them in a legally specified way if it dissolves. Because of this, there's really no reason to object to a (secular) marriage between two men, two women, or indeed any two adult human beings.

GF Dad said...

Cail Corishev - Her pastor even endorsed her decision. To his credit, I think he had no option when she played the "I fear my life and my daughters' lives may be in danger" card. I even had to tell her that if she actually believed that, yes, she had no choice, but we urged her to make sure her emotions weren't lying to her.
I wonder if that "danger" card may be (and I am not saying it is, I don't know) the "committed" Christian woman's version of "I'm not haaaaapy."?
I explored this line of thought with her: He has always been a narcissistic jerk, but that was also attractive to her and having met him, I can see what she liked - he's aloof, a little bit cold, seems to command whatever frame he enters. But as he got older and didn't fare so well in the triathlons he entered, lost his job for almost two years, the tingle left her. His constant negs ceased to turn her on and became "abuse". The narcissistic behavior didn't register as alpha to her hamster any more and became selfishness.
So, maybe the rationalization hamster got to work and pieced together a tapestry where the behaviors that were exciting when they got married became dangerous and threatening and a reason to divorce that no reasonable person could argue against. Throw in the children's safety and the chairman of the deacons will hold her hand and testify during the custody hearing. The hamster cracks its knuckles and congratulates itself for a job well done.
Or he could be a homicidal manic bent on the destruction of his family.

SarahsDaughter said...

6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

This is indicative of potential misogyny. It’s also stupid. Men are superior in many ways. And women are superior in many ways


She misrepresents here. But like a woman and solipsism, is offended by any measure of recognizing men's strengths unless equal/more time is spent discussing women's strengths.

SSM often lauded women. Just not all of them and, well, we can't have that.

GF Dad said...

Danger Will Robinson - Thank you for that - I have my concerns, but when she tells my wife the things that her hubby does, my SMV appears to go up. Also, my wife and I have discussed everything I have said here and she understands what may be going on. They're not friends apart from my long time relationship with this woman and they visit with each other when our kids have activities together.

Father of 10 said...

I have to disagree with Vox on #1. I don't think Jesus said it is okay to divorce after adultery. Read it, he said if you divorce for any reason other than adultery that you cause the other person to commit adultery. In effect you are forcing your former spouse to commit adultery by divorcing them. If they were already an adulterer then you can't force them to become something they already are. That is the distinction he was making.

Yes, I am saying that adultery does not allow divorce according to Jesus. I don't believe there is any legitimate reason for a Christian to INITIATE divorce. Separation with chastity is probably okay if there is legitimate reason to fear for her life or the safety of the children.

There is forgiveness for our sins and divorce is included in that forgiveness.

GF Dad said...

Let me clarify something. When I said, " I believe her when she tells us she thinks it is god's will for her to divorce...", I meant that I believe that she sincerely believes god is okay with her plan. I don't really believe God told her that.
"The hamster is strong with this one."

tz said...

"are 4o and" fix me!

When you say Divorce - there are two distinct meanings (including a legal version). The first is a separation of a dangerous, abusive spouse. The second is the invalidity of the marriage (which is what Catholic annulment is about). It is different for pagans, but Marriage (between two baptized persons) is a sacrament - God is part of the equation, or look up "Three to Get Married" by Fulton J Sheen - it is online (at ewtn.com iirc).

If "no marriage took place" because it was not fully voluntary, there is nothing to dissolve. If a marriage takes place, until the death of the spouse (regardless of separation), you cannot marry another.

The spouses own each other's bodies, marriage is an exchange of persons, not property. They are supposed to be giving themselves totally to each other.

Speaking of early withdrawal and extreme penalties:

3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually. The only acceptable reason is for prayer, and then for a short time only. It is eminently clear that your morality, such as it is, is Churchian, it is neither Christian nor Biblical.


The "acting enthusiastic" might be a stretch, but making it so the spouse cannot enjoy it is wrong. It recalls the Scene in the first part of Atlas Shrugged (nothing explicit) between Hank Rearden and his wife Lillian - who goes back to reading her book.

Is it an andro-archy or patri-archy. Men or Father?

This is one of the core splits in the church over contraception.

Let me ask it this way - can the husband (or wife) insist on the other using contraception so that the sex will be "safe"? Or even demand it? For those whe aren't bothered by it, can one spouse insist on having an abortion if the child was "an accident"?

NFP couples almost never divorce, because they respect the power of fertility and the body of the woman - the husband cannot just "use" the wife. "I need to satisfy my urges tonight" is a very different desire than "I'd like to try to become a parent tonight" or even "I'd like to embrace you tonight, but we've talked, so do we have to talk tonight or can we go farther?".

The conflict over denying spouses starts when God the Father - who creates new souls - is denied access to the bedroom. Yet what does it mean to be willfully apart from God?

Casti Connubi, Humanae Vitae, or the deeper and clearer Theology of the Body is the answer, but to a question most prefer not to ask.

Cail Corishev said...

I wonder if that "danger" card may be (and I am not saying it is, I don't know) the "committed" Christian woman's version of "I'm not haaaaapy."?

Perhaps, but fear for your life only justifies physical separation, at least in the Christian context. It doesn't justify divorce.

I can't tell for sure from your comment, but it sounds like she's still living with him -- or at least spending time with him, since she's talking about how he's treating her -- while she works up justification for divorcing him. That's not the act of someone living in fear. Were that the case, she'd pack up the kid and some clothes and get out of there, and figure out the rest later.

GF Dad said...

"I can't tell for sure from your comment, but it sounds like she's still living with him". No, she left in February of '12. The abuse was strictly mental then and she said she left for her daughters. Now, she fears the physical danger side of the equation.
I agree with you - unless pornea/fornication on the part of her husband is involved, her divorce isn't biblical.

Anonymous said...

deti
Receive a rousing ovation from me. Most women especially 1st world advanced East Asian and Western Women particularly American women have no idea how worse than useless they have become because of idiotic feminism, They do not know nor understand that without vaginas to please men and a uterus to bear children for the next generation of humans why would any man with any sense bother with them. You are quite correct in your assertion that a man can get all these other things men need or want from other men. All too often, other men are better at providing these things. Most men especially 1st world men particularly American men have been brainwashed to think they need women more than women need men. It is the opposite in my opinion because when push comes to shove, men are the protectors of women in the past, the present and in the forsee-able future, and without the mental castrati white knight manginas plus progandization, women would know this. Without government assistance, the technology and a culture to support it in our in many ways artificial world, the state of (primitive) nature would resume and women would see how much men provide. The blogger called The Fifth Horseman once demonstrated how most tax money and corporate set asides are taken from men through deception and coercion and given to women.
doclove

marenostrum said...

I don't know how Vox can say that divorce is permissible for Christians in the case of adultery: I remember that in gospel of Luke and Mark divorce is forbidden by Christ (without that famed term from Matthew, porneia in greek; anyway, the most probable interpretation is that it forbids marrying between related persons; see interdictions for marriage between relatives from Moses Law, in Leviticus and/or Deuteronomy; Matthew wrote primarily for a Jewish audience so that's why he insisted more than the other evangelists on Jewish rules and customs; as a rule, when in doubt, ask the Church, and do not make a private interpretation) and the His followers reply "Then who can do it?" bewildered at this drastic response of the Lord.

Cail Corishev said...

Well, as someone who was accused of "mental abuse," I don't want to say it's always nonsense, but in most cases I think it boils down to, "he doesn't make me feel safe anymore." Which could be for all sorts of reasons. In my case, I somehow did it without ever once raising my voice or using a swear word; somehow saying "sure" instead of "yes" became passive-aggressive abuse. I think the kind of person who is capable of strictly mental torture is pretty rare.

I guess I'd wonder why she fears physical abuse if it never happened when she still lived there. I'd wonder whether she have any evidence that he would hit someone, or if she's spent the last year convincing herself he might so she has more justification (in most people's minds).

In any case, it wouldn't be very pleasant to tell someone, "Sorry, it doesn't matter if he beats you and your kid. You can move out and get a restraining order, but you're going to be married to him until one of you dies, and you don't get a retry with someone else in the meantime. Deal with it." It's no wonder very few pastors still lay it out that way -- it'd be a good way to find yourself without a flock.

Anonymous said...

Rex Little

This is all nice in theory. It is also a deception. One can say or write whatever he wants, but by their actions you shall know them.

Alimony was reduced in the 1980s, but is making a bit of a comeback or so it seems to me. Who is percentage-wise more likely to receive alimony, men or women? Even adjusting for women making more than men in comparing men making the same amount of money in divorces, who is more likely to collect alimony, and who is more likely to collect a higher payment of alimony, men or women?

Concerning child support, you can look at the statistics. who is the child generally speaking as in about 90% or more placed with the mother or the father. Who collects the most amount of child support, men or women? Who is more likely to renege on child support payments even though they have the money to pay, men or women? Who is more likely to pay higher child support payments even though both men and women are in the same financial bracket and get paid the same, men or women? Is child rearing between the child spending half his time at the father's home and half the time in the mother's home when the parents are either not married or no longer married?

Now try telling me this isn't a misandry system designed to punish men for being men and reward women for being women concerning alimony and child support. Go ahead. Lie to me. Lie to everyone else. Finally and most importantly, lie to yourself. I and others who read this blog await your response. The gauntlet has been thrown.

doclove

Devils_Advocate said...

So, putting a few of these principles together:

Vox, if you wake up one sunny Saturday morning and see your wife standing at the foot of the bed wearing a well-lubricated strap-on, is it your moral and spiritual obligation to bend over and let her go at it, even if you will derive little pleasure from the proceedings?

And if she decided to not even wait for you to wake up before getting started, or had the idea one night while you were in a drunken stupor or otherwise unable to provide explicit consent, that would be fine, right?

Just checking.

Anonymous said...

GF Dad

I will state the principle learning lesson from your story about the divorcing woman. Let this be a lesson for all men. Once you men lose too much ability to protect, provide and GAME your women then you will lose them and quite often in a harsh way. Even losing too much of one will probably do this. Losing two will cause you to lose them even more and faster and in a harsher way. Losing all three means you better buckle up because it will be faster and harsher than losing two. Remember that each individual woman will have her own threshold she will not tolerate you going below. Your modern 1st world especially American Woman will not have empathy or sympathy for you typically speaking. Men won't be much better. Other women in the world would be more like American women if the laws, culture and social norms were different and more restraining of their nature of hypergamy. Even the weakest most despised and most vulnerable woman has no idea how much better she has it than a man who is the weakest, most despised and most vulnerable. Women have better safety nets. For men, it's succeed or be destroyed.

doclove

Rex Little said...

Anonymous, you seem to be attacking positions I didn't come close to taking. Of course, women get most of the custody of children and collect most of the child support, and I certainly don't object to calling this a "misandry system." All I'm saying is, it works the same way whether or not the parents were ever married.

Anonymous said...

I meant to say above, "Other women in the world would be more like American women on average if the laws, culture and social norms were different by restraining their nature of hypergamy more than American women." in the third sentence from the bottom.

doclove

MrGreenMan said...

So, #6 is the only one that can fall outside of either provable reality (like #7) or the clear and long-understood reading of Scriptures, and #6 is a matter of opinion -- women are just funny in their desire to squash anyone who disagrees with them or makes them feel offended.

If she has an issue with #6, she should also consider the public screwall indoctrination that swept through America in the 80s and 90s with the teaching the "girls are just better" because they sit quietly and comply with what the state's representative tells them to do.

She's just another female supremacist who wants women to be men with a little bit more, as opposed to something different from men. You know, a long distance runner and a short distance runner are usually not superior at the other's specialization. It's infantile to imagine that differences does not mean disparate specialties. Perhaps this woman is so deluded by love of self that she cannot accept anything different as having value?

Anonymous said...

Rex Little

Fair enough. You know this is a misandrist system. I'm not trying to attack positions you didn't take. You are certainly correct that child support works the same for the most part whether one is divorced with legitimate children or has bastard children for the man, and that women get custody nearly every time. I'm simply pointing out that in practice, this is a system of misandry even if by the law, culture and enforcement technically speaking in theory it is less so or not at all. There's theory told, in practice what is really done, and by their actions you shall know them. Maybe you and I agree more than I origionally thought!

doclove

MrGreenMan said...

SSM made a solid case for being on "team civilization", much like Alpha Game's charter, and not something I've ever seen Susan Walsh publish as her goal. SSM in particular made a clear line in her post about how she wasn't moved to make sure players got sexual access, but rather that the building block of Western civilization - the Biblical family order - was restored.

We had a adult Sunday school class working through Ephesians, and our octagenarian elder eventually got to Ephesians 5. At least he saw the light that 5:21 does not belong to 5:22 onwards. However, he still got a little wobbly about saying in front of a mixed sex group that women should submit to their husbands. One of our happier married women spoke up to say, "It seems like somebody has to be in charge, and God chose the man, who happened to be made first, and is the federal head of his family. What am I to do - wish I was a man?" What a misogynist!

Matthew said...

Devils_Advocate has confused sodomy with copulation. Possibly because Devils_Advocate knows only the former.

Loki of Asgard said...

Devils_Advocate has confused sodomy with copulation. Possibly because Devils_Advocate knows only the former.

Considering how often "playas" and other dispensers of "relationship advice" express an enthusiasm therefor, can you blame him for being confused?

DW said...

Father of 10 is right about divorce and remarriage. He gives the Catholic Church's, i.e. the authoritative, teaching.

Loki of Asgard said...

He gives the Catholic Church's, i.e. the authoritative, teaching.

If you are Catholic.

DW said...

No, authority doesn't come from me.

Brad Andrews said...

> And women are superior in many ways.

That is a truth I find mentioned very little in the red pill sphere. Not that we need to focus on that all the time, but it is good to mention it here.

====

Would separation from a truly abusive spouse (physical abuse) violate the "no depriving" rule?

Must a woman live in a situation where she is under true threat of losing her or the children's lives? (Considering such a situation and applying it to emotional abuse makes poor law though.)

Would the Scripture

Mat 18:17 NKJV - "And if he refuses to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

imply any freedom from those who refuse to repent of gross sin, such as the physical abuse noted above? (This could also be easily abused even if valid.)

What must someone who has divorced and remarried do to be Scripturally accurate?

Just some thoughts I had.

Loki of Asgard said...

No, authority doesn't come from me.

Reading comprehension is not the strong suit of your denomination, I see.

GF Dad said...

Brad Andrews - excellent question. All I can do is council anyone in a similar situation what Jesus said: unless adultery is involved, divorce and remarriage isn't allowed. But, later after a divorce occurs, I have no idea how to balance my understanding of what scripture says about divorce with verses that say things like (and I am not quoting, so forgive me if I get this wrong), " it's not good for man to be alone" and "it's better to marry than burn(in lust?).
Also, I need to disqualify myself from this. My first wife committed adultery and I divorced her on the grounds of that. I remarried and have been married for 20+ years, but to many who don't accept the exception clause, my wife and I have been living in sin for all those years. I say this in the name of full disclosure amd because I may be wrong about this.

Anonymous said...

This is the kind of shit that gives the manosphere a bad name "Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given."

Bullshit. Being married doesn't give consent for forced sex.

There is no God. Fuck religion, and fuck this stupid bs.

MrGreenMan said...

@Anonymous 5:18 pm: This is not some new manosphere position. This was the orthodox understanding before around 1970. Phyllis Schlafly said this same thing that marital rape does not exist forty years ago; it's high on the list of why she's hated by third wavers. To what does the wife consent at marriage if it is not to sexual availability to her husband? Most states had legal clarity until the last 30 or 40 years that marital rape was a contradiction in terms.

It's not unconsensual sex. She already consented to have sex with her husband. That's one of the promises when she got married to him. If she wants to say yes or no each time, then she shouldn't get married; she should live a life of easy, breezy fornication.

Can the husband decide he won't provide for his wife this week? Or did he consent to provide for her for the rest of her life in the union? The courts tend to believe he has irrevocable consent to provide for her materially.

mmaier2112 said...

Idiot Anon: "There is no God. Fuck religion, and fuck this stupid bs."

Well then fuck off and leave. Your stupid immaturity shan't be missed, trust me.

Rex Little said...

Stipulating that marriage constitutes consent to sex, there's still a legitimate question (as noted by Carl Corishev above) as to what the husband's recourse should be if his wife withdraws that consent. Physical force? Withdrawal of support? Adultery? Sit tight and pray for God to change her mind?

Does the Bible have anything to say on this specific question?

tz said...

I've covered the problem with the procreative, but the unitive aspect is if anything worse.

Roissy and Rollo and the rest rarely manage to achieve even Eros. They are marketing the solution to getting your itch scratched. And yes, the women are contemptible, but that is the pagan world. Eros is at least love of a low form, but even that is beyond the PUAs. Eros can be transcendent, and there were great lusts, Dante's 3rd level of hell. Lancelot and Guinevere. It isn't even that. Not even close.

In John 13, a passage in the lectionary around this time:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This was directly from Jesus. In red. To the disciples. Clear. Simple.

So if you try to interpret any other commandments, and the interpretation is inconsistent with loving (agape) one another, the interpretation is wrong. I write this on the vigil of Divine Mercy Sunday where God's greatest attribute is celebrated by accepting - actively receiving - his mercy and letting him take our sins.

But let me translate what the "duty" is, if the husband and wife (I will assume the husband desires sex and the wife doesn't as that is the normal case and will leave it to the readers to mirror the words).

To my wife: I know I'm supposed to love you. Sacrificially. With my will so it shouldn't have to do anything with whether you are lovely or not. But I need to satisfy my urges at the moment. So if you aren't in the mood I will simply treat you as an object. With contempt. As a sex toy. Rejoice - I prefer jacking off with you instead of in the shower! But it is all about me. The bible commands you to satisfy me, even if I cause you severe pain or you are made physically ill - it is still your duty. No matter what. I'll respect you in the morning, but for now just submit.

To my husband: I pray for the grace not to treat you with the same contempt you treat me. Each day you turn more into a loathsome monster and I am duty bound to see Christ somewhere within that horror, and submit and love that tiny spark instead of the large mass of an abuser who cares nothing for and does not respect me, my body, my feelings, or anything else but your own selfish desires. To you I am an object to be used for your pleasure and I cease to be a person a bit more each day. I will continue the pretense as long as I can, and I promised "for worse", "in sickness", "for poor", and you are testing it but had I known I would have said "no". So lets get on with it, "Dear, do it again...".

tz said...

(continued)

I'm not sure where this view of "Christian marriage" comes from (not heaven!), but it is not anything I recognize as mutual self-giving. That each is giving to each other, and each has to accept the gift. That sex is an expression of Agape - Not "I need to satisfy MY itch", but "I love you so much i wish to express it in the most profound way possible by giving myself - all of myself - to you, voluntarily and without reservation and accept your gift of self".

You cannot love (agape) a person and use them, nor can you love a person and let yourself be used. Using a person represents contempt. Allowing yourself to be used will breed contempt and destroy love. Yet that is what the interpretation apparently is. If you wish to destroy your marriage, just start using instead of loving your spouse. Seeing how much you can take instead of give.

This happens with Betas when the woman is using them. Why do you think the woman being used wouldn't become equally contemptuous? Mutual exploitation?

Yet isn't this mutual exploitation what the Christian Manosphere is saying is the ideal? Not love but use one another? They will know we are disciples by the contempt and objectification for those closest to us whom we have made vows to? Which Gospel is this? Roissy and the others do even this. Where is Christ in this? Why no higher standard? Is Christianity a label with no power or difference?

(I will only accept the wife who is trying to play her role to convert the backsliding husband - but at some point it ceases to be calling the husband to repentance, and instead reinforces him in his sin).

If you take the command to "except for a time, by mutual agreement to put God first, do not cease giving to each other", instead of "except for a time, by mutual agreement, see who can exploit the other", it makes more sense and is consistent with Jesus' command above.

We are to take up our cross daily to follow Jesus. We are to daily give ourselves to our family. Give, not take. We have free will and can take just as Even and Adam took the fruit. We can withhold a bit just as Ananias and Sapphira did. But that shows we don't first love God, and aren't obeying him first.

Jesus said to St. Faustina: "Yes, the first Sunday after Easter is the Feast of Mercy, but there must also be deeds of mercy, which are to arise out of love for Me. You are to show mercy to our neighbors always and everywhere. You must not shrink from this or try to absolve yourself from it."

That is what we ought to do this Sunday. Our spouses are among those numbered as our "neighbors".

OffTheCuff said...

Devils_Advocate is no him, i know that writing style anywhere.

Matthew said...

What, is it Taylor?

VD said...

I'm not sure where this view of "Christian marriage" comes from (not heaven!), but it is not anything I recognize as mutual self-giving. That each is giving to each other, and each has to accept the gift. That sex is an expression of Agape - Not "I need to satisfy MY itch", but "I love you so much i wish to express it in the most profound way possible by giving myself - all of myself - to you, voluntarily and without reservation and accept your gift of self".

I think, to a certain extent, you are missing the point. Let's reduce the civilization-building, species-regenerating power sex to a simple itch, as you have.

Is it loving, is it even simple decency, to refuse to scratch an itch that someone else cannot reach simply because you do not happen to be in the mood to do so?

A said...

My wife has turned me down for sex before, and I've turned her down for sex occasionally (mostly when it's late, I'm tired, and my sex drive is very low). I am going to try and make an effort to have sex even when I don't feel like it. I think because I am essentially beta with insights into alpha I am fairly lazy about gaming my wife, or any woman, because I'm not a high energy guy who's willing to foreplay every time. I've also started to think that sex is overrated, that it isn't as enjoyable as people make it up to be. It is pleasurable yes, and when you're horny it's the best thing for you, but if you're not feeling the hormones and you're not stimulated it can feel like a chore, I can see now how women who are not very attracted to their husbands can easily go without sex and why it is so important for men, not just women, to stay attractive to his mate.

This leads me to my final rambling thought, which is why some married couples have such a difficult time keeping the sexy flame going; they no longer have to work as hard to get each other in bed, and since they've lost the sort of honeymoon excitement new couples have in bed, or PUA's have with new women, the novelty so to speak, sex loses a lot of its passion and raw pleasure if the married couple don't take care to really turn each other on before initiating. It doesn't take long, if both partners are lazy, for sex to become a physical chore, and since married couples know that they can get sex much more easily than a single person, they don't initiate every opportunity to do so. I had sex with my wife a couple times a day for several days in a row and then went a week and a half without sex without any desire to have it, as if my sex drive vanished because I had so much sex at one time.

Dee said...

So, do Christians have any grounds at all to remove themselves and the kids from a wife or husband who is threatening their lives? Wouldn't this violate the no refusal of sex clause?

Should they just wait until the violent spouse finally mutilates or kills someone in the family and then provide conjugal benefits while the psycho is imprisoned?

Seriously, Vox, what is a husband or wife who is in danger from an insane and/or evil spouse allowed to do?

I'm not taking the piss. I'm actually wondering if Christians should be required to endanger themselves and their children.

DW said...

"Reading comprehension is not the strong suit of your denomination, I see."

It's that I'm two or three steps ahead of you. Do try to keep up!

I do want to ask a serious question, though, if you're willing to indulge me. You're obviously an intelligent Protestant. I used to be a Protestant, and I never thought about this while I was a Protestant. Where does teaching authority come from? Is there any legitimate teaching authority? I know it can't be the Bible since the Bible doesn't claim that for itself.


Loki of Asgard said...

It's that I'm two or three steps ahead of you.

Think you so, if it helps you sleep at night.

Where does teaching authority come from?

I answer your question with a question:

Whence do you claim the authority of Catholicism comes?

And kindly do not make assumptions about me. Your church has long been making assumptions about me. I have yet to forgive you for assuming I am just another "version" of Satan.

Loki of Asgard said...

And furthermore, little mortal, we are well off-topic at this point. Your useless, "hear hear" comment has now received more than the attention it merited.

SarahsDaughter said...

Dee said...

So, do Christians have any grounds at all to remove themselves and the kids from a wife or husband who is threatening their lives? Wouldn't this violate the no refusal of sex clause?

Should they just wait until the violent spouse finally mutilates or kills someone in the family and then provide conjugal benefits while the psycho is imprisoned?

Seriously, Vox, what is a husband or wife who is in danger from an insane and/or evil spouse allowed to do?

I'm not taking the piss. I'm actually wondering if Christians should be required to endanger themselves and their children.


Dee,
When the sun rises in Europe, I hope Vox comments on this. And certainly corrects any point where I'm wrong.

This falls under the need to separate for a time for prayer. Of course a woman must remove herself physically from this situation. However, there is no biblical grounds for divorce.

Why would that be, do you think? I believe there is something very powerful in a wife recognizing her husband is fallen and in need of forgiveness and prayer. If life has brought him to abusive behavior, God must have an idea of what might help this man. And, it must not be divorce that will do it (or there would be a biblical provision for divorce in the case of abuse). The state becoming involved will not help this situation.

A woman should seek out male Christian leadership within her family to make the decisions necessary. If this husband is need of medical help, that Christian man should intercede and encourage the husband to seek the help.

There is no clear time frame of how long sex may be withheld for times of prayer. And you have brought up an extremely rare circumstance. It is curious the desire to discredit the whole command based on this rare circumstance. Your challenge, you realize, is not with what Vox has stated, it is with the Bible. Thus, the answer to this is also found within the Bible.

I have anecdotal evidence of the power of a wife remaining faithful during a time like this within my own family. Being on the other side of 15 years since the abuse occurred, anyone would agree it would have been very sad should she have divorced him. This can be healed and forgiveness can be given.

There are many times a wife's faith and long suffering is desperately needed in order for marriage to be preserved. It requires selfless commitment and hope.

Duke of Earl said...

There is a degree of contextual understanding needed to interpret scriptures. Matthew explains more clearly what was asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?

Now some Jews of the day argued that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. From William Barclay on the teaching of Rabbi Hillel on divorce and the term uncleanness in Deuteronomy 24:1: “They said that it could mean if the wife spoiled a dish of food, if she spun in the streets, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke disrespectfully of her husband’s relations in his hearing, if she was a brawling woman, (who was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next house). Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that it meant if a man found a woman who was fairer in his eyes than his wife was.” Any of these could be grounds for divorce.

Such trivial justifications for divorce would be quite recognisable to those subjected to the modern woman centred divorce system. Jesus endorsed the position of Rabbi Shammai where adultery was the only acceptable grounds for divorce.

It should always be remembered that Semitic teachers didn't spell everything out. Jesus was answering comparisons of two different grounds for divorce, the trivial versus the significant. Which grounds would actual abuse, either by wife or husband fall under? I'd suggest it's more significant than trivial.

SarahsDaughter said...

Duke of Earl,
Let's pretend all a Christian has is the Bible. (Really, do we even have to pretend? For a moment consider how common it is for a Christian to not have anything other than a Bible) What would said Christian be able to discern from that Bible?

Contextual understanding to interpret scripture? It means nothing to most of the world's Christians. If a jungle bunny in the heart of darkness is unable to discern truth, there is no truth to discern.

sunshinemary said...

Regarding #2...

Vox wrote: Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given.

Vox, I agree with you that consent has already been given, but one reason that marital rape is oxymoronic is because of 1 Corinthians 7:4:

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

The Bible says we really do own our spouses' bodies, and I cannot rape myself, therefore I cannot rape my spouse.

Regarding #6
I don't think I ever wrote that men are superior to women in every way, so the woman who accused me of misogyny at HUS is wrong.

Have you ever head the (slightly hokey) expression, "God loves the gays but not their ways"? That is how I feel about modern women. I don't hate women, but I really, really hate how badly modern women behave. I don't think that makes me a misogynist but rather a realist.

Markku said...

It is indeed true that God loves gays, but it is lying by omission to leave it at that. What Jonathan Edwards said, is also true at the same time: "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."

Only God's heart is big enough to hold these two emotions at the same time. Something that's impossible for us to even imagine.

Duke of Earl said...

Sarah's Daughter

Let's pretend all a Christian has is the Bible. (Really, do we even have to pretend? For a moment consider how common it is for a Christian to not have anything other than a Bible) What would said Christian be able to discern from that Bible?

Contextual understanding to interpret scripture? It means nothing to most of the world's Christians. If a jungle bunny in the heart of darkness is unable to discern truth, there is no truth to discern.


And that's how we end up with contextual abominations like Calvinism.

If a jungle bunny in the heart of darkness is unable to discern that the sun is a ball of hydrogen fusing into helium it isn't?

Ironically most of the world's Christians are not white westerners. They generally share some of the collective, high context views that the Biblical writers had. Their contextual understandings are completely different to those of the west. (ref:Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes) That is why historical and cultural context is important. Thankfully the "White Guys Like Us" school of Bible interpretation is an artefact of the past.

Markku, thank you for demonstrating how vile Calvinist doctrine is. When you start to dig into it, it becomes impossible that the God of Calvin's view would ever have bothered to send his son. We read regularly in the Bible that sin grieves God, that he is angry with sinners continually, even that he hates sinners, but the idea that God hates people in such a venomous manner says more about the attitude of Calvin's followers to people, than it does about God's.

That's why the only Calvinist worth learning from is Spurgeon. He had God's heart for people, even if the logical implications of his doctrine would have lead to another position.

Joe said...

I find this idea that scripture must be read contextually to be rather funny. That book was started before there were people, then proceeded through the Jewish nation, and has lasted long after Judah stopped being a nation all together.

God's truth is not subject to human traditions. Human traditions are subject to God's truth. Anything else is a lie from the pit of hell. As for writers of the west not understanding scripture, there were more than a few middle easterners who misread scripture and even attempted to bastardize it in Paul's day no less.

Those words were saved by God Himself so that we could learn from them. They are universal and speak to the evil in the hearts of man, not the society that man lived in. The truth found in them was here long before the nation that wrote them was founded and will be just as immutable long after this earth has faded to nothing. Cultural context be damned.

DW said...

"Whence do you claim the authority of Catholicism comes?"

The non-answer is always the answer to my question. No protestant is ever willing to talk about it. I'm guessing because those who do end up abandoning protestantism.


"And furthermore, little mortal, we are well off-topic at this point. Your useless, "hear hear" comment has now received more than the attention it merited."

We're only a little off topic, but that's fine. I'm glad you couldn't resist.

Joe said...

@DW

" Where does teaching authority come from? Is there any legitimate teaching authority? I know it can't be the Bible since the Bible doesn't claim that for itself. "

2 Timothy 3:16

In the future, you should read the thing before attempting to beat people up with it.

SarahsDaughter said...

Hmm, seems even a jungle bunny could read that verse...

It must....must be more complicated than that, eh Catholics?

Duke of Earl said...

2 Timothy 3:16

And what counted as "scripture" when that verse was written?

I find this idea that scripture must be read contextually to be rather funny. That book was started before there were people, then proceeded through the Jewish nation, and has lasted long after Judah stopped being a nation all together.

God's truth is not subject to human traditions. Human traditions are subject to God's truth. Anything else is a lie from the pit of hell. As for writers of the west not understanding scripture, there were more than a few middle easterners who misread scripture and even attempted to bastardize it in Paul's day no less.

Those words were saved by God Himself so that we could learn from them. They are universal and speak to the evil in the hearts of man, not the society that man lived in. The truth found in them was here long before the nation that wrote them was founded and will be just as immutable long after this earth has faded to nothing. Cultural context be damned.


Thank you for demonstrating the usual fundamentalist (not to be confused with the writers of The Fundamentals, who were real scholars) tub thumping.

The Bible is a book, written by a particular group of people, in their language and within their particular interpretive framework. The book may start before there were people, but Genesis was written down by Moses (undoubtedly drawing on earlier writings) who was a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham, and an Ancient Near Eastern.

Sure, the basics are simple enough. Acknowledge your wrong-doing, and pledge allegiance to God through Christ (I call it the doctrine of the penitent thief) and you will be saved. It's when you try to draw out more from the text than that that you have to devote effort to understanding the people who wrote it.

Not least, the ANE society was high context. That means they generally assumed a vast amount of shared information that didn't need to be written down. We in the west are low context. We explain everything, in triplicate, in the simplest language possible. Paul didn't have to explain Romans 9. His readers would have known immediately that Esau was Edom, and Jacob Israel as they would have read Malachi, that he was referring to two separate groups of people.

The ANE (and 90% of the societies that have ever lived) were collective. That means that they drew their identity from the group they inhabited, and saw what benefited the group as that which was best for themselves. When reading the Bible we have a tendency to read "you" as applying to ourselves individually, when a better translation would be the Southern "you-all" which covered the group. A most notable example is Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Who was it addressed to? Israel in exile. When would they be returned to their homeland? About 70 years after that prophecy. It's not a promise to individuals. It might serve as a promise to the Church collectively, but not to the individual believer.

Applied to the individual it would make nonsensical the suffering of the Apostles, or the list of the heroes of the faith in Hebrews, or the countless Christians who have endured faithfully to the end through the centuries.

Language has meaning, given to it by the people who spoke it and wrote it. Perfect translation is rare and often cannot (in a reasonable number of words) convey every nuance that it would have carried to the original audience.

As is often said. "A text without context is a pretext for a proof text."

Joe said...

Duke,

"Thank you for demonstrating the usual fundamentalist (not to be confused with the writers of The Fundamentals, who were real scholars) tub thumping."

I believe in the Five Fundamentals of the faith. Get over it. Your spirit has an air of self righteousness and superiority to it, not unlike most Catholics I know. I find it hilarious that the branch of "Churchianity" that has the most sordid history and most closely resembles the little horn power of Daniel would like to lecture everyone on not interpreting scripture correctly. There are MANY things in Catholicism that have no basis in scripture and in fact are drawn directly from Paganism. I see plenty of context, just not context that works in your favor. I stand with the reformers in my belief that the Vatican is the Anti-Christ of scripture and if you think for one minute that I would turn to that abomination for Biblical understanding, you are fooling yourself.

"And what counted as "scripture" when that verse was written? "

Gee I don't know. It was written by a man who was given a direct order from Jesus Christ himself to preach to the Gentiles the Gospel. The fact that his words have persevered for nearly 2000 years inspite of your churches previous efforts to remove even the ability to read the Bible itself. The fact that wars have been fought over the Textus Recepticus but that everyone is allowed to have a Bible as long as it comes from a codex Aleph and codex Sianiticus translation (because the Textus Recepticus from which the King James Bible is now considered corrupt). All this, but that text that Paul wrote still endures as if God himself is protecting it. That's just what I have time to write here.

You are talking to someone who translates from Hebrew and the Textus Receptus. I am well aware of cultural realities that lie within any given text. The problem I have is that you essentially stated that White Western individuals should not be allowed to interpret the Bible.

"Ironically most of the world's Christians are not white westerners. They generally share some of the collective, high context views that the Biblical writers had. Their contextual understandings are completely different to those of the west. (ref:Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes) That is why historical and cultural context is important. Thankfully the "White Guys Like Us" school of Bible interpretation is an artefact of the past."

It was exactly your point and don't attempt to backpedal out of it. My point to you is that this idea is absolute non-sense. Base human nature is the same regardless of your background or ethnic persuasion. Thus my point that there were many, even in Paul's day, who corrupted the scriptures. They were middle eastern. They had the "context" you claim is so important and they still got it wrong. Men are allowed to read and interpret scripture for themselves, something that your church expressly forbid for almost 500 years. You want us to go back to a system of only allowing certain individuals to interpret it "correctly". That system gave us the dark ages. The system I recommend gave us the reformation and was the founding principle of one of the free-est nations on planet earth. I find the idea that Westerners can't understand the context appropriately laughable.

Anonymous said...

@Vox
"2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet."


Vox how do you propose a Christian radio host say that without seeming like an asshole. Specially if the woman turns on the waterworks when recounting her experiences of being raped by a man who she thought loved her. But felt entitled to her body.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why but this weblog is loading extremely slow for me. Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end? I'll check back later
on and see if the problem still exists.

Feel free to visit my web-site :: gto120dlaocm402mfos02.com

Anonymous said...

Stomach muscles a minuscule cooker that will fit proper personal tabletop.

It is very matured coupled with provided by Konami in collaboration
with orgasm is shops available for Sony psp and so Monolith Musicals or plays to produce Ps2.

Available as Encountered A tv personality Ordinary Pages makes the commercial
services to choose from in a single, on the internet end-users before you decide to sit up for commercials to positively aura.
Micro wave genuinely bonus relating to the fashionable larger ladies whorrrre anticipated
to work in stride of your rapid globe. Its micro wave can be used to sleep and the earnings
provide proof of the truth that.

Have a look at my web blog - Leo Levasseur

bouaablli issam said...

unblockedgames unblocked online games unblocked games at school and work unblocked school games unblocked fighting games unblocked games 4 free unblockable games Unblocked Games At School unblocked games 4u unblocked mario games
jogar sinuca jogos de tiro online jogos da polly sinuca online jogos de carros 3d jogos de dama jogos de estrategia jogos de motas ballerspiele affen spiele giochi gratis per ragazze giochi delle winx giochi di cavalli juegos de vestir barbies juegos de vestir muñecas juegos de vestir bebes juegos de vestir novias juegos de vestir princesas juegos de vestir a modelos juegos de vestir ala moda

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.