Why does this page now reference 'benevolent rape'? That seems pretty screwed up to me. Can we not go down that road?
Hide / Show Replies
Does the Biblical example of Mary really count? Mary wasn't ever "raped" in the Gospels; indeed, she actually wanted to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:38).
Edited by dracosummoner Hide / Show Replies
It really doesn't count. At all. Perhaps you could add something to the page about it, please?
Editing the example to stress that it's an aversion was a good idea, though it seems like a few people have been tempted into trying to shoehorn an assertion that the Christian-Islamic example is played straight.
It might be a better idea to remove the example and leave a comment in the markup that Jesus' conception does not fit this trope at all, and why.
Edited by TrevMUN
Literal consent is not the core issue here. Updated the example a bit, so it now reads:
- Thoroughly averted in both Christian and Islamic accounts of the birth of Jesus. Mary consented to becoming the mother of God's son when God's plan was explained to her (as written in Luke 1:38). Since the divine visitation was of the benevolent kind, her consent must be considered valid. If it had been the Might Makes Right kind of visitation, her consent would have been dismissable as being made under duress.
"Rape" was very subjective in the minds of pre-modern people. For example, most marriages were arranged by families, not by the mutual wishes of the people involved (especially not the wives). A bride who was literally given away by her father into marriage (and it was literal for much of history, and not just a quaint wedding ceremony custom) could quite reasonably be argued as having been handed over for the purpose of rape unless she was lucky and her family married her off to someone she liked. Even then, the concept of marital rape was basically non-existent, as husbands were seen as having a legitimate right to "use" of their wives, something which is still upheld in some modern countries.
At the same time, things like the taking of women as war captives (and not necessarily brides) was also quite widespread. As was the sexual use of slaves generally. It was seen as a sign of true victory over an opponent to be able to sexually claim their women (and in some cases the opponent as well, men were by no means safe).
So, the Values Dissonance factor in this trope is not limited to gods. The gods just had more impressive ways and means to do what mortals were also doing.