I don't believe you

[+Hammerclaw]

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Yup Well I thought we had discussed the Hebrew laws in depth over the last decade   Again it does not refer to rape IN marriage but the rape of a married woman by another 

The law was based on the belief  that in a city, where her cries might be heard,  a woman who did not call out for help was complicit in the sex.

However in the country no one would hear her cry and it would only endanger her Thus the two laws; for country and city rape.

And yes if you  actually read my posts i went into detail to explain that ONLY when divorce had been instigated could rape be brought against a husband because divorce negated the mutual consent written into the marriage  One other exemption was if a woman could get a court order forbidding her husband to have sex with her I detailed all 4  cases in the last few hundred years which dealt with these issues  These cases only showed that, while a marriage was in place, rape could not exist within it,  and only when the marriage was being dissolved did rape become possible between the husband and wife 

I went through the Clarence case in detail.  It confirmed that rape was not possible in marriage, although one judge had concerns 

However no one really even tested the law over those centuries because it was so clear and had legal precedence to support it  The Australian   high court in 2006 recognised that this law prevented rape occuring in marriage  but made a judgement that by the 1960s social standards had changed, to the point where the law  was no longer reasonable  

It took until the 21st century for legal opinion to alter enough to bring a successful prosecution of rape in marriage backdated to before the time when the law was actually changed  

Isn't that about the same time your wife cut you off?

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Isn't that about the same time your wife cut you off?

Apart from being unnecessary, this  comment doesn't even make sense. 

I am still intact.         

You might be confusing me with Mr Bobbitt   

As I've stated a number of times , I have no interest in compelling, coercing, or requiring anyone, including my wife, to have sex with me. 

She never 'cut me off'.

It was clear that she had a condition which made sex too painful for her, and which could not be fixed medically,  so  i  just stopped.This is something which can happen if your wife is almost 10 years older than you.  I was in my ealry fifties and she in her early sixties. 

Because  sex is only a minor  part of a life -long  marriage, this didn't  worry me. I don't  feel any loss of self esteem, "manliness",  or any less loved.  It  is not critical to my self worth 

 I still  have love, companionship, friendship, and a partner for life, which are the important aspects of a marriage  I am within a few feet of her for over  95% of the time, only being away from her for about 8 hours in a week, which is a much closer relationship than most married couples.  

So, i don't get the point you might have been trying to make. (if any) 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Apart from being unnecessary, this  comment doesn't even make sense. 

I am still intact.

You might be confusing me with Mr Bobbitt   

As I've stated a number of times I have no interest in compelling, coercing, or requiring anyone, including my wife, to have sex with me. 

She never 'cut me off'.

It was clear that she had a condition which made sex too painful for her, and which could not be fixed medically,  so  i  just stopped.

Because  sex is only a minor  part of a life -long  marriage, this didn't  worry me. I don't  feel any loss of self esteem, "manliness",  or any less loved.  It  is not critical to my self worth 

 I still  have love, companionship, friendship, and a partner for life, which are the important aspects of a marriage  

So, i don't get the point you might have been trying to make. (if any) 

I'm certainly glad you are comfortable with that rational explanation and the timing was only coincidental.

[+Sherapy]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Apart from being unnecessary, this  comment doesn't even make sense. 

I am still intact.         

You might be confusing me with Mr Bobbitt   

As I've stated a number of times , I have no interest in compelling, coercing, or requiring anyone, including my wife, to have sex with me. 

She never 'cut me off'.

It was clear that she had a condition which made sex too painful for her, and which could not be fixed medically,  so  i  just stopped.This is something which can happen if your wife is almost 10 years older than you.  I was in my ealry fifties and she in her early sixties. 

Because  sex is only a minor  part of a life -long  marriage, this didn't  worry me. I don't  feel any loss of self esteem, "manliness",  or any less loved.  It  is not critical to my self worth 

 I still  have love, companionship, friendship, and a partner for life, which are the important aspects of a marriage  I am within a few feet of her for over  95% of the time, only being away from her for about 8 hours in a week, which is a much closer relationship than most married couples.  

So, i don't get the point you might have been trying to make. (if any) 

Curious as to what is the “condition” that couldn’t be addressed medically? 

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'm certainly glad you are comfortable with that rational explanation and the timing was only coincidental.

sorry but i still have no idea what you are talking about

I really sincerely hope you  are not even slightly suggesting that i only stopped having sex with my wife when rape in marriage was criminalised. 

I can assure oyu I would have been a second mr Bobbitt if, at any time in our marriage i had tried to compel my wife to have sex(   even if i hadn't totally believed that to be morally wrong and selfish )

Apart from being insulting the chronology is wrong. We were married in 1976 By then rape  in marriage was already criminalised in my state  The case i was speaking of occurred in 1963 and only went to trial in 2006 because no one would prosecute it until tha t time  By then the man was in a nursing home with dementia  but if you read the case you can see why  the  wife needed closure by going to court  

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

sorry but i still have no idea what you are talking about

I really sincerely hope you  are not even slightly suggesting that i only stopped having sex with my wife when rape in marriage was criminalised. 

I can assure oyu I would have been a second mr Bobbitt if, at any time in our marriage i had tried to compel my wife to have sex(   even if i hadn't totally believed that to be morally wrong and selfish )

Apart from being insulting the chronology is wrong. We were married in 1976 By then rape  in marriage was already criminalised in my state  The case i was speaking of occurred in 1963 and only went to trial in 2006 because no one would prosecute it until tha t time  By then the man was in a nursing home with dementia  but if you read the case you can see why  the  wife needed closure by going to court  

Your life is an open book because you chronicle it here, daily. So, consider it a heads up on showing a little more personal discretion. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

sorry but i still have no idea what you are talking about

I really sincerely hope you  are not even slightly suggesting that i only stopped having sex with my wife when rape in marriage was criminalised. 

I can assure oyu I would have been a second mr Bobbitt if, at any time in our marriage i had tried to compel my wife to have sex(   even if i hadn't totally believed that to be morally wrong and selfish )

Apart from being insulting the chronology is wrong. We were married in 1976 By then rape  in marriage was already criminalised in my state  The case i was speaking of occurred in 1963 and only went to trial in 2006 because no one would prosecute it until tha t time  By then the man was in a nursing home with dementia  but if you read the case you can see why  the  wife needed closure by going to court  

Interesting that you thought rape was morally wrong and selfish. I didn’t get this impression from your thousands of posts on the  topic. 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Interesting that you thought rape was morally wrong and selfish. I didn’t get this impression from your thousands of posts on the  topic. 

 

I think he was pointing out that being morally wrong and selfish was once perfectly legal--and it was, oh, icky-poo!

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Curious as to what is the “condition” that couldn’t be addressed medically? 

I have been open and frank here.

It gets a bit technical, and perhaps personal.

So i take a risk and answer in the spirit of your question, with openness and honesty and hope you don't use it against me, in some future argument    

Basically, as a result of other conditions such as Reynards disease, which restricts blood flow to the peripheries, intercourse became incredibly painful, even using creams etc  She couldn't even bear the pain of a vaginal examination, and she is a pretty tough cookie. Her vaginal wall was very thin, and very sensitive.

Never having had children might also have contributed.  

She saw a number of doctors, both female and male, and a couple of specialists.

It was interesting 

The y all suggested that she should continue having sex, even if it was painful, which i found a bit old fashioned and sexist, but which might have been well meaning eg " Use it or lose it " or " Dont risk your marriage"  The y could offer no treatment other than the use of creams 

I am a bit of a softie and love my wife, and so i just said i was ok not having sex, when it was obviously very painful.  I missed the special  closeness and affection which goes with sex, but the act it self was always optional.

As I've said before, both my parents and hers were married for over 60 years, and into old age (their eighties)  so we were used to the idea of a marriage that did not include sex, yet was loving and meaningful .  

      

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I have been open and frank here.

It gets a bit technical, and perhaps personal.

So i take a risk and answer in the spirit of your question, with openness and honesty and hope you don't use it against me, in some future argument    

Basically, as a result of other conditions such as Reynards disease, which restricts blood flow to the peripheries, intercourse became incredibly painful, even using creams etc  She couldn't even bear the pain of a vaginal examination, and she is a pretty tough cookie. Her vaginal wall was very thin, and very sensitive.

Never having had children might also have contributed.  

She saw a number of doctors, both female and male, and a couple of specialists.

It was interesting 

The y all suggested that she should continue having sex, even if it was painful, which i found a bit old fashioned and sexist, but which might have been well meaning eg " Use it or lose it " or " Dont risk your marriage"  The y could offer no treatment other than the use of creams 

I am a bit of a softie and love my wife, and so i just said i was ok not having sex, when it was obviously very painful.  I missed the special  closeness and affection which goes with sex, but the act it self was always optional.

As I've said before, both my parents and hers were married for over 60 years, and into old age (their eighties)  so we were used to the idea of a marriage that did not include sex, yet was loving and meaningful .  

      

What do you mean by you are softie?

 

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Your life is an open book because you chronicle it here, daily. So, consider it a heads up on showing a little more personal discretion. 

I have no problem with that (see my previous post)  I just don't get what you are trying to say or what you might be reading into anything i write 

I present some difernt points of view.

In order to have them taken seriously i do have to outline my personal life and how and why i developed those views 

The last post  is a case in point.

Somehow some posters have developed the idea that  i am in favour of rape in marriage or do not see it as evil and wrong   In telling my own story in response to sherapy's question, I hope the y can see just how far my beliefs and values  lie  in the opposite direction

But i am the product of the modern era, and modern values and concepts.  I was raised to love, honour, respect and protect, women. While these are my own strong values i can not  impose them on a person form the past who lived in a different time with different realities and social values .    

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

What do you mean by you are softie?

 

Subtle, Sheri, real subtle.

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Subtle, Sheri, real subtle.

OMG, you did not go there, lol 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What do you mean by you are softie?

 

I dont know. That is just what most peole who know me, call me

I love and care for people. And so i act out of love and compassion. Some people see that as soft (in a bad sense, like weak ) I see it as soft in the good sense, like soft and cuddly, and as sign of true strength. Truly strong men can afford to be soft, and show a soft side   Weak ones try to hide their weakness with a tough exterior . eg a weak or insecure man might insist his wife made love to him or else cheat on her to get sex. I had no need to do either, in part because of an inner strength of purpose and character. 

Is that really the only question raised in your mind by my post? 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

OMG, you did not go there, lol 

Don't worry. I never even thought it   

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont know. That is just what most peole who know me, call me

I love and care for people. And so i act out of love and compassion. Some people see that as soft (in a bad sense, like weak ) I see it as soft in the good sense, like soft and cuddly, and as sign of true strength. Truly strong men can afford to be soft, and show a soft side   Weak ones try to hide their weakness with a tough exterior .

Is that really the only question raised in your mind by my post? 

 

Yes, it was.

Thank you for the clarity because compassionate and acting out of love doesn’t translate in your posts, you always take the extreme side of the very difficult topics and argue in favor of things that are awful.

You have been called out many many times for not coming off as very sensitive to the plights of women.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I have no problem with that (see my previous post)  I just don't get what you are trying to say or what you might be reading into anything i write 

I present some difernt points of view.

In order to have them taken seriously i do have to outline my personal life and how and why i developed those views 

The last post  is a case in point.

Somehow some posters have developed the idea that  i am in favour of rape in marriage or do not see it as evil and wrong   In telling my own story in response to sherapy's question, I hope the y can see just how far my beliefs and values  lie  in the opposite direction

But i am the product of the modern era, and modern values and concepts.  I was raised to love, honour, respect and protect, women. While these are my own strong values i can not  impose them on a person form the past who lived in a different time with different realities and social values .    

You set yourself up, quite unintentionally, I know. There is no physical, visual or aural representation of anyone, here. It's a war of words, an exchange of concepts and ideas, give and take--but in cold print, often devoid of human feeling and emotion. Your mistake was not nailing that down in the beginning of your historical dissertation. So, they put you through the ringer. Learn from that.

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Yes, it was.

Thank you for the clarity because compassionate and acting out of love doesn’t translate in your posts, you always take the extreme side of the very difficult topics and argue in favor of things that are awful.

You have been called out many many times for not coming off as very sensitive to the plights of women.

 

I know.

Doesn't bother me because i know who and what i am. 

I try to  tell about my life to illustrate who i am,  but people make judgements from within their own perspective and then chose not to believe what i write about myself   eg ive repeated a number of times that I see rape as evil and cowardly, and that i was raised  to love, honour, respect and protect women   ye t people only see the OTHER point ie that I cannot blame a person from  1000 years ago (or even 200)  for having very different values, attitudes, and beliefs.    Indeed if i was born and raised back then, i would not be as i am now, but like that person, because that is all that i could be in that place and time 

Another example. I oppose abortion in principle because it ends the life of a human being before it even gets started, and that is a moral wrong  BUT in practice i support legal abortion  where it is needed, because this is right and protective for women who other wise may endure great suffering .  

Now that does not go far enough for some women  who believe the baby is nothing more than a part of their body, and the y can do as the y like with it.  I can't support that view but i can support the right of women to have an abortion for many necessary reasons, even  at the cost of the childs' life. 

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I know.

Doesn't bother me because i know who and what i am. 

I try to  tell about my life to illustrate who i am,  but people make judgements from within their own perspective and then chose not to believe what i write about myself   eg ive repeated a number of times that I see rape as evil and cowardly, and that i was raised  to love, honour, respect and protect women   ye t people only see the OTHER point ie that I cannot blame a person from  1000 years ago (or even 200)  for having very different values, attitudes, and beliefs.    Indeed if i was born and raised back then, i would not be as i am now, but like that person, because that is all that i could be in that place and time 

Another example. I oppose abortion in principle because it ends the life of a human being before it even gets started, and that is a moral wrong  BUT in practice i support legal abortion  where it is needed, because this is right and protective for women who other wise may endure great suffering .  

Now that does not go far enough for some women  who believe the baby is nothing more than a part of their body, and the y can do as the y like with it.  I can't support that view but i can support the right of women to have an abortion for many necessary reasons, even  at the cost of the childs' life. 

Do yourself a favor and stay off the hot button topics like rape or abortion. Before the advent of the modern medical profession, even the Pope didn't meddle in childbirth. That was the province of women and midwives, who knew how to safely end unwanted pregnancies before they showed. The circle has turned and women, once again, exercise that age-old prerogative, as it should be.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I know.

Doesn't bother me because i know who and what i am. 

I try to  tell about my life to illustrate who i am,  but people make judgements from within their own perspective and then chose not to believe what i write about myself   eg ive repeated a number of times that I see rape as evil and cowardly, and that i was raised  to love, honour, respect and protect women   ye t people only see the OTHER point ie that I cannot blame a person from  1000 years ago (or even 200)  for having very different values, attitudes, and beliefs.    Indeed if i was born and raised back then, i would not be as i am now, but like that person, because that is all that i could be in that place and time 

Another example. I oppose abortion in principle because it ends the life of a human being before it even gets started, and that is a moral wrong  BUT in practice i support legal abortion  where it is needed, because this is right and protective for women who other wise may endure great suffering .  

Now that does not go far enough for some women  who believe the baby is nothing more than a part of their body, and the y can do as the y like with it.  I can't support that view but i can support the right of women to have an abortion for many necessary reasons, even  at the cost of the childs' life. 

I don’t believe  that you just “can’t” judge past human behavior, you do it all the time, Cigarette smokers, people who drink, atheists, people, who don’t read books, parents who don’t hit their kids, meat eaters, or people who are depressed etc. etc.

You could change in a second, quit picking poking the bear topics. 

What  is the point of defending rape and then admonishing a cigarette smoker?

Maybe you are  nice guy deep down, so focus on showing this on here. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You set yourself up, quite unintentionally, I know. There is no physical, visual or aural representation of anyone, here. It's a war of words, an exchange of concepts and ideas, give and take--but in cold print, often devoid of human feeling and emotion. Your mistake was not nailing that down in the beginning of your historical dissertation. So, they put you through the ringer. Learn from that.

No one 

"sets them self up"

i was open, clear, and accurate, from  the start

it is a complex issue, and i made it clear that i see rape as wrong and evil, BUT  that it was not always so, and was not always seen as so.

I explained the philosophical  difference  between absolutist and relativistic moralities.

  However, most people have no background understanding and simply saw a bloke saying that rape was not always evil. 

Some read  as they often do read, through the cultural spectacles they wear, and interpreted what i wrote in a preconceived and biased way 

as i just posted to Sherapy,  I abhor rape as evil.

BUT how can i blame a bloke from  several centuries ago for his attitudes, when i know that,  if i was born and raised in that time and place, i would not hold my modern current  values but the ones he held. We are ALL products of our environment and culture 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No one 

"sets them self up"

i was open, clear, and accurate, from  the start

it is a complex issue, and i made it clear that i see rape as wrong and evil, BUT  that it was not always so, and was not always seen as so.

I explained the philosophical  difference  between absolutist and relativistic moralities.

  However, most people have no background understanding and simply saw a bloke saying that rape was not always evil. 

Some read  as they often do read, through the cultural spectacles they wear, and interpreted what i wrote in a preconceived and biased way 

as i just posted to Sherapy,  I abhor rape as evil.

BUT how can i blame a bloke from  several centuries ago for his attitudes, when i know that,  if i was born and raised in that time and place, i would not hold my modern current  values but the ones he held. We are ALL products of our environment and culture 

 

You don't frame you dissertations very well and leave yourself open for warranted and unwarranted criticism. You're not going get any medals for justifying past historical behaviors abhorrent today, even within the context of history. You made yourself an apologist for marital rape, whether you realized you were doing that or not, hence their reaction.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Do yourself a favor and stay off the hot button topics like rape or abortion. Before the advent of the modern medical profession, even the Pope didn't meddle in childbirth. That was the province of women and midwives, who knew how to safely end unwanted pregnancies before they showed. The circle has turned and women, once again, exercise that age-old prerogative, as it should be.

I respect women, but I respect  truth, right and wrong ,and humanity, more.

It would be wrong to stay away from  sensitive but important issues like abortion and it is wrong to argue that, as a male, i should not offer an opinion 

Despite what some feminists argue, it is NOT only a woman's issue, nor does it only involve a woman's body.  It is a human issue, involving a new human being's future.

Both sets of rights have to be weighed carefully and sensibly 

There is no moral argument a t all for a woman simply saying she should be able to end any childbirth a t any time just because she wants to.

It does NOT involve only her body but the completely separate  genetically new and unique body of an infant, which just happens to  be biologically attached to the woman for a few months . Maybe the issue will be overcome with babies brought to term in a laboratory rather  than in a woman's body.  

[+Sherapy]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I respect women, but I respect  truth, right and wrong ,and humanity, more.

It would be wrong to stay away from  sensitive but important issues like abortion and it is wrong to argue that, as a male, i should not offer an opinion 

Despite what some feminists argue, it is NOT only a woman's issue, nor does it only involve a woman's body.  It is a human issue, involving a new human being's future.

Both sets of rights have to be weighed carefully and sensibly 

There is no moral argument a t all for a woman simply saying she should be able to end any childbirth a t any time just because she wants to.

It does NOT involve only her body but the completely separate  genetically new and unique body of an infant, which just happens to  be biologically attached to the woman for a few months . Maybe the issue will be overcome with babies brought to term in a laboratory rather  than in a woman's body.  

Here we go, Walker is back. 

Question, how is abortion your issue? 

Before you get to far read this, I took Ethics a few years ago, this topic came up and we had to argue  both sides. 

 

You are out of your element on this one. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I respect women, but I respect  truth, right and wrong ,and humanity, more.

It would be wrong to stay away from  sensitive but important issues like abortion and it is wrong to argue that, as a male, i should not offer an opinion 

Despite what some feminists argue, it is NOT only a woman's issue, nor does it only involve a woman's body.  It is a human issue, involving a new human being's future.

Both sets of rights have to be weighed carefully and sensibly 

There is no moral argument a t all for a woman simply saying she should be able to end any childbirth a t any time just because she wants to.

It does NOT involve only her body but the completely separate  genetically new and unique body of an infant, which just happens to  be biologically attached to the woman for a few months . Maybe the issue will be overcome with babies brought to term in a laboratory rather  than in a woman's body.  

Women have millions of ova, but only ovulate about five hundred during their reproductive life span. The rest are left to die after menopause. Men have zillions of sperm and all but a baker's dozen or less die without being realized. A fertilized ova is a potentiality only, part of the woman's body and subject to her whim. There is no contractual obligation to carry one to term and most pregnancies, whether you like to believe it or not, are unwanted. 

https://www.avawomen.com/avaworld/ovulated-egg/