Do you think Lot was raped?

In the bible, after Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, Lot and his two daughters were the sole survivors.

They went to the mountains and lived in isolation. Lot’s two daughters worried that they would not find husbands (and therefore would not have children), so they got impregnated by their father. In order to prevent him from refusing, they got him drunk.

Was Lot the victim of Drug Facilitated Sexual Assualt?

Remember that rape, by definition, is when a sex act is forced upon someone who does not give consent, can not give consent, or is forced to consent by threat or blackmail.

If Lot was drunk to the point of unconsciousness, than there was no way he could have consented.

In a way, I think that this is the ‘wrong’ question, although it touches upon a concern that is important to consider. The question, I think, isn’t “do the events of Genesis 19 fit contemporary definitions of rape?”, but rather “what is the intent of the narrative of Genesis 19 – that is, how would the audience, to whom the inspired writer originally wrote, have interpreted the narrative?”

From that perspective, we can understand the story; if we try to impose 21st century western definitions on the narrative, we risk getting it completely wrong, and end up condemning people unfairly (and similarly, praising people inappropriately!).

First, it’s important to realize one of the goals of the author: he’s trying to tell a story of the origins of the peoples who are neighbors to the Israelites in the Promised Land. So, the story he’s telling isn’t a very nice one – and, it seems, that’s his intent! Essentially, that’s the equivalent of me (an inhabitant of western PA) pointing to folks from West Virginia and saying, “ha ha! ya’ll are just inbred whelp of incestuous ancestors!” It’s not nice at all, but it’s what the author here is saying: Moab, he claims, means “(my child) from my father” and Ammon means “(my) son from my family”. Clearly, Lot’s daughters don’t have a lot going for them, if this is their idea of moral behavior; and the inspired writer is making a claim that this lack of moral fiber is passed down to the Moabites and Ammonites.

The daughters’ lack of propriety, though, doesn’t start there: the writer lets us know that they used fraud to conceive their unhappy children of incest. In their time, women didn’t have ‘equal rights’ or much in the way of personal rights at all. In essence, they were their husband’s ‘property’, as hideous as that sounds today. So, it is never the case that they controlled their sexual or reproductive destiny: their father arranged a marriage for them, and then they went to their husband’s household and obeyed him. So, in that society, there would simply have been no possible conception of a female ‘raping’ a man. (Even in our day, some scoff at the possibility – in the thread that gave rise to this one, when the notion of female rape came up, a poster ridiculed the very possibility of the notion… even today!)

In that context, then, the only way to conceive of a woman taking the reins of a bad situation and controlling her reproductive activity would be if her mate was incapacitated. We see the notion of (varying degrees of) physical incapacity and sinful fraud in a number of OT stories: Noah getting drunk and passing out, Jacob tricking his (near-blind) father, etc. In each of these, the message is that someone is committing a sin by victimizing someone in their incapacity. (In Noah’s case, he chooses to get drunk; in Isaac’s, he’s innocent in his aged infirmity: but in this case, Lot’s daughters deliberately induce his drunkenness.)

So, in this perspective, then, Lot is clearly beyond the point of giving consent to this sinful behavior. The audience might’ve groaned and speculated at Lot’s potential complicity in this matter (“two nights? in a row? and didn’t suspect a thing? c’mon…! after all, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree… and this tree must’ve known what his apples were up to, eh? wink wink, nudge nudge…!”); but, the narrative clearly gives Lot a ‘free pass’ – it’s his daughters (the matriarchs of Israel’s rivals and neighbors) who are to blame.

If a man is drunk to almost the point of unconsciousness he most certainly won’t be capable of any sexual act at all.

Sexual arousal is more about nerve simulation than anything else. If Lot was unconscious, his daughters could still have simulated his nerves.

Saint Irenaeus explains that clearly (read the link). Watch out for heresies.

Good explanation.:thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit