3 ms·

It depends on if you’re ok being sold off to your rapist. Can’t see how that could go wrong.

• rightbyte 4y ago
  Ye that one sucks. Talk about perverse incentives ... I was wondering if married rape victims would be executed, or if it is implicit that they get the same blameless treatment as engaged rape vicitims. It is not clear from the context if you read litteraly.
• collegeburner 4y ago
  This is one of the things that only makes sense if you go to a mindset where women are chattel. A raped woman is "damaged goods", the man has damaged the property of her father. He now can't get a dowry because other men will not marry her. This also means the women may end up cast out, homeless, starving, destitute so not good for her either. The fucked up part is women being chattel though, which was just that time, this seems well intentioned aside from that.
  • wongarsu 4y ago
    I think the intent is not only making the father right by giving him 50 shekels, but also making sure the women isn't disadvantaged. Since she is "damaged goods" as you put it she would have problems finding a husband, making her life rather difficult. But conveniently there's somebody right there who we can make responsible of taking care of her for the rest of his life. From today's point of view the solution sucks, but people back then had a very different view of marriage (and life as a single men or women). Marriage could be about love, but it was often just a transaction that establishes how people cohabitate and share roles in a household.