Rape Response Revisited

by waiting 5 Replies latest members adult

  • waiting
    waiting

    Rape Response Revisited

    I have previously brought up the inferred insult to women done by the Bible, the WTBTS, and sometimes society in general - that rape is a woman's - not a man's - problem to deal with.

    QUESTION: Is it anywhere brought out in the WTBTS's teachings everyone who is raped must scream? Is it anywhere brought out in print the required response for men being raped?

    At what age is a young girl put upon - or now freed of - the responsibilty of screaming? The age to submit/fight the rapist? 8? 10? 15? 18?

    At what age is a young boy going to be questioned about whether he liked oral/anal intercourse - just as girls are?

    Again, when a man is raped by another man, or group of men (or women), where is a printed WTBTS required response put forth - as it is done for women? For that matter, where is the principle, or law, found in the Bible for a man to scream during rape to be found innocent of fornication?

    I cannot recall any discussion anywhere on the Biblical response for men in time of rape. How odd and manlike. Would a just God only concede that girls/women are raped and must respond - even to the point of death for her virginity? Should not males protect their virginity with their deaths also? Particularily is this odd in the reality that a man, or teenage boy, is much closer in strength and size to a male rapist than the average woman or girl.

    Thanks to Path,(bold added by him) the following are WTBTS responses quoting their interpretation of the Mosiac Law for Christians (however, we are always told by the WTBTS that we're not under the Mosiac Law.)

    *** w64 1/15 63-4 Questions from Readers ***
    ó According to the Bible at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, an Israelite engaged girl threatened with rape was required to scream. What is the position of a Christian woman today if faced with a similar situation? Is she to scream even if an attacker threatens her life with a weapon?—M. U., United States.

    According to God’s law an Israelite girl was under obligation to scream: “In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, you must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellow man.” If, however, the attack took place in a field and the woman screamed and thus tried to get away from the attacker, she was not to be stoned, since she was overpowered and there was no one to rescue her.—Deut. 22:23-27.
    But suppose the man had a weapon and threatened to kill the girl if she failed to lie down with him? These scriptures do not weaken the argument or alter the situation by citing any circumstance that would justify her in not screaming. It plainly says she should scream; hence, oppose the attack regardless of the circumstances. If she was overpowered and perhaps knocked unconscious and violated before help came in answer to her screams, she could not be held accountable. The thought of the scriptures apparently is that the girl’s screaming, by attracting neighborhood attention, would frighten off her assailant and would save her, even though he threatened her life for not quietly complying with his wishes and passionate desires.
    Such Scriptural precedents are applicable to Christians, who are under command, “Flee from fornication.” (1 Cor. 6:18) Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation. The Christian woman who wants to keep clean and obey God’s commandments, then, if faced with this situation today, needs to be courageous and to act on the suggestion made by the Scriptures and scream. Actually this counsel is for her welfare; for, if she should submit to the man’s passionate wishes, she would not only be consenting to fornication or adultery, but be plagued by the shame. There would be shame, not only from the repulsiveness of the experience, but of having been coerced into breaking God’s law by having sex connections with one other than a legal marriage mate. Not only that, but she might become an unwed mother, or she may contract a terrible disease from her morally debased attacker.
    It is true that a woman faces the possibility her assailant will carry out his threat; but, then, what guarantee does she have that such a desperate criminal would not kill her after satisfying his passion?
    In fact, such a one, perhaps already hunted by the law, may be more likely to kill her after the attack, since she would then have had a greater opportunity to identify him and would therefore be in a better position to supply a description of him to the authorities. In such case, following the Scriptural counsel of screaming could well save one’s life by attracting attention and driving the attacker away at the outset, instead of causing him to feel that he must get rid of his victim for fear of being identified later.
    In most instances it is doubtless a matter of calling the assailant’s bluff, since the girl’s screams could result in his arrest for attempted rape. Also, if he carried out his threat and committed murder, he would face the likelihood of apprehension and conviction for this even more serious offense. Of course, there is the possibility that instead of fleeing immediately, the attacker may strike his victim or inflict a superficial wound to silence the screams, yet would not the endurance of such physical punishment be insignificant compared to the disgrace and shame of submitting to an immoral man?
    A Christian woman is entitled to fight for her virginity or marital fidelity to the death. Just how best she can defend herself against anyone who wants to defile her depends upon her courage and quick wits. At least, as has been mentioned, she should first try to frighten off the would-be rapist by screaming and making as loud and noisy a spectacle of the matter as she possibly can, in order to summon any convenient aid. This being unavailing, then she has a right to defend her virtue by whatever means she can.

    *** w68 6/1 347-9 The Christian's View of Self-Defense ***
    ATTEMPTED RAPE
    If you are a Christian woman, what should you do if, in spite of all precautions, you are set upon by a rapist? If you cannot deter him by reasoning, or by calling upon the name of Jehovah, then what? As a Christian you are under obligation to resist. This resistance includes screaming and creating as much disturbance as possible to try to frighten off the attacker and attract help. If the attack continues and you cannot break free to flee, then you would be justified even to inflict damage on your assailant if necessary. Resistance is imperative, because the rapist is after, not just money, but your virtue. An issue of integrity to Jehovah’s laws is involved here. So by no means would it be proper quietly to submit to rape, as that would be consenting to fornication.—1 Thess. 4:3.
    Would it be different if the man had a weapon and threatened to kill you if you did not submit? No, the Scriptures plainly state that Christians are under obligation to “flee from fornication.” (1 Cor. 6:18) It is true that you face the possibility of death in this case. But you have no guarantee that if you meekly submit, your assailant will not kill you anyhow to avoid identification. [bold added]

    Here's how one sister responded to her attacker.
    …She told him that marriage was honorable before God and that she was married, but that what he wanted to do was not honorable. Also, that if she did not scream she would ruin her relationship with Jehovah God and the Christian congregation; that then she would be disfellowshiped or excommunicated from it and that this would be worse than being killed as far as she was concerned. [bold added]

    Again, when a man is raped by another man, or group of men (or women),[/b] where is a printed WTBTS required response put forth - as it is done for women. For that matter, where is the principle, or law, found in the Bible for a man's theocractic response during rape - that a man must scream during rape to keep his clean standing before Jehovah and in the WTBTS congregation?

    waiting

    Edited by - waiting on 8 October 2000 9:53:10

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for Waiting.

    All I can say is I am embarrassed to have such writings as part of my "heritage". I am disappointed no formal appology has been offered to the women and men who have been hurt by these policies.

    And while the policies may have changed, and the old articles are forgotten, the hurt and shame lives on, because while you can make changes on paper, its very hard to change people's minds.

    Path

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Path,

    Really, it is a question: Is there anything in the WTBTS's writings, or the Bible, about the required rape response (scream) for a man?

    I do not know of any. If there is not, an opinion as to why not, other than the obvious, would be appreciated.

    I knew the WTBTS and the Bible were, imo, slanted against women, but the WTBTS is slyer in hiding this viewpoint. I've read these articles, like millions of us, before. It never occurred to me that women were being told to protect their "virtue" to the death - and men were told, through silence, they did not have to protect their virture at all.

    Why, if the Bible is from God, would he punish women for a perceived sin (not screaming) and allow men to walk away (assuming they could walk) with no punishment? Understandably, that was in the Mosaic Law, and we are not under that law - just supposed to follow it's principles.

    Well, the principle is - women are judged much more harshly than men, in spirit and action, in response to rape.

    When I asked these questions of my husband, btw, he gives me the same style answer. A shrug, and says "men are assholes who rule the world."

    I think that's a true opinion.

    waiting

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    I think its simply the old mentality thinking that men don't get raped. I think that such a thought is probably the last thing most men think about. About the closest thing to it is the old "soap on a rope" prison jokes

    Now these people that molest boys is another story, and I think its been touched on in quite a bit in publications as all the Catholic lawsuits came out in the '80's and 90's. Of course, we hushed up ours for the sake of public image, and that's another story.

    When I asked these questions of my husband, btw, he gives me the same style answer. A shrug, and says "men are assholes who rule the world."

    That's probably a true opinion, and his shrug probably sums up how interested guys are in talking about being raped by a guy. And while men might still rule the world, women have come along way too. Your presidents of late have been known for their catering to women's interest groups. 50 percent of the population is too big a vote to ignore is it not?

    Path

  • waiting
    waiting

    Hey Path,

    With all due respect, people who are in the "high" position, or the authority position, often don't want to talk about what bothers the person who is in the "low" position - or the non-authority position.

    Harold, over at H20, reminded me of a post a while back, speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why did the mob of men want to have sex (to the point of trying to break Job's door down) with the two strangers (men) who came to their town?

    Were they all violent homosexuals? Why didn't they have sex with each other then? Homosexuals are not known for their violent mob tactics against heterosexuals, btw.

    Were they heterosexuals? Why did they refuse Lot's daughters? Being angry, they could have fulfilled a lot of angry sex upon the two women. But the mob of angry men didn't want the women - they wanted to have sex with the strangers who came into their town - their land.

    As Harold reminded me, (and rapists do this often), sex, particularily anal sex (man upon man), is used as a form of violent, humiliating, domination. And it was quite common in the ancient times and cities. So common, in fact, that quite a few, perhaps even a majority of men, would be humiliated at least once in their life in this manner. It was quite common for a stranger to be raped by the man/men of the town to show that they dominated him.

    But the Bible, written by men, is silent about this. The Bible, written by men, only puts in the Mosiac Law Code that an engaged woman must scream (in the city - not in the country, btw) or be stoned to death as someone evil.

    The WTBTS says we're not under the Mosiac Law Code, but for nearly a century, put teenage girls and women under the Law Code - and used the Christian Scripture "men should flee from fornication" (1 Cor. 6:18) to back up their use of the Mosiac Law Code. Not only must engaged young women scream - all women, all ages, in all rapes, in all places.

    Then, in their graciousness, the WTBTS freed women from their womanly evilness and said that elders shouldn't disfellowship or reprove girls and women for not "crying out." What the men didn't tell the women is that the men never were under the same law that they were. What the men didn't tell the women is that the men never did have to protect their virtue to the death - only subserviant women had to do that.

    White people have a tendency to look at black people and say things like "you were freed years ago, got the vote, considered human, - why are you still angry about things white people did to you?"

    People in the First World Countries have a tendency to look at Third World Countries and say "Why are you so upset just because we're using 3/4 of the fossil fuels in the world?"

    Some people in California who hire Mexicans to do work for them, pay them way, way, below minimum wage and say "Mexicans are used to working for less wages than Americans. They wouldn't know what to do with the kind of money we make." (Insert blacks, Indians, Orientals, for the same argument - always works to say "they'll just drink their money anyway.")

    Men have always been in a dominant position with women - and they still shrug their shoulders and say "I don't understand why you're still angry. You got the ...... vote, almost as good as pay (sometimes a lot worse), we aren't supposed to beat you up anymore, have to pay child support (if you can find us, which 3/4 time you can't), and now you don't have to scream when being raped. Of course, you're still under command to be submissive to your husband, and any baptised brother (no matter how young/stupid the twerp is) and if you make more money than your husband, your husband still makes the final decisions on anything he wants, so.... What's your point?"

    People in power usually don't "get" what the people who are not in power are talking about. Most likely because if they did, they would be ashamed of having power which they had no right to - and might lose some of their power.

    Guess my point is that the Bible, the WTBTS, men in general, always stay in power. Has nothing to do with intelligence, ability, looks, money, etc. - and they say God says so and women are dumb enough to believe them.

    I know that some kind hearted men will say, "but I don't feel that way.....that's just the way the world is......that's what the Bible tells us......somebody has to do the dirty work and think......women are just too kind hearted.....we're just assholes." Shrug, walk away and hasn't got a clue.

    waiting

    Edited by - waiting on 10 October 2000 21:30:55

  • waiting
    waiting

    Dear Path,

    I'm sorry that I came on so strong. Each time the WTBTS is further exposed to me as not being "just so," and I've played dumb once again to men - it's hard.

    I'm sorry I took my anger out on you - didn't mean to - you were just the man who answered me.

    We all have short comings, but to put God behind the shortcomings as a cover to keep women in line - and then to finally accept that reality, it's hard.

    waiting

    Edited by - waiting on 10 October 2000 22:25:35

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit