[002]
TwinBird
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Since this worldview isn\\\'t all that keen on [[SafeSaneAndConsensual consent]], it doesn\\\'t always make any distinction between rape and consensual sex: An unmarried woman having consensual sex can be considered Violated and DefiledForever, on the basis that it was her \\\"purity\\\" that got violated, not her rights and boundaries.\\\"
I\\\'ve moved this, since it really doesn\\\'t belong at the head, and barely makes sense at the head, since while this might be \\\"leftover\\\" from that worldview, a lot of feminists hold the \\\"depression\\\" version of the general DefiledForever idea regarding rape victims. I\\\'m thinking maybe it should be removed entirely - any voices other than Xzenu\\\'s for or against?
* Some books of The Bible, plays this straight while others avert it. In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough, that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on. On the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves. (Keep in mind that The Bible is a collection of different books, written in different times by different authors. It contains all kinds of ideas, awesome as well as horrible.)
I\\\'ll take this one at a time.
# In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough... on the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent.
**You\\\'re describing \\\'\\\'a single paragraph\\\'\\\' (of Deuteronomy 22), not different books: if a man rapes a virgin, he has to marry her. If a man rapes a woman married or engaged, he\\\'s to be put to death, and she\\\'s to be spared. If it takes place in the city, and no one heard their cries, they\\\'re both to be put to death, the penalty for adultery. In other words, the Bible says she\\\'s \\\'\\\'lying\\\'\\\', not that she\\\'s defiled. The Bible\\\'s theory of adultery (it\\\'s right in the name!) goes under this, but it\\\'s a broader issue than the Bible.
# ...that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on.
**Not really relevant to this trope, certainly not belonging where it is in the paragraph, and more importantly \\\'\\\'not in the Bible\\\'\\\'. If a couple has sex during her period, they\\\'re to be shunned for seven days (Leviticus 19).
# On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves.
**Although adultery is the specific sin in question, just about everyone takes that to mean forgiveness of sin in general. After all, the crowd wasn\\\'t composed entirely of adulterers.
So... Deuteronomy says that in cases of adultery (defined solely by the woman\\\'s marital status), both the man and the woman are to be put to death, which might be an example, except that, as you said, it specifically \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t\\\'\\\' apply in cases of rape, despite their excessive scrutiny of the victim.
At the very least, this example should be a lot shorter, focusing on that tiny part that adultery is defined only as \\\"adulterating\\\" a married woman, and that it carries the death penalty, preferably without all the theological commentary. If we\\\'re going to list all the legal \\\"aversions\\\" in which married rape victims aren\\\'t treated legally as adulterous, or in which adultery isn\\\'t a capital offense, we\\\'re going to have a very long example page.
I\\\'ve moved this, since it really doesn\\\'t belong at the head, and barely makes sense at the head, since while this might be \\\"leftover\\\" from that worldview, a lot of feminists hold the \\\"depression\\\" version of the general DefiledForever idea regarding rape victims. I\\\'m thinking maybe it should be removed entirely - any voices other than Xzenu\\\'s for or against?
* Some books of The Bible, plays this straight while others avert it. In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough, that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on. On the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves. (Keep in mind that The Bible is a collection of different books, written in different times by different authors. It contains all kinds of ideas, awesome as well as horrible.)
I\\\'ll take this one at a time.
# In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough... on the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent.
**You\\\'re describing \\\'\\\'a single paragraph\\\'\\\' (of Deuteronomy 22), not different books: if a man rapes a virgin, he has to marry her. If a man rapes a woman married or engaged, he\\\'s to be put to death, and she\\\'s to be spared. If it takes place in the city, and no one heard their cries, they\\\'re both to be put to death, the penalty for adultery. In other words, the Bible says she\\\'s \\\'\\\'lying\\\'\\\', not that she\\\'s defiled. The Bible\\\'s theory of adultery (it\\\'s right in the name!) goes under this, but it\\\'s a broader issue than the Bible.
# ...that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on.
**Not really relevant to this trope, certainly not belonging where it is in the paragraph, and more importantly \\\'\\\'not in the Bible\\\'\\\'. If a couple has sex during her period, they\\\'re to be shunned for seven days (Leviticus 19).
# On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves.
**Although adultery is the specific sin in question, just about everyone takes that to mean forgiveness of sin in general. After all, the crowd wasn\\\'t composed entirely of adulterers.
So... Deuteronomy says that in cases of adultery (defined solely by the woman\\\'s marital status), both the man and the woman are to be put to death, which might be an example, except that, as you said, it specifically \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t\\\'\\\' apply in cases of rape, despite their excessive scrutiny of the victim.
At the very least, this example should be a lot shorter, focusing on that tiny part that adultery is defined only as \\\"adulterating\\\" a married woman, and that it carries the death penalty, preferably without all the theological commentary. If we\\\'re going to list all the legal \\\"aversions\\\" in which married rape victims aren\\\'t treated legally as adulterous, or in which adultery isn\\\'t a capital offense, we\\\'re going to have a very long example page.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Since this worldview isn\\\'t all that keen on [[SafeSaneAndConsensual consent]], it doesn\\\'t always make any distinction between rape and consensual sex: An unmarried woman having consensual sex can be considered Violated and DefiledForever, on the basis that it was her \\\"purity\\\" that got violated, not her rights and boundaries.\\\"
I\\\'ve moved this, since it really doesn\\\'t belong at the head, and barely makes sense at the head, since while this might be \\\"leftover\\\" from that worldview, a lot of feminists hold this idea. I\\\'m thinking maybe it should be removed entirely - any voices other than Xzenu\\\'s for or against?
* Some books of The Bible, plays this straight while others avert it. In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough, that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on. On the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves. (Keep in mind that The Bible is a collection of different books, written in different times by different authors. It contains all kinds of ideas, awesome as well as horrible.)
I\\\'ll take this one at a time.
# In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough... on the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent.
**You\\\'re describing \\\'\\\'a single paragraph\\\'\\\' (of Deuteronomy 22), not different books: if a man rapes a virgin, he has to marry her. If a man rapes a woman married or engaged, he\\\'s to be put to death, and she\\\'s to be spared. If it takes place in the city, and no one heard their cries, they\\\'re both to be put to death, the penalty for adultery. In other words, the Bible says she\\\'s \\\'\\\'lying\\\'\\\', not that she\\\'s defiled. The Bible\\\'s theory of adultery (it\\\'s right in the name!) goes under this, but it\\\'s a broader issue than the Bible.
# ...that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on.
**Not really relevant to this trope, certainly not belonging where it is in the paragraph, and more importantly \\\'\\\'not in the Bible\\\'\\\'. If a couple has sex during her period, they\\\'re to be shunned for seven days (Leviticus 19).
# On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves.
**Although adultery is the specific sin in question, just about everyone takes that to mean forgiveness of sin in general. After all, the crowd wasn\\\'t composed entirely of adulterers.
So... Deuteronomy says that in cases of adultery (defined solely by the woman\\\'s marital status), both the man and the woman are to be put to death, which might be an example, except that, as you said, it specifically \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t\\\'\\\' apply in cases of rape, despite their excessive scrutiny of the victim.
At the very least, this example should be a lot shorter, focusing on that tiny part that adultery is defined only as \\\"adulterating\\\" a married woman, and that it carries the death penalty, preferably without all the theological commentary. If we\\\'re going to list all the legal \\\"aversions\\\" in which married rape victims aren\\\'t treated legally as adulterous, or in which adultery isn\\\'t a capital offense, we\\\'re going to have a very long example page.
I\\\'ve moved this, since it really doesn\\\'t belong at the head, and barely makes sense at the head, since while this might be \\\"leftover\\\" from that worldview, a lot of feminists hold this idea. I\\\'m thinking maybe it should be removed entirely - any voices other than Xzenu\\\'s for or against?
* Some books of The Bible, plays this straight while others avert it. In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough, that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on. On the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves. (Keep in mind that The Bible is a collection of different books, written in different times by different authors. It contains all kinds of ideas, awesome as well as horrible.)
I\\\'ll take this one at a time.
# In some places there are rules that say that rape-victims should be stoned to death if they didn\\\'t fight back hard enough... on the other hand, Moses declares that if a man rapes a woman he is to be stoned to death. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent. He explicitly states that the woman is not to be harmed, because it was not her fault, and she\\\'s still innocent.
**You\\\'re describing \\\'\\\'a single paragraph\\\'\\\' (of Deuteronomy 22), not different books: if a man rapes a virgin, he has to marry her. If a man rapes a woman married or engaged, he\\\'s to be put to death, and she\\\'s to be spared. If it takes place in the city, and no one heard their cries, they\\\'re both to be put to death, the penalty for adultery. In other words, the Bible says she\\\'s \\\'\\\'lying\\\'\\\', not that she\\\'s defiled. The Bible\\\'s theory of adultery (it\\\'s right in the name!) goes under this, but it\\\'s a broader issue than the Bible.
# ...that married couples should be exterminated from their people if they have sex while she\\\'s menstruating, and so on.
**Not really relevant to this trope, certainly not belonging where it is in the paragraph, and more importantly \\\'\\\'not in the Bible\\\'\\\'. If a couple has sex during her period, they\\\'re to be shunned for seven days (Leviticus 19).
# On the contradiction side we also have the scene the scene where Jesus urge people to not throw the first stone since they are not without sin themselves.
**Although adultery is the specific sin in question, just about everyone takes that to mean forgiveness of sin in general. After all, the crowd wasn\\\'t composed entirely of adulterers.
So... Deuteronomy says that in cases of adultery (defined solely by the woman\\\'s marital status), both the man and the woman are to be put to death, which might be an example, except that, as you said, it specifically \\\'\\\'doesn\\\'t\\\'\\\' apply in cases of rape, despite their excessive scrutiny of the victim.
At the very least, this example should be a lot shorter, focusing on that tiny part that adultery is defined only as \\\"adulterating\\\" a married woman, and that it carries the death penalty, preferably without all the theological commentary. If we\\\'re going to list all the legal \\\"aversions\\\" in which married rape victims aren\\\'t treated legally as adulterous, or in which adultery isn\\\'t a capital offense, we\\\'re going to have a very long example page.
