Why would any woman want to be Christian?

[Esquilax]

Um, what? You took advantage of a drunk person for sex who was clearly trying to get away from you and that's "semi-consensual rape"? Or is it only "legitimate" rape if it's "forcible" rape? And yet strangely, you never mentioned Statutory rape, which could be consensual (though go too far below the legal limit, and they won't understand the consequences of what they're agreeing to until it's too late).

Don't bother. He's willing to excuse any kind of immorality as long as its supported in the bible, and he's clearly so entrenched in his position that he'll continue this utterly fallacious line about women lying about being raped, despite how completely rare that is. Why try arguing with a non-cognizant?

Hell, it's why I'm talking around him.

[Darkstar]

No, I don't think it clearly semi-consensual rape at all. What if both of you are drunk and neither one completely remembers what happened?

If neither party can remember what happened, I think it would be very difficult to ascertain consent or lack thereof. I think that it is more considered rape if only one party is intoxicated or otherwise incapable of understanding the situation. If both are, then it is much messier and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what would happen. It would probably vary from case to case, but I don't know whether or not anyone would be charged with rape.

Any woman who is pissed off at her boyfriend can say that she was raped or try and fit certain circumstances together to show something.

It almost sounds like you are implying that women commonly fake rape when they are angry at their boyfirends. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this... I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how one would handle this sort of thing.

You atheist think that you are the merciful ones, but actually, the Bible is what is merciful. These texts show a compassionate God who is not biased against men and does not have naive views about women, the way that many modern liberals do.

I'm sorry, you must have us confused with Atheism+. Also, what are "naive" views? Should I show you statistics on how many false reports of rape there are each year...and how many real ones go unreported? Do I need to tell you that the latter is much higher?

I am not saying that men are the oppressed group, typically women are. But life is complicated, you cannot generalize about people.

Except most modern liberals, apparently.

The Bible is merciful because it doesn't see human behavior in black and white, it treats a complex situation like a promiscuous relationship with complexity, not with political platitudes.

Wait, I thought we were talking about rape, not promiscuous relationships. How are those related?

---

Don't bother.

Don't bother resisting the urge to debate him? Okay, I wouldn't have been able to do it anyway, I'm too persistent...sometimes I don't know when to quit. And when I do...I propmtly forget.

[Creed of Heresy]

At this point, Strodel, this is what your posts all equal up to in terms of worthwhile content:



That's it. It's you jerking off. You're not debating, you're arguing. Big difference.

[jstrodel]

If neither party can remember what happened, I think it would be very difficult to ascertain consent or lack thereof. I think that it is more considered rape if only one party is intoxicated or otherwise incapable of understanding the situation. If both are, then it is much messier and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what would happen. It would probably vary from case to case, but I don't know whether or not anyone would be charged with rape.

An honest statement. I am not trying to argue that women lie about rape often, or argue some sort of crude misogynistic position. Of course, women need to protected by the law. I believe that the vast majority of women who report rapes are honest about it.

Despite this, rape, like other matters, deserve fair criminal procedure. Liberals tend to be strong on advocating for peoples civil liberties (with some exceptions). A good liberal would realize that these civil liberties belong to all people, not only members of groups that are popular to defend. An exceptionally good liberal would realize that even people who are guilty of culturally defined offenses as being more heinous and evil than other offenses are still deserving of civil liberties.

This is the way that the Bible teaches about rape. It does not matter how often women fake a rape testimony, what matters is that people receive a fair trial. This is what Deut 28 is about, it is not about an arbitrarily harsh penalty that is associated with some sex crimes and an arbitrarily low penalty attached to others.

I am not against all aspects of liberalism, but I wish that liberals would be consistent with their application of the value of civil liberties. People accused of rape have civil liberties also.

---

At this point, Strodel, this is what your posts all equal up to in terms of worthwhile content:



That's it. It's you jerking off. You're not debating, you're arguing. Big difference.

All your posts are ad hominem attacks without any citation of the behaviors you accuse me of and are written in childish insults.

If I am such an idiot, why can't you refute my arguments?

[Esquilax]

An honest statement. I am not trying to argue that women lie about rape often, or argue some sort of crude misogynistic position. Of course, women need to protected by the law. I believe that the vast majority of women who report rapes are honest about it.

Despite this, rape, like other matters, deserve fair criminal procedure. Liberals tend to be strong on advocating for peoples civil liberties (with some exceptions). A good liberal would realize that these civil liberties belong to all people, not only members of groups that are popular to defend. An exceptionally good liberal would realize that even people who are guilty of culturally defined offenses as being more heinous and evil than other offenses are still deserving of civil liberties.

This is the way that the Bible teaches about rape. It does not matter how often women fake a rape testimony, what matters is that people receive a fair trial. This is what Deut 28 is about, it is not about an arbitrarily harsh penalty that is associated with some sex crimes and an arbitrarily low penalty attached to others.

I am not against all aspects of liberalism, but I wish that liberals would be consistent with their application of the value of civil liberties. People accused of rape have civil liberties also.

We're in agreement on the civil liberties issue. The reason we tend to push harder toward women's rights when it comes to rape is because of a one two punch of dishonest shaming and ignorance in the culture about it.

Not only do you have guys like Todd Akin who, without a single iota of knowledge about biology, declare in a public arena that women have magic vaginas that can shut down rape sperm in order to advance a political agenda, but there's more. Women who are the victims of rape have their entire sex lives paraded in front of the court, have the lines of their consent so blurred that it boggles the mind. In what other kind of criminal case would a judge be able to tell the victim that if she wasn't out at night at a bar, she wouldn't have been the victim at all, and have that be adequate reasoning to let her attacker off?

We focus in on these issues because they matter. Because rape is rape no matter what qualifiers you put in front of it. Because as it stands the system can be such a meat grinder that many rapes go unreported, and that's unacceptable. It's not just because we're liberals, or we have an agenda; we've seen an injustice, many of us personally, and we wish to correct it.

So when I hear you talking about X kind of rape, as opposed to Y kind of rape, it sort of makes my blood boil. Rape is rape. That's where the issue should stop.

[Gilgamesh]

For the same reason anyone else would/is. They block out the bullshit and pretend it's all happy-fun-times.

[EGross]

As we read here, women in the Sudan are forced sold as girls to older men, acquired, and then used as part of the rite of marriage.

I am not certain why Jews or Christians would be up in arms over this, since that IS the biblical model.

The section of Deut. that was up for discussion in thiss thread had 4 commandments in a row, going from most sever to least severe, which is one of the 13 styles of command groupings in the Torah. It was not about rape, but about ownership of women, and the punishments for taking of:

* A woman who was already owned and acquired
* A young girl owned but not yet acquired and giving away the goods bought for
* A young girl owned but not acquired and having the promised goods stolen
* A young girl who is a virgin and not owned, but wither giving away or having the goods stolen.

(Notis a young girl who is not a virgin and not slated to be owned is not on the list. Her future value is not affected.)

That was the core discussion of those statements. It wasn't about rape, but about the status of a girl who has been sold.

This confusion often comes from those who don't understand the different parts of the marriage process as defined in the Torah.

Here is the typical Jewish wedding, modern days, according to Jewish orthodoxy:

First, the man stands under the chuppah. The woman comes thickly veiled (less orthodox have more sheer veils). The woman comes forth and is paraded around several times around the groom so that he may agree that this is the right item that he is purchasing. In the old day, this would have been part of the nisuin (see below).

Erusin - This is the act of selling of the girl. The man who wants her gives money of a certain value, based on ther "use" status, and a upon accepting the value before witnesses, the sale is binding. In modern days, the woman sticks out her forefinger and a gold ring is slipped onto it halfway, and the man recites a statement of of ownership "based on the laws of Moses". And while that ring is really the property of the father, I have yet to see the father demand it from the bride, so the ring is a gift from the father, not the groom.

There are also assholes who, after the wife asks for a divorce (a woman cannot ever divorce the man, but only the man can divorce the woman), he goes out, does erusin with someone, and returns home saying "Ok, you want a divorce? Fine! But I get everything and you get nothing!! Otherwise I will never tell you who she is betrothed to." This means that the girl can never get married or have intimate relations for the rest of her life, since she is owned. The woman will usually give in.

A man can acquire as many wifes as he can afford, so he has no such limitation. He can live his wife in the state of aguna, a sort of marriage limbo where she can never marry or have relations, while he is scott free.

Ketubah - This is a document that the purcherser signs, agreeing that he will pay the woman a specific amount if he ever divorces her, providing she commits no crime (e.g., adultery). The amount is based on her "use" status, typically, but it can be more if the husband is feeling generous. (My wife was married before, but I still went with the virgin price!)

In modern days, after the giving of the ring, the Ketubah is read before witnesses. It is in Aramaic. And this document should always be kept in a safe place, since it is the only thing that the woman owns. All other things she shares ownership, but through her husband. Also, in modern days is a secondary Rabbinical document that most Rabbis require, stating that if the woman asks for a divorce and the man refuses, than a very high fine will be taken from him. Say, $1000 per day until he relents. This is a secular document that holds up in non-religious courts. Modern Rabbis came up with it to protect women from assholes.

If the Ketubah is not signed by the owner and witnesses, then the next step does not take place. Otherwise, there is no Ketubah and in the case of a divorce, the woman gets nothing if it was invalid or lost. (If it gets lost, many women will leave the house until a new Ketubah is made).

Nisuin- This is where the owner of the woman (henceforth known as the ba'al, which is "husband" as well as "master" or "owner") takes posession of the goods. In modern days, after the reading of the ketubah, the couple will go into a private room for a short duration (the law reads "for the duration that it takes to roast an egg"). It can be longer. Nothing has to take place. They could be having a quiet moment together (in orthodox communities there would certainly not be any "You may kiss the bride", which is probably a throw-back to this. When they come out, people cheer and then the dancing starts!

So when the statements in the Torah speaks of a girl who is erusin, understand that her status is like a car - it has been purchased, but the owner hasn't picked it up yet. And as the laws in the Torah show, her having relations while in that status makes her an Adulteress, even the the owner hasn't picked her up yet to take her home. (Think Mary, as in Mary and Joseph).

In the 4th rule concerning this, where a young girl who is not betrothed is caught having relations, it doesn't really matter if she was raped or not. The fact is that the amount of money that would have been due the father on a future sale has been ruined, and so the erusin automatically takes place, and the young girl is forced to be married to a creep for the rest of her life. A Ketubah is not required because he can never divorce her. And so, for making her ruined goods, the girl is punished, and the man gets what he wanted, but at a higher price.

As for the other cases where the couple gets put to death, that would rarely ever happen because of the way that pesuli edut (invalidation of witnesses) occurs, and you will need at least two men (no women) to see the rape from the very beginning, which is difficult at best. So in the most lenient case, where she is forced to marry the creep, the creep is considered being punished for paying a much higher price than had he come to the father in the first place and negotiated a deal.

Thank God for a secular court system!

[jstrodel]

We're in agreement on the civil liberties issue. The reason we tend to push harder toward women's rights when it comes to rape is because of a one two punch of dishonest shaming and ignorance in the culture about it.

Not only do you have guys like Todd Akin who, without a single iota of knowledge about biology, declare in a public arena that women have magic vaginas that can shut down rape sperm in order to advance a political agenda, but there's more. Women who are the victims of rape have their entire sex lives paraded in front of the court, have the lines of their consent so blurred that it boggles the mind. In what other kind of criminal case would a judge be able to tell the victim that if she wasn't out at night at a bar, she wouldn't have been the victim at all, and have that be adequate reasoning to let her attacker off?

We focus in on these issues because they matter. Because rape is rape no matter what qualifiers you put in front of it. Because as it stands the system can be such a meat grinder that many rapes go unreported, and that's unacceptable. It's not just because we're liberals, or we have an agenda; we've seen an injustice, many of us personally, and we wish to correct it.

So when I hear you talking about X kind of rape, as opposed to Y kind of rape, it sort of makes my blood boil. Rape is rape. That's where the issue should stop.

Well, I appreciate your zeal for human rights. How do you propose to with an accusation of rape and balance that with civil liberties? Saying "feminist" things is not the same as having an answer. I understand the difficult of the issue, and I am not trying to paint feminists in a negative light. I don't know exactly the right way to handle that, but life is complicated.

Have you ever had a relationship with a women in which there were complicated issues that are not really easy to put in a black and white context? Conflicts, things like that. I am not talking about rape, or anything like that, just conflicts. Life is complicated. Women are not always saints.

As for the issue of bars, I have in my own life on at least 6 or 7 occasions had a drunk or high female try and seduce me. These situations are not that simple, weird stuff happens all the time. I have walked outside of a bar and had women walk up to me, so intoxicated and just grab on to me. I've had that happen a lot of times. Life is complicated. There is no reason to side with women every time, they are just as much of a problem as men are.

If atheists care about rape and crazy stuff happening (prostitution, pimping, crazy screwed up exploitative relationships), they should tell women not to abuse drugs and alcohol. I think a lot of the issues center around that. I know women who are strippers now and have prostituted themselves and women who have been in abusive relationships. In every case, drugs and alchohol were involved.

I am not trying to blame the women, but it is a complicated issue. I know that there are times when it isn't and women are just violently raped and there should be a straightforward prosecution.

I would say that anyone who tells women that it is ok to binge drink and says they are a feminist is just a hypocrite.

[John V]

In the 4th rule concerning this, where a young girl who is not betrothed is caught having relations, it doesn't really matter if she was raped or not. The fact is that the amount of money that would have been due the father has been ruined, and so the erusin cautomatically takes place, and the young girl is forced to be married to a creep for the rest of her life. A Ketubah is not required because he can never divorce her. And so, for making her ruined goods, the girl is punished, and the man gets what he wanted.

The father gets the bride-price whether he gives the daughter to the man or not:

Exodus 22
16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

So, money has been taken out of the father's decision, and he is free to decide whther the man is a creep or not.

[EGross]

In the 4th rule concerning this, where a young girl who is not betrothed is caught having relations, it doesn't really matter if she was raped or not. The fact is that the amount of money that would have been due the father has been ruined, and so the erusin cautomatically takes place, and the young girl is forced to be married to a creep for the rest of her life. A Ketubah is not required because he can never divorce her. And so, for making her ruined goods, the girl is punished, and the man gets what he wanted.

The father gets the bride-price whether he gives the daughter to the man or not:

Exodus 22
16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

So, money has been taken out of the father's decision, and he is free to decide whther the man is a creep or not.

Yes, the man is being punished for ruining a future sale, and has to pay a price (which, based on the various commandments, will vary, depending if she is a virgin, a widow (who may or may not be a virgin), a divorced woman, or the daughter of a Kohen.) The courts will decide and award the affected party (the father, not the girl), that money.

Given that she is now ruined goods, the father can decide, not the girl, if it is in HIS best interest to give her over to the creep and get the full amount and not have to keep her at home, or take the future-loss amount and find a suitable person who would take her, and there is a financial incentive for the latter, since he already got the money.