I have to give your first paragraph some thought.
Those double negatives always make me pause!
Could you say it another way?
Because it comes out like this:
A MAN WHO BELIEVES HE CAN RAPE HIS WIFE
UNFERSTANDS WHAT RAPE IS.
NO REASON FOR CAPS...
I might have actually misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me, or both, thanks to the ambiguity of English.
My initial statement was: "A husband absolutely
can rape his wife. It does happen and quite likely even among those who claim to be Christian." By that I
did not mean that a man is
allowed to rape his wife, but rather that it is physically
possible for a husband to rape his wife. I was arguing
against the idea that marital rape is not possible because a wife's body belongs to her husband and his body to her, which some seemed to have argued.
You said: “But I think that a man that believes he
could rape his wife doesn't really understand what rape is and the physical, emotional and psychological damage it does.”
Which I took to mean ... something different, I think.
My reply--"it is a man who believes he
can't rape his wife that doesn't really understand what rape is, nor the damage it does"--is meaning that a man who thinks that there is no such thing as marital rape, that any and all sex with his wife, including forcing himself on her, is okay, doesn't understand what rape is.
I am much too tired to figure out our miscommunication, apart from the fact that I'm sure we are using different meanings of "could" and "can"--physically able vs. permitted.