What Was God's Rationale In This Instance?

[2PhiloVoid]

For @Nihilist Virus ? Okay, here's something we discussed...


If covetousness was illegal, then prostitution would have been illegal, but it wasn't.

There's nothing in the O.T. about "prostitution" that would have legal transferability BETWEEN laws? Really? Nothing? Nothing at all?

They didn't have a word for "rape" because consent didn't belong to women, it belonged to their fathers and then their husbands after they were sold.

So, precursor concepts aren't enough in your book, I take it? You actually have to be told, "Don't specifically do such and such"? Just telling someone, "Don't even think about doing X!!!" ... isn't enough?

The few laws that exist which might touch on the subject of rape are framed in such a way that they are about destruction of property, not harm caused to a woman. Remember, those laws only protect specific types of women, not all, and who it chooses to protect is indicative of why they deemed those acts wrong.

...and you'll need to provide your sources for this. I'm not taking it on 'faith' here, Moral! Nor am I taking on faith that the remnants of the "written Torah" that we have left to us to day was, by all historical necessity, ALL that there was by which the Israelites made legal decisions, as if the written was all they had and they were too stupid to do anything better than look at each law and each case with the same superficiality that many today apply when reading the bible by way of simplistic "proof-texting."

As I said to NV, I can stomach the supposed deficiency we all feel with the fact that comparatively, the O.T. Law doesn't seem to be comprehensive in the way that, say, Modern American Law attempts to be (if it indeed can...)

...but what I won't put up with is the constant hand-waiving that goes on which assumes ipso-facto that the Israelites were as "simple" as we like to take them to have been.

 

[Moral Orel]

There's nothing in the O.T. about "prostitution" that would have legal transferability BETWEEN laws? Really? Nothing? Nothing at all?

Off the top of my head, the mentions of prostitution in the law are only about mixing prostitution with church. No temple prostitutes, daughters of rabbis can't be prostitutes. If there's something I'm not thinking of just go ahead and say it. Remember, you told me to pick up where we left off, and in our discussion you were surprised to find out that prostitution was legal. I had to prove it to you with sources.

So, precursor concepts aren't enough in your book, I take it? You actually have to be told, "Don't specifically do such and such"? Just telling someone, "Don't even think about doing X!!!" ... isn't enough?

Where's the law that says "Don't even think about raping anyone"? Because I just pointed out that "Don't covet" isn't sufficient. It's okay to covet prostitutes.

...and you'll need to provide your sources for this.

The verses themselves are indicative of what harm the law is trying to prevent.

I'm not taking it on 'faith' here, Moral! Nor am I taking on faith that the remnants of the "written Torah" that we have left to us to day was, by all historical necessity, ALL that there was by which the Israelites made legal decisions, as if the written was all they had and they were too stupid to do anything better than look at each law and each case with the same superficiality that many today apply when reading the bible by way of simplistic "proof-texting."

Yeah... The Mishnah has some seriously messed up stuff in it. If you want to invoke some other source that might be divinely inspired, then the age of consent was three.

ETA Hmm... "Age of consent" there is misleading. The age of consent was really zero, virginity could be lost only after the age of three. Hope that clears things up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Off the top of my head, the mentions of prostitution in the law are only about mixing prostitution with church. No temple prostitutes, daughters of rabbis can't be prostitutes. If there's something I'm not thinking of just go ahead and say it. Remember, you told me to pick up where we left off, and in our discussion you were surprised to find out that prostitution was legal. I had to prove it to you with sources.

Where's the law that says "Don't even think about raping anyone"? Because I just pointed out that "Don't covet" isn't sufficient. It's okay to covet prostitutes.

And where, pray tell, does it "say" this in "just that way"?

The verses themselves are indicative of what harm the law is trying to prevent.

More hand-waiving. Pay the fare ... or get off the bus, Moral! I'm not going to put up with this anymore from anyone around in these here parts.

Yeah... The Mishnah has some seriously messed up stuff in it. If you want to invoke some other source that might be divinely inspired, then the age of consent was three.

Mishnah? I'm not simply talking about the Mishnah or the Talmuds alone, all by themselves. And for me this has NOTHING to do with whether the Bible is inspired or not; no, I'm ONLY considering 'the how' hermeneutically that early Israelites may had in the praxis of legal thought and actual application of their judicial rulings.

So, go ahead you all. TEACH ME A LESSON! No, better yet, teach all of us Christians a lesson with all of your academic acumen!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Like I said in the post just above this one, specific women were protected from rape under the law. Only women who, by being raped, cost a man something are protected by the law.

Dang, and I thought my assessment was harsh.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

...why would they need one if they already had moral and legal concepts in place that logically PRECEDE the said act.

You're assuming the point in question.

Again, just as above where I pointed out that one of those concepts in the O.T. is "covetousness," but here you come at me with a demand for me manufacture some reason 'why' the Israelites have to no world for 'rape.' Do you think all languages today, even, have exactly the same equivalencies of vocabulary and meanings? They don't.

I understand that. My argument is that they had no word for rape because they did not understand the concept behind it. They didn't understand that consent was important.

What does this have to do with anything!

It's this little thing called legal precedent!

American laws with regards to sex have traditionally been Christian. Homosexuality and sodomy have been illegal for most of our history, and apparently some states to this day technically still have those laws on the books. So if the Christian Bible is outlining the idea of marital rape being immoral, as you suggest, then why is it that this had to be a progressive idea for us? Why was it not there originally along with the outlawing of homosexuality and sodomy?

We're not discussing here whether or not rape happened in Israel. I'm sure it did, but we're discussing the structure of the O.T. Law and if there was really the pure VOID of concept regarding rape in marriage specifically that you so espouse there was.

Uh... duh?

So, excuse me while I duck; there's a red-herring that just flew over my head from your direction!

I'm saying that even our grandparents thought that a man could rape his wife and it wouldn't be wrong. So it's not a stretch to imagine that this idea was prevalent among people thousands of years ago.

I asked the following question and it was yet another of the many questions of mine that you ignore:

And if it wasn't obvious to our grandparents that marital rape is wrong, then I don't think it was obvious to these people from thousands of years ago. So God should have set it straight for them. He didn't. Why?

Then that mistake is on you! And I won't let that pass. Sure, we can agree that the O.T. Law was by no means as comprehensive as today's American Law, but let's not act as if the Bible has nothing in it.

Nah, the Bible has nothing on modern morality. Nothing at all. Especially considering that, as we discussed, the Bible is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. If it could be at least one, then that would be an improvement. But no, women can experience forced abortions (via magic). That's immoral.

I don't know if there's anything in the Bible that we lack in modern law which would be an improvement if implemented.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're assuming the point in question.



I understand that. My argument is that they had no word for rape because they did not understand the concept behind it. They didn't understand that consent was important.



It's this little thing called legal precedent!

American laws with regards to sex have traditionally been Christian. Homosexuality and sodomy have been illegal for most of our history, and apparently some states to this day technically still have those laws on the books. So if the Christian Bible is outlining the idea of marital rape being immoral, as you suggest, then why is it that this had to be a progressive idea for us? Why was it not there originally along with the outlawing of homosexuality and sodomy?



Uh... duh?



I'm saying that even our grandparents thought that a man could rape his wife and it wouldn't be wrong. So it's not a stretch to imagine that this idea was prevalent among people thousands of years ago.

I asked the following question and it was yet another of the many questions of mine that you ignore:

And if it wasn't obvious to our grandparents that marital rape is wrong, then I don't think it was obvious to these people from thousands of years ago. So God should have set it straight for them. He didn't. Why?




Nah, the Bible has nothing on modern morality. Nothing at all. Especially considering that, as we discussed, the Bible is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. If it could be at least one, then that would be an improvement. But no, women can experience forced abortions (via magic). That's immoral.

I don't know if there's anything in the Bible that we lack in modern law which would be an improvement if implemented.

I could be wrong, and I'm about to say something that's going to shock some, but it could be, it might be, there's the chance that it's possibly that........."consent" isn't fully conceptualized in the Bible the way we would conceptualize it today because the Israelites adhered to core moral Ideas installed in the Law which prevented those modern ideals we like so much today that have come out of post-Enlightenment, Americanized notions of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

As far as our grandparents being "in the know," well................there's probably more social factors at work in all of this than just that old folks somehow ignorantly thought the bible promoted the idea that beating, mistreating or otherwise man-handling one's wife is somehow "ok." And I think you know this.

Moreover, we might even want to consider that the whole legal notion of "consent" as it is philosophically construed in American law and in Europe today might be going a bit overboard. I could be wrong, but since the notion of the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights hangs on the thinnest line of spider-web, ethically and ontologically speaking, I'd be surprised if at least some of the inherent characteristics of "consent" likewise hang on some thin line, just ready for a ripe wind to blow them out to sea.

But, sure, let's do some digging into the processes and legal developments from various strands of social philosophy that went into building the American notions of the Common Good as we think of them today and compare them with what we might surmise about the Jurisprudence of the early and mid Israelites.

And maybe we could start (but not finish!) ...................oh, ................I don't know. Here:

Reference:
Scholz, Susanne. "“Back Then It Was Legal” The Epistemological Imbalance in Readings of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Rape Legislation." Journal of religion & abuse 7, no. 3 (2005): 5-35.

And what did you find to add to this?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I could be wrong, and I'm about to say something that's going to shock some, but it could be, it might be, there's the chance that's it possibly that........."consent" isn't fully conceptualized in the Bible the way we would conceptualize it today because the Israelites adhered to core moral Ideas installed in the Law which prevented those modern ideals that come out of post-Enlightenment, Americanized notions of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

As far as our grandparents being "in the know," well................there's probably more social factors at work in all of this than just that old folks somehow ignorantly thought the bible promoted the idea that beating, mistreating or otherwise man-handling one's wife is somehow "ok." And I think you know this.

Moreover, we might even want to consider that the whole legal notion of "consent" as it is philosophically construed in American law and in Europe today might be going a bit overboard. I could be wrong, but since the notion of the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights hangs on the thinnest line of spider-web, ethically and ontologically speaking, I'd be surprised if at least some of the inherent characteristics of "consent" likewise hang on some thin line, just ready for a ripe wind to blow them out to sea.

But, sure, let's do some digging into the processes and legal developments from various strands of social philosophy that went into building the American notions of the Common Good as we think of them today, and compare in a similar way, what we might surmise about the Jurisprudence of the early and mid Israelites.

And maybe we could start (but not finish!) ...................oh, ................I don't know. Here:

Reference:
Scholz, Susanne. "“Back Then It Was Legal” The Epistemological Imbalance in Readings of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Rape Legislation." Journal of religion & abuse 7, no. 3 (2005): 5-35.

And what did you find to add to this?

Return of the Slick Willy, getting slippery on what the definition of "is" is. And dodging other questions. I don't find any of that useful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Return of the Slick Willy, getting slippery on what the definition of "is" is. And dodging other questions. I don't find any of that useful.

Somehow, I didn't think you would. BUT, I do and will continue to find "slick," academic information ... useful.

I guess we can just drop this issue here because, as far as I can tell, we're both way too similar in our psychological make-up, despite our divergent praxes and ideals, and we'll probably almost never agree on anything. Yet, one can still hope.

 

[Moral Orel]

And where, pray tell, does it "say" this in "just that way"?

See? You're a bad listener. You alluded to the idea that laws about prostitution had something to do with it, I asked you to show me what you're talking about, and you responded by telling me to prove an assertion with quotation marks around words I didn't even say.

More hand-waiving. Pay the fare ... or get off the bus, Moral! I'm not going to put up with this anymore from anyone around in these here parts.

Great! Don't put up with it! Prove me wrong for once instead of complaining about our poor reasoning skills but not coming down off your high-horse to demonstrate what's wrong with them.

When I point out that the only laws that even touched on the subject of rape involve harm to men, and situations where only a woman is harmed aren't in the law, that is simply a factual statement. Does that mean anything? Does that have any implications at all? Or do you just want to hand-waive that fact away?

Mishnah? I'm not simply talking about the Mishnah or the Talmuds alone, all by themselves. And for me this has NOTHING to do with whether the Bible is inspired or not; no, I'm ONLY considering 'the how' hermeneutically that early Israelites may had in the praxis of legal thought and actual application of their judicial rulings.

So, go ahead you all. TEACH ME A LESSON! No, better yet, teach all of us Christians a lesson with all of your academic acumen!

You want to think that "Don't covet" translated to "Don't rape" to them, yet it didn't translate to "Don't lie with prostitutes". You want to think that "Don't oppress" translated to "Don't rape" yet they still bought slaves and beat them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See? You're a bad listener. You alluded to the idea that laws about prostitution had something to do with it, I asked you to show me what you're talking about, and you responded by telling me to prove an assertion with quotation marks around words I didn't even say.

Great! Don't put up with it! Prove me wrong for once instead of complaining about our poor reasoning skills but not coming down off your high-horse to demonstrate what's wrong with them.

When I point out that the only laws that even touched on the subject of rape involve harm to men, and situations where only a woman is harmed aren't in the law, that is simply a factual statement. Does that mean anything? Does that have any implications at all? Or do you just want to hand-waive that fact away?

You want to think that "Don't covet" translated to "Don't rape" to them, yet it didn't translate to "Don't lie with prostitutes". You want to think that "Don't oppress" translated to "Don't rape" yet they still bought slaves and beat them.

....hmmm. It almost seems like you have a point. BUT then I thought, since the entire people of Israel were responsible for learning the Law of God in various forms and fashions, from children's daily lessons, to regular community gathering and preaching, to wearing tassles and whatnot to remind them under which God they lived, I'm kind of thinking that when they all "heard" that even the priests shouldn't sell their daughters into harlotry............................kind of as an analogous expression of selling themselves into spiritual harlotry with gods of other nations...............................they kind of (maybe just kind of) were expected to be smart enough to realize, "Hey, if the Priests shouldn't do that, then ... maybe we shouldn't either, that is, IF we want to be blessed by God."

So, yes, I do think there was indeed potential for bits and pieces of concepts embedded in various laws to be considered and then carried over by judicious fiat to other legal considerations in their ongoing jurisprudence.

But hey, I'm open to studying all about these things, but as you saw above, I posted a "source" for us to ponder, and what happened? Rather than engagement, I get designated as being a "Slick Willy."

So, forgive me if I can't take even half of you skeptics and atheists very seriously. Many times, for the life of me, I wake up each day and think I'll give "them" another chance, and maybe I shouldn't be so insistent or short with them. And then...............I'm called "Slick Willy"! MORE HAND-WAIVING.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Somehow, I didn't think you would. BUT, I do and will continue to find "slick," academic information ... useful.

I guess we can just drop this issue here because, as far as I can tell, we're both way too similar in our psychological make-up, despite our divergent praxes and ideals, and we'll probably almost never agree on anything. Yet, one can still hope.

You're clearly defending the unreasonable position, so obviously "agreeing to disagree" is your best choice. Well, if you're approaching this like a lawyer it is. If you're genuinely seeking the truth, you wouldn't deliberately obfuscate the conversation at every opportunity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're clearly defending the unreasonable position, so obviously "agreeing to disagree" is your best choice. Well, if you're approaching this like a lawyer it is. If you're genuinely seeking the truth, you wouldn't deliberately obfuscate the conversation at every opportunity.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggght. It's just "all me." eh he! I see.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When I point out that the only laws that even touched on the subject of rape involve harm to men, and situations where only a woman is harmed aren't in the law, that is simply a factual statement. Does that mean anything? Does that have any implications at all? Or do you just want to hand-waive that fact away?

That's a nice question you got there. Would be a shame if someone... answered it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggght. It's just "all me." eh he! I see.

Yes, it is, because I ask you direct questions and you ignore them, choosing instead to ramble on and on about epistemology and then following that up with a tangential source.

Meanwhile, when you lob a direct question at me, you get a direct answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, it is, because I ask you direct questions and you ignore them, choosing instead to ramble on and on about epistemology and then following that up with a tangential source.

Meanwhile, when you lob a direct question at me, you get a direct answer.

I kind of remember occasions on which you haven't addressed various of my points over the years; evading them even with ad hominems and other aspersions, whether direct or implied, like "Slick Willy." But since neither of us is going to budge one way or the other and we're apparently not going to go anywhere here in this.....whatever it is (it's not a discussion, and it's sure not a real debate).....on a public forum, I guess.....

Have a Great Day!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I kind of remember occasions on which you haven't addressed various of my points over the years; evading them even with ad hominems and other aspersions, whether direct or implied, like "Slick Willy." But since neither of us is going to budge one way or the other and we're apparently not going to go anywhere here in this.....whatever it is (it's not a discussion, and it's sure not a real debate).....on a public forum, I guess.....

Have a Great Day!

Ah, the ol' "But you did the same thing years ago according to my unsubstantiated accusation!"

Admit nothing
Deny everything
Make counter-accusations


Great strategy for the court of law. But let's leave the lies for the lawyers.

Or are you not interested in the truth?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, the ol' "But you did the same thing years ago according to my unsubstantiated accusation!"

Admit nothing
Deny everything
Make counter-accusations


Great strategy for the court of law. But let's leave the lies for the lawyers.

Not really.

I fully admit: you called me a "Slick Willy," as much as it hurts to say so.
I don't deny: you called me a "Slick Willy."
And I'm not going to say that just because you called me a "Slick Willy," that in any shape or form means that you're also "Slick" in your repartee.

Or are you not interested in the truth?

Sure, I'm interested in the truth, or what there is of it. That's why I'm so invested in an ongoing study of Epistemology, along with Axiology and some Metaphysics, among several other things. So, if you can find it in yourself to do so, please forgive me for the fact that the source I provided you earlier, up above a few clicks, focuses on some epistemological considerations, as well as on some considerations that have to do with ancient Israelite legal thought.

I mean, I thought that'd be a better place to start on an actual investigation that bleeds a bit more wholistically rather than simplistically let us remain on the Band Wagon of today's Skeptical evaluations and the distorted legal assumptions about the Old Testament Laws, such as they are.

 

[Moral Orel]

....hmmm. It almost seems like you have a point. BUT then I thought, since the entire people of Israel were responsible for learning the Law of God in various forms and fashions, from children's daily lessons, to regular community gathering and preaching, to wearing tassles and whatnot to remind them under which God they lived, I'm kind of thinking that when they all "heard" that even the priests shouldn't sell their daughters into harlotry............................kind of as an analogous expression of selling themselves into spiritual harlotry with gods of other nations...............................they kind of (maybe just kind of) were expected to be smart enough to realize, "Hey, if the Priests shouldn't do that, then ... maybe we shouldn't either, that is, IF we want to be blessed by God."

Can you give me the specific verse you're thinking of? Because the only law that I know of is the one that says a daughter of a priest who becomes a harlot should be burnt at the stake. The daughter, not the priest.

But aside from that, they were told not to sell their own sons into slavery, but they're allowed to buy slaves from foreigners. If the holiest men weren't supposed to sell their daughters as harlots, common folks don't think they need to emulate that. All Catholics aren't celibate because priests are. We devoted a chunk of our PM discussion to this: if it's legal, they're going to do it. Just like people today, upstanding Christians and filthy atheists alike. But to top that off, the Israelites being a bunch of stubborn, awful, screw-ups is kind of the theme of the OT, so I really don't understand why you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But hey, I'm open to studying all about these things, but as you saw above, I posted a "source" for us to ponder, and what happened? Rather than engagement, I get designated as being a "Slick Willy."

So, forgive me if I can't take even half of you skeptics and atheists very seriously. Many times, for the life of me, I wake up each day and think I'll give "them" another chance, and maybe I shouldn't be so insistent or short with them. And then...............I'm called "Slick Willy"! MORE HAND-WAIVING.

I know you don't think you should have to answer questions, but if you don't I simply can't take your complaints about not being engaged seriously.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you give me the specific verse you're thinking of? Because the only law that I know of is the one that says a daughter of a priest who becomes a harlot should be burnt at the stake. The daughter, not the priest.

Ok. Sure. Although there might be more verses that could be relevant that I'm not at the moment thinking of, we could apply:

Leviticus 19:29
‘Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness.

Deuteronomy 23:17
“There shall be no [ritual?] harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.

Deuteronomy 23:18
You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Leviticus 17:7
They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.” ’

Exodus 34:16
...and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

Oh, and just for deeper context, let's bring in:

Leviticus 19:15
You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty [tough guys?]. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.​

I'm sure more could be said, but let's not assume that conceptual bits and pieces of the various laws, such as these, weren't considered together in ONE WHOLE, since there are some laws about being careful to observe ALL of the Law of God and about not "doing what is right in one's own eyes," which I suppose would be to sell one's daughter into harlotry, or for a man or woman to become one.

As for me, I'd think that despite the fact that we find the first law above in the book of Leviticus, its overall context can be seen to apply to all of the people, all of the time.

But aside from that, they were told not to sell their own sons into slavery, but they're allowed to buy slaves from foreigners. If the holiest men weren't supposed to sell their daughters as harlots, common folks don't think they need to emulate that. All Catholics aren't celibate because priests are. We devoted a chunk of our PM discussion to this: if it's legal, they're going to do it. Just like people today, upstanding Christians and filthy atheists alike. But to top that off, the Israelites being a bunch of stubborn, awful, screw-ups is kind of the theme of the OT, so I really don't understand why you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, but that's why we don't expect the Israelites to perform as they should; they're sinners, so they're given laws (and like today, half the people won't really follow the law half the time). This is what we find inferred by statement in Deuteronomy 9:4-7.

I know you don't think you should have to answer questions, but if you don't I simply can't take your complaints about not being engaged seriously.

I never said I don't have to answer questions. My gripe is that you guys seem to want it all your way, without concession, and without challenge. And I'm going to challenge it all, both our understanding of the legal past.................and the legal present. And I'll let stand what stands.

 

[cvanwey]

(Disclaimer) - Redundancy alert... But for good reason...

As I presented to @Halbhh waaaay back in post #248, it seems to boil down to (2) ultimate questions....

Is she allowed to leave if she wants? Also, is her consent required?

These questions looks to have never been answered. Well, I take that back... It was 'answered', but it looks as though the given answer was incorrect.

The answer is NO. Simple. She is not allowed to leave. Nor, do women carry the same rights as a male. Keep reading below...

The point being, when a women is captured, they are not allowed to leave. It appears that only if the man decides he no longer wants her, for whatever 'reason', is the woman allowed to leave. The woman is a possession.

Now, you might respond my stating, 'well, she is a prisoner, it's better than death; and, she is to be taken care of... etc...'

True maybe...., but the point being... The woman does not have a say. Just like in the other stated laws that either/both @Moral Orel and/or @Nihilist Virus alluded to prior.... Which is....

Women do not have equal rights to men. Not even close. So I'm not quite sure WHY Matthew 7:12 is going to be thrown around at all, ever...?

Seems as though you need to forfeit one or the other... Meaning, ignore the OT laws, and even NT laws, which pertain to the inequality of women, when compared to men. Or, ignore the seemingly assumed 'universal' law of Matthew 7:12.

So, which one must you concede to get this rationale to fit? Concede Matthew 7:12 (or), ignore specific laws pertaining to inequality of women (in both the OT and NT), when compared to men?

Thus, if she is not allowed to leave, in this particular situation, and maybe other situations.... And her consent is not required..... Then, what IS the definition of rape? Generally speaking?

Seems as though if God exists, and sanctioned such 'laws', then, by 'law', holding women against their will, and not requiring their cooperation, is not against such law.

But, if this was a human issued 'law', then we have another question....

Is it against God's law to perform as such against women? If He exists?