Sunday, March 25, 2007

Stone the rape victim for not screaming for help

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

PERSONAL COMMENTARY


Isn't this a classic case of further victimizing a victim?

22 comments:

tiny tim said...

I'd like to know where you read in this verse that she's being raped.

Anonymous said...

Why else would she need to scream for help?

I looked up the context and here's what the next verses state:

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

So it's obviously talking about rape.

tiny tim said...

The verse before though reads: Deu 22:22 "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."

Is this verse talking about a man raping a woman? Likewise, there's also no mention about "forcing" or "raping" in verses 23-24.

David and Bethsheba technically should have been put to death for what they did. David didn't rape her and Bethsheba didn't cry out. It was still wrong though because she was married.

These verses are really quite simple to understand! .If the woman didn't scream for help, it would be insinuated the sex was consensual. If she cried out, the assumption would be rape.

Tastentier said...

Yes, it's easy to understand. If she didn't scream because the rapist held a knife to her throat, she'd deserve to be stoned to death. That's the law of the omnibenevolent god Yahweh, Jesus' daddy.

Amonite said...

The context of the passage is: If a man sleeps with a girl in town (ie she is capable of crying out for help - they did have judges) then she has two choices: sleep with the guy and risk getting stoned, or scream for help/cry rape. Obviously, if the girl cries for help or threatens the man she will, he is not going to sleep with her, and if he does, she is not going to be stoned because she screaming for help. If she doesn't, and has that capability, she is considered complicit.

Out in the country (ie somewhere with no help available), the girl may have been complicit or raped - but there is no way of knowing. It is unlikely that the girl is going to say 'yah, it was my idea' and get stoned. In this case it is assumed the girl was forced.

Ganesh V said...

Well, Shouldn't "The Holy Ghost" and "Virgin" Mary be Stoned to death as per this "gem" from the Holy Babble?!! ;-)

Adam McGhan said...

This is all Old Testament law, Matthew 1:1. Jesus come to fulfill the love...

Anonymous said...

"This is all Old Testament law, Matthew 1:1. Jesus come to fulfill the love... "

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17

Anonymous said...

lol the woman is not a victim, she appears to be a willful participant, she was not being raped, she was cheating on her husband. anyway fuck women, that's what god wants that's why women have vaginas for me to put my dick in, FUCK WOMEN!

Anonymous said...

Not sure if you still check this, but wanted to offer a comment. A fair reading of Deuteronomy 22:23-27 would see that the woman in the first case is participating in consensual sexual activity, but in the second case (the open field scenario), it is rape. The text signals this by saying that she did not call for help in the first case, but did call for help in the second. The issue here in consent. The first scenario is adultery, and the second is rape. In rape, only the offending party is liable to punishment.

Anonymous said...

If she was stoned to death by the islamic state, It jolly well serves her right for screaming rape and / or having the audacity of attempting to disobey a request from a man for sexual intercourse. What do you expect the islamci state to do, treat her as a victim and ruin the mans life just because he felt a bit randy one night and lost control a bit or was a bit desperate for a shag, no she jolly well should be stoned to death for that. They should also bring legistlation like this to the the western world for matters of crying rape. It would protect perpetrators of rape and innocent men wrongly accused as happens so often in the western world aswell. No big deal to the woman, all she has to do is forget about the incident and move on wish the man ni ill will.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 6/22/2016 1:27 PM. You should seriously kill yourself.

Unknown said...

He was the king and ordered her to him, it's still rape... Even though she didn't scream, he still Made her come to him. It doesn't say whether she was willing or not (conveniently), it is like the president sending a soldier to die and demanding the wife/husband of that soldier to have sex with them/marry them, or else blackmail. It is still extremely wrong. Also, what if the woman was gagged or mute or was under circumstances in which she couldn't scream for help. What if she was too scared to scream? There is more to rape than screaming

Anonymous said...

So many things wrong here. First off, out in the fields, there is no way to determine whether or not the woman screamed for help. She could just be an adulteress, but in this case the book favors the woman by assuming she did scream. That being said, there is a multitude of cases to consider when talking about the situation within the city:

1. Betrothed woman and other man have mutually consented sex. In this case, both parties have done wrong in the eyes of the scriptures and should be stoned accordingly. Personally I still find this repulsive, they had sex, it's not the end of the world.

2. Betrothed woman is raped by another man, she screams and screams and screams until someone comes to her aid, but by the time someone comes to her aid, the rapist has at least penetrated her. According to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, by implication, she did not scream sufficiently, because the sex occurred. She ought to be stoned (though, admittedly, all considered, I wager the elders would let her off the hook in this case, because she evidently did scream).

3. Betrothed woman is held at knifepoint by another man, who stresses that he'll slit her throat at the first sound that escapes her mouth. He starts ripping her clothes off in an attempt to rape her. She does scream, he slits her throat. He will be put to death for killing her, she's still dead.

4. Betrothed woman is held at knifepoint by another man, who stresses that he'll slit her throat at the first sound that escapes her mouth. He starts ripping her clothes off in an attempt to rape her. She contemplates screaming, but understands this to be a death sentence and thus remains silent, throughout the ordeal, only yelling for help as her assaillant leaves the scene. In this case, according to scriptures, she must be put to death.

Considering the last two scenes, the woman in question has a death sentence to her name, the moment the man flashes his knife. This is sick.

Robert Efroymson said...

Why would anyone think that the only way for a woman to prove she was raped is to scream? It is the only way mentioned in the verse, but to read it to exclude other evidence is very odd, especially in conjunction with the next verse (the 'field' verse), where we give her the benefit of the doubt. If she reports it as soon as she is able, why would that not count? Indeed, in #4 of the hypotheticals above, she *does* scream, albeit after the event, and thus is presumably covered by the rule, and spared. As to number 2, if she screamed enough to scare off the man, then there is no crime, and nothing in these verses applies.

Jaime M said...

This page is being linked from an Independent article "As a Rotherham gang survivor I want people to know about religious extremism", claiming that verses in the Islamic sacred texts are equivalent to this one in the Bible. Whoever wrote that article, or who "helped" her write it, clearly knows very little about Islam and especially the "Excellent Example" of the prophet Muhammad. The culture of slavery & sex slavery practised by the prophet and described in the Islamic sacred texts, and in Sharia Law, is NOTHING like in the Bible. The article misrepresents the truth, and is a disgrace to journalism.

Anonymous said...

If anyone would like to reason through this feel frew. If the woman is mute and cannot speak, would you honestly assume that she would be stoned to death for being raped and not crying out in a city? It is not a blanket rule to be literally applied in all scenarios. It is meant to describe a concept generally. That is why they still had judges that would have to hear the facts before any sentence was carried out. Not to mention this small issue of the Bible not being written in English originally. There's not always a way to translate a concept from one language to another completely accurately, regardless how well one knows the languages. Things in scriptures are not always what they appear. For example Deu 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Appears at first to be forcing a woman to marry her rapist, ostensibly to become his and become obligated to satisfy him sexually. That's the wrong interpretation though. Those two verses describe a punishment for the rapist, he has to support the woman for the rest of his life. And he is not allowed to divorce her even for cause. She can literally do almost anything she wants and he must continue supporting her. She could refuse him sex, she could even step outside the marriage conceivably. He is tied to her forever. Notice it doesn't say that divorce can never happen, only that he cannot divorce her.

Anonymous said...

Misleading article.

Here's what you need to know.


https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/deuteronomy-22.html

Anonymous said...

That's how I ended up here.
Stupid article.

Anonymous said...

Old Law is not New Law.
You misinterpret that. Christ fulfilled and changed the world!

Anonymous said...

I followed the Independent link as well. I find, once again, that it's not very independent. The Bible verse is differentiating between rape and consent. Islam allows and its adherents follow rape of non-Muslims. This Bible verse is in no way equivalent.

Unknown said...

Scum