I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me at least? How was it a woman's fault that a man forced himself on her and was tempted by her?
Why did society change and start to see this as wrong and not just blame the woman? When did this happen? Around the mid 20th century?
>>57939
Depends on the culture.
>>57939
>considered acceptable
it never was, since it was damage to property
yes, women were property back then. deal with it
patriarchy
>>57939
>wrong
There is no right or wrong in history. There is how it was and how it is. Read a book and fuck off.
>>57939
It's ok to rape their women
It's not ok to rape our women
Citations needed, for basically all of your statements.
You need to narrow your temporal and geographic scope or it's impossible to discuss this. Rape in 11th century Sweden =/= rape in 16th century China =/= rape in 19th century Egypt or whatever.
>>57939
because it's all about power, specifically, the power to dominate, to force, and to cause harm.
if you did not have martial and combat poweress your life meant nothing.
human nature, without the guiding hand of those more enlightened, is barbarous and lacking conscious or soul.
basically, yall niggers need jesus
and jesus was provided to you by force by the Templars and the freemasons who built the most powerful nation ever to exist
>>58085
I agree
>>58085
>and jesus was provided to you by force by the Templars and the freemasons who built the most powerful nation ever to exist
The British Empire?
>>58121
USA
I guess my thoughts go to the Rape of Lucretia.
It's not necessarily 'the woman's fault', but rather a stain on the family/husband's honour. Less an insult against the woman as it is about the act of c.uckolding her husband/disgracing her father.
Patriarchal cultures.
>>58148
USA was founded by Enlightenment-era Rosicrucian androids pretending to be freemasons though.
>>58234
USA is a masonic country, that's not conspiracy theory, that's public knowledge.
all but one of the signers of the constitution was a freemason.
the only confederate to have a statue in Washington DC is albert pike, the head of freemasonry during that era
>>58195
like i said, it was damage to property. losing a valuable asset (a woman's chastity) was a disaster socially and economically
this is also why it was uncool to kill slaves or force them to their death. same with horses, cows, fruit trees and all those other assets. not that they could not be sacrificed any time, just that wasting them wasn't seen well or applauded
>>58083
> I believe this thought was commonly seen in many cultures.
I think that "many cultures" is a bit of an overstatement. However - yes, many cultures have taken this approach to history. There is a good reason though.
In many philosophical frameworks, "fault" and "blame" are different. "Fault" may be an individual failure, something someone deliberately does through malice or evil design. "Blame" however, need not be one person being a bitch. Someone - in this context, a woman of great beauty - might be to blame for her rape, even if she didn't intentionally *cause* it.
To phrase it in modern terms, a schizophrenic, deranged, homeless, mentally challenged person might not be at *fault* for raping someone - he might not have intentionally, through malicious design, committed what the law considers 'rape'. But he did it, the law is clear about that, and he is to *blame* for the act.
Philosophical frameworks are far more nuanced and complicated than many people like to claim. This is one example of how they are not transferable across ages, cultures, and civilizations. Fault, Blame, and Rape, all mean and imply different things based on different philosophical understandings in different contexts.
>>58085
>and the freemasons who built the most powerful nation ever to exist
...The New World Order?
>>57939
St Augustine has a fascinating digression in The City of God about this. He argues that the Roman myth of lucretia has fucked up morals because it glorifies a woman killing herself over rape. He posits that a woman that is raped has unstained virtue, for only her body has been violated, not her soul.
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/hpt1/Augustine_Lucretia.html
>>57939
Because the world was full of predatory men. If you put yourself in a situation where you were not protected by the dominance hierarchy, it was your own fault.
Also, women were dependant on men due to pregnancy and in the real world power beats justice.
Still, it's complicated. Rape of lucretia led to some serious consequences.
because they should've been accompanied by their husband. duh
>>57939
If you rape their women, they question the lineage of their own sons, and their sons question their own lineage.
>>57939
>Why did society change and start to see this as wrong and not just blame the woman?
I don't think that it was ever acceptable in Western civilization.
Muslim civilization, however...
>>57939
>I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me at least?
You don't understand this because this was never true.
>>57939
It wasn't, don't listen to liberal feminists blaming everything bad in the past on men or hard right wingers that demonize muslims because of their laws surrounding this.
In the ancient, tribal past, the women would be married to rapist because the tribe could not afford to lose an able bodied male and a non virgin female. After civilization evolved to the point that you could afford to lose a man it was not allowed at all. It was usually the duty of the men to track down and murder the rapist.
What you are thinking is the whole "She shouldn't have dressed that way. She shouldn't have been out in a dangerous place." Which in the past was something to be taken to heart. rapists being tracked down through DNA, cops within 15 minutes of you to save you, and women being able to defend themselves with guns didn't happen until recently.
I can only really speak to western Europe in the Middle Ages, and it was treated varyingly there. It was punishable by law, but the punishment could include marriage between the victim and rapist. But 'rape' wasn't always an aggressive sexual encounter, it could also mean elopement, basically. It was also treated pretty lightly in fabliaux, but it was knights raping peasant women. So I guess it was okay? Even highly honored Arthurian knights make intimations of rape in late Medieval romances. I'm also pretty sure a man could have his wife's rapist killed at some times. Gies and Gies make an interesting point about this being theft of property in a way, too. And men and women frequently warn their daughters of the guile of suitors who will seduce and abandon them (Book of the Knight of the Tower, Response to Bestiaire d'Amour, the book of the City of ladies). I'm sure violent stranger rape happened and was punished, unfortunately I'm researching courtly love and rape comes up only on the fringes of that topic. Hope this random group of statements is of use.
But I've also read texts citing David's bullshit with Bathsheba as her fault, purely for her being a woman.
See Gies and Gies (old, but digestible), Georges Duby, Susan L. Smith's Power of Women (dense and scholarly), or Ruth Mazo Karras for more info.
