• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does your religion say about rape/sexual assault?

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Does your religious doctrine have any doctrinal passages that explicitly condemn or even support rape/sexual assault?

Are there circumstances according to your religion where rape/sexual assault is more or less destructive or sinful? Prison rape? Marital rape? Statutory rape? (As a few examples)

Does your religion explicitly offer methods or suggestions for punishment for offenders? Does your religion consider victims to have any degree of culpability in being assaulted?

Does your religion extend the consideration for only some targets/perpetrators? For example, are men considered in your religion possible victims of rape? Are women considered in your religion capable of sexually assaulting someone else? In other words, does your religion consider itself more or less inclusive of varying demographics with gender, age, class, headship, etc.?

Do you believe your religion adequately covers the problem in any specific verse(s) in its central or core doctrine? Why or why not?
 

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. (Deut 22)

This passage is often ignored in light of the one that comes up afterwards and is far more controversial. Nevertheless, the passage explicitly says the woman has no fault, and the man should be put to death. The difficult and far more well known passage is later on where if the woman is a virgin, he must pay the father 50 shekels and marry her. That has its own explanations I won't go into now (culturally no one else would marry someone who lost their virginity, effectively ruining the girl's life. I do find it difficult how the rapist then marrying the girl makes it better, but yeah...), but what's clear is that the victim never has a share of the guilt or any culpability. I don't think it talks about the other way round, a woman raping a man. The punishment of death is common for much of OT law, it demonstrates the severity of all sin against a holy God, not a civil law guide for societies. For the purpose of this topic though, I just thought it'd be helpful to show a Bible verse that does actually explicitly say a woman has no guilt if she is raped, and the man should be punished.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. (Deut 22)

This passage is often ignored in light of the one that comes up afterwards and is far more controversial. Nevertheless, the passage explicitly says the woman has no fault, and the man should be put to death. The difficult and far more well known passage is later on where if the woman is a virgin, he must pay the father 50 shekels and marry her. That has its own explanations I won't go into now (culturally no one else would marry someone who lost their virginity, effectively ruining the girl's life. I do find it difficult how the rapist then marrying the girl makes it better, but yeah...), but what's clear is that the victim never has a share of the guilt or any culpability. I don't think it talks about the other way round, a woman raping a man. The punishment of death is common for much of OT law, it demonstrates the severity of all sin against a holy God, not a civil law guide for societies. For the purpose of this topic though, I just thought it'd be helpful to show a Bible verse that does actually explicitly say a woman has no guilt if she is raped, and the man should be punished.
What happens to a woman out in the country that is NOT pledged to be married? Is that still rape or did the man simply claim an single woman as his own?
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
What happens to a woman out in the country that is NOT pledged to be married? Is that still rape or did the man simply claim an single woman as his own?
It's still rape. And IF the single woman wants him, he has to marry her, and be monitored regarding her for the rest of his life.

If she doesn't want to marry him, he has to pay damages and doctor bills, regarding her body and mind.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
It's still rape. And IF the single woman wants him, he has to marry her, and be monitored regarding her for the rest of his life.

If she doesn't want to marry him, he has to pay damages and doctor bills, regarding her body and mind.
Why the distinction between whether or not she is engaged or whatever the equivalent was then? Is the rape not as bad if the woman was single so it only warrants paying damages?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gsa

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
Why the distinction between whether or not she is engaged or whatever the equivalent was then? Is the rape not as bad if the woman was single so it only warrants paying damages?
The distinction is made because if she's betrothed, raping her is forcing her to commit adultery.

Rape is as bad. I asked a few questions a year or so ago when someone asked me about the Torah enforced consequences if a woman rapes a man.

The answer I was given is that the victim is assessed and assigned (and awarded) damages, and they are determined on a case by case basis.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
The distinction is made because if she's betrothed, raping her is forcing her to commit adultery.

Rape is as bad. I asked a few questions a year or so ago when someone asked me about the Torah enforced consequences if a woman rapes a man.

The answer I was given is that the victim is assessed and assigned (and awarded) damages, and they are determined on a case by case basis.
So the punishment of death is for adultery, not rape. Got it. So adultery is a more serious crime than rape?
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
So the punishment of death is for adultery, not rape. Got it. So adultery is a more serious crime than rape?
Prima facie, it would seem so, as rape, in and of itself, doesn't have a definitive punishment in the text of scripture.

But on a deeper level, the punishment for rape is meted out on a case by case basis, as are the damages awarded to the victim.

So the simple answer is: I don't know.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The "chase" story is somewhat common among the old stories, where a guy chases a girl and wins her despite her protests. While there's the idea that she's actually just playing coy, it's certainly not helpful and this coyness isn't really conveyed in the stories I've seen.

Beyond that, however, I couldn't say. Old laws would probably be the best place to look, but I'm not sure if any were actually written pre-Christian.

I can say for certain nowadays, however, that the religion as I follow it absolutely condemns rape. I honestly don't care what my ancestors thought about it; I honor them, but I don't let them dictate my values. I actually intend to write a story or two about it.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
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? Not just the Abrahamic religions, but in Hinduism or Buddhism?

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?
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
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. Probably be difficult to argue this for Abrahamic religions since they clearly have issues with rape in their scriptures, but I don't know much about non-Abrahamic religions so maybe it could be argued that way for them.
 

Vidarsdottir

Just some chick
It's My Birthday!
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. Probably be difficult to argue this for Abrahamic religions since they clearly have issues with rape in their scriptures, but I don't know much about non-Abrahamic religions so maybe it could be argued that way for them.


In my non-Abrahamic religion, we may lack a 'holy book', but we have plenty of guidance in many forms.

Rape and attempted rape were both death penalty offenses - for the criminal only, of course. Generally speaking, the rapist would be declared outlaw (literally - they now exist outside the law) meaning it was OK to kill them. As long as they couldn't get away from the woman's rampaging kinfolk (or anyone nearby who knew they were outlaw and happened to be bored) or fight them off with their own kinfolk (before running for it if they were smart), it was pretty much a guaranteed death for the offender.

Being declared outlaw was about the worse thing that could happen to you. There were cases where people were declared outlaw for limited periods of time, but if you lacked a large enough family/kin group to protect you and/or couldn't get far enough away to hide and wait it out, your chances of survival were not good.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
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? Not just the Abrahamic religions, but in Hinduism or Buddhism?

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?

Well, I can't speak for Buddhism, but in Hinduism, you're sort of free to make up your own mind about........well everything really. You're not bound to any one scripture. You're not even bound to any one book or central figure like the Abraham religions.
Because of this, you will find pretty much every single belief under the sun in the Hindu community. And not just about God/s, but about literally everything.

Usually, if any scripture of any "Holy Book" does seem abhorrent according to modern understanding, then Hindus just ignore it as something without merit, reflective of a more "unenlightened" time and then focus on other scriptures.

Sexual assault and rape could very easily be construed in Hinduism as against both Dhama (roughly meaning duty) and as bad Karma. Against Dharma because, well. Sometimes you will find that sexual satisfaction is considered a large part of successful married life, both physically and spiritually. If a man does not satisfy his wife or vice versa sexually, then that is usually considered a "sin" as it is part of his/her Dharma to satisfy the partner. If he or she forces sexual gratification from their partner, then you can argue they are again commiting a sin. Because it is not only giving into a selfish and flesh based vice, it is ultimately damaging the spiritual connection to sexuality of said assaulted/raped partner.
Bad Karma because obviously sexual assault and rape causes demonstrable harm against a person, therefore a "sin" regardless of circumstance.

So, not explicitly prohibited as far as I know, but you could certainly build a strong argument that according to the philosophy of Hinduism rape and sexual assault should never ever be tolerated, regardless.

As it stands, I haven't really heard the word "sin" at all during my upbringing as a Hindu. Possibly due to translation issues on my mother's part (she speaks "Fiji Hindi" which is less influenced by Sanskrit than "India Hindi") and what is labelled a "sin" is usually just bad Karma, against Dharma or just being a dick. Partly because, well, Hinduism is more based around philosophy than Dogma. Generally speaking of course.

As to why people largely ignore it. Perhaps that's more to do with the fear people have. Rape and sexual assault is not only physically traumatizing like theft or murder, but it's like an ultimate violation of a person. Sexually, physically, mentally and a violation of one's personal anatomy. Therefore slightly more unfathomable to people who have not experienced it first hand. Death is something we can easily sympathize/empathize with, because of the culture we have about honoring the dead and most people have or know intimately someone who have lost a loved one (even if it is a pet.) So much more easily fathomable (at least mentally) than something like rape.
If someone is sexually assaulted/raped in a society, the common reaction is to reassure oneself that something like that couldn't possibly happen to you. People start to panic at the "unsafeness" of society and then start to make excuses as to why it happened to the person and therefore excuse themselves (at least mentally) from such a scenario occurring to them. "Oh they dressed like that, oh they were out late all alone, oh they were flirting, oh they were blah blah blah." (You can even find such reactions for victims of murder or theft.)
It's a basic psychological reaction, right? Then because religion is often a large part of one's life, you will find people of varying faiths bring up scripture/texts/books/examples to justify and then brush the "unseemliness" of it all under the rug, as it were. Or one could argue that people came up with justifications by imbuing it into a religious text to begin with.
 
Last edited:

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
Does your religious doctrine have any doctrinal passages that explicitly condemn or even support rape/sexual assault?

According to the Bible, if the woman he wants to rape isn't already another man's property, a rapist simply has to pay her dad off after he rapes her:

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." ~ Deuteronomy 22:28-29

According to this source, that works out to about 20 ounces of silver. This source shows today's price for an ounce of silver to be $16.86.

So if the USA was a theocracy, and we were obliged to model our laws after God's Law, you'd be looking at an investment of around $337.00 if you were planning your budget with a rape in mind. And the Bible says nothing about installment payments or (pardon the expression) layaway. It appears that rape is strictly cash on the barrel head.

Bible Rape Hint: Probably best to round up and bring a little extra in case silver prices fluctuate unexpectedly. Nothing as embarrassing as being caught short in a post-rape bargaining scenario with your future father-in-law, right?

...

Now obviously, the rich will find rape less financially burdensome than the poor will. However, before you mistakenly accuse me of advocating that rich men should be able to go around raping women willy-nilly ... remember that God has declared that - rich or poor - a man should marry the woman he rapes.

And he cannot divorce her. That's called "family values" in case you were wondering.

...

So if you have commitment issues (or are only wanting a sort of "trial marriage"), it makes much more sense to rape and then marry a female captive, as the Bible clearly states that such a woman can be set adrift any time her rapist gets tired of violating her:

"When you go to war with your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you, you may take them captive. If you see a beautiful woman among the captives and have your heart set on her, you may marry her. Bring her into your home. She must shave her head, cut her nails, and no longer wear the clothes she was wearing when you captured her. Then she may live in your house and mourn the loss of her father and mother for one month. After that, you may sleep with her. Then you will become husband and wife. But if it happens that you are no longer pleased with her, let her go wherever she wants. You must never sell her or mistreat her as if she were a slave,since you've already had sex with her." ~ Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Are there circumstances according to your religion where rape/sexual assault is more or less destructive or sinful? Prison rape? Marital rape? Statutory rape?

There doesn't appear to be a commandment in the Christian Bible against raping unmarried (or unbetrothed) women.

Does your religion explicitly offer methods or suggestions for punishment for offenders? Does your religion consider victims to have any degree of culpability in being assaulted?

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

Would it actually be better for a woman living in a hypothetical Christian Theocracy if her rapist just humanely killed her after he finished with her?

Syria_Stoning_Fake.jpg


From what I've heard, stoning can be a rather arduous process.

...

Once again, we see how Christians have convenient access to Objective Morality ... while the rest of us are obliged to just go with our subjective, secular "hunch" that rape victims don't actually deserve capital punishment.

...

Edited to add: 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.
 
Last edited:

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
According to the Bible, if the woman he wants to rape isn't already another man's property, a rapist simply has to pay her dad off after he rapes her:

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." ~ Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I hope you understand, but from the rest of your post it is clear that you don't, that the law is a LOT more complicated than what it says in the Scripture.


According to this source, that works out to about 20 ounces of silver. This source shows today's price for an ounce of silver to be $16.86.
One of the things you don't know is that the valuation of money, according to the way Jewish law interprets Biblical values of money, is not absolute, but changes with the times, and the general value of what money would have been worth at the time.

In essence, this would mean that the money would be equivalent to several hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Also, as I've stated before, the set price is only for the issue that she was raped. There is the whole issue of damages, which changes per case, that gets a WHOLE other SET of arguments on its own.

So if the USA was a theocracy, and we were obliged to model our laws after God's Law, you'd be looking at an investment of around $337.00 if you were planning your budget with a rape in mind. And the Bible says nothing about installment payments or (pardon the expression) layaway. It appears that rape is strictly cash on the barrel head.
:rolleyes:

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.

Now obviously, the rich will find rape less financially burdensome than the poor will. However, before you mistakenly accuse me of advocating that rich men should be able to go around raping women willy-nilly ... remember that God has declared that - rich or poor - a man should marry the woman he rapes.

And he cannot divorce her. That's called "family values" in case you were wondering.
Actually, the idea of marrying his victim is initiated IF THE VICTIM WISHES IT. The idea is that if SHE felt that she was forever tainted, and no one would ever marry her because she was raped, and the only man who would ever have anything to do with her was her rapist, then HE would be forced into the shotgun wedding.

And something you aren't taking into account: the community, particularly the Jewish Court, would keep tabs on the situation, monitoring it. HE can't decide, "Okay, I've had enough of this nonsense," and choose to back out and divorce her. If SHE wishes to, she can. But, you see, this is expanded on and explained in detail in the exegesis. This is a simple outline, not the ultimate baseline.
...
So if you have commitment issues (or are only wanting a sort of "trial marriage"), it makes much more sense to rape and then marry a female captive, as the Bible clearly states that such a woman can be set adrift any time her rapist gets tired of violating her:

"When you go to war with your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you, you may take them captive. If you see a beautiful woman among the captives and have your heart set on her, you may marry her. Bring her into your home. She must shave her head, cut her nails, and no longer wear the clothes she was wearing when you captured her. Then she may live in your house and mourn the loss of her father and mother for one month. After that, you may sleep with her. Then you will become husband and wife. But if it happens that you are no longer pleased with her, let her go wherever she wants. You must never sell her or mistreat her as if she were a slave,since you've already had sex with her." ~ Deuteronomy 21:10-14
This is so very limited in application that it is practically irrelevant, particularly since the First Temple was destroyed.
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
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? Not just the Abrahamic religions, but in Hinduism or Buddhism?

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?
If I had to guess, I would say because its a form of assault. Once Scriptures identifies basic forms of assault and its various fines and punishments, it doesn't need to make a list of every possible case. What is being addressed in the verses mentioned above are additional responsibilities and fines of the assaulter that would not normally apply in regular assault and battery cases.
 
Top