Talk:Marry-your-rapist law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    France[edit]

    I restored the entry on France per this HRW source that states that France repealed its marry-your-rapist law in 1994.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 It was repealed by Article 372, which was passed in 1992 and went into effect in 1994.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)[reply]

    What about "rapee"[edit]

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

    • No. And "submissive", hell no. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    What about "the unwilling partner" Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    With regard to this edit,[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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marry-your-rapist_law&oldid=1212660634"