Let’s ban Gay Sex, but it’s OK to Rape your wife!


A popular topic at the moment is the independent candidacy of Philip Pocock for next month’s ACT Election.

Taken from his website PHILIP POCOCK – INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR MOLONGLO

Do You:

Want to get rid of ACT legislation for homosexual unions and stop being labelled “homophobic” because you love the truth.

Vote 1 – Philip Pocock for Molonglo.

Looking further on his website he seems to want to enforce rules that include:

  • No sex before marriage.
  • Marriage must be freely entered into by a man and a woman, however the arrangements came into being.
  • Marriage is for life.
  • No extramarital sex.
  • No remarriage until one of the partners has died.

He also appears to want to ban:

  • Masturbation.
  • Oral Sex.
  • Sex before marriage.
  • Sodomy.
  • Exhortation to practice the above four practices through pornography.

The website looks like he’s put it together himself with no experience so there isn’t a lot of information available.

Researching him further his claims of being a Psychologist appear to be true (Registration number: PSY0001344879).  He identifies as a practising catholic and a social conservative, nothing wrong there.  He has a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

What caught my eye more so were some of the YouTube videos he’s posted over the years.

He doesn’t just go after homosexuals or sodomy in general but he doesn’t believe a husband can rape his wife because she doesn’t have the right to refuse sex after marriage.

In his video Sexual Consent in Marriage Pt 1 Sexual Bonding – Philip Pocock Canberra Australia he addresses the comments made by Islamic cleric Samir Abu Hamza (aka Samir Mohtadi) back in 2009 in his lecture titled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage” where he directed his followers to beat their wives and force them to have sex.

I thought Philip, being the good practicing Catholic he is, would come out against these comments but I was surprised after watching the entire video that he supported much of what the Cleric said but as a results of good Christian Values.

In his video reply Philip Pocock not only mentions the “natural authority of a man over his wife” but he continues with,

“The notion that a woman has a right to refuse to have sex with her husband on a whim is really a development of feminism in the 20th century.  While a woman may have the freedom to refuse her husband, does she really have the right to refuse and can a man actually rape a woman who is already one flesh for the husband?  Sure he can assault her but rape is actually the forceful taking possession of a woman not just minor assault without her will or the rational consent which underlines marriage.”

He bases his ideas off the first letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians.  He continues, quoting St Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:4:

“A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is.  Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations.”

His interpretation and analysis follow,

“This clearly implies that women do not have the right to refuse sex to their husbands for no reason but whim given compliance to the guidelines outlined earlier.”

He continues on for a while more…

“The marriage contract clearly implies ongoing conjugal rights however and if a woman has an aversion to sex she should not marry.”

Now, if I’m not mistaken it sounds like Philip supports the clerics comments because according to his interpretation of the Bible, a husband cannot rape his wife because she is contractually obliged to have sex with him and has no right to refuse therefore the husband is within his rights to force her to have sex.

It’s clear that he is motivated by his interpretation of the Bible in the worst possible way.

After listening to the rest of his videos it seems as though he doesn’t only have issue with homosexuals but with anyone who partakes in any kind of sex act other than penile to vaginal intercourse because he assumes that as St Paul was Jewish he only spoke of penile/vaginal intercourse, therefor everything else is a no-no.

One would assume this is where his objection to oral sex, masturbation, sodomy etc comes from, although the Bible is a treasure trove for stuff like that for those creative enough to interoperate it so.

There is more to him than what he says in his YouTube videos, especially when he is quoted from his reply to a church survey saying,

“I believe sodomy of man or woman should be regarded as a criminal offence and while people do not have the right to go ‘poofter bashing’, to use colloquial language, they should have the right to discriminate in terms of employment, accommodation etc as they do in dealing with drug addicts etc,”

“It is not something that should just be left to individuals, in the privacy of their bedroom, and this is merely a position put by many politicians, even those of good will, who feel inadequate to deal with these issues while others, who, through ignorance, indulge themselves sexually, obviously have no intent of denying their addiction and will continue to sell out the innocent,”

Some have called for him to be silenced and not allowed to run in the election or even to revoke his registration as a Psychologist.  I don’t support any of that.

He should be allowed to run in the election and not be silenced, but I will say that his message should be made clear and he should be held accountable for what he says and does.

No excuses about being taken out of context (even when quoted verbatim) or claims that he is being misrepresented by the media (like some individuals and organisations claim when they make outlandish and flat out discriminatory claims).

If he wants to say these highly controversial and at time offensive things, I will support his right to say them even if I don’t agree with it, but he must own what he says and take responsibility for it.  Censorship is not the answer.

As for his Psychologist works, I hope that more awareness can be given to the kind of views he holds and those who seek his services (if any), are fully aware of this beforehand.

I can’t see him getting any kind of significant number of votes, at least I sincerely hope he doesn’t but I do foresee certain groups throwing some support behind him and using his failure as ammo for their cause.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: