So it says that DInah was humbled, not raped. Pretty much what I said above.
Oh no, no, no, no, no. Not by any stretch, and not in any such society. This is as way out as saying that if someone pissed on your pants while you were weariing them that you would jump at the chance to sell the pants to them. It’s a massive insult, not a property crime. You simply have to read the verses mentioned to see how apparent this is. Dinah’s brothers and father were furious and highly insulted. These godless people had defiled their property and had to be punished. You see the same mentality in societies dominated by machismo even today. Women may be treated as property but someone having sex with ‘your’ woman is the gravest insult and grounds for killing both the woman and the man.
In the Bible, rape is considered a form of assault. Not a property crime, a personal crime…but no worse than breaking a person’s arm. As is the case in assault, the assaulter has to pay monetary damages, and in the case of rape, the monetary damage can be assessed in terms of what kind of dowry a man would give to have her as a wife. The woman does have the right to refuse to marry him, but he doesn’t have the right to refuse responsibility for her for life if she does want it.
What? The marriage happened because he raped her! You don’t think that a rapist has a somewhat higher likelyhood of abusing his wife than someone who marries under ordinary circumstances?
And sorry if I don’t buy that the possibility of accusing her husband of an unclean act would be a perfect shield for a woman forced into such a relationship. I imagine she can get away with that about, oh, say, once before he beats the tar out of her and tells her that the next time she does it, he’ll kill her.
Yes, yes, I know that he’d theoretically get in trouble if he beat her or killed her, but in today’s society, in theory, a woman who goes to the authorities after he assualts her should be protected from his predations. In practice, that often doesn’t work. If women frequently are not protected by laws that regard women to be the equal of men, I find it extremely hard to believe that in a society when women were second-class citizens, a wife would be able to protect herself from an abusive husband.
Please tell me I’m not the only one who thinks that punishing a rapist by placing his victim under his power a less than hunky-dory solution! I’m not arguing that the men of that time wouldn’t have considered it an appropriate “punishment” for the crime, but to find a person in modern times who thinks that the wife wouldn’t have anything to fear from such a husband is . . . troubling.
You’re not. However, I’m inclined to think that previously rapists were not punished at all.
To me, this implies that Shechem didn’t care about whether or not Dinah wanted to marry him and/or have sex with him. Just because a guy sweettalks a woman, that does NOT make his advances welcome.
I’m sure that this was a great consolation to Dinah. :rolleyes:
A few years back I read a fascinating book called The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture. The premise of the book was that one can find conflicting passages in The Bible to support either side on any number of issues. It would appear that this is even the case with rape.
Yes, The Bible comes out against rape. And then again, there are all of those passages where it appears to be okay, if only just this once.
Besides some examples already cited, I believe Numbers 31:17-18 may deserve consideration. Moses sends troops to battle the Midianites, whom they beat handily. Then, when his soldiers return with the people who have been taken prisoner, he says:
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man. (emphasis added)
According to one plausible reading, this not only endorses rape, but child rape.