What happens when the law requires a woman to marry the rapist who deflowered her?
02-16-2017, 02:16 PM
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
I wonder, what was the effect of this legislation? What were those marriages like? What were relations between the rapists and their brides' families like? How high were rape rates in ancient Israel, compared to the modern United States?
This kind of legislation is reminiscent of Roosh's satirical rape legalization idea. If there are no criminal penalties for rape, then women who don't want to be raped will have to take greater care not to put themselves in situation where they would be at elevated risk of getting raped. On the other hand, maybe unmarried men who didn't want to be tied down to a wife would still have been deterred from committing rape.
Rape legalization also removes the incentives for women to make false rape accusations. With this type of law in effect, courts need not adjudicate whether sex was consensual, since the consequence of rape is the same as the consequence for consensual sex. See Exodus 22:16-17: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." Interestingly, if the sex was consensual, the father had the right to veto the marriage; but in the case of rape, marriage apparently was mandatory.
The idea of women being married to their rapists isn't all that farfetched. Until the mid-1970s, every U.S. state allowed a husband to rape his wife. Even now, some states' laws give lenience to rape that occurs within marriage. For example, Virginia law provides that a sentence for marital rape can be suspended "if, after consideration of the views of the complaining witness and such other evidence as may be relevant, the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and will be in the best interest of the complaining witness."
These types of policies seem to reflect three ideas: (1) a raped woman is damaged goods, except to the man who raped her; and (2) rape isn't necessarily all that psychologically traumatic. If it were, then surely marital rape would've been outlawed many years earlier than it was. Women would have been demanding an end to marital rape long before they were pushing for other reforms, such as the right to vote, the right to own property, etc. Apparently, they didn't mind all that much being raped by their husbands, although now organizations like RAINN have made a big deal about it, and even said that it's worse than being raped by a stranger, because it's an act of betrayal.
And also (3), keeping biological families together is important. When a woman was forced to marry her rapist, it prevented any offspring resulting from the rape from becoming bastard children. Looking at other passages, it's clear that the Bible was very concerned with not breaking up families, even if men committed some objectionable behavior against their wives. For example, Deuteronomy 22:13-19 provides that a man who slanders his wife is to be assessed a monetary penalty. Modern law doesn't assess any such penalties, except in the form of alimony, child support, etc. after a divorce.
To this day, the laws of some jurisdictions provide that if a woman marries her rapist, he is to be released from any criminal penalty. E.g., in the Philippines, Republic Act 8353 "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997" states:
Actually, I should've titled this post, "What happens when the law requires a rapist to marry the women he deflowers?" because that's the true effect of the Biblical law.
By the way, those who say that victim-blaming is wrong should take a look at Deuteronomy 22:23-24: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." Not only is the woman who was raped blamed for what happened, she's executed for not fulfilling her responsibility to cry for help when she had the opportunity.
Incidentally, I think a lot of these passages also lend support to the view that the Bible condoned polygyny. What happens if a man rapes multiple virgins? The Bible doesn't specifically address that situation, but I think we can assume that he would have had to marry all of them. Otherwise, married men could have raped all the virgins they wanted, without being held accountable to financially support them and their offspring.
I wonder, what was the effect of this legislation? What were those marriages like? What were relations between the rapists and their brides' families like? How high were rape rates in ancient Israel, compared to the modern United States?
This kind of legislation is reminiscent of Roosh's satirical rape legalization idea. If there are no criminal penalties for rape, then women who don't want to be raped will have to take greater care not to put themselves in situation where they would be at elevated risk of getting raped. On the other hand, maybe unmarried men who didn't want to be tied down to a wife would still have been deterred from committing rape.
Rape legalization also removes the incentives for women to make false rape accusations. With this type of law in effect, courts need not adjudicate whether sex was consensual, since the consequence of rape is the same as the consequence for consensual sex. See Exodus 22:16-17: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." Interestingly, if the sex was consensual, the father had the right to veto the marriage; but in the case of rape, marriage apparently was mandatory.
The idea of women being married to their rapists isn't all that farfetched. Until the mid-1970s, every U.S. state allowed a husband to rape his wife. Even now, some states' laws give lenience to rape that occurs within marriage. For example, Virginia law provides that a sentence for marital rape can be suspended "if, after consideration of the views of the complaining witness and such other evidence as may be relevant, the court finds such action will promote maintenance of the family unit and will be in the best interest of the complaining witness."
These types of policies seem to reflect three ideas: (1) a raped woman is damaged goods, except to the man who raped her; and (2) rape isn't necessarily all that psychologically traumatic. If it were, then surely marital rape would've been outlawed many years earlier than it was. Women would have been demanding an end to marital rape long before they were pushing for other reforms, such as the right to vote, the right to own property, etc. Apparently, they didn't mind all that much being raped by their husbands, although now organizations like RAINN have made a big deal about it, and even said that it's worse than being raped by a stranger, because it's an act of betrayal.
And also (3), keeping biological families together is important. When a woman was forced to marry her rapist, it prevented any offspring resulting from the rape from becoming bastard children. Looking at other passages, it's clear that the Bible was very concerned with not breaking up families, even if men committed some objectionable behavior against their wives. For example, Deuteronomy 22:13-19 provides that a man who slanders his wife is to be assessed a monetary penalty. Modern law doesn't assess any such penalties, except in the form of alimony, child support, etc. after a divorce.
To this day, the laws of some jurisdictions provide that if a woman marries her rapist, he is to be released from any criminal penalty. E.g., in the Philippines, Republic Act 8353 "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997" states:
Quote:Republic Act 8353 The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 Wrote:
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Actually, I should've titled this post, "What happens when the law requires a rapist to marry the women he deflowers?" because that's the true effect of the Biblical law.
By the way, those who say that victim-blaming is wrong should take a look at Deuteronomy 22:23-24: "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." Not only is the woman who was raped blamed for what happened, she's executed for not fulfilling her responsibility to cry for help when she had the opportunity.
Incidentally, I think a lot of these passages also lend support to the view that the Bible condoned polygyny. What happens if a man rapes multiple virgins? The Bible doesn't specifically address that situation, but I think we can assume that he would have had to marry all of them. Otherwise, married men could have raped all the virgins they wanted, without being held accountable to financially support them and their offspring.
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/y-6nH2gF1Do/hqdefault.jpg)
