Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Valnen said:
Fuck cultural relativity. This is wrong, and anyone who says otherwise is also wrong.
Click to expand...

I think a rational form of cultural relativity would recognize that there are an infinite number of ways for people to live healthily, but we can objectively determine specific ways for people to be harmed.

In other words, murder is murder, rape is rape, slavery is slavery, regardless of cultural context.

So recognizing differences in cultures doesn't have to extend to encompass a stereotype of "cultural relativity" turning a blind eye to basic crimes against human beings.

In this terrible case, no matter what cultural origin for this "honor" mechanism, forcing a woman to marry a man who raped her is pretty much objectively a stupid fucking idea.
 
-viper- said:
Sounds more like a Christian Law.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 'If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'

The fuck?
Click to expand...

That's a Judaic law, Christians don't go by the OT laws and rituals. Also, this is a Muslim country, doesn't have anything to do with Christianity other than them both being "Abrahamic" religions.
 
-viper- said:
Sounds more like a Christian Law.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 'If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'

The fuck?
Click to expand...

Judaism and Christianity are not major religions in Morocco.
 
-viper- said:
Sounds more like a Christian Law.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 'If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'

The fuck?
Click to expand...


How does it sound 'more' like a Christian law?
 
I remember that story about a girl being cut from her cheerleading team due to refusing to cheer for her rapist, but this is far worse. :/
 
kittens said:
This isn't just a Moroccan thing. Similar things happen in the United States. Rape survivors are forced to live / work / go to school with their rapists all the time. And if rape victims seek their own justice, they're thrown into jail. They're almost entirely disempowered as far as official, legal channels go.

The United States doesn't prioritize rape as a problem.
Click to expand...

Name a time that a rapist has been brought up on charges and the judge orders the rapist to marry the victim to protct her honor.
 
andycapps said:
That's a Judaic law, Christians don't go by the OT laws and rituals. Also, this is a Muslim country, doesn't have anything to do with Christianity other than them both being "Abrahamic" religions.
Click to expand...
muslim country =/= muslim laws

I was under the impression death penalty is the punishment for a rapist.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514458,00.html

Sounds fair to me. Rape is worse than murder. All rapists should be executed.
 
andycapps said:
That's a Judaic law, Christians don't go by the OT laws and rituals. Also, this is a Muslim country, doesn't have anything to do with Christianity other than them both being "Abrahamic" religions.
Click to expand...

Yeah . . . that's why Christians never bash gays anymore. That's just old testament stuff.
 
This same thing happened in Sicilian villages well into the '60s.

It was so ingrained in the culture that it became a ritual, where couples that wanted to marry but didn't necessarily have their parents' approval would stage a kidnapping, with the friends of the future husband as witnesses or accomplices. After this "fuitina" (little escape) it was presumed the couple had consumed, and the parents of the bride had to concede a "reparatory marriage".

This all changed after the case of Franca Viola in 1966.
 
speculawyer said:
Yeah . . . that's why Christians never bash gays anymore. That's just old testament stuff.
Click to expand...

I love how some people think that a relatively fine, recent point of apologetics suddenly absolves the religion of any responsibility in matters like this.
 
I've always hated how completed male-centric the laws are in this dogmatic bullshit. Like it's a punishment of burden to force this guy to marry her...
"Well since you raped her now you have to marry her. How do you like that huh? betcha didn't want to get married! BAM! punished mofocka.... oh the girl? What about her stance in all of this? Fuck her. That's what. .."

So fucking disgusting. I hate to have a shitty one sided religion hate thought process about anything... but it's hard not to want to just glass these archaic beliefs off the planet. Truly evil shit, imo. and it's pervasive through out their entire culture. How do you faze something like that out? ... guh. Poor girl.
 
-viper- said:
Sounds more like a Christian Law.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 'If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'

The fuck?
Click to expand...
The one when the woman is married is also good:

Deuteronomy 22:23
'If, while in a town, a man happens to meet a woman who is engaged to be married and he has sex with her. Take them both to the gate of the town and stone them to death: the girl, for not having cried for help in the town; the man, for having violated another man's wife. You must banish this evil from among you.

lot's of more stuff
 
Pure, distiled, insanity. It's really sad that there are still cultures where doctrines such as this one domninate the way of thinking. Even worst, it's integrated into the justice system.
 
Jimothy said:
How long until the Middle East emerges from their version of the Dark Ages? This shit is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Arabs don't want to completely submit to Western culture so probably not until the West suffers a significant decline in power (i.e. not in our lifetimes).
 
Kinyou said:
The one when the woman is married is also good:

Deuteronomy 22:23
'If, while in a town, a man happens to meet a woman who is engaged to be married and he has sex with her. Take them both to the gate of the town and stone them to death: the girl, for not having cried for help in the town; the man, for having violated another man's wife. You must banish this evil from among you.

lot's of more stuff
Click to expand...

It doesn't count if you're in a dungeon though. Then you can use a Pheonix Down.
 
somewhat on topic, bride kidnapping is still practiced in many parts of Asia and even Europe (the victims are often very young girls), and is just as despicable a crime

but yeah, this is sickening, and the worst part is that the rapist will never receive the punishment he deserves
 
Orayn said:
I love how some people think that a relatively fine, recent point of apologetics suddenly absolves the religion of any responsibility in matters like this.
Click to expand...

Dude it isn't the religion, it is the people!

Well actually, it isn't the people, but the chemicals in their brain.

If you want to blame anything you should blame those chemicals.
 
B!TCH said:
Arabs don't want to completely submit to Western culture so probably not until the West suffers a significant decline in power (i.e. not in our lifetimes).
Click to expand...

Being civilized has nothing to do with submitting to the west. If arabs don't wanna 'submit' to the west they should stop doing business with it.
 
Also why are people discussing religion. Was it religious court? The law should be problem and judging from the comments in the article it was the Judge who was the problem.


Dave Inc. said:
Wait. What the fuck? Rape is a very bad thing but come on now.
Click to expand...

You live a life of dying everyday.
 
-viper- said:
Sounds more like a Christian Law.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24: 'If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'

The fuck?
Click to expand...
I think you have the wrong part of Deuteronomy there but you do realize this wasn't written in English;

כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ
לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ

The actual quote is:

(28)If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Nowhere does it say rape, often people misconstrue the term "lay hold of her" as taking her against her will but really it just means to... use or wield. It doesn't implicitly imply consent or the lack thereof.
 
Potential trip to Morocco that I wanted to take my gf on in the future? CANCELLED. INDEFINITELY.

What the fuck is this kind of bullshit O___O
 
Houston3000 said:
Nowhere does it say rape, often people misconstrue the term "lay hold of her" as taking her against her will but really it just means to... use or wield. It doesn't implicitly imply consent or the lack thereof.
Click to expand...

This is really out of my purview but I would say that, since it mentions both "lay hold" and "lie with", that "lay hold of her" implies forceful taking. If they wanted to say "Yeah if you catch two teens rolling around in the hay they gotta get married" they would have just said "lie with her".

I know shit about biblical language though, so I'm probably pooping out nonsense.
 
Kinyou said:
I can't even fathom how fucked up that is. How can anyone with a brain in his head think that this kind of justice makes sense?
Click to expand...
.

How people can even think this way is beyond me. The only way I can explain it is mental illness.
 
Kaijima said:
In this terrible case, no matter what cultural origin for this "honor" mechanism, forcing a woman to marry a man who raped her is pretty much objectively a stupid fucking idea.
Click to expand...

Forget rape and women. Forcing people to marry for any reason is a stupid fucking idea.
 
Enco said:
.

How people can even think this way is beyond me. The only way I can explain it is mental illness.
Click to expand...

Like others have said, it's all fostered by a retrograde, rural culture of honour and shame. It's the same mentality behind honor killings and family feuds.
 
Sickboy007 said:
Like others have said, it's all fostered by a retrograde culture of honour and shame. It's the same mentality behind honor killings and family feuds.
Click to expand...
It's a shame this crap still happens.

Luckily it's not too popular and only a few countries think this way. Hell I think the people in the countries don't support it. Shitty governments strike again.
 
But the Internet told me Muslim women who are raped are sentenced to death. Now it's telling me they are also forced to marry their rapist. Interesting. It's only a matter of time before it's revealed the mothers are forced to have an abortion before being made to eat the foetus and are only then killed.

But seriously, to my understanding marriage (or a dowry) is a demand made of the male - not the woman. This of course assumes there is conclusive proof she was raped (an issue that has gone over the head of most when it comes to stories of the woman being the one sentenced rather than the male), and if so the hadd (religious) punishment would be given to the male and she would be vindicated and deemed innocent. For two people to marry, generally speaking, they both have to give their consent (which again is something that conflicts with the belief of forced arranged marriages being inherent). It makes no sense to (1) impose a punishment on the woman you've already deemed innocent and then (2) attempt to impose a marriage on her when knowing a non-consensual one is invalid anyway.

Houston3000 said:
I think you have the wrong part of Deuteronomy there but you do realize this wasn't written in English;

כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ
לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ

The actual quote is:

(28)If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Nowhere does it say rape, often people misconstrue the term "lay hold of her" as taking her against her will but really it just means to... use or wield. It doesn't implicitly imply consent or the lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I agree, Deuteronomy only gives sentences to adultery/fornication, I don't know why so many interpret it to mean rape. Verses 25-26 clear this up, "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter".

Distinctively, the term "forced" is used here in contrast to the other verses that discuss adultery.
 
Dave Inc. said:
This is really out of my purview but I would say that, since it mentions both "lay hold" and "lie with", that "lay hold of her" implies forceful taking. If they wanted to say "Yeah if you catch two teens rolling around in the hay they gotta get married" they would have just said "lie with her".

I know shit about biblical language though, so I'm probably pooping out nonsense.
Click to expand...
Well, it's just translated to "lay hold of" in english, and translated many many years ago at that. Back then men basically acquired girls from said girl's father, the parents would raise a girl and then when she was 13, or whatever ridiculous age, they would pass her on to a man for her to marry. She was a virgin, sexual purity was a HUGE deal, and the girl's father would be the one responsible for making sure she stayed a virgin.

This passage is just saying that if a man goes out and meets a girl himself, and take her or "lay hold of her" for himself (without going through the proper father/suitor ritual) and then have sex with her "lie with her" THEN she must marry him.

I don't agree with it, it's obviously barbaric but it's definitely not implying rape. For some reason it bugs me when people misinterpret ancient passages so badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Virginia Giuffre commits suicide
31
765
DAHGAMING replied
  • Locked
Tried to commit suicide Friday....failed
27
618
DGrayson replied
Jeff Baena (husband of Aubrey Plaza) commits suicide
2
82
9K
rkofan87 replied
Am I being pathetic here
43
785
kpopSuperstar replied
Mushroom learns to crawl after being given robot body
18
3K
FeralEcho replied
Top Bottom