Today, though, most men are enlightened enough to not believe this or are at least smart enough to not say it aloud. Most men... but not all.
IamAnAtheist quotes a Christian who keeps writing to them:
You made fun of what I said about Christian women rather being raped than commit murder by saying that I haven't asked a lot of women about this. That was snide but it didn't answer my point, which is that rape doesn't justify murder. Rape is nasty and it's a sin (it's adultery because they aren't married and if the woman is a virgin or married it's theft) but you can't kill someone because of adultery or theft. Would you kill someone who your husband had relations with? That's murder. Would you kill someone who stole your car? That's murder. If killing for rape is murder than killing for just attempting to rape is even worse. The person's dying for something they haven't even done.
Atheists always use rape as an argument for justifying killing because they want to justify abortion. But is rape really that bad? It's a horrible experience but you get over it with time. If you use it to justify murder you're never going to get over it. Imagine you have a painful divorce. Would you murder your children after because they remind you of your ex husband? Of course not. I think any woman would easily tell you that a painful divorce is worse than rape but it's not an excuse to kill your baby, so why is rape?
To be fair, I would agree that murder is worse than rape. If I had to pick one or the other I'm pretty sure I'd go with the latter, not the former. But that tiny bit of reasonableness is far outweighed by the extreme amount of irrational unreasonableness in everything else this person writes.
Just in case it wasn't made abundantly clear in the above, this Christian later reinforced their view of woman as property in another message:
Yes, I know that rape is bad but you have to admit that there are a lot of worse things, like terminal disease, loss of a limb, or despair. I know it's humiliating but when it's over it's over, not like cancer.
Yes, a Christian woman suffers less from rape than another woman. Are you asking me if I think rapists should go after Christian women? Well if they do they will be faced with the strength and will of the Lord and may even come to His side when they see how little their pathetic abuse can do to a woman of faith!
No you didn't misunderstand about why rape is a sin. It makes no sense for it to be a sin for a man to rape his wife since a man can't rape his wife. It's just not logical, like stealing your own car or pocking your own pocket.
It only doesn't make sense to say that a man can rape his wife if you assume that a woman's body belongs to the man -- that a woman is an object to be owned, like whatever junk you keep in your pocket. This isn't a view you see espoused very much today, but many people may not realize that, not too long ago, there was no legal or even social category of 'spousal rape.'
When a woman married a man, she essentially consented to sex whenever he wanted it -- and if he forced her, it wasn't "real" rape like it might be if they weren't married. It's important to understand that this was an integral part of the "traditional" conception of marriage: men were in charge and women were subservient in all matters, including sexual matters that involved their own bodies. This is the "traditional" sort of marriage which anti-gay-marriage activists wish to preserve for everyone.
I'm a man and frankly I have a hard time imagining that I'd be traumatized for life if a woman forced herself on me. Maybe it's really different for women but you have to admit that on the surface it doesn't make a lot of sense for something to be incredibly pleasurable if one person does it to you and horrible if another person does it to you. I admit I might be wrong but I still think it's probably overblown. There are a lot of worse things (like abortion).
I wonder if this Christian male would be traumatized if a man forced himself on him? And if abortion is really worse, then maybe he should offer to let himself be raped by a man in exchange for every woman who agrees not to have an abortion? After all, if abortion really is that much worse than rape and if rape really isn't so bad, then he'll endure something very minimal in exchange for preventing something really awful.
I think that one of this Christian's problems lies with basic reasoning skills. A good demonstration of this comes from an earlier message where they tried to explain how "all Christians" understood the same meaning behind the commandment not to murder. They provided a list of examples, including:
1. You can't kill another human being without just reason.
6. You can kill enemies in war. Somewhere you talked about just and unjust war but there is no such thing, all war is unjust.
So it's wrong to kill without just reason, but you can kill in war. However, all war is unjust -- which mean that no war is a just reason to kill. Thus, it can't be licit to kill in war. The entire list is a morass of contradictions and incoherence, but I think it helps reveal the quality of thinking behind all the theological arguments they are making.