Was SA considered a crime against a woman?

#maklelan2148

[@lnsflare1]

"Was SA considered a crime.."
" *YES-* "
"...against a woman?"
"-n't."

[@67cudaksa34]

no, its a fine onny if she is not married.

[@AbdullahIbnAbdullah-pk1kf]

@@67cudaksa34it’s a property crime

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@67cudaksa34 it doesn't say "only if she's married" but rather it's worse if she's married. Which it is. The mistake is to start with the legal sections in the old testament and then claim that that's all there is to say

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​​@@stephenglasse9756 No mental gymastics nor sophism allowed.
There was no consideration for women's sexual rights, ir was all about property.
No other way around.
And wtf is this about being worse if a woman is married!?
This statement you did is an enormous Freudian Slip if I have seen any

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 it's not my fault you can't think for yourself if at all. But please try.
It's worse if she's married because.. wait for it... she's married. Get it? It's not only a crime against the woman - which is bad enough - but also against the husband who is according to Genesis "one flesh" with her.
Needless to say, you've offered no evidence that she's viewed as just property because...wait for it.. you don't have any. You're just baabaa baaing along behind Mr McClellan.

[@neomerlin]

"The sexual ethic of the bible is totally irrelevant to today" Wow. It feels SO GOOD to finally hear those words come out of somebody's mouth other than mine.

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@neomerlin it couldn't be any more relevant.

[@billlong9313]

@@stephenglasse9756 If spoken by someone well informed of the ins and outs of biblical sexual ethics, I'd expect that person could be a potentially abusive male partner... or an incel.

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@billlong9313 you know nothing. All you offer is insults and selective quoting.
The Bible says, woman was created in God's image and can marry whom she chooses and nowhere is domestic abuse of women allowed or called for. In fact, not only did Jacobs sons kill the men of shekhem for raping Dinah but Israel went to war over rape and killing of women.
Compare to atheism which says women are just relatively evolved primates subject to survival of the fittest and the koran which says "if your wife doesn't obey you, beat her".

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@billlong9313 you know nothing. All you have is ad hominem and selective quoting.
The Bible says woman was created in the image of God, has free choice in marriage, and no where does it call for domestic violence. In fact not only did Jacobs sons kill the men of shekhem for rape of an unmarried woman but Israel went to war over violence towards women.
Contrast with atheism which says women are relatively evolved primates subject to survival of the fittest!

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@billlong9313(This is now my third response but the pathetic keep deleting it)
You don't seem be capable of a reasoned non-ad hominem response. The fact is the Bible says woman was created in the image of God and she can choose who to marry. It's not just that the sons of Jacob killed the men of shekhem for rape but Absalom also also killed Amnon for rape (2 Samuel 13:32) and Israel went to war over rape (Judges 20).
Contrast with atheism which demands that women be regarded as relatively evolved primates subject to survival of the fittest whose purpose is merely reproduction!

[@thethirdrichard7787]

THIS right here. the idea that sex was an act done to a passive person sheds SO MUCH light on why it was degrading for a man to be a passive partner in a male/male sexual encounter because it was lowering him to the status of a woman.

[@edmundsishange3608]

100%

[@1970Phoenix]

Exactly!

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

This is a taboo that was common in the semote nations since the iron age, when maaculine gods were starting to be powered over the femenine ones. We have to remind that the iron age was basically ancient mad max, and the nations were rebuild over raiding and pillaging.
Like, literally like Immortan Joe but without current technology

[@chronoplague]

Learning from Dr. Bird that there was no word for "wife" in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament was really mind blowing. I'd been told my whole life that marriage was this sacred thing, but I couldn't actually find it in the Bible. Understanding that ancient marriage was just a man "taking" a woman, and now that he had laid with her she was his, really puts into context the kinds of laws in this video.

[@Bob20011492]

Use of that word "taking" is echoed when we hear of a man "taking" a wife, even as used these days.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@Bob20011492 I'd argue for care here, “taking” can also be read as simple selection, and indeed where I grew up this language of “taking” a spouse was used symmetrically and without any implication of aggression that I ever picked up. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just that language and culture are complicated.

[@eilyschneider5370]

Is there a video you can link?

[@YOhevet]

Ruth 1:9
The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband.'

[@A-man-in-the-box]

“Husbands, love your wives and don’t be bitter toward them.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3‬:‭19‬ ‭CSB‬‬

[@tussk.]

Until 1989, SA within marriage in Scotland was a private matter, and not the concern of the law. Physical abuse was also a private matter, referred to as 'A domestic', and also outwith the remit of the police. Guess what our spousal abuse laws were largely based on. I bet you can't.

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

"Gommumisn an' Uhtieesm!!!!1!!1!!!!"

[@CB66941]

Over here in Malaysia, there have been cases of offenders marrying their victims, with MPs calling for it. And the justification is religious in nature, though of Islamic origin. So much of what Dan says here makes so much sense why it happens here.
And I am aware some people don't believe me, but I can't seem to post these articles because youtube deletes them.

[@kuno3336]

Islamic origin would have the same origin as this, as a fellow Abrahamic faith. Deutoronomy predates Islam by... 600 years? At least 500

[@Guishan_Lingyou]

@@kuno3336 More like 1200 years

[@NorbertKasko]

@@CB66941 Islamic law is just Torah in disguise. Nothing to see here.

[@kuno3336]

@@Guishan_Lingyou I legitimately mixed up what book I was thinking of. I was thinking New Testament, so that is fully my bad

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​@@Guishan_LingyouNo, Deuteronomy is a very new book regarding the Tanakh/OT

[@ds6972]

"He" divorces her. NEVER "She" divorces him.

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Good observation

[@WayneD42]

A good summary of the biblical position on the SA of an unmarried woman: You broke it, you bought it.

[@stephaniedavis9404]

You did a great job explaining this in a respectful & informational way. Im sure it was difficult.

[@AbdullahIbnAbdullah-pk1kf]

It’s not difficult when your actually knowledgeable about what you are talking about

[@davepruitt]

This reminds me of Judges 19-20, which I think are the most sad and depressing chapters in the whole Hebrew bible.

[@juliesmith6503]

That's sad that women were considered property of their husbands or fathers and had no bodily autonomy.

[@matthews2243]

It is still an unfortunately common mindset, even if it's not explicitly said in that way. Take a look at the whole "purity" culture of modern American Christianity. It's all about "preserving" women for their future husbands. The patriarchy never went away, they just changed their rhetoric.

[@raydrexler5868]

Why do you think “Christians” are pushing the Ten Commandments instead of the Beatitudes?

[@WhoWellOk]

@@matthews2243so is promiscuity ok?

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​@@WhoWellOkMiles better than having citizens as property, a-hole

[@LauraDiamondWise]

You highlight just a few of the reasons why I am not of any fundamental Abrahamic religious derivation.

[@ericreed4535]

Genocide, misogyny, homophobia, scapegoating, blood sacrifice??? "Nah, I'm good"...

[@ameer.thelion]

Don’t project the ills of the Bible on any other religion than your own. Bible and Quran is night and day. Rape is a death penalty in Islam and Quran explicitly says that a rape is not a sin of the woman nor is she held accountable for it

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​@@ameer.thelionFuck off, the Quran is like a DLC of the OT

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​@@ameer.thelionWhere can you find any place in the Bible that "woman bear guilt over rape"? Where is it?
Meanwhile, in OT and Quran adultery is a sin that should be paid by being stonned to death.
"Day and Night"? Yeah, on the same fucking place, nothing different, just the time on the clock.

[@daviydviljoen9318]

This had lead to some pretty nasty stuff happening in 21st century America involving eleven year old girls, sometimes younger...

[@thethirdrichard7787]

Thank you for clarifying the Text for those that would consider it as a guide for living in the modern day.

[@HandofOmega]

I would still like to understand why there's no mention of SA against children in any of these law codes...They HAD to know this was something that occurred, could it simply be that they were ok with it? Obviously not with female children, at least, as their virginity was prized, but was it ok with male children?

[@dk2.026]

With male children, it'd be considered sodomy, so no. However, Leviticus 20:13 says that both the passive and active partners must be executed, so I'm not sure how they'd treat male homosexual rape. The OT doesn't seem to mention anything about forcing people into sodomy, so perhaps the raped male child would also be executed? I'm not certain.

[@Bob20011492]

In general, it seems that children had very little agency at all. For instance, a child, generally a son, who disobeyed their parents was to be stoned, per Deuteronomy 21:18-21. There was no returning from that parental punishment.

[@joshridinger3407]

in the case of a male if any age, both would be executed

[@AbdullahIbnAbdullah-pk1kf]

Because pedophillia wasn’t a thing they married off girls as young as 3 in those yrs and it was approved of by the god of the Jewish scriptures

[@alanb8884]

Finally, some Bible Codes Trump can live by!

[@stephaniedavis9404]

😂 good thing he doesn't read😂

"If you're famous, they let you" - Two Corinthians

[@ChaZ-cp6qw]

BAHAHHAAHHAHAAHHAHAAHHA
it's not funny.

[@tussk.]

grab 'em by the נַרְתִיק

[@raydrexler5868]

Two Corinthians walk into a bar…

[@billlong9313]

I'd suggest that the only relevance of the sexual ethic of the Bible to life today lies in the usefulness of a well-founded understanding with which one can cut through the "Bible-based" bs of sexual predators, bullies, "decency" police, and outright religious fascists. Thank you, Dan, for making this subject matter clearly understandable.

[@UBEUILLBEME]

Thank science most people, with the exception of a few loud troglodytes, have abandoned "Biblical morality."

[@donaldwert7137]

That's why the trogs want political power, so they can enforce that morality on everyone else.

[@matthews2243]

I dunno, take a look at purity balls and stuff like that. That sort of conceptualisation is still very prevalent in certain branches of modern Christianity

[@VulcanLogic]

@@matthews2243 I did and then I took a look at their teen pregnancy and divorce rates and concluded that they really don't take it seriously, either.

[@UBEUILLBEME]

@@donaldwert7137 Yeah, it's terrifying. If Republican's get in they'll continue their political crusade to push women back into the kitchen and bedroom.

[@UBEUILLBEME]

@@VulcanLogic Yes, when I wrote my comment I was thinking more that people give lip service to the values rather than actually believing and living out those values.

[@Tmanaz480]

Another thing to keep in mind is that capital crimes required at least two independent eyewitnesses in order to be convicted.

[@avishevin1976]

That is not necessarily true.

[@billlong9313]

There are passages, such as Deuteronomy 13:1-11, that are less than clear about the requirement of additional/independent firsthand witness(es).

[@elizabethdavis1696]

In the Bible when women were taken as captive in war why did they make them cut their hair and finger nails and change their clothes?

[@eilyschneider5370]

My parents definitely knew this was the case but did not tell me when I was a teen bc…control. I was told that I was “under my father’s umbrella” until marriage tho

[@BillyYonaire]

Beautifully explained 🔥

[@chasson321]

Matt.1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
What a conundrum for Joseph. Violated by god through the holy ghost. Then told to marry and without any compensation. Now that’s what I call a miracle!🥴
Seems it would have been better to have an unbetrothed virgin waiting in the wings.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@user-pi7ud6ip8d]

For myself and many I know the Bible is fascinating but irrelevant.

[@stephenspackman5573]

Sadly, I don't think it is entirely irrelevant to today. But thanks for the condensed presentation; you've just usefully expanded the space of my understanding of some notions I've encountered (notably, why some would _want_ people to marry those who have assaulted them).

[@jenniferhunter4074]

There's another facet to this primitive understanding of humans. For a very long time, humanity didn't understand that a child was the result of both paternal AND maternal DNA. That's where you get this idea of "sowing your seed". Then, they gain a bit more knowledge but still, it's male centric. That little sperm is racing to beat all the other sperm to "fertilize that female egg that is just passively sitting around". It's only recently that we've started seeing that women are, on a biological level, actively working in that fertilization process. As in the egg is helping certain sperm "win the race". So this primitive nonsense has hindered our studying of ourselves because magic or something.
This self-censoring or limiting areas of research.. we can blame the general culture and religion has had a very long time to influence our cultures. That's why, for too long, we didn't realize that the sun is a star and Earth revolves around the sun. Considering that ancient peoples had figured out that the earth was round using simple logic and experimentation.. think of all that wasted time on nonsense. It's a tragedy.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

"derived from Greco-Roman ethics" as long as you forget that in all pre-Enlightenment times & places-christianity consistently clashed with any polytheistic sexual values it encountered. Ask the Hellenistic physician Galen (read his comments) on early Christians' attitude to mainstream practice of sexuality in the Hellenistic world

[@emptyhand777]

How do I ask Galen, he's been dead for over 1800 years?

[@matthews2243]

That's a pretty generalized statement there. Christianity didn't really innovate any of its sexual ethics, it's a mix of late antiquity near-eastern and Greco-Roman ideas. As far as I could quickly find, Galen thought Christians displayed a lot of virtue with their sexual ethics.

[@VulcanLogic]

Ever read early Christian penitentials? Ever ask yourself why they are chock full of detailed penances for sexual sins? I mean, the Christians may have had a different ideal, but their practices were no different from the people around them.

[@tsemayekekema2918]

@@emptyhand777 he WROTE about christians-available online

[@tsemayekekema2918]

@@matthews2243 it only shows you don't know enough about early Christianity's sexual ethics, as it has gone into extinction, and only now exists in conservative Arab Islam-as Islam is ultimately a heretical version of Christianity that denied any form of deity of Jesus. Christianity's sexual ethics was NOT a mix of anything Greco-Roman - as it didn't resemble the world around it; it copied late Second Temple Judaism in insisting that it was sinful for a woman to expose her face & hair to males that are not her husband or blood relations, and insisted that all forms of non-marital romantic engagements are evil, totally unlikely the Greco-Roman world that allowed & even insisted that unmarried girls must open their hair, and allowed the existence of non-marital dating/romantic relationships & use of prostitutes. Of course, it resembled much of the Greco-Roman world in regarding homosexuality as evil (contrary to whatever biblical scholars might tell you-as only someone with PhD in Latin & non-koine dialects of Greek can be a true supreme expert in the Greco-Roman period)-but only resembled Judaism alone in being extremely strict about its hatred for homosexuality, which is why medieval Christianity imposed the death penalty on homosexuality wherever it gained complete control over public life

[@Jaymastia]

All that to call it irrelevant. 😂

[@WayneD42]

I like to also think about the problem of "upkeep" in the reasoning behind the forced marriage of an unmarried SA victim. Since the woman can't be married in polite society, the forced marriage gives the father a way to force someone else to feed, clothe, and house the spoiled goods. I suppose the father could choose to sell his daughter in slavery as an alternative, assuming (as some people like to claim) that the forced marriage isn't mandatory. That said, anyone who tries to claim that the woman gets a choice in the marriage decision is out of touch with how much men dictated the actions of women at that time.

[@suferick778]

Very interesting. How would that be applied in the case of Amnon and Tamar?

[@jannetteberends8730]

Are there rules that officially changed over time in the Bible itself?
Were there rules that are different in the end of the Old Testament.
Or different in the New Testament?

[@MusicalRaichu]

There's no concept of "official change" in the Bible. There's no body of "rules" apart from the Torah, which is not always self-consistent, only came into existence c 400 BC, and which non-Jewish Christians did not follow anyway.
NT accounts set in Israel assume Jewish customs, while NT documents aimed at gentiles assume Graeco-Roman customs. They all agreed that a woman must be faithful to her man. One difference is that GR were monogamous (Torah allowed polygamy). The biggest clash was that GR allowed men especially married men to use prostitoots and enslaved boys.

[@johnkilpatrick2343]

Some Christians believe that all OT Law is done away with unless it is explicitly retained by commandments of Christ in the NT. We are now living under Grace and not under the Law.

[@toddellner5283]

It's something Jewish religious scholars have struggled with for almost 3000 years. And in the best traditions of my People they have come up with more workable solutions through furious rationalization. The consensus starting in the early centuries CE is "Yes, the Torah says this, but the forced marriage can't happen until there are no legal encumbrances. Until the injury has been fixed (for pain, for humiliation, for damage to her name, etc) and until arbitrarily huge fines have been paid, etc. etc. The words written in stone don't change. But the way people think does. And sometimes it's for the better.

[@ancientcosmicclock]

Holy shirtballs

[@cxa24]

It can only mirror it would appear ('i know you are but what am i?')

[@EarnestApostate]

Man, I feel so gross when I think back to the first time I was asked to consider marital rape, and I didn't understand how that could logically work... I feel like I was brought up with pretty liberal Christianity, but even still I had some crazy ideas.

[@janetmilan4698]

And does it matter if the SA perp. was already married? In other words, is this law an indicator that polygomy was recognized as legit?

[@benjamintrevino325]

Sounds like the Bible might have been the work of men, not some Divine being. Hmmmm

[@amypieterse4127]

I was always told and taught that the bible was "basic instrhctions before leaving earth".
The more i have learnt about the bible the more fncked up i realised its morals and ethics (if there are any to find) are.
God and jesus chld have said a lot of things that could have prevented a lot of pain and suffering but they chose not to.

[@billlong9313]

As it turns out, the Jesus of the New Testament, rather like Saul/Paul of Tarsus, was one very human product of his own social setting.

[@bretfisher7286]

Well.
The blanket endorsement of so-called "Judeo-Christian" ethics by evangelicals makes much more sense to me now! Ha ha!
This is fantastically primitive and misogynistic, although not surprising in the praxis of the ancient Middle East.

[@FitLadyJoy]

So does that mean it’s not biblical adultery if a single woman with no father has sex with whom she pleases?

[@maklelan]

It was not adultery for a single woman to have sex with a married man (provided they then got married). Polygamy was normative at the time, so men could marry as many women as they wanted, and within Judaism, sex with an unmarried woman would later became an act of betrothal.

[@ChaZ-cp6qw]

​@@maklelanhow many wives do you have Dan?

[@blueyechoe2287]

@@ChaZ-cp6qw why are you like this?

[@gritch66]

Ok but what do you do for children that where born from biblically unlawfull relashionships like adultery, outside wedding or unrecognized by the father, and for their single mother? Bible is irrelevant, and christian communities also tend to stigmatize and marginalize them.

[@rogersacco4624]

Did ancient minds really think and introspect.? The Minds of The Bible by Rabbi James Cohn...about the bicameral mind

[@rogersacco4624]

First chapter ls introspection.

[@gertsy2000]

Thats just FUBAR and utterly irrelevant to today!

[@nellowethereal6633]

How does the bible feel about sex before marriage

[@naomisoltesz9890]

Who owns an unmarried, fatherless woman?

[@jaaaspokenjay5778]

Probably her master (sold into sex slavery) or her uncle (since he was to marry his dead brother's wife if he did not have an heir)

[@MusicalRaichu]

I've head that it's her nearest male relative. If she has none or none claim her, then it's a rare situation where a woman had some control over her own life.

[@joshridinger3407]

​@MusicalRaichu in rare cases. often she'd just become a homeless widow, with no legal entitlement to her own labor, and forced to rely on charity.

[@stupendemysgeographicus5009]

If women were considered to have no sexual agency, why were there punishments for the woman in some parts of the bible for if she didn’t scream? (which is obviously a terrible way to figure out “guilt”.)

[@nickdriscoll6131]

I wondered this, too

[@anikunzangmotian6925]

What if the rapist was already married?

[@matthews2243]

I don't know that monogamy was a thing when this was written.

[@WayneD42]

Having multiple wives was fine in that culture. You just get another. Also, keep in mind that it's not adultery for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman back then. Adultery is a property crime against a man when his wife's body is used by someone else.

[@mb-the-enby]

How does the story of Dinah make sense in this context?

[@avishevin1976]

What part doesn’t make sense? Brothers can be overly-protective outside the bounds of law. Even Jacob was only upset at the political ramifications. He never hinted that the punishment was undeserved.

[@marlondowney4033]

I am liery about placing a value on a moral ethic in todays standard.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

Let's talk about ugliness in people in the world today and for ages. This is where it falls under who the F cares what backward dead people thought or violent people think? Walk away enlightened and more informed or just depressed? When there's a throughline to present day ugliness, the justifications violent people used are void. Are we seriously pondering the weight of value of f'ed social constructs and those from awhile back? Minus the silly throwaway "sky man" go-to mocking, it's easy to see why biblical based lawmaking isn't to be respected in a court of law on matters too important today. I mean tinderbox of Salem witch trials attest to this, and to this day, it's the persecuted and murdered then that get the official "pardon". The cover of law to legitimize violence is a dammed dirty shame.

[@mrjimjimjimmyjim9824]

the bible is horrible

[@jackpatterson8389]

brother you are not an apologist. you're an academic. when are you coming over to the darkside? nvm I need you and Mark Goodacre on the side of the masses to remind me we are but one community. 😅