Talk:Marry-your-rapist law

France

I restored the entry on France per this HRW source that states that France repealed its marry-your-rapist law in 1994.

Removed the following accompanying text from the wiki article for now:

Article 356 of the French Penal Code states that a person who commits statutory rape can escape prosecution if he marries the victim. After which, prosecution can only happen if the marriage is annulled. It was repealed by Article 372, which was passed in 1992 and went into effect in 1994.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you have made an error here. The issue is not statutory rape but abduction ("Consensual".) for the purpose of marriage (A crime historically called raptus.). The age of consent in France is 15 in France whilst it is 18 for Marriage and the law refers to marriage with someone under 18.

My translation has: "Anyone who, without fraud or violence, abducts or embezzles, or attempts to abduct or embezzle, a minor under eighteen years of age...When a minor who has been abducted or deported in this way marries her abductor, the latter may only be prosecuted on the complaint of persons who are entitled to request the annulment of the marriage and may only be convicted after this annulment has been pronounced." This clearly assumes the consent of the minor in question. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What about "rapee"

Or "the submissive" ("the unwillingly submissive," to be specific) Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. And "submissive", hell no. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• BTW, Mathglot, thank you for reverting that idiotic edit. Whoever thinks that "Rape isn't potentially fatal" clearly doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

What about "the unwilling partner" Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Zentnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka: thanks for your suggestions, however it’s hard to overstate how cringeworthily inappropriate these suggestions would be if adopted into the article. Perhaps the existing terms should be kept for the time being. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

agreed. a lot of these laws by the way are based on religion. i think that's the reason religion should be outlawed worldwide and preaching religion should be punishable by death. 2603:6081:1200:200:62E2:3863:54C1:EF16 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

With regard to this edit,

it seems like the Bible just doesn't care much about whether sex was consensual or rape. Its main concern was with preventing harlotry and adultery. I.e. a woman was supposed to only have sexual relations with one man her whole life unless he died and she remarried. At any rate, the father was entitled to the bride price for his daughter whether her virginity was taken consensually or by rape. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit which restored much of the controversial text was also reverted. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH using primary sources to create a view that isn't supported.

1. Claim that Exodus 22:16 parallels and explains Deuteronomy 22:28 as not referring to rape with this reference which does not make this claim at all.
2. Saying "The Hebrew sometimes rendered "rapes" here is is the word shakab, which does not mean to rape, but to lie or to sleep with" with a dictionary reference is WP:OR.

This is why I reverted the edit and the IP needs to stop forcing WP:OR into the article. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You argued over the word "indicated".

You reverted to an old version that I pointed out had a falsely cited and falsely represented its source.

No, citing a Hebrew dictionary is not original research, and the translation provided (NASB, a literal translation) agrees with the dictionary. Two authoritative sources -- a translation done by scholars, as well as a dictionary.

Exodus 22:16 is a parallel passage. If you disagree, feel free to add a "citation needed". I did NOT provide that citation. The citation you say doesn't speak about it being parallel is not intended to. It is intended to point out that the commentary explicitly states in its comments on verses 28 and 29 that the man is obligated, not given an option, as you keep reverting the article to claim.

Regarding it being parallel, I'll add presently the citation specifically for Constable's notes naming it as such. As if it wasn't obvious in every single Bible that provides parallel passages.

You also removed all edits when reverting back to an inaccurate revision. If you take issue with the edits, point out the issues precisely, rather than doing a sweeping reversion to a faulty article, wiping out all of the contribution since then.

So then, your complaints are false, your editing is not done with respect to the contributions made, and all citations are valid and provided.

Anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.228.194 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

People need to differentiate between consensual sex crimes and non-consensual sex crimes.

1. The whole section on Medieval and Early Modern whatever in this page is out of place. The issue is consensual in the references there and they were not rapists in our sense (For more on this I recommend Sex Crimes, Honour, and the Law in Early Modern Spain Vizcaya, 1528-1735 (2003) By Renato Barahona.) rather it was the promise of marriage which induced women to perform the deed. The women when abandoned took it to courts who from what I can tell tended to be believed, the punishment was essentially to either go through with the promise of marriage or pay a fine (Dowry.) to the woman.
2. Rape was not by the Early Modern era a property crime (Women were also the primary aggrieved party not the husband or father however the latter tended to be the one to file it.) rather the property that crops up was the dowry that the woman would have to pay.
3. The vast majority of rapes were never prosecuted (Or at least not as rape.), this is for two reasons, the first is that the woman was usually not believed especially if you were poor and the rapist was a noble (Although even then monetary compensation was required.) resulting in the likelihood the woman would be sent to a reformatory if she was lucky and secondly most were settled out of court with the acquiescence of the woman (For more on this I recommend Chapter 3 of Women, Crime, and Forgiveness in Early Modern Portugal (2016) By Darlene Abreu-Ferreira.) as monetary compensation or...
4. To marry your rapist (Or to provide a dowry, if she marries her rapist she is not required to put up a dowry and if she does not he is required to put it up.) however, as shocking as this is, this was actually a sign that the woman was indeed aggrieved by the man she charged: "The outcome of a rape prosecution in many parts of Europe was often not a conviction, because a marriage would be arranged instead: a marriage with either the rapist or another man given a dowry by the rapist. Such an outcome might appear abhorrent to modern sensibilities, but the intention was to acknowledge the hurt done to the victim’s body and reputation, while at the same time guaranteeing her a continuing and productive role as a wife within the community."-Sexual and Family Violence in Europe (2020) By Dianne Hall and Elizabeth Malcolm (Page 284 of the book.). Her consent was a factor as well of course to the marriage.
5. She could also press assault charges or for compensation which were easier to prove: "Whereas rape required a high burden of proof, prosecutions for assault or civil actions for compensation were easier to prove. If either action succeeded, then a woman was likely to be vindicated in the eyes of her community and able to resume her place without serious damage to her reputation."-Ibidem

John Not Real Name (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)