Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / DefiledForever

Go To

Sep 14th 2019 at 3:37:35 PM •••

It should be noted that this trope should be paired with and was often the excuse for the infamous shot gun wedding. See the opening of the spatbook Cityscape where the Lord Marshsl spares no expense in hunting down the elf theif who knocked up his daughter. Father\'s have been known to go on a roaring rampage of revenge including hanging the offending male or threatening to if he doesn\'t do right by his litte girl.

Sep 12th 2010 at 7:32:35 PM •••

Regarding Xzenu's edits.

"Since this worldview isn't all that keen on consent, it doesn't always make any distinction between rape and consensual sex: An unmarried woman having consensual sex can be considered Violated and Defiled Forever, 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 Defiled Forever 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.

  1. 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.
  2. ...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).
  3. 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.

Edited by TwinBird Hide/Show Replies
Sep 13th 2010 at 1:16:29 AM •••

Moving the consent thing down a few paragraphs might be a good idea, but it should definitely be included. Only reason I didn't include it from the beginning was that I hadn't made the SSC trope yet.

The shortening of the adultery example sounds preliminary reasonable to me, I'll get back to that after some thought.

As for Leviticus, the only quote I find is 20:18 (see also 18:19). In the Bible translation that is mainstream here in Sweden, Leviticus 20:18 clearly states that "skola de bĺda utrotas ur sitt folk" = "they shall both be exterminated from their people". So, according to you, this is a mistranslation? The extermination part is not what it sounds like, it's simply about shunning for seven days? What does your Bible say, exactly?

It seems likely that the Leviticus example should either be excluded or get a short added disclaimer about intepretation.

Edited by Xzenu
Sep 13th 2010 at 1:48:04 AM •••

Okey, I checked two different english bible versions, and their Lev 20:18's are both WAY less harsch then the swedish version quoted above.

The "Contemporary English Version" says "both you and the woman will be cut off from the people of Israel", while the King James version says "and both of them shall be cut off from among their people."

Sep 13th 2010 at 2:41:00 AM •••

"Exterminate from the people" implies either death or permanent exile.
"cut off from the people" implies either exile or a period of shunning. Technically this wording could also mean death, but it sounds far-fetched.

Anyone got a source on it meaning "shunning for seven days" or any other specific interpretation?

Anyone here happen to know what word/phrase was used in the original source-document and how that can be interpreted?

Anyway, I really find this extremely interesting. Thanks for the input Twin Bird.

Edited by Xzenu
Sep 24th 2010 at 1:23:00 PM •••

Revised the example as per our discussion. Further input is welcome. :-)

Oct 23rd 2010 at 2:39:20 AM •••

Oh excellent. I had a feeling that bringing up a single example of aversion from the bible (of all places) will serve as a major Take That!. I should have seen this coming though: People will debate it until it's changed to the complete opposite of what my original point was. If you'll excuse me then, I will be removing it entirely, and this discussion is over.

Oct 23rd 2010 at 5:00:37 AM •••

By the way, I can tell you this much: The "Contemporary English version" is highly unreliable.

Oct 27th 2010 at 11:17:18 PM •••

You had an original point? Wasn't this your first post? What's your original point?

Also, you think that KJB is the true bible, while the other is false/unreliable/whatever? So what? The whole "my faith is the right faith" issue is very off-topic for TV Tropes.

Oct 29th 2010 at 3:47:42 AM •••

The KJB? No, I was talking about the Karolyi version. Some of the points in the contemporary english one are simply absurd, and I have a feeling that it was heavily influenced by modern fundamentalist mentality, which I do not wish to associate with. Not that it's the matter of faith, seeing how the New Testament has rendered most of the old testament regulations moot, regardless of what the law was back then.

Now the original point I was trying to make was a reference to Deuteronomy 22, which discusses four completely different issues: accusations of promiscuity (condemning the woman if found true, and the accuser if found false), adultery (both parties are punishable by death), sex with an engaged woman (if it's consensual - I.E. the woman didn't call for help - both parties are punished, if it's rape - I.E. the woman had no way to call for help - only the man is punishable, the woman is not to be harmed), and finally sex with an unengaged woman (the perpetrator is obligated to marry the woman, and pay a compensation of 50 silver to the family). The last two are the only relevant topics, as they are the ones where rape can be brought up. Neither of them condemn the victim (in fact, the first explicitly clears the woman of all charges, if rape is proven). Since this trope refers explicitly to rape, and the chapter in question makes an exemption specifically regarding rape victims, the example is an aversion, not a straight example as it was later decided. This was my point, and I edited the entry accordingly.

As for the parts of the Leviticus that seem to be quoted here, I have no idea how it's relevant, seeing how it has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Edited by BTIsaac
Oct 29th 2010 at 4:24:42 AM •••

Good points, and your new version of the example looks good to me. Also, while the whole issue of what's rape and what's not and why and so on is interesting, lets just not get into that mess. As it stands now, we don't have to.

Hmm, slightly off topic, but I'm curious: What does Karolyi stand for?

The two bible versions I'm most familiar with are the two main swedish translations. I prefer the older version, the new version contain some concepts that are clearly inaccurate translations IMHO, considering that those concepts didn't even exist when the bible was written. There's also a third swedish translation, that does seem to have a lot of fundamentalist revisions, but I havn't studied it in detail. As for english translations, I mostly know that there is a lot of controversy regarding the KJB.

Oct 29th 2010 at 4:31:26 AM •••

Just a clarification: the trope is about sexual violation, not rape. Those concepts are synonymous to most people, because we have an ethical system based on consent. However, in a more honor-based system, a sexual violation is a vioation against the honor of the family, and if the woman consented then it makes it worse!

I think maybe the whole controversy about the bible example is about what perspective on violation to use. You use a contemporary viewpoint, which I think is preferable, while others have used iterpretations that worked better like 200 years ago - something that does not make them more real or genuine or whatever, they are still over a millennia removed from the source and definitely not identical to the anicent hebrews.

Oct 29th 2010 at 10:33:54 AM •••

Károli Gáspár was the name of a Calvinist priest from the 16th century who is best known for the first full Hungarian bible translation, and probably the one version I trust the most. I often compare it with quotes from what I believe to be the contemporary version, and find serious differences. For example, the one I believe to be the contemporary version - correct me if I'm wrong - uses the word 'homosexuals'; the Karoli version uses a word that roughly means men having anal sex with other men - compared to the original word in that particular passage the later seems more appropriate, even though it's a single existing use of that particular word, and nobody is sure what it really refers to. There's another passage, which I've seen written somewhere in both Hungarian AND English. The Hungarian version said something along the lines of "blissful are the ones who hunger and thirst for justice (truth?), for they shall find fulfillment". The english version said something along the lines of 'those who's greatest desire is to do God's will'. If this isn't some mistake on the part of the person who picked the quotes (or I didn't miss something), then it's a pretty drastic alteration.

Jan 22nd 2011 at 10:04:37 PM •••

I'm posting this here because it was asked not to post recent real life examples. So, trigger warning, I guess.

Using rape as a means of coercing women trafficked into prostitution continues to occur. I'm told the procedure is that once the woman is sufficiently isolated her passport is taken away and she is raped repeatedly. Usually this occurs far from her home country. Check out Not For Sale, by David Bastone for more. I would like to see a 'real life' section added to this trope. It is not my call, however, and I ask other editors to consider the matter.

Jan 23rd 2011 at 1:52:28 AM •••

Hmm, I think we can change "no real life examples" to something like "no individual real life examples".

Feb 16th 2012 at 3:34:54 PM •••

No, we probably shouldn't have any real life examples. Although I just read the second-to-latest post, which may be good, but I don't know for sure if it should be on main.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what this trope entails exactly. Is it to say that a rape victim has a kind of "personal blame" for what happened to them, or is it simply that being raped (particularly if the victim was a virgin) takes something away. I do know that some believe that women supposedly "ask for it" (because they happened to be wearing a racy outfit or something), but that's no different than saying that if some guy pisses me off, and I have a Hair-Trigger Temper, it was his fault that I beat him to a bloody pulp.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: