Quoting Quiverfull: Marry Your Rapist Unless Your Father Says No?

Quoting Quiverfull: Marry Your Rapist Unless Your Father Says No? November 9, 2014

marryingrapistby Vaughn Ohlman from his blog True Love Doesn’t Wait – Deal Breakers

This posting involves the reasons that fathers really shouldn’t be refusing various courtship/betrothal suitors. The bit we’re quoting below I’ve heard various pastors describe mostly as a rape situation (like in Deuteronomy 22:28-29), though a few has said it speaks of a man seducing a young woman. Like everything in the Old Testament it seems to be open to interpretation. 

Have to give Von credit, he doesn’t advocate refusing young men that want to court your daughter, leaving your poor daughter on the shelf like certain people have done (Botkin). The Botkin sisters are likely never getting married till Jesus comes back.

Just not sure how all of this ties in with Mr. Ohlman’s beliefs that fathers should be the ones picking the spouses for their adult children. Seems sort of counter-intuitive.

There are, however, a couple of verses/passages that do support the idea of the father having the right/responsibility to give, or refused to give, his daughter in marriage.

Exodus 22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

The first involves a young couple involved in fornication. The young man who fornicates with a young woman is penalized in a variety of ways but, the passage states, they are to marry unless the father ‘utterly refuses’ him. So this does indeed imply that the father can say ‘no’. (Although it must also be noted that the grammar makes it clear that the ‘norm’ or expected behavior is not a refusal.)

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon




Find the Best Fundraising Ideas on GiveForward
"Jordan Peterson almost managed to off himself, but he's recovering, very slowly. His family is ..."

Larry Solomon Loves Racist Misogynistic Rush ..."
"Rush is a drug-9addicted pedo9phile. Of course, they love him."

Larry Solomon Loves Racist Misogynistic Rush ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nea

    At any place does he realize that he’s incentivized rape? Because why go through the whole courtship nonsense when you can just rape the woman you want and Daddy has to hand her over because Bible?

    Sorry you didn’t attack the perfect one that got away, Von? Or did you realize that her daddy would defend her rights so you have to chip away at them some more?

    Of course, all of this ignores that women have rights in this country. Pesky, pesky rights of their own, so V is both advocating slavery and rape culture.

  • … as disgusting as this is, I have to wonder– what would they say if she’s raped by more than one guy? Or by a woman?

    Other than the usual “it’s your fault you stupid slut burn in hell” anyway, which is their default response, since they’re amoral assholes.

  • Actually, the text say ” if a man entices (seduces, in our language) a woman”, meaning if she say yes to sex. In such a case he should be willing to marry her. “Men want sex, women love” is a generalization, but this text imply the man cannot pretend to love enough to marry, while just wanting sex – he will probably end up married if he did that.
    It does not say the father usually have decision-making rights, it say that there may be circumstances when he refuse, despite his girl falling for the guy. In that case the man has to pay for the Old Testament version of a trust fund for her.

  • Trollface McGee

    That’s what used to happen in the past. If a man wanted a woman(or girl), he could rape her and then she’d be forced to marry him(also how the Best Man tradition came about – the best man would help the groom kidnap the bride). Often it was staged by the couple, because the law allowed fathers absolute authority to marry their children except for this situation.
    Yeesh, the man really does want to go back the Dark Ages.

  • Trollface McGee

    Stoning? And not the good kind.

  • I wouldn’t be surprised…

  • Brennan

    I agree that this text does not appear to be about rape. Every translation that I looked up used either “entices” or “seduces” to describe the man’s actions. It’s worth noting that Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 does reference rape of a virgin and requires that the rapist marries her. However, there are several discrepancies between the texts. The Deuteronomy passage also prescribes a fine for the rapist and forbids him from divorcing her, but does not include the caveat that the father can forbid the marriage. I’m not sure who teaches the Exodus passage in the context of rape, but I wouldn’t agree with that interpretation. Although it probably works as a rape law if you are using an older definition not based on the consent model.

  • Anonyme

    This is unrelated, but due to an earlier post, I wanted tell y’all that a columnist in my local paper was “freaking out” over Obama’s statement that mothers returning to work during/after kids have lower wages.To make the very long diatribe short: “OMG Obama hates stay-at-home mothers! He wants to shame us and force us into the workplaces so that the government can brainwash out babies in daycare!!1! Eleventy!”

    How the heck do these women manage to twist his words around like that? Obama was merely saying that women who want or have to work during or after kids have lower wages and that they’re at an undeserved disadvantage.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    We post last week about Ladies Against Feminism trying to say the same thing and worse. I don’t get how you get from bettering the wages of returning to work mommas and thoughts that he’s trying to separate mothers and children for evil socialist nefarious purposes. Must be frustrating to live in fear like that.

  • It has been amusing to follow the far right freak-out over those remarks. Even the columnists that quote his remarks in enough context to see what he really meant – even they are not happy.

  • Allison the Great

    THere is something seriously wrong with someone who wants to take the barbaric practices and rules of the bible and try to apply them to today. Even if this particular verse doesn’t say “rape” it’s still pretty fucked up. I hope V’s unmarried kids tell him to take this and stick it up his ass in the future. No father should choose their child’s spouse.

  • Astrin Ymris

    To be fair, the biblical passage does SEEM to apply to consensual sex rather than rape.

    Or at least consensual sex as far as the Bible recognized it. No one then had a clear understanding of sexual predators and “grooming”. Heck, we have sitting judges today who believe that 15-year-old girls are the dominant partners when they’re molested by their 42-year-old teachers.

  • Astrin Ymris

    I followed the link and read Von’s post. I wonder if he realizes that the verses he quotes are just as much an argument for letting young women choose their OWN spouses by dating as they are for “betrothal”.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Von sounds almost, dare I say it, liberal compared to his usual dad choses your spouse and that’s that.

  • Mermaid Warrior

    This. We no longer live in a time where a woman’s life is completely ruined if she gets raped, or even has consensual sex before marriage. The whole “marrying your rapist” thing was and is horrible, but from the perspective of Biblical times, it at least made sense. A modern woman could still find someone, even a “good Christian man”, to love and marry her, or she could support herself.

  • Too bad divorce isn’t that easy. Arrange a kidnapping and I could be free of all the freakin paperwork and frustration. I understand why it’s not that way, but still, I can daydream.

  • Nea

    What if she’s raped by a family member?

  • Nea

    At least one of his children has agreed to a marriage after knowing their putative spouse for exactly one hour. The deal was made between the fathers, and Von considers the moment of agreement to be a permanently binding legal and theological contract.

  • Trollface McGee

    In Saudi Arabia, you just have to say you’re divorced three times and *poof* insta-divorce(as long as you’re a man).
    But yeah, neither marriage or divorce should be *that* easy.

  • Allison the Great

    Yeah, I remember that. V has some weird fetish where he wants to live out the old testament.

  • Which happens distressingly often as well…

  • Hell, I’m about *this* close to saying that marriage should be at LEAST as complicated as Divorce is to accomplish. It’s far too easily entered into and horrifically difficult to get out of.

  • Edie Moore McGee

    No, not frustrating. Some people enjoy that fear. I swear, they do!

  • What happens when a girl’s rapist is her father? How does he reconcile that?

  • persephone

    Only if you’re the husband. The wife has to go to a judge for a divorce.

  • persephone

    Was there ever a legal recorded marriage for the couple, or are they off the grid?

  • persephone

    The story of Lot.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’m noticing a trend. Lots of Christians like to talk about how the Old Testament was the old covenant and Jesus overwrote it…When you’re talking about *them.* If you’re talking about LGBT people or rape victims or “unclean” females…Totes still applies.

  • Baby_Raptor

    If she’s raped by more than one guy? Marry her off to whoever violated her first and then punish her for “committing adultery” with the rest of them.

  • Nea

    Unknown.

  • Saraquill

    You forgot to put quotes around “old testament.” I’m sure he wouldn’t want to give things like up like the computer, where he can post drivel and get attention.

  • Nightshade

    Hey, family members married in Bible times, let’s go back to the good ole’ days.

  • Nightshade

    Yep. Guess their god changes his mind, but only for their benefit.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    It is interesting that my name gets linked with this title, given that I have just recently published, over on my other blog (and soon to be reposed on our main blog) a post where I specifically deny the title of this post.
    But, whatever…
    http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2014/09/case-law-statute-law-fiat-law-and-rape.html

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’re aware that we can click on the linked article and see that you wrote what the title claims you wrote, yes?

    If you no longer believe what you wrote, simply say so. Coming over here and insinuating that NLQ is lying when it’s laughably simple to confirm that they aren’t makes you look horrible. Also, you’re lying and lying is a sin.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I fully stand by what I wrote. And I didn’t write the title to this post. I believe, as I wrote in the post I linked, that rapists should receive the death penalty. That only the mercy of the girl may prevent it. That she gets to decide if he is executed. She and she alone. That is what I believe, and what I wrote.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Moving the goalposts, much? Your entire ramble has nothing to do with the contents of this post.

    Further, I never said you wrote the title to this post. You’re lying again.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I would encourage you to look back at my comment. It had nothing to do with the body of the post, but the title. The post is linked to me, but I disagree with the theology of the title.
    I stand by everything that I actually wrote, as I have consistently done.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    I titled it that way because I’ve seen it taught that way a number of times. If you read through what I said I pointed out I’d heard it taught a bunch of different ways.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Oh, I understood your title… just surprised you would link it with anything of mine. Indeed in this very post I state what I believe it to mean: that the couple was fornicating.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Deut 22:25 does indeed reference the rape of a betrothed virgin, and the man is put to death.
    Deut 22:28 references a non-betrothed virgin and, I believe, consensual sex.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Your ramble had nothing to do with the contents of the title either. The title wasn’t about whether or not you think rapists should get the death penalty or if the victim should be allowed to decide.

  • Brennan

    *sigh*
    Okay, I’ll bite. What part of “A man meets a virgin who is not engaged, seizes her, and lies with her” implies consent to you? Or the KJV that says he “lay hold on her and lie with her”? Or the NIV which flat out says he rapes her?