3

I read this horrifying article that sounds like victim blaming. I think this is like how rape victims are told they got raped because of they way they dressed, of where or when they went or, like Lot, they had too much to drink.

The article says

Why did Lot have sex with his own daughters? He got drunk. Yes, his daughters conspired to get him drunk, but Lot willingly drank and, when he was drunk, he lost what little control and common sense he had.

I really don't see how this is different from telling rape victims, "Hey it's your fault you drank too much." Sure drinking too much isn't an excuse for DUIs, but drinking too much is definitely not a reason for getting raped and definitely a reason that you did not (consent to) have sex.

Of course I'm assuming that they indeed raped him, but my assumption is based on their talking to each other and not Lot about the, well, transaction.

Let’s get our father to drink wine.

and not

Let’s ask our father about having incestuous sex.

An NCBI abstract seems to say that the Bible (Hebrew or Christian or both, not sure) implies that this is the case but excuses the daughters. I believe their intent was clear: They intended to do this without consulting Lot. I wouldn't say this is textbook manipulation, whether or not it is actually manipulation, but the intent is to do something without consulting the other person: I would say that's textbook malice or at least interventionism or something. What's more horrifying is that it's the elder sister who corrupts the younger sister into doing such. Anyway, on Wikipedia it says

A number of commentators describe the actions of Lot's daughters as rape. Esther Fuchs suggests that the text presents Lot's daughters as the "initiators and perpetrators of the incestuous 'rape'."

I'm surprised this is only a number of commentators and not the entire Judeo-Christian theological community. Then again I suppose consensuses are difficult to reach outside natural and formal science. Still, I hope at least one denomination (Orthodox, Catholicism, etc) of at least one religion (Judaism, Christianity, not sure Islam has Lot's daughters, etc) has some consensus.

The question: What is the Christian theological community's official opinion on whether or not Lot was raped by his daughters? In case I need to specify a denomination, I pick Catholicism. If allowed for the site for this question, then I prefer to not choose a denomination.

  • Under UK law rape can only be committed by a man or boy, as it involves penetrating, with his penis, another person. Lot's daughters could not rape him, using this definition of rape. This explains why few commentators would say it was rape. If you want to know whether what the Misses Lot did constitutes an offence you will need to specify a jurisdiction and ask on the Law stack exchange site. Are you more asking about denominations and commentators who have said Lot's daughters were morally wrong , rather than the definition of rape? – davidlol Apr 14 at 8:51
  • 1
    Welcome to Christianity.SE. It's an interesting question, or line or thinking, that you present, however, SE sites are not internet forums. Please take the tour and visit the help center to see how SE Q&A sites are different from forums. The other problem with your question is that it is being asked in a 21st century cultural context where the meaning or "rape" and "Sexual assault" has been evolving for about the last 50 years. (Example: A meme of the American feminist movement in the 1960's, asserted that "seduction is rape") The context of your question setting is Old Testament times. – KorvinStarmast Apr 15 at 12:51
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Nathaniel Apr 15 at 13:26
4

I believe Lot's Daughters did rape their father. However, the fact that Lot was raped does not excuse his wonton drunkenness by any means.

By rape I simply mean that Lot did not agree (and would not have agreed if sober.) Note the quote below:

Gen 19:33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

Note that this was the case with the older daughter and the younger did the same.

Gen 19:35 So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.

The very fact that Lot was completely ignorant of what went on made him incapable of agreeing with the act of incest. Therefore, it was an act of rape by the daughters who deliberately inebriated their father to make him insensible enough so that they could get away with such action.

  • This is how UK law would see it with either men or women. Nobody under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be seen to consent to sex of any kind, penetrative or not. No fault or blame could be apportioned to Lot – Chris Rogers Apr 15 at 7:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.