Rape Victims and Promiscuity

[McBell]

I don't believe that God condemns us.

God doesn't need to.
His followers do enough.

At least, the ones who condemn...

 

[rusra02]

The answer is No, they won't burn in hell, because the true God doesn't burn people in hell. There is no fiery hell. The Bible hell is the common grave, and God promises he will release those in the grave (hell). (Revelation 20:14)
Soon God wil destroy all unrepentant rapists. As to the innocent victims of criminals, God promises to deliver them (Psalms 72:12-14). His purpose is to remove all wickedness and those who cause suffering to others. The Bible can bring much comfort to victims of rape and other violence.

 

[McBell]

Soon God wil destroy all unrepentant rapists.

And thus one of the reasons I reject the God of Bible.
Or more specifically, the picture of him you paint.

Seems to me you are saying that people can do whatever they want, so long as they repent...

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No, that's incorrect. Sexual dysfunction and promiscuity are very common for rape survivors. It was true for me, I was extremely promiscuous after what happened to me. I appreciate that you are trying to defend survivors of abuse and sexual assault, but it's well documented that this does happen.

Ok, I went to the link and it said that an increase in sexual activity is sometimes a result of rape. I felt the OP was saying that this happens the majority of the time and I disagree with that. Also, long term sexual abuse is different from rape. Victims of long term sexual abuse will often be very sexual but I would still think the word promiscuity is inaccurate in these cases. Promiscuity implies choice and I don't think a coping mechanism offers as much choice as would be necesary.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

In this case I simply mean having sex with people you are not in a long term relationship with, whether friends or drunken strangers.

Hmmm, I call that high school but whatever.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The logic of this is flawed.

Say, for example, that the sexually abused are more likely themselves to be sexual abusers because they develop a distorted notion of sexuality (something I have heard claimed at any rate).

Does this then mean that the sexually abused are more likely to be in hell?

Just because we are victims does not mean that we cease to be morally responsible for our actions- even those actions which might be attempts to deal with what has happened to us.

Now one might feel that sexual promiscuity is itself morally neutral, for a variety of reasons, and therefore say that the promiscuous are free from the danger of hell on that account (which I think is probably the real aim of this thread). But that is not the stated complaint of the thread.

 

[Tobi]

Now one might feel that sexual promiscuity is itself morally neutral, for a variety of reasons, and therefore say that the promiscuous are free from the danger of hell on that account (which I think is probably the real aim of this thread). But that is not the stated complaint of the thread.

I'm not a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions, so I believe neither in hell nor in sexual promiscuity being inherently wrong.

But no, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Read on.

The logic of this is flawed.

Say, for example, that the sexually abused are more likely themselves to be sexual abusers because they develop a distorted notion of sexuality (something I have heard claimed at any rate).

Does this then mean that the sexually abused are more likely to be in hell?

Just because we are victims does not mean that we cease to be morally responsible for our actions- even those actions which might be attempts to deal with what has happened to us.

What I'm gunning for is the point that either God will apply different moral rules to people who have been victims of terrible crimes, often for the rest of their lives, or he will apply the same rules to them as to everyone else, and then there will be people who get to spend eternity in hell because they were victims of a terrible crime.

(rusra02 & others: If you want to argue that there is no hell, that's well and good. I think you're right. But some people do think there is a hell, and I'm trying to point out a few implications, should they be right.)

As for the logic being flawed, well... I beg to differ.

Victims of rape usually know their attacker, and victims of long term abuse per definition pretty much always, but I think we can still agree that it's in no way because the victim was sinful in the first place that they became victims.
So if victims and non-victims were equally prone to sin before the rape or abuse, there is no reason to think the victim would have been more likely to become sinful than the non-victim if the rape/abuse had never taken place. Agreed?

(If someone disagrees, please feel free to suggest an alternative explanation.)

So they are more likely to become promiscuous for reasons beyond their control. Now either God accounts for that, and does not hold it against them, or he does hold it against them.

If he does hold it against them, I'd argue he's unfair, because we are talking about a documented psychological process. It's outside of their control, in the sense that they would not have moved in that direction other than as the direct result of the crime commited against them.

If he does not hold it against them, even decades after the rape/abuse, then in what sense are moral laws absolute?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The reasons they are inclined to promiscuity may be beyond their control- but the behavior itself (regardless if it is sinful) is still within their control. We can not confuse inclination with act. Many people, for various reasons beyond their assent, are more susceptible or inclined to immoral or criminal behaviors. This does not dissolve responsiblity or culpability.

Being a victim is not a moral excuse to behave how we please, or according to any wrongful inclinations that might emerge out of that abuse. We might not consider them culpable to the same degree that someone who is not a victim would be but, to understand this in a juridical sense, someone obviously guilty of a criminal action is let off only by reason of insanity or some demonstratable state of mind which means they have lost moral agency (e.g. battered wife syndrome).

 

[Tobi]

The reasons they are inclined to promiscuity may be beyond their control- but the behavior itself (regardless if it is sinful) is still within their control. We can not confuse inclination with act. Many people, for various reasons beyond their assent, are more susceptible or inclined to immoral or criminal behaviors. This does not dissolve responsiblity or culpability.

Being a victim is not a moral excuse to behave how we please, or according to any wrongful inclinations that might emerge out of that abuse. We might not consider them culpable to the same degree that someone who is not a victim would be but, to understand this in a juridical sense, someone obviously guilty of a criminal action is let off only by reason of insanity or some demonstratable state of mind which means they have lost moral agency (e.g. battered wife syndrome).

So imagine a person who God knows commited sins they would not have commited if they had not been the victims of some terrible crime beforehand.

Would God conclude they had lost moral agency (In which case I'd argue free will can not be abolute), or would God conclude they were morally guilty? (In which case... I'd still argue free will isn't absolute, but also that we can then be condemned because of factors outside of our control.)

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I do not pretend to know how God judges. From a Christian perspective there is a curious tension between justice and grace. We also have statements from Scripture that says God will judge us with the measuring rod we use to measure others.

I would say that if it were true that a rape victim lost moral agency on account of what happened, from a juridical perspective, they would not be culpable [for what they do afterwards in dealing with that event]. I would doubt that this is the majority of cases, but I'm sure it can and has happened.

The bottom line is that everyone has impulses towards sin of some kind for reasons beyond their control. Many of us have become victims in some sense (though not all of us in the so explicitly traumatic violation of rape). But in cultural and social, or mental and even physical senses, many of us have become victimized. This is all terrible and calls for healing. In most cases, however, I do not think it dissolves our moral agency, even though it makes life more difficult.