JeromeW

This page says that it does. But I cannot find the exact verse. I also could not find the specific issue on google.

Is this true? If so, where is it?

Toto

Note that this is only in the city.

The idea is that sex between a man and a woman married [or betrothed] to someone else was defined a illicit. An exception was made for rape; but the woman had to prove that she was a rape victim and not a willing participant by resisting or crying out.

JeromeW

Amazing.

Toto

Why amazing? The laws on rape through most of human history have not been much more enlightened.

In ancient Israeli society, as in many traditional societies, the bride's virginity was an important aspect of the marriage contract, which was a financial, legal, and business arrangement between the families of the couple. Rape was a crime against the husband's or the father's interest in the woman's virginity.

More modern laws on rape considered it a crime against the woman, but in practice the woman still had to prove that she resisted (at least she wasn't stoned if she couldn't prove this - but it is unlikely that many women were actually stoned in ancient Isreal.)

It was only under the influence of the women's movement within my lifetime that rape was recognized primarily as a crime against the woman, not only legally but practically. Rape laws were changed to no longer require the woman to prove that she resisted to the utmost, especially if that resistance would have created a greater danger for herself.

JeromeW

It's amazing people still bow down to the bible given the blatant injustice it pushes. It's not amazing to me that the bible has these views.

Julian

It gets worse (well, sort of) actually.

So, in other words, if you see some nice unmarried woman that you want to marry, just go ahead and rape her, then she will be forced to marry you. Of course, you won't get the dowry but that's okay, 'cause you can always just marry a few more women.

Julian

Toto

question on "cheating" split here and sent to MFP

Sarpedon

To be fair, cities at that time were so densely populated, it would have been virtually impossible to rape a screaming woman and not have people hear. Unless you were very rich, you would not have your own room, much less an entire house to yourself. Among the poor, multiple families would live in the same room.

JeromeW

That still leaves a lot of room for injustice. Imagine if a woman was threatened (say her parents would be killed if she screamed) and as a result she did not scream. She would die. This is barbaric.

MrKrinkles

I got into a discussion about this topic with a certain "JP Holding" and asked him some questions. His answers showed to me that he will say absolutely anything before he will admit that the Bible is in any way wrong. What follows are selected excerpts from the exchange:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Deuteronomy 22:22-30:

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor; because he came upon her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue 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 put her away all his days.

In the first passage, the woman is stoned to death because she did not cry out. But if the woman was being raped and she did cry out, her attacker may have killed her. Seems like a cruel Catch 22 situation to me. What do you think? Also, it appears that the man is to be executed not because he attacked a woman, but because he "violated his neighbor's wife." Deuteronomy shows that it is not rape per se which deserves death, but the violation of another man's property. As we can see in the last passage, a man who rapes an unbethrothed girl is not put to death, but gets to marry her after paying off her dad. I know that you would say this is a wonderful, merciful solution to the problem of finding this girl a husband, but don't you think the supreme ruler of the universe could have come up with something slightly more palatable to the girl than forcing her to marry her rapist?

(snip)

"HOLDING": You're being a temporal provincialist again. In this time and place, the girl would want this solution -- you need to look at this through the eyes of a society where the essence of survival was the preservation of key social units.

(snip)

ME: I explained to you that, according to the Bible, the Israelites went on war raids and killed a sizable number of women and children. I asked whether you would have taken part in these God-ordained massacres. You seem to indicate that you would have-however I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Could you clarify this for me? Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?

"HOLDING": Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy.

ME: Thank you for your honesty. That you can make a joke out of the dismemberment of mothers and their children reveals "a great deal about your character.�

(snip)

ME: Let's say that you were raped by a 300 pound psychopath name Bruno. Would you "want" to be his bed-partner and life-long companion because he raped you? Would you "want" this “solution� to the problem of being made un-marriable by Bruno? Would a perfect “God� make such an idiotic rule? I look forward to your answer -- it will reveal a great deal about your character.

"HOLDING": You assume that the forced marriage means automatically a bed-partner and companion. Now Brooks, think in more than two dimensions -- do you think that rapist would settle down into a happy family life? No! He'd be no more than the servant of the family whose daughter he disgraced. He would have to make up for the lost financial support -- that means work in the fields, polishing the doorknobs, no getting out of it! The marriage would be, as it always is, a binding legal covenant; but that's not the equal of bed partnering (yes, you don't understand marriage at all). Bruno the Psycho isn't going to be a happy camper the rest of his life -- he'll be paying his debt off with sweat. Now would you "want" that, maybe, if Bruno had bonged you? I'd find it immensely satisfying, personally.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if "JP Holding" was living as a woman in biblical times he (she) would find it "immensely satisfying" to spend most of his (her) life living with a man who raped him. :thumbs: Oh yeah, as a male, he would go on war raids to kill mothers and their cooing infants with a battle axe.

Brooks