In the discussion on the last post Empathologism mentioned that the biblical instruction to husbands and wives not to withhold sex is often framed as something shameful. He described one white knight husband having a violent emotional reaction to hearing this part of the Gospel from the pulpit:
Later that couple was with us and the guy was so angry he would have punched the preacher because in his words, “how dare he suggest she must open her legs at my demand”
Infowarrior1pointed out that this can place one in a difficult situation:
Here the difficult part. I recall on a christian radio show a woman weeping that her husband supposedly was supposed to help her and love her(she was a broken woman by the way had bad history) felt entitled to her body and raped her. To then say that it is the woman’s obligation to do so would be in the minds of many the acceptance of rape.
This is so predictable because the Scripture itself is painfully clear. There simply are no serious objections to it. This is why those who do try to argue with it make such fools of themselves.
The problem is those of us who are inclined to argue logically and rationally will often fall into the trap of misunderstanding what others are doing. It is critical to understand what is happening here. This started with instruction about marriage from the Bible. Those who disagree with the Bible then change the frame to a subtle or not so subtle accusation that anyone who accepts the Bible must be a perverted wife raping bastard. Again, what else are they going to do?
The key is not to get suckered in to arguing logically in response to their reframe. This is (was) a discussion about the Bible’s teaching on marriage. Don’t get drawn into debating an absurd and often passive aggressively implied accusation that you are a pervert. Simply by agreeing to this reframe you have ceded the argument to them in the minds of nearly everyone observing. This trap works because you want to argue logically. This is a good thing, but you first need to move the frame back to the topic at hand. To do this, call out their argument for what it really is while reframing the discussion back to the topic at hand:
Yes, I know, parts of the Bible can be very shocking coming from our feminist culture. It can take some work to get to a point where you aren’t ashamed of what it says simply because it offends feminists. Sometimes it takes courage to stand by God’s Word.
Note that there is nothing cheap about this (unlike the original reframe). They are rebelling against the Word of God, and are suggesting that it is shameful that you aren’t. Pointing out their rebellion and shame of the Gospel is not only appropriate but an act of Christian kindness. How else can they repent from something so serious? Biblical marriage is something of immense beauty; don’t let others go unchallenged when they suggest it is shameful.
The basic rule is if someone is arguing a point logically, then you should also argue logically. But if someone is using a reframe, especially a cheap reframe, you absolutely need to deal with that first and not carry on as if that was a valid intellectual maneuver. Once you have done this you should of course be prepared to carry on logically discussing the original question.