In a post linked to by pajamasmedia.com, well known blogger Amy Alkon argues against a law that has it illegal for an eighteen year old man to fornicate with a girl not yet of age of consent.
Though not broad enough, it’s a great law. A father toils soul and body to raise and educate his daughter to be the woman, wife and mother his learning and experience deems most worthy, while some suave punk seduces her off the path, perhaps ruining her future with impregnation, with neither acceptance of responsibility nor much concern for the girl’s general well being and future. Historically, no father has ever allowed that to just happen.
In the past, such behavior was dettered through ‘honor’ killings or exhortations to commit sepuku and the like, just as most laws and cultural norms tended to be enforced locally. This method of local enforcement was as effective as it was vital in that day and age.
Modern societies, by favoring government enforced rule of law over locally enforced ‘vigilantism’, have taken the power to enforce the law from the individual. That is purely beneficial as long as the government can ensure the same quality of enforcement. But the more leeway a government gives individuals to intrude on the vital interests of other individuals, the more close it comes to flirting with resurgent vigilantism. Whether it be lack of will (such as with Europe’s efforts to protect it’s law abiding citizens from thuggery), lack of resources (such as with Iraqi security infrastructure without American support) or libertine fantasies of a child right to self determination (such as with anti-spanking laws) makes no difference. When citizens feel that their vital interests are not being protected by government rule of law, they will inevitably trend toward vigilantism.
I suppose one could argue that the man\boy and girl share equal responsibility for the fornication. I reject that: Powerful young men can take advantage of female weaknesses as powerful young men have know for time immemorial. That a modern man is as likely to be dominated by his woman as not is neither here nor there; not for nothing has all of history viewed such men with the utmost contempt.
As for the father mentioned in Amy’s post, I have little sympathy; After sending his girl to a mix gendered school and allowing her to fully participate in a pop-culture that sanctions if not entirely glorifies the behavior exhibited by his daughter–I am assuming here–he should not have been surprised at his failure to inculcate in his daughters his own values.
Now I thank G-d for his Torah which alone sets limits even to rationally supported vigilantism.
{ 42 comments }
I am, as always, speechless in your presence, naftali.
Somewhere along the way, you became a monster, and you didn’t even realize it.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
omg mixed gender schooling, mtv, girls being encouraged to accept personal responsibility, clearly the end times are here.
Naftali, the point isn’t even that the father should have say over who his daughter sees and what she does. I’m actually inclined to agree with you that at 15 if a dad says you can’t see someone, you shouldn’t see them. The issue is that should the kid be marked for life as a sex-offender? That’s justice?
while some suave punk seduces her off the path, perhaps ruining her future with impregnation
I’m not sure why it’s better to ruin his life than hers.
Also, I’m not sure why it’s more his fault than hers. If her father raised her well, she’d either use a condom or say “no.”
This attitude that a teenage girl can’t think for herself (but a teenage boy can) and is not responsible for her actions seems to belittle women.
honor killings were vital and we need to find modern methods of “enforcement” with the same quality?
Dave, Zach, I think there rae far more serious problems with naftali’s view than being a prude about mixed gender schools or infantilizing women. Look at what hes written here.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
While the urge to rut may (repeat, may) not be as strong in girls as it is in boys, it’s undeniably there. Hormones course through young bodies, regardless of virginal status (or parental desire for virginal status).
Young women are not magically swept off their feet by a handsome punk. They volitionally exercise their freedom of choice, although their understanding of the consequences may not be entirely clear. No guy talked his way into a girl’s pants (absent drugs, alcohol, or out-and-out rape) if that girl didn’t want him there.
Keep 18-y/os away from 15-y/0s? Okay, I can live with that. But its mostly through force of upbringing, not force of law that keeps the girls’ knees together.
John_B’s last blog post..Latest Turns in Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz
Aziz,
that’s probably so, but IMHO nobody here is going to change his mind on that issue so why bother trying?
…
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Hamdog
nobody here is going to change his mind on that issue so why bother trying?
well thats true of the other issues, too. On the one I raise, though, at least we can cry, For Shame!
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
Naftali,
Yes yes and yes.
Aziz – “monster”? A bit over the top – don’t you think? Careful, you may have branded alot of people as monsters if these ideas are all it takes. Shotgun weddings and angry fathers were not made up by Naftali.
As for everyone else – do you have daughters? Haven’t men been seducing women forever? And yes, its a weakness of women. Let’s say it, not imply it. Women, especially young ones, are weak in this regard.
Woah woah woah. Wait a minute. Women are weak in this regard? How about the guys who do the seducing? I don’t care what the standard is, but there has to be one and only one: if it’s not okay for girls to run around making bad decisions about their bodies, it’s not okay for boys either. This ‘boys will be boys’ attitude is what leads to sexual irresponsibility in the first place.
So what you’re saying, Mike, is that it’s totally fine for boys to try to seduce girls, but the girls have a responsibility to resist? Men are not expected to be moral, but girls are? I know some religious police in Saudi Arabia who would agree with you…
Willow’s last blog post..On Sight
I want to know about the women that seduce men. I seem to recall that happening at least once in the past history of the world…
Elisha Feger’s last blog post..Hamdog
Mike,
haven’t women been seducing men forever? let’s say it, not imply it, teenagers are weak in this regard. girls aren’t alone in that failing.
and i think the monstrous thing aziz was referring to was not a shotgun wedding (though that is monstrous in its own right) but rather honor killings.
Willow,
No. Boys who seduce women get the shotgun pointed at them and told – you seduced her, now marry her. And if she doesn’t want you, pay the father 100,000 dollars (or some huge fine ) to pay for the destruction you wreaked and give her a dowry. I have no mercy on the slime that seduced the virgin.
Anyone who says “boys will be boys” can line up his own daughters for the “boys” to ruin.
Zach,
What you say is true, yet women are still more vulnerable in this regard. That is becuase teenage boys are more likely to use girls for sex and the natural consequences are far more serious to the girls than the boys and girls emotional nature makes them easier targets. So fathers have always had to be vigilant regarding their daughters. Today, in our oversexed culture even girls are shedding their natural sense of modesty and acting like sexual aggressors. Hooray for women’s lib…
I agree, honor killings are monstrous. I don’t think Naftali is condoning them.
mike, i invite you to parse the paragraph i excerpted in my first comment in a manner that is more favorable to Naftlai then, since he doesnt see fit to defend his own comments in this thread.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
Mike,
I challenge you to find me an unemotional 16-18 year old boy. Men aren’t any more or less emotional than women, IMHO, they merely express different emotions.
You are right that girls bear the worst part of sex’s unintended consequences. Thus, rather than deal with punishment after the fact, wouldn’t the prudent course be to make sure your daughter (and, of course, kids in general), are made painfully aware of the consequences, and of the simple steps they can take to prevent them?
Aaaallll of that said, it still doesn’t change TallDave’s fundamental point above, that whatever crime the 18yo kid comitted, it pales before the crime committed against him by the girl’s father and the state.
Aziz,
Fair question. My assumption is that it should be read this way :
In the past, such behavior was dettered through ‘honor’ killings or exhortations to commit sepuku and the like, just as most laws and cultural norms tended to be enforced locally. This method of local enforcement was as effective as it was vital in that day and age.
[My assumption is that what Naftali means is: Sociologically speaking, the sexual urge must be kept under control for a society to exist at all. Though I don't condone honor killing, social breakdown was averted by the harsh potential penalties for violating young girls. The method was a crime, but the goal was correct. ]
But I could be wrong. Naftali should clarify that point.
zach,
I understand your objection to the harshness, especially given the current looseness of society. I don’t agree that we should continually dumb down the laws as people behave worse. Also, wherever the line is drawn, there will always be unfortunate borderline cases. So what to do? I don’t know.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree regarding the dual nature of boys and girls. I see them as having very different emotional makeups and I guess you disagree.
My last paragraph is the only clarification I felt it necessary to offer. But I will add, interpretatively of that paragraph, that there are limits on even rationally acceptable methods of local and non-local law enforcement, let alone on those not rationally supported. Those limits are not the subject of the post. If anybody should ever have a question about my views, he can
ask me respectfully in the comment section if he wants me to answer and I will do so if I deem it wise. Or you can rant and attempt to insult as you deem wise.
Mike you are generally correct in your assumption.
Anything anyone reads into what I said is what he reads into what I say. He may be correct in his interpretation he may not be. So it goes.
I have no intention of waging comment or blog war on any but my own terms.
natfali, i haven’t “interpreted” you. i have quoted you. You explicitly say that honor killings were vital for their time. Now if you want to modulate that statement, do so. This isnt a blogwar or whatever, its a discussion that YOU started. If you don’t like people questioning yo on what you’ve written, it is very easy to disable comments on your post before publishing.
zach, you seem to be defending Naftali on grounds thta of course he doesnt believe honor killings are appropriate, even though he didnt say so. Well of course. I dont think, and no one with a brain can think, thta naftali has endorsed honor killings. At least, not for this time and age. I extend full benefit of the doubt to naftali on this. I am harshly critquing the idea that honr killings could EVER have been acceptable.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
I see that some have understood my argument to imply that I agree with the the penalties assessed against the crime by the American legal system, I do not. I happen to hold that, generally, the American penal system not only does not work but also is counterproductive.
I agree with Mike’s view, for reasons obvious to some.
Aziz,
I believe that honor killings at some point in the past could in fact be rationally supported. Same with sepuku. The Torah forbids both. Which also means that, ultimately, that they are not nor ever were rational.
Rationality is less concrete than modern man likes to acknowledge. Thankfully, we have revelation to steer us. Even with regards to rationality itself.
Also, when I post I”m not necessarily expressing a desire for a discussion. Often, I am simply expressing a view. I leave the comments open always to invite others to express their own views. Sometimes, a discussion ensues and I am tempted to join.
When that happens, I do. My suggestions about the content of comments addressed to or around me was simply advice to he who wishes of me a response. No more no less.
I should add that I often gain from responses left on my posts; comments on a recent democracy thread forced to rethink the issue, for instance. Discussion is what happens in a comment thread only sometimes.
Aziz,
OK. If that is what you meant, then you raise a very intersting question. Very interesting and important.
Killing a girl who was raped is an unspeakable crime. Now and always.
As for killing an unmarried girl who was seduced. I can’t imagine this being justified under any circumstances. Her penalty should be humiliation and her reduced options for marriage.
So, if we mean by honor killing, killing the seducer, then:
It would seem to involve , at least, the following issues:
1. May a person take the law into their own hands if there is no law to defend him/society?
2. Does principle 1 even extend to killing a man who seduces a virgin?
I would have to think about it and perhaps post later. These seem like very difficult questions.
Naftali, I get the impression you think the punishments are insufficiently severe. I’d say I do not understand this, but I think maybe I do.
I believe the default relationship between males is distrust and maybe even dislike. It’s a very short step to anger and even hatred.
As best I can tell, you are angry. Maybe you’re “right” to be so. Your words seem (to me) to exude anger.
Dishman,
Correct, not nearly severe enough, but at the same time there are too many crimes.
I am beginning to think that a blog persona is more versatile than a real one, so while I do not feel angry, if my words come across as angry to you, then I guess in some sense they are angry words.
“Rationality is less concrete than modern man likes to acknowledge. Thankfully, we have revelation to steer us. Even with regards to rationality itself.”
well, on this I agree 110%. I even had a blog project devoted to the same idea.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..freedom of religion in Qatar
“The Torah forbids both. Which also means that, ultimately, that they are not nor ever were rational. ”
Hah! That little aside made my night, I swear.
Well, personally, it hardly surprises me that someone willing to kill others to maintain his grotesque privilege of child genital mutilation would hold such views as these also.
Aziz,
I think you must have misread. I am not on Naftali’s side.
Mike,
I think that girls and boys have different emotional makeups, absolutely. I just think they’re both emotional, and prone to be ruled by those emotions. Especially during puberty.
Actually, naftali, its seppuku not sepuku.
Seppuku is ritual self-disembowelment by samurai not pregnant teenagers or their mom’s or dad’s.
BTW, your knowledgable overlordship of the issues exposes your profound naivete. That isn’t a stringent criticism merely an accurate observation.
If you believe the Torah is going to protect teenage daughters from social onslaught, perhaps they should do as my parents did with aspirin, in instructing their daughters to hold it between their knees when social dating.
I think that their is whole lot more then a respect for honor killing in this post.
The initial premise is that a daughter is somehow the ‘property’ of the father, and that damage (if one accepts the dubious premise that sexual relations are inherently damaging) to the other person is a property offense to the father is absolutely disgusting.
People are not things. Regardless of closeness of blood ties, we do not own them.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Dave,
The daughter is not the property of the father. Of course not. However, the daughter is the responsibility of the father, until she marries. What is offensive to you about that?
Dave,
Since the father has the financial responsibility to marry off his daughter, often by providing a dowry, the seducer, who is making this more difficult for him, must pay the father. I don’t understand what is disturbing about this?
Dave,
A woman’s sexual relations before marriage make it harder for her to create a sacred relationship with her husband. It makes her less desireable as a wife. I understand that this is not a current idea, but do you really want to hear from your wife, “honey, your number 27. I guess 27 was my lucky number”?
What is offensive about that? That you even ask is incredible.
Women do not in fact need to pass from the protection of their fathers into the protection of their husbands. They are capable human beings who can indeed take care of themselves.
Certainly Fathers have responsibility to their children, male or female, but upon reaching a certain age (I believe it is 13 under Jewish law, 18ish in the United States) the children are their own people and are responsible for themselves.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Mike, what century do you live in? I haven’t don’t know anyone who was dowered.
I guess some men would feel inadequate if they knew that their wife could compare their sexual performance to other men, and thus feel an obsessive desire to avoid any possible comparison in that area. I would advise any woman to avoid marriage to such a man.
As for myself, that has never really been an issue since I don’t think that physical relations with a previous partner ‘ruins’ a woman. I would far rather be with a woman who had confidence in her sexuality and enjoyed the act then a quivering virgin.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Dave,
Well, I guess we just see it differently. I, for one, prefer the traditional approach and I don’t believe that the current approach, which is full of “respect” for women has given us such good outcomes. Not in relationships between parents and children and not in relationships between the sexes.
Regarding respecting other people, which you are rightly concerned about, I don’t believe modern mores promote that very well either.
Certainly people are not perfect.
However, if you believe that the ‘old’ values were preferable I think you have a very poor understanding of history and the actual conditions that people under those ‘traditional’ mores lived in. Our system and society is not perfect, but it is far better then the brutality and cruelty that came before.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Dave,
I have heard these arguments before. Sexual confidence, insecurity and so on. But when it comes down to it, previous partners means that more than two are sharing the marital bed. Its a violation of intimacy. There is a great advantage to the marriage when each partner is the only man or only woman in the world to the other. As for being compared to previous partners, as far as I see it, that’s just human nature. And also, keep in mind, since even good marriages tend to go through rough periods, it only makes sense to minimize reasons for insecurity.
Just sayin…
Well, you do seem to have interesting issues with time. I have never found myself sharing any sort of bed with someone my girlfriend had slept with previously. Who I am with is who I am with.
I certainly agree that their is an advantage in a marriage when each partner is the only one for the other, but that is a result of current mental and emotional states, not what had happened previously.
As for rough periods, I would find it more troubling to during such a period if my only hope was ignorance, rather then being able to know that my wife had made an educated decision that we were sexually compatible. Ignorance of sexuality is not a foundation for a strong marriage. That is not to say it is necessarily wrong to go into marriage virginally, but if you are counting on virginity to strenthen a marriage in and of itself you are, I think, sadly deluded.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Beyond that though, even if one accepts your arguments as true, it is the woman, not her father, who is responsible for making that choice. A man can of course chose to not be with any non-virgin should he so desire.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Obama’s Pastor
Comments on this entry are closed.