What does your religion say about rape/sexual assault?

[NulliuSINverba]

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic here. If you are serious, you are beyond ignorant. If you are sarcastic... I don't know how to respond to that.

One of the very best ways to illustrate the barbarity of Old Testament Law is to simply advocate for it in a modern context.

Actually, the idea of marrying his victim is initiated IF THE VICTIM WISHES IT.

Please cite the book, chapter, and verse from the Bible that states that a woman who has been raped has any say whatsoever as to whether or not she must marry the man who rapes her. Thanks.

 

[Harmonious]

According to the Bible, if an engaged virgin gets raped inside a city, she should be stoned to death:

"If a man comes upon a virgin in town, a girl who is engaged to another man, and sleeps with her, take both of them to the town gate and stone them until they die—the girl because she didn’t yell out for help in the town and the man because he raped her, violating the fiancée of his neighbor." ~ Deuteronomy 22:23-24

I'm not really sure how to answer this piece.

I imagine that it assumes that an unwilling woman who is in close quarters (if you envision ancient Israeli buildings, or old-style European homes, where people can hear through the walls and windows of what is going on, you can understand the scene for the commandment) will fight like a wildcat, calling for help. The application of "being in a field" would extend to sound-proofed rooms, and anywhere or any time that the woman would be UNABLE to be heard.

It's not right there in Deuteronomy, but it is how the law works.

 

[Harmonious]

Please cite the book, chapter, and verse from the Bible that states that a woman who has been raped has any say whatsoever as to whether or not she must marry the man who rapes her. Thanks.

It's not in the Bible. It IS in Jewish law, and although I know quite a bit about Jewish law, I'm not a Talmud scholar, so I wouldn't know where to look.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I'm not really sure how to answer this piece.

I'll presume that this is your innate humanity struggling against your piety.

I imagine that it assumes that an unwilling woman who is in close quarters (if you envision ancient Israeli buildings, or old-style European homes, where people can hear through the walls and windows of what is going on, you can understand the scene for the commandment) will fight like a wildcat, calling for help. The application of "being in a field" would extend to sound-proofed rooms, and anywhere or any time that the woman would be UNABLE to be heard.

To say nothing of being told by your rapist that you'll be killed if you make a sound.

Obviously, a threat like that only works in a godless country where they won't automatically stone you to death if you get raped.

 

[Harmonious]

Is there a reason why rape isn't explicitly prohibited itself? That it isn't considered a commandment "Thou shalt not rape" (for instance) in any of the major religions?

If we as humans are well aware of the violence of rape, why is this act largely ignored in favor of stressing the sins/crimes of lying, stealing, coveting, or becoming an apostate?

It could be argued that rape isn't ignored but encompassed by all the other commandments since rape could be thought of as a combination of all of those sins making it worse than any one individually.

It also might have to do with the word not being a part of the language. But all of the other commandments that are involved have words that describe the actions, like freethinker said.

 

[Harmonious]

To say nothing of being told by your rapist that you'll be killed if you make a sound.

You know, Null, the thing to understand is that according to Jewish law, any given situation is reviewed and explained before the death penalty is handed out, even though the text of the Bible seems to hand it out all over the place.

Due process, which is given a LOT of discussion in the Oral Law, makes it pretty darn hard for the death penalty to be executed. The concept of "extenuating circumstances" is actually addressed in the Oral Law, even if it isn't in black and white in Deuteronomy.

 

[Tumah]

Of course, once he's married her, a Bible-Fearing man is free to rape a woman as often as he likes. Post-marital "rape" is a logical impossibility under the letter of Biblical Law.

Actually, that's not true at all. But then again, I wouldn't have expected you to know anything about Jewish marital law, and how delicate the law actually considers this.

That's not the correct. answer. The correct answer is: ask a Christian or Saducee.
As for Judaism, the Talmud, (which we believe is based on information given to us orally at Sinai with Scriptures and is equally relevant) already states:
...said, it is prohibited for a person to force his wife to fulfill a commandment (ie. procreation) as it says, "and that hurries with his feet, sins (Pro. 19:2)."...said, anyone who forces his wife to fulfill a commandment (ie. procreation) will not have worthy children (Eiruvin 100b)
And this is understood clearly to refer to rape as our Codifiers say:
And so it is found in (tractate) Eiruvin: anyone who forces his wife to fulfill a commandment is called evil as it says, "also without knowledge a soul is not good (Pro.19:2). It comes out, that rape is forbidden even with one's wife. Rather if he needs this act, he should first appease her (Tur OC 240)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Efforts to prettify it notwithstanding, the man-woman relationship reflected in the Torah was fundamentally an unequal property relationship not qualitatively distinct/better from those prevalent at the time.

 

[Tumah]

Please cite the book, chapter, and verse from the Bible that states that a woman who has been raped has any say whatsoever as to whether or not she must marry the man who rapes her. Thanks.

It's not in the Bible. It IS in Jewish law, and although I know quite a bit about Jewish law, I'm not a Talmud scholar, so I wouldn't know where to look.

I'll take that for you:

Tractate Makkoth 16a, 8 lines down from the wide lines. The Talmud is discussing how it could be possible for a rapist to nullify his positive commandment of reparation so that he deserves flogging. The scenario suggested is that the rapist accepted a betrothal as her messenger from another man. Rav here is going to explain why this case could not be the case in question.
"Rav said, if she made him a messenger, she is the one who abolished it (his requirement to reparation). If she didn't make him a messenger, has he accomplished anything (by accepting a betrothal on her behalf - rhetorical statement, he didn't)"
We see from here that it is within her power to refuse to marry her rapist.

 

[Tumah]

You know, Null, the thing to understand is that according to Jewish law, any given situation is reviewed and explained before the death penalty is handed out, even though the text of the Bible seems to hand it out all over the place.

Due process, which is given a LOT of discussion in the Oral Law, makes it pretty darn hard for the death penalty to be executed. The concept of "extenuating circumstances" is actually addressed in the Oral Law, even if it isn't in black and white in Deuteronomy.

Really, you are wasting your time with him. He isn't looking for an answer, he's looking to accuse.
Otherwise he would have asked instead of stated.

 

[Tumah]

I'll presume that this is your innate humanity struggling against your piety.



To say nothing of being told by your rapist that you'll be killed if you make a sound.

Obviously, a threat like that only works in a godless country where they won't automatically stone you to death if you get raped.

You're being purposely stupid. The cases provided in Scripture is clearly differentiating between when she is capable of calling for help (in town) and when she isn't capable of calling for help (in the field). If this were not so, there would be no need for two separate but otherwise similar cases. A case where she isn't capable of calling for help in the city, is no different than a case of where she isn't capable of calling for help in the field.

 

[Tumah]

Efforts to prettify it notwithstanding, the man-woman relationship reflected in the Torah was fundamentally an unequal property relationship not qualitatively distinct/better from those prevalent at the time.

You're in the wrong thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're in the wrong thread.

How so?

 

[Nietzsche]

To my recollection there is no specific law or rules for rape within the Norse beliefs proper, but Viking-Age Iceland allowed the woman to bring a rapist(or attempted rapist) up on charges. Not her husband or father, she herself could do it. And the punishment, 'Outlawry' in English, basically meant someone could kill the guilty(not just accused) party with legal impunity. I would imagine that to the average Viking "no-consequences kill" is probably right up there with "chest full of gold", "infinite mead" and "harem".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It also might have to do with the word not being a part of the language. But all of the other commandments that are involved have words that describe the actions, like freethinker said.

I see that as entirely possible.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Efforts to prettify it notwithstanding, the man-woman relationship reflected in the Torah was fundamentally an unequal property relationship not qualitatively distinct/better from those prevalent at the time.

That makes sense and answers my questions.

 

[Harmonious]

Really, you are wasting your time with him. He isn't looking for an answer, he's looking to accuse.
Otherwise he would have asked instead of stated.

I realize this. However, at this point, I'm mostly answering in case there are other people following along, and might want to know the answers to the questions Null asks, especially if they are curious and NOT antagonistic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is a mortal sin and is evil:

"2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them." - Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Harmonious]

I'll take that for you:

Tractate Makkoth 16a, 8 lines down from the wide lines. The Talmud is discussing how it could be possible for a rapist to nullify his positive commandment of reparation so that he deserves flogging. The scenario suggested is that the rapist accepted a betrothal as her messenger from another man. Rav here is going to explain why this case could not be the case in question.
"Rav said, if she made him a messenger, she is the one who abolished it (his requirement to reparation). If she didn't make him a messenger, has he accomplished anything (by accepting a betrothal on her behalf - rhetorical statement, he didn't)"
We see from here that it is within her power to refuse to marry her rapist.

Thank you.

 

[Tumah]

How so?

What questions from the OP or follow up questions did you address with your statement?