Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a “method of conception.”
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape —RAPE! — is now a “method of conception.” You know, like love-making, just without the love.
There could be no greater testament to the utter abdication of responsibility by what passes for a “news” media in America in 2012 than that, despite the grotesquerie of this cavalierly callous comment, chances are better than good that this is the first you’re hearing of it.
Here, watch it — and try to figure out why this has gotten NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA play (not even here at the Huffington Post) despite it being, to my mind, a far more offensive remark than Todd Akin’s imbecilic blurt of last weekend. What, are we tired of stupid remarks about rape now, so Ryan gets a free pass?
Given the demands for Akin’s resignation from a mere Senate race when his musings on “legitimate rape” were publicized, what do you imagine the reaction would be if people were as familiar with VP wannabe Ryan’s stunning statement? Might there be a cacophony of outrage? Might there be calls for his resignation from the ticket? Might there be a focus on how fundamentally oblivious these people who would make our laws are to not just women’s but humans’ rights and dignity? Sure, there might, but then of course people would have to have heard about it.
According to the man who would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the White House, and who in any event would — given Romney’s utter hollowness — have an inordinate influence on the judicial appointments that will determine how much freedom our children get to live under, RAPE = “METHOD OF CONCEPTION.” And yet, unless you’re a frequenter of one of a dozen or so lefty blogs — or my friend on Facebook — you probably knew nothing about it.
I truly despair for the country my 14-year-old daughter is inheriting. That a remark this intensely revealing of the danger posed by this ticket can go basically unreported is as nauseating to me as the quote itself.
YOU awesome readers heard about, because I love you enough to keep you in the loop. I don’t know what the rest of the media is doing with their time.
this deserves ten million notes.
I atually heard about this, but I’m reblogging to give it more coverage.
“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. -(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)”
My lovely gray-faced darling, please do not take a biblical verse out of context. Neither should you rely solely on the English translation to make whatever point it is that you are trying to make.
FIRST, let’s go ahead and bring the context of the passage in. First in NIV and then in ASV. (I just picked two popular translations. One that translates it as rape and one that doesn’t.)
”But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” NIV
“But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:26 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 neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.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.” ASV
This part of the passage is talking about violating marriage. Verse 23-24 talks about punishing people who have an affair. Verse 25 is where things get interesting. Keep in mind that the Bible was not written in English. Unfortunately, the English language can, at times, be a bit barbaric in its translation of other languages. Quite frankly, at times we just don’t have the words to accurately describe what it is the other language is trying to convey.
Let’s look at verses 25-29 in their original language. Verse 25 uses the Hebrew word “chazaq” which translates to rape. Notice that in that passage, when the man rapes the woman, only the man is held accountable. “ Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death”
HOWEVER, in the verse you pointed out, the Hebrew words that the translation you chose translated as rape are “taphas” and”shakab.” Please note that NEITHER of those words actually translates to the English verb of rape. (The verb specifically used is “shakab” which simply means to lie down (sexually). Also, the verb used for “if a man ___ a virgin” is”pathah” which means entice.
Therefore,the passage is really about a man seducing a virgin and having sex with her. If you seduce a virgin and have sex with her, you should marry her.
Edit: The marriage can be refused on the woman’s side, in which case the man would simply pay the hefty fine. (Ex. 22:16-17). As the woman’s revenge, if she does choose to marry him, he is not allowed to divorce her.
Extra evidence: in the other places in the Bible where they talk about rape, another verb—which actually translates as “rape” is used. This verb is NOT used in 28-29.
Lastly, you may note that other translations do NOT translate this particular verse as rape. (I will admit that the NIV also translates it as rape.)
I was really excited to be a part of this project. It was actually pretty liberating for me. (I wanted to show my face, but I didn’t do my hair that day, which seems like a pretty trivial reason). Either way, it’s a pretty good!
(TW: Rape, Rape Culture) ‘Don’t tell men not to rape — tell women to not dress like sluts’
“”Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing… This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims.”
- Duke Journal Gender Law and Policy
Reasons Why I Hate Duke #120309
When the fuck did revealing clothing suggest submission? Oh Duke….
Seriously?!? Seriously. There are no words…