Rape by Proxy

[BornInMarch]

My first attempt to discuss this got derailed, so I decided I should try to be more clear and precise in my wording.

Rape by proxy is defined as one assualter forces two victims to preform nonconsensual sex acts on each other, usually with violence or threat of death.

One instance where this happened was during the Nanping Massacre, where the Japanese Imperial Army forced Chinese civilians to preform unwanted sex acts on each other (they forced children to sleep with their parents and forced monks to break vows of celibacy). This atrocity was so bad that Shino-Japanese diplomatic relations have still not fully recovered to this day.

Now, this raises some difficult questions.

First, who is the rapist in a situation like this? I think the person holding the gun is the only one who should be blamed, but the first time I tried discussing this an alarming number of people said “Nope, the male victim’s gonna burn in hell” (in the hypothetical situation I presented, a man and a woman were forced to preform a sex act neither wanted by a third person holding a gun). Such thinking implies that men can never be the victims of sexual assault, which is a dangerous mindset to have.

But it raises another question; how much blame should someone have when under the threat of death? Many rape victims do not try to fight off their attacker out of fear that doing so will result in their death: most would rather be hurt than killed, because you can’t heal from being murdered. Again, an alarming number of people said “A true Christian would never fear death!” which strikes me as Armchair Heroism, and is a bit unfair to say from the comfort of a keyboard.

There is much to discuss on this, and I welcome all discussion, but please for the love of all that is holy be rational and calm. Reason > Emoation.

 

[thistle]

My first attempt to discuss this got derailed, so I decided I should try to be more clear and precise in my wording.

Rape by proxy is defined as one assualter forces two victims to preform nonconsensual sex acts on each other, usually with violence or threat of death.

One instance where this happened was during the Nanping Massacre, where the Japanese Imperial Army forced Chinese civilians to preform unwanted sex acts on each other (they forced children to sleep with their parents and forced monks to break vows of celibacy). This atrocity was so bad that Shino-Japanese diplomatic relations have still not fully recovered to this day.

Now, this raises some difficult questions.

First, who is the rapist in a situation like this? I think the person holding the gun is the only one who should be blamed, but the first time I tried discussing this an alarming number of people said “Nope, the male victim’s gonna burn in hell” (in the hypothetical situation I presented, a man and a woman were forced to preform a sex act neither wanted by a third person holding a gun). Such thinking implies that men can never be the victims of sexual assault, which is a dangerous mindset to have.

But it raises another question; how much blame should someone have when under the threat of death? Many rape victims do not try to fight off their attacker out of fear that doing so will result in their death: most would rather be hurt than killed, because you can’t heal from being murdered. Again, an alarming number of people said “A true Christian would never fear death!” which strikes me as Armchair Heroism, and is a bit unfair to say from the comfort of a keyboard.

There is much to discuss on this, and I welcome all discussion, but please for the love of all that is holy be rational and calm. Reason > Emoation.

It is not complicated.
For a sin to be mortal three conditions must be met - grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.
Coercion means the third condition (full consent of the will) is not met and so a mortal sin is not committed.
The sinner is the one pointing a gun at the two.

 

[St_Francis]

However, there is some consent of the will; the one who says, I would rather commit this violation than to die. I put preserving my life over preserving this other person and the state of my soul.

 

[caitlinm]

Well that is terrifying to say the least. I will start off by saying that I am not 100% confident in my answer. That being said my initial thoughts were that the person forcing the acts is solely to blame because, unlike most rape cases, if the third party had not been forcing the sexual acts then the acts would not normally occur. However this also begs the question: do the ends justify the means? In this case, does the chance to live (the ends) justify rape (the means) because the point of the matter is that one of the two people that are forced to participate will have to initiate the act or else they would both die for not participating. So the one who initiates (the man or the woman), even though they don’t want to, is still raping the other person. Are they not? To answer the second part about blame, under such extraordinary circumstances I can not see how either of the two forced into sexual acts can really be blamed, at least not to the extent that, say, someone who follows a young woman home from a bar and rapes her is blamed and punished and certainly shouldn’t be placed on the same level as the gunman.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My first attempt to discuss this got derailed, so I decided I should try to be more clear and precise in my wording.

Rape by proxy is defined as one assualter forces two victims to preform nonconsensual sex acts on each other, usually with violence or threat of death.

One instance where this happened was during the Nanping Massacre, where the Japanese Imperial Army forced Chinese civilians to preform unwanted sex acts on each other (they forced children to sleep with their parents and forced monks to break vows of celibacy). This atrocity was so bad that Shino-Japanese diplomatic relations have still not fully recovered to this day.

Now, this raises some difficult questions.

First, who is the rapist in a situation like this? I think the person holding the gun is the only one who should be blamed, but the first time I tried discussing this an alarming number of people said “Nope, the male victim’s gonna burn in hell” (in the hypothetical situation I presented, a man and a woman were forced to preform a sex act neither wanted by a third person holding a gun). Such thinking implies that men can never be the victims of sexual assault, which is a dangerous mindset to have.

But it raises another question; how much blame should someone have when under the threat of death? Many rape victims do not try to fight off their attacker out of fear that doing so will result in their death: most would rather be hurt than killed, because you can’t heal from being murdered. Again, an alarming number of people said “A true Christian would never fear death!” which strikes me as Armchair Heroism, and is a bit unfair to say from the comfort of a keyboard.

There is much to discuss on this, and I welcome all discussion, but please for the love of all that is holy be rational and calm. Reason > Emoation.

For the sake of history, I believe it was Nanking - not Nanping. (probably a typo, but in case someone wanted to Google what happened in that massacre.)

 

[Stephen_says]

Just like everything else, I don’t think there is a hard and fast answer, it all depends.

CCC 1735: Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological factors.

Mostly, I think it depends on how strong your faith is. I don’t believe that you would be held COMPLETELY blamesless if you have a conscience formed by Christianity, but your culpability may be partly diminished by threat of death.

Also, I’m wondering what your interest in this topic is…

 

[Trident_H]

So this is complicated. But in a way it’s not. Well here’s the complicated part. What if only one of the coerced victims was preferring to go through with the sex act and the other was not? Would the one who went through with it now be a rapist?

On the other hand, what is so horrible about sex that people should prefer to die instead of [reluctantly?] going through with it? Why would anyone think that they should choose death? Death is a permanent passing on whereas sex is maybe a few minutes of moving around a bit? I don’t really get it. I mean I don’t get it if we can all assume no sin is committed by the participants. And I don’t get it even if we all assume a sin was committed. I mean sins can be forgiven, right? Especially ones like these. So in a way the sin can be undone. But death can’t be undone. So some thinking along that score has to make this thing pretty straightforward. Pretty simple really, right?

I mean we’re not all into honor killings for the sake of lost purity are we? We’re not into that. So why think death is better in a situation like this? Wouldn’t that be little more than almost a preemptive honor killing by proxy? Or something?

Peace.

-Trident

 

[thistle]

However, there is some consent of the will; the one who says, I would rather commit this violation than to die. I put preserving my life over preserving this other person and the state of my soul.

I don’t agree. Coercion does not leave you with consent!

 

[Gia_B]

On the other hand, what is so horrible about sex that people should prefer to die instead of [reluctantly?] going through with it? Why would anyone think that they should choose death? Death is a permanent passing on whereas sex is maybe a few minutes of moving around a bit?

If a random stranger randomly asked you to have sex, you would probably say no. If they responded with “What’s so horrible about sex? It’s just a few minutes of moving around a bit” then would you suddenly change your mind? Of course not.

Sex is more than “moving around a bit.” Sex can get the woman pregnant, leaving both parents responsible for the well-being of the child. Sex can spread disease, causing medical problems for (potentially) years, possibly affecting the health of the child in the previous sentence and likely causing trouble in future sexual relationships. Most importantly, sex should be loving and uniting, not a means of removing someone’s autonomy and human dignity to make the rapist feel good.

That’s what’s “so horrible about sex,” or rather rape. The very fact that you need someone to explain this to you is disturbing

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t agree. Coercion does not leave you with consent!

If someone says, Kill this child or I will kill you; do you have a choice? Yes.

Even if someone says, kill this child or I will kill both of you, you still have a choice.

 

[YinYangMom]

Dear TridentH,

God bless you on your journey to come to know Him. You are in my prayers (per your signature tag).

You’re right, this really isn’t as complicated as it appears upon first reading. The answer to your question lies in the Church’s teaching on the Theology of the Body, which in a nutshell is all about the dignity of the human person. Basically, preserving that dignity trumps all other matters in this life.

Forget about the sin part of your post. If a Christian is put in the position of having to choose between preserving their life on earth, or stripping another person (or themselves) of their human dignity, we are to choose death. As Christians, we do not fear death.

The Resurrection revealed to us that our intended existence lies outside of this temporal earth. Jesus is waiting for us to return home to the Kingdom where he has prepared a place for each of us.

Our time here is a gift we are to use wisely. We are to spend our lives serving as Christ’s ears, eyes, hands, feet, to help humanity come to know Him through our service. When faced with the decision to use our body parts to strip another person from their innocence, their dignity as a person created in the image of God, we know without a doubt that this is not what Jesus would do. We may be killed for that decision, but that only releases our souls from their temporal bodies. We rise to our place in heaven until we are reunited with our glorified bodies at the Second Coming of Christ. This is not a bad thing, so it makes the decision easier to make.

 

[YinYangMom]

…an alarming number of people said “A true Christian would never fear death!” which strikes me as Armchair Heroism, and is a bit unfair to say from the comfort of a keyboard.

There is much to discuss on this, and I welcome all discussion, but please for the love of all that is holy be rational and calm. Reason > Emoation.

Why is that alarming to you, considering you’ve posed the question on a Catholic discussion board? It is not unfair to say from a keyboard or face-to-face for one who truly believes in the promise of Christ. Today I can say that faced with the choice you posed in the original post I would easily choose death. Earlier in my life, not so much.

I can only speak for my journey in this matter, but how I felt about dying anywhere along the way was my personal measure of faith. It occurred to me that death is only scary if it happens before I’m ready. Since I can’t control the timing of my death, I chose to focus on the other part: being ready to be taken at a moment’s notice.

This led me on my faith journey, here at CAF. I liken myself to Bilbo and Frodo from The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings taking that first step outside the Shire. Various discussion forums here pointed me in directions which led me to resources on the topic about what Catholics believe about life and death. I have such clarity now that I truly no longer fear ‘my time’.

 

[SecretCatholic]

So essentially an attacker gives you the choice of committing an evil act or death.
What if an attacker forced you to choose between denying your faith and death? By saying that the victim has no culpability since he/she is being threatened with death, then we are saying that those who denied their faith committed no sin, no? Then why was Peter’s denial such a big deal?

I would say that the culpability is lessened, because of fear of death, but it is not entirely removed. To us, especially in this age, its understandable. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect anymore of most people. Heck, I don’t know exactly what I’d do under fear of death. If I often sin under no fear of death, and fear of death is an even bigger incentive to sin.

But all that’s irrelevant to the fact that we still always have a choice. And just because it’s a rather nasty choice, doesn’t mean that we had no choice and that there is no sin. And yes, if we were that sure and eager for God, we would never falter in such situations. But, not everyone is called to be a martyr. Most of us don’t have the courage and faith within us, so most of us aren’t tested to that point.

 

[PolarGuy]

Agree with Thistle; disagree with St. Francis. It is not a choice where one choice is to be killed. As others have posted, what is needed for culpability is FULL consent.

The rape of Nanking was one of the darkest moments in human history: so much so that, if memory serves, one of the Europeans who tried to assist the victims was an ardent Nazi! (I mean, golly, if a NAZI thought it barbaric, it had to be really bad!)

In the original post, the rapist is he who holds the gun.

 

[Trident_H]

If a random stranger randomly asked you to have sex, you would probably say no. If they responded with “What’s so horrible about sex? It’s just a few minutes of moving around a bit” then would you suddenly change your mind? Of course not.

Sex is more than “moving around a bit.” Sex can get the woman pregnant, leaving both parents responsible for the well-being of the child. Sex can spread disease, causing medical problems for (potentially) years, possibly affecting the health of the child in the previous sentence and likely causing trouble in future sexual relationships. Most importantly, sex should be loving and uniting, not a means of removing someone’s autonomy and human dignity to make the rapist feel good.

That’s what’s “so horrible about sex,” or rather rape. The very fact that you need someone to explain this to you is disturbing

I sort of knew I’d get in trouble for this one. When I posted it I was pretty tired. But even so. Well that’s a look into my mind a bit. Ok so to answer you fairly, I was really only comparing that to death. I wasn’t comparing it to just having a conversation on the street. I was only trying to make that ultimate comparison and then go with that. But yeah, my choice in wording sometimes gets me on the hot seat. Sorry if I offended you. I mean sorry if I offended anyone else too. I’m not into rape. I don’t think that’s good. I’m just not a big fan of dying. Not just yet.

Peace Gia B.

-Trident

 

[Trident_H]

Dear TridentH,

God bless you on your journey to come to know Him. You are in my prayers (per your signature tag).

Thank you for the prayers. Thank you so much for that. I think we all know I need them.

You’re right, this really isn’t as complicated as it appears upon first reading. The answer to your question lies in the Church’s teaching on the Theology of the Body, which in a nutshell is all about the dignity of the human person. Basically, preserving that dignity trumps all other matters in this life.

Forget about the sin part of your post. If a Christian is put in the position of having to choose between preserving their life on earth, or stripping another person (or themselves) of their human dignity, we are to choose death. As Christians, we do not fear death.

But. I mean I was going to argue with you here a bit. Yet at the same time I don’t want to make you mad at me. I don’t want you to stop praying for me. But I guess the thing I sort of want to say in a small voice is that I lose my dignity a dozen times a week. I mean I’ve been made fun of, scoffed at, pushed around, and generally not been taken seriously. I’m not a big guy so it’s pretty easy for other guys to have fun with me. And I’m not sure if I’d want to face down each of these dignity losing times in order to have an early death. I’m just not sure it’s worth it. Because. Well. I don’t know if I’d even get a shot at heaven at this point. It’s not really all that clear for me yet.

The Resurrection revealed to us that our intended existence lies outside of this temporal earth. Jesus is waiting for us to return home to the Kingdom where he has prepared a place for each of us.

Our time here is a gift we are to use wisely. We are to spend our lives serving as Christ’s ears, eyes, hands, feet, to help humanity come to know Him through our service. When faced with the decision to use our body parts to strip another person from their innocence, their dignity as a person created in the image of God, we know without a doubt that this is not what Jesus would do. We may be killed for that decision, but that only releases our souls from their temporal bodies. We rise to our place in heaven until we are reunited with our glorified bodies at the Second Coming of Christ. This is not a bad thing, so it makes the decision easier to make.

Thank you for taking time to explain all this to me. Thank you also for the prayers.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[jmjZelie]

Trident,
God bless you in your struggles. Look to Jesus in His Passion. Remember He knows what it is like to be whipped, spat upon, hit in the face and worse. His love for you through His Passion can console you if you give your woundedness to Him.

Now to your question. You mention losing your dignity many times per week. The question is not about losing your dignity. We have all had the experience of being humiliated and it really does hurt. However, being raped or sexually assaulted is not merely losing one’s dignity. Rape, even by proxy, is a forcible violation of the dignity of another human person. For the person being penetrated, whether male or female, it is excruciatingly painful and incredibly terrifying.

What we do with our bodies matter. We are not merely souls trapped in bodies, bodies that do not matter. No, rather we are body-soul composite creatures. What we do with our bodies echoes in eternity. So, choosing to perform an evil act upon another person, even to save a life (your own or someone else’s), is never an acceptable choice. Culpability may be reduced somewhat, but rape is still an evil act, and your conscience will not allow you to perform it, even under duress, without feeling the burden of having committed an evil act and violating your own conscience.

I hope that answers your question. This is a serious matter, and I can tell that you are sincere, but it is very wrong-headed to equate rape by proxy to “bodies moving around a bit” or “losing dignity” due to bullying. It gave me pause and it made me concerned for you and what you might have been exposed to. May God bless you and heal you and make you whole.

 

[Trident_H]

Trident,
God bless you in your struggles. Look to Jesus in His Passion. Remember He knows what it is like to be whipped, spat upon, hit in the face and worse. His love for you through His Passion can console you if you give your woundedness to Him.

Now to your question. You mention losing your dignity many times per week. The question is not about losing your dignity. We have all had the experience of being humiliated and it really does hurt. However, being raped or sexually assaulted is not merely losing one’s dignity. Rape, even by proxy, is a forcible violation of the dignity of another human person. For the person being penetrated, whether male or female, it is excruciatingly painful and incredibly terrifying.

What we do with our bodies matter. We are not merely souls trapped in bodies, bodies that do not matter. No, rather we are body-soul composite creatures. What we do with our bodies echoes in eternity. So, choosing to perform an evil act upon another person, even to save a life (your own or someone else’s), is never an acceptable choice. Culpability may be reduced somewhat, but rape is still an evil act, and your conscience will not allow you to perform it, even under duress, without feeling the burden of having committed an evil act and violating your own conscience.

I hope that answers your question. This is a serious matter, and I can tell that you are sincere, but it is very wrong-headed to equate rape by proxy to “bodies moving around a bit” or “losing dignity” due to bullying. It gave me pause and it made me concerned for you and what you might have been exposed to. May God bless you and heal you and make you whole.

Ok. Put that way I think I’m seeing what I was missing before. I guess I just sometimes overlook the obvious. I mean I was looking at this from one way and now I’ve been put inside it a bit better. Maybe I can see it a bit differently in the way you described. I guess I feel pretty bad for not seeing it that way before. I just thought it was not as much a trauma as an unwelcome discomfort. But then sometimes I get a bit lost on that end of things.

Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out. I mean you didn’t have to, but you did. So I appreciate that. I appreciate all of you actually. Putting the time into getting me on the right path.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[St_Francis]

To those who disagree with me

First let me say that I once was in y’all’s shoes… I did not understand this either.

But if we find ourselves in a situation, God will give us the grace to handle it. The question is, will we be prepared to accept that grace and do the right thing? Will we be in a state of mortal sin, which may well block the grace? Or will we be habitually be in a state of grace? Will we be in the habit of listening to God so that we know His voice? Will we be in the habit of doing the right thing even when it is harder?

Consider this: suppose a masked man, Mr X, tells Tom that unless Tom throws a rock at a cat, Mr X will hit Tom on the head with a Nerf (foam rubber) ball. Well, Tom will probably take the hit, right?

Why is that? It is because Tom thinks being bopped on the head with a foam rubber ball is less evil than his throwing a rock at the cat.

But suppose Tom has a phobia about Nerf balls? He might think twice: maybe throwing a rock at a cat wouldn’t be such a bad thing, because being hit with a Nerf ball is, to Tom, a really awful, terrible thing.

In the second scenario, Tom would feel more coerced because of his fear of the consequence.

When we have a long-standing close relationship with our Lord, when we are really holy, we will have a horror of sin. We will also not fear death. We will see death as your non-phobic person sees a Nerf ball, and committing the sin as someone would see torturing then killing a child.

Our goal as Catholics is to become the sort of people who see that, and who would be able to “capture” and use the grace God sends us to meet any difficulty we might encounter. And we become that type of person by receiving the sacraments, meditating, and doing difficult little things every day, like smiling at the annoying co-worker.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Very close, thistle. But all are engaged in at least venial sin, because that act is contrary to the natural law and to God’s moral law. The only person in mortal sin, as opposed to venial, would be the enforcer of the immoral act.

Otherwise, you’re right.