I apologize for not having a very descriptive title, but I'm not sure how to fit lt. I also apologize lf this is the incorrect forum. I am brand new to using forums, despite being on the Internet since 1999, so I'm learning the ropes. Without further ado, my question. In this scene, a father & daughter are forced into marriage by the villains. But how does one react to such a situation? I saw a movie once when I was young which inspired me to write lt, but I could never find lt. If someone could direct me to a movie that portrays this situation, that would be excellent. But to be clear, lt is unconsensual on both sides. I am not looking for someone forcing themself on somebody else. Also, nothing sexual. That is easy to find, but not in my interest. Finally, lt does have to be between two close relatives. If lt is between cousins, lt probably isn't evil enough. If you can't find anything within those guidelines & this goes days without response, then give me the best you can come up with. I've asked this on other sites, but never got a response. Thank you.
Why? How? What's the context? I'm just not getting this whole thing. Back in the day it was commonplace for nobility to have an arranged marriage...and it's still not uncommon in some cultures...so you got plenty of "forced into marriage"; you knew when you were young that was your destiny, sod true love. But, let's assume that some villains have managed to compel me to marry my own daughter (where's my wife? Dead? Or is this bigamous?) what would my reaction be? Presumably the compulsion is along the lines of "do it or we'll blow up Battersea dog's home". I'd take the view that it was done under duress, and that the ceremony was not binding upon us. And, without the villains forcing consummation, pretty laughable.
In most cases, I think quite horribly. The father must feel like a failure because he raised his child (presumably if he was in her life) with the natural intent to protect her and provide for her. But now he's forced to participate in something inappropriate, illegal, and cruel. The fewer people involved in forcing this, the more vulnerable and weak he should feel. Maybe he'd be looking into their eyes and wonder what kind of life they lived to be so cold and insensitive. I doubt the father & daughter would fear for their lives to a strong degree since this situation doesn't suggest they would need to die. Are the perpetrators armed? They might not mentally and emotionally be constrained by the marriage because it's not their free will, it's illegal, and simply not binding. So I doubt they would even plan on going to a judge for annulment. If they're made to kiss, it'd likely be closed-lips and short, more than they might do normally like some close father-daughter relationships. I expect that the dad creates fantasy of beating the crap out of the people doing this. I'd like to roll up any papers they make me sign and shove them down their throats. I could suggest how his daughter would react, but I think I'll leave that to the women here to help you with.
Marriage is just a piece of paper. f they're forced into a bogus ceremony there could be angry embarrassment, but nothing beyond that really. It's not like they're going to behave as husband and wife just because a contract says they are.
To Shadowfax/Cave Troll: Why? Because they're sadistic & hate their kind. How? With threat of death. The context is that they come from Poland, land of the Millenniamen, who everyone hates. They leave their country because of how bad lt's become. Their plan is to go to China, which is said to be a safe haven, but they encounter Si Wang Zhi Yi, a group of machiavellians who will do anything to stop the Millenniamen. Convinced that they're Millenniamen, SWZY at first want to kill them. But they then decide they want to screw with their minds. He divorced the wife years ago. They'd most likely force consummation. To Dnaiel: This is a good start. It gives me something to work with. The perpetrators are armed with guns. They can't get the marriage annulled, because they're christians in 1804. People did not divorce in those days. SWZY would likely go all of the way & make lt as painful & real an experience as possible. They know no bounds. To Phil Mitchell: As I've said, their religion demands that they take the marriage seriously. They're essentially stuck between a rock & a hard place, but ultimately, they're probably going to honor their commitment. If you still need more information, just ask.
Eh, being father and daughter and under duress, I'm pretty sure they could. In fact, I think a judge would declare the marriage invalid from the beginning.
Upon doing some research, I've read a few things. First off, lt was very expensive to get a divorce. They're a poor family. Second, lt was a social taboo. If you divorced, you could basically kiss your social standing goodbye. And finally, religiously speaking, lt was a big no-no. Of all of my religious family, only one ever got a divorce, in the 2000's. Not one in the 1900's, so just imagine the early 1800's. They certainly could, but there's almost no chance they would. An unconsensual marriage would have been considerred the lesser of two evils.
A father and daughter wouldn't need a divorce because an incestual marriage would be automatically invalid... come to that a marriage entered into under durress would also be invalid in both law and religion
To be honest, it is just not a strong enough plot point to even consider viable. Now, if the scene was "We [the villains] want to watch you two have sex, or we will kill you both." then you have a viable scene because you have stakes and a dilemma. That being said, could such a scene be passed off in a wide-audience movie? I doubt so. The problem is the stakes. Maybe, they get married for some blah, blah reason but as others have noted, it would be just for 'show'. And any father will do something for 'show' if it means protecting his daughter from death.
I disagree. I say there are stakes & a dilemma. You seem to think lt would be an easy choice, but you forget that they are christians in the early 1800's. It's not as simple as doing lt to survive. By doing so, in their eyes, they are sinning & condemning their lives. Such a thing was a big deal. They wouldn't be accepted in society or by Yahweh (as the church preaches) whether or not they divorced & they'd probably become awkward around one another. On top of that, seeing each other is a constant reminder of that moment, when what should be a huge moment between two unrelated people in love, turned out to be just a spectacle for their entertainment. And lt's hardly for show, as after all is said & done, there comes the dilemma of how devoted they will be. The mistake is already made & they may see honoring their vows as the only way to make up for the sins they have committed & once again be right in the eyes of Yahweh. People in those days were crazy religious. Some people in my family stayed with terrible people because they didn't believe in divorce. Not only that, but they continued to honor their vows. Therefore, I believe these two characters would do the same thing, possibly moreso, given the time period.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time believing in this plot point. I can't imagine either a court or any religious authority (or anyone) accepting their forced marriage as immutable, let alone legitimate to begin with.
Again, I never said lt's immutable. They certainly could do lt lf they had the money & were prepared to deal with the social consequences. The problem is that they made a commitment to Yahweh. To a religious zealot in the 1800's, that is immutable, as in they wouldn't try to divorce. Whether lt's legally legitimate is irrelevant. Church & state were still closely linked at the time, so lt wouldn't make a difference. I even have a great, great grandmother who was raped at 12 & married. She never attempted to get a divorce. And that's only in the 1940's. I can't think of any instances in which two relatives were forced into marriage, but I don't imagine lt would happen any differently. These are real people who are so religious that they will not even divorce their rapists. By all means, they legally could, but understand that they do not see lt as an option. It doesn't matter who they marry. They see lt as an unbreakable promise. I know the type. So you can't say lt's impossible.
To religious zealot it would be a sin to be married to your daughter/father. It would certainly be a sin to consumate such a marriage. I mean, your great-great-grandmother wasn't raped by her father, was she? In terms of the social stigma and all the rest of the things you mentioned, I really think the incest taboo is more powerful than the annulment taboo.
It would be a sin, but a sin they were forced into. No, she wasn't. Even lf lt is more powerful, they'd still choose lt over death. Even OJB said so earlier on. I don't think lt would be a sin to consummate. The sin would already be done. At that point, lt's a matter of not making the situation worse. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I want to keep this plot point. I am in a very early phase in development, so there is a chance that I will change lt, but I highly doubt lt. Does anyone have any more insight? Dnaiels is a good start, but I'm hoping for something more visual, as I'm eventually going to animate this.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me. I can't go with SWZY's motives here. If they will do anything to stop the Millenniamen then yeah, killing's what I'd expect them to do. Anything else looks too manufactured to, um, gross readers out.
But a father and daughter can't be married, so annulment is irrelevant. It's not a marriage. You might as well marry the father to a haywagon. It's simply not a marriage. If you're arguing that incestuous marriage of parent and child was totally legal as recently as 1804, I think that you're the one who needs to prove that premise. Edited to add: Do you believe that your premise would totally work if the father were forced to marry his son? Why or why not?
Guys, you don't seem to be paying attention. I never said lt's legal. This has nothing to do with legality. They ran away from their country. They really don't care what's legal. This is purely a religious issue. And I've stated that they were originally going to simply kill them. But did the Jews simply kill Yeshua? No, they were sadistic. There's not much sadism in killing. So they switched lt up. They either compromise their morals & be screwed for the rest of their lives or they die. Neither one of them wants to see the other die, so they're going to marry. Is lt a legal marriage? In most countries, I don't think so. So I'm going with no. But plenty of people get informally married. Does that mean that their marriage doesn't matter? No, lt still has meaning. The authority they are worried about is Yahweh, not any government. Not to be impolite, but I didn't ask you lf you think the scene is a good idea. I asked for help writing the reactions. I'm nowhere near finished & I'll have more than sufficient time to add to this plot point in the future so that lt makes sense for everyone. But I have O.C.D. & I cannot write any further untill I finish this scene, which I am having trouble with. So this is my current priority.
You're talking as if the marriage is an actual marriage, which will require lots of effort or money to annul. We're saying that it's not an actual marriage. What if they DO marry the father to a haywagon, or a whisk broom, or a gallon of milk, or a scarecrow, or a spider? Is that a marriage that he has to remain faithful to? If not, why not? Is it because the two halves of the married couple are not what the religion considers to be components that make a marriage? If so, that's the point. A parent and child are not a marriage.
Okay, good point. I was talking that way, but you guys keep going off topic & I'm trying to explain that lt does make sense. Yes, lt's silly, but that IS a marriage he has to remain faithful to, because he made a vow. I'm not sure how that could happen, when a haywagon can't exactly speak to consent, but hypothetically, lt's still seen as a promise to Yahweh. Nobody ever universally defined the components of a marriage. It's just a civil union between people. The Bible preaches for rape victims to marry their rapists; & lt is forbidden for them to divorce (lt specifically says that). Is that a marriage by your standards? Probably not. But in this story, you do not exist. The Bible is the law of the land. It doesn't make sense to sin in an attempt to undo another sin. Sins can't be undone, only forgiven. Two sins don't make a right. Let's break lt down. Would you marry your daughter, to prevent her & yourself from being killed (to say nothing of the method of murder)? If you were a religious zealot, who read the Bible & understood that divorce is a sin, would you do lt? The correct answers are, 'Yes' & 'No'. Anyone who cares about their family would try to protect them by any means necessary. And anyone who strongly believes in a code wouldn't break lt. This seems to be pretty flawless logic. If you're on the same page so far, good. That's all there is to the equation. It's a mental trap with no exit. The Bible does not specify a distinction between formal & informal marriage. Therefore, an informal marriage is still valid & an informal divorce is still outlawed (again, going by old-timey zealot logic). Saying they can't marry is like saying unlicensed drivers can't drive. Sure, they can't legally drive, but the law can't really stop them from getting into a vehicle & driving, not right away anyhow. This is the same thing. They're not legally married, but that doesn't make lt any less of a sin. If you can find me a Bible passage that says, 'A man shall not divorce his spouse... unless lt is an informal marriage. That's fine by me.', I fail to see your point.
OK, are we talking about the Bible of our world? You talk about 1804 and having done research, which suggests that this has to make sense in the history of the real world. If you're using the real world, I see no way that your premise works. If this is a fantasy novel set in another world, with a fantasy-world Bible, then it might work. In our world, no, it doesn't work. Before you can forbid divorcing a spouse, that person has to BE a spouse.
Yes, our Bible. If lt comes down to lt, I'll make lt a fantasy world, but at this point, I don't see any reason to do so. I think lt makes perfect sense. Yes; & who said otherwise? A spouse is defined as either member in a married pair. That still applies.
Yes, either member in a married pair. Again, this is not a marriage. The Bible does specifically forbid a brother marrying his sister. I'm too lazy to search further for whether it says the same about a father and daughter. If this man were forced to marry his sister, rather than his daughter, do you still argue that that would be a valid marriage, one that would have to be annulled, and the social condemnation for annulling the marriage would be greater than the social condemnation for incest?
It's not a vow. It's not a real vow when a person is forced to simply say the words. That's why when any contract (or covenant in this case) is signed with a gun to your head, you're not legally obligated to respect the terms of the contract.
