Rape to Marriage - IN THE BIBLE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan said:
It is not the rule that is in the Bible!!!

I will take exception to this also. I do not believe that Jewish law/customs considered women possesions of fathers or husbands. It has been a while since I have read Deuterotomy, but this does not seem correct. A common myth, but not correct. Someone can correct me if I am wrong with a quote from the laws in Exodus or Deuterotomy. One thing about ancient Jewish laws, they are well documented, so we do not really need to speculate.
Click to expand...
I believe whatever is told. I do not know whether is in the Bible or not.
But this night I have been thinking.
If it was 3000 years ago, maybe it was a good thing. If someone raped a woman she would be left alone and would not survive. So to push them together into marriage, would be a way to save her life.
But we are talking about 3000 years ago.
And I am not sure it is therre…
 
Walking_Home said:
So I guess to you – a woman is just to lay there – be “submissive” – while a beast— forces himself on her.
Click to expand...
No, I just expect better of women than to act like wild animals when wronged. And I expect them to play their cards shrewdly when the law is on their side, as in the case under discussion.

But if you favor:
  • fast-tracking rape victims into a lifetime of poverty,
  • and, if children are conceived of those illicit unions:
  • guaranteeing those children are born fatherless,
  • and therefore illegitimate,
  • with consequently no claim to any inheritance apart from the debt of paying off their mother’s final expenses,
  • living in a single-mother household,
  • and, unless born as twins/triplets, guaranteeing any offspring remains an only child,
  • shouldered with the burden of supporting themselves and their mothers in old age,
  • having nothing to offer a future wife or husband by way of dowry or bride-price,
  • and eventually accepting the fact they will never marry,
  • and therefore have no children of their own,
  • to carry on the family name,
  • or to support them in their own old age…
…all because you refuse to compel a rapist to make restitution for his crimes against two generations of innocent victims … well then I don’t know what to say to that.
 
followingtheway said:
Hello everyone, my faith is shaken once again. Everybody’s all upset over Morocco’s “if she gets raped, she has to marry her rapist” law. But the thing is people have pointed out that that rule is the Bible too (Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:25–30).

Any thoughts? Any rebuttals? 😦
Click to expand...
God issued that commandment personally, no? So of course it was binding.

He didn’t command Muslims to do this (on account of the fact that theirs is a false religion and false understanding of Him). So it’s bad.

God alone can override the natural law in particular instances.
 
Rainaldo said:
No, I just expect better of women than to act like wild animals when wronged. And I expect them to play their cards shrewdly when the law is on their side, as in the case under discussion.

But if you favor:
  • fast-tracking rape victims into a lifetime of poverty,
  • and, if children are conceived of those illicit unions:
  • guaranteeing those children are born fatherless,
  • and therefore illegitimate,
  • with consequently no claim to any inheritance apart from the debt of paying off their mother’s final expenses,
  • living in a single-mother household,
  • and, unless born as twins/triplets, guaranteeing any offspring remains an only child,
  • shouldered with the burden of supporting themselves and their mothers in old age,
  • having nothing to offer a future wife or husband by way of dowry or bride-price,
  • and eventually accepting the fact they will never marry,
  • and therefore have no children of their own,
  • to carry on the family name,
  • or to support them in their own old age…
…all because you refuse to compel a rapist to make restitution for his crimes against two generations of innocent victims … well then I don’t know what to say to that.
Click to expand...
So marrying the beast – is the answer. A beast – who more than likely will keep raping her and pass this “trait” to the offspring. This opens the door – for any man to force “marriage” on a woman – when she is not interested. Just rape her – and she is his.
 
severus68 said:
vera dicere:
Never mind the emotional state of the woman, ay? Afterall, we all know women aren’t really people, they don’t have feelings, they don’t have minds of their owns. They’re just pleasure machines for men.

Ever been raped, Rainaldo? Would you want to spend teh rest of your life married to your rapist?

And there are plenty of men who would marry a rape victim, and those men are truely men indeed, not snivelling little cowards who can only get a woman by force.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
Click to expand...
Agree: 👍👍👍👍👍
 
severus68 said:
I am trying to understand what point you are making. What do you think a victim feels when raped? Joy at the fact, her assailant would marry her?
Click to expand...
Severus suggested a rape victim would want to scratch the rapist’s face off, which is something that chimpanzees do. But you pass over Severus suggesting women are no better than irrational animals, while accusing me of celebrating rape 🤷

So do you think the law, and the penalties for breaking the law, and the containment and management of the personal and social devastation caused by crimes against the individual and against the social order, should be decided according to how things make women feel?

Or do you think fostering the growth of a class of illegitimate paupers is but a small price to pay so long as women can indulge in emotionally-fueled retaliation?
 
The rapist took away her social and financial security. That’s a dilemma.

If you want to redefine the word “illegitimate” go ahead. Lots of words pertaining to the family are getting redefined these days.
 
Walking_Home said:
So marrying the beast – is the answer. A beast – who more than likely will keep raping her and pass this “trait” to the offspring. This opens the door – for any man to force “marriage” on a woman – when she is not interested. Just rape her – and she is his.
Click to expand...
I thought marriage was being forced on the man :confused:

But the woman has an interest alright. Once the marriage is a done deal she suddenly has all the rights of a wife … and legal entitlement to his support, and whose children have a legal entitlement to his legacy … and she has a clear grasp of how all this came about.
 
Rainaldo said:
I thought marriage was being forced on the man :confused:

But the woman has an interest alright. Once the marriage is a done deal she suddenly has all the rights of a wife … and legal entitlement to his support, and whose children have a legal entitlement to his legacy … and she has a clear grasp of how all this came about.
Click to expand...
You are confused alright — starting – that a woman who has been raped – has no value–and her only recourse – is to marry the one who committed the atrocity of rape.
 
Rainaldo, I think what you’re missing is that a woman who has been raped barely cares about anything in the short-term except never seeing the rapist again. Ever, even from a distance.

I cannot imagine a woman thinking it is a good bargain to give up her sense of security and safety and a chunk of her feminine heart, for the “right” to be the wife of such a horrible man. Now, if he were condemned to live as a bachelor and never come near her, but had to support her and her household from the next town over, maybe. It’s still not a fair trade, but it might be liveable.

To be stuck in the same house or family compound as the man who did such a monstrous thing, and be forced to interact with him? Never.
 
Rainaldo,

I’m confused. Are you advocating for this approach in the contemporary world (either solely in the Muslim world, or in general), or are you discussing the historical issue, in the context of the OT?
 
Rainaldo said:
I thought marriage was being forced on the man :confused:

But the woman has an interest alright. Once the marriage is a done deal she suddenly has all the rights of a wife … and legal entitlement to his support, and whose children have a legal entitlement to his legacy … and she has a clear grasp of how all this came about.
Click to expand...
Following your logic, it would work - if the rapist was castrated before the marriage. The woman would then have financial security and a serf.
 
EvelynEVF said:
Rainaldo, I think what you’re missing is that a woman who has been raped barely cares about anything in the short-term except never seeing the rapist again. Ever, even from a distance.

I cannot imagine a woman thinking it is a good bargain to give up her sense of security and safety and a chunk of her feminine heart, for the “right” to be the wife of such a horrible man. Now, if he were condemned to live as a bachelor and never come near her, but had to support her and her household from the next town over, maybe. It’s still not a fair trade, but it might be liveable.

To be stuck in the same house or family compound as the man who did such a monstrous thing, and be forced to interact with him? Never.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that women were essentially considered the property of their father or husband (much like women in the Middle East today) in that setting.
The woman’s feelings on the matter probably were not even considered an issue.
 
Rainaldo said:
No, I just expect better of women than to act like wild animals when wronged. And I expect them to play their cards shrewdly when the law is on their side, as in the case under discussion.

But if you favor:
  • fast-tracking rape victims into a lifetime of poverty,
  • and, if children are conceived of those illicit unions:
  • guaranteeing those children are born fatherless,
  • and therefore illegitimate,
  • with consequently no claim to any inheritance apart from the debt of paying off their mother’s final expenses,
  • living in a single-mother household,
  • and, unless born as twins/triplets, guaranteeing any offspring remains an only child,
  • shouldered with the burden of supporting themselves and their mothers in old age,
  • having nothing to offer a future wife or husband by way of dowry or bride-price,
  • and eventually accepting the fact they will never marry,
  • and therefore have no children of their own,
  • to carry on the family name,
  • or to support them in their own old age…
…all because you refuse to compel a rapist to make restitution for his crimes against two generations of innocent victims … well then I don’t know what to say to that.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the laws specifically were NOT on women’s side in ancient Israel.
That’s why women who didn’t have a male protector/master (such as a husband or father) were at such a disadvantage:shrug:
 
Walking_Home said:
So marrying the beast – is the answer. A beast – who more than likely will keep raping her and pass this “trait” to the offspring. This opens the door – for any man to force “marriage” on a woman – when she is not interested. Just rape her – and she is his.
Click to expand...
The logic goes something like this:
That’s what she deserves for not protecting her chastity.

I think that’s abhorrent, but a lot of people thought like that (and unfortunately many people still do).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top