Reparative marriage
For centuries many cultures have invoked tradition to force women (often, young girls) to marry men who have raped them. Marriage is used to allow the rapist to “repair” the damage inflicted on women’s lives. Not content with relying on traditional enforcement of this perverse cultural practice, countries even passed “marry-your-rapist” laws.
These laws were found even in “enlightened” countries like Italy, which abolished their version of the law only in 1981. France abolished their law only in 1994. France, who probably started it all with their French Penal Code of 1810, passed this on to their colonies in the Middle East and North Africa, some of which still retain that odious legacy.
The law has variations but the cultural justifications are similar taking off from the idea that men exert absolute power over women. If a man rapes a woman, he may have committed a crime but it is also the rapist, as a man, who can “repair” the damage, by marrying the victim! (One Italian term for such marriages was “fuitina” or rehabilitating marriage). And for that act of chivalry, he escapes criminal prosecution.
The girl cannot refuse, more often because of pressure from society. She is, in fact, expected to be grateful for the rapist offering to marry her and prevent the shame of “lost” chastity that will be brought to her, her family, and her community.
I have been aware of these laws for several years but it was an Italian film on Amazon Prime that revived my memory and gave me new insights on this aberration. We anthropologists study culture and, while appreciating how culture helps societies to function, traditions can also be terribly oppressive and inhuman.
The film “The Most Beautiful Wife” was based on the real-life story of Franca Viola who, at the age of 17, was kidnapped and repeatedly raped by an ex-suitor who then offered to marry her. Although young and facing pressure from her family and her village to agree to the marriage, Viola refused to give in and the man was eventually prosecuted and sentenced to 11 years in prison. The film based on the Viola case brought out the religious aspect of these laws. One scene has the parish priest advising Viola to marry her rapist, starting off with a declaration: “Matrimony will sanctify your sin.”
That exchange explains why we still have so many problems with rape, where the victim often ends up being the one on trial with questions about what she was wearing, why she was out at night. The presumption is that the woman was guilty of bringing about temptation. The marry-your-rapist law adds grave insult to injury.
The long road to abolishing these “marry-your-rapist” laws has not been easy. In the case of Italy, there was public outrage brought about by the Viola case, and support for her courage to refuse a “reparative marriage.” In Morocco, a young girl’s suicide, after being forced into such a marriage, sparked the campaign to abolish the law, which happened in 2014. In Lebanon, a young girl agreed to marry her rapist and to stay married for three years, which was the minimum length to absolve the rapist. She then divorced her husband, who retaliated by shooting her dead. Lebanon abolished its “marry-your-rapist” law in 2017.
There are 20 countries left in the world that have this kind of law and in Asia, there are only two: Thailand and the Philippines. In the Philippines, we’ve had such a law from the Spanish colonial period, providing for forgiveness of “seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape” if the assailant marries his victim. In a new anti-rape law of 1997, instead of correcting that Spanish colonial abomination, our legislators inserted a provision, the content as bad as the grammar: “The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party (sic) shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.” That provision goes on to absolve husbands of rape if the assaulted wife forgives him.
The Makabayan bloc of legislators unsuccessfully tried to abolish the “forgiveness clause” in 2015. The latest attempt was made by 4Ps party list Rep. JC Abalos last year.
Well and good, but let’s also start questioning other “macho” aberrations, legally promulgated or not, including the practice of “pikot,” where an unmarried couple caught having sex are marched off to get married. The rationale is similar—the male dishonored the girl, especially if she got pregnant, and to avoid scandal, they have to get married. That forced marriage can be grounds for annulment in the future, but that is a luxury only the upper classes can afford. Other women would have to be “grateful” to the male for “rehabilitation.”
