This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
A women can't 'rape' a man.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bonged.
Strap on?
Strapon != penis. Herp derp.
Original post by Andy16
Ive heard of the odd aggressive woman in the news being physically abusive to a man.... but usually the man is quite a sorry, weak minded indiviudal.
In a classic rape case it is a man raping the women, for the general things like how men generally want sex more than woman... a woman's body is often regarded as the nicer prize in sex etc etc... and that men on average are physically stronger and so opt to be intimidating
In a classic rape case it is a man raping the women, for the general things like how men generally want sex more than woman... a woman's body is often regarded as the nicer prize in sex etc etc... and that men on average are physically stronger and so opt to be intimidating
It isn't acceptable to call a female rape victim a "sorry, weak-minded individual", so on what planet is it correct to call a male victim of non-consensual sex the same thing? (Can't say rape victim because legally, it isn't rape, although I believe that any non-consensual sex should be considered rape, and not have such a loaded word like "rape" for women, and then the rather less effective "sexual assault" for men).
Original post by non
apparently my sex education teacher said that if a women forced a man into having sex with her it wouldn't be classed as rape because it's not the penis going into the vagina it's the other way around. if it went to court it would only be classed as harassment. also if a women had drunk alcohol and a man had sex with her he would be prosecuted for rape because she wasn't in a 'stable' condition because of the alcohol even if the man had drunk as well it would still be classed as rape. but it's still classed as rape if it's 2 men. other things in the law where it favours women over men, divorce and abortion, men get no say about abortion and divorce.
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
i laughed so hard, i woke my family up!
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Nope what?? I'm right. Statutory rape is not an offence in the UK, but it is in America. Having sex with a child under 13 is rape, not statutory rape. There's a difference between the two. Children aged 12 and under can't give consent, so it's the same offense as a man leaping on a woman in an alleyway and raping her. On the other hand, an adult having sex with a consenting 14 year old is not rape, nor is it statutory rape (it would be in the US). It's a different offense which you could find if you looked in the act
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by SilverArch
Nope what?? I'm right. Statutory rape is not an offence in the UK, but it is in America. Having sex with a child under 13 is rape, not statutory rape. There's a difference between the two. Children aged 12 and under can't give consent, so it's the same offense as a man leaping on a woman in an alleyway and raping her. On the other hand, an adult having sex with a consenting 14 year old is not rape, nor is it statutory rape (it would be in the US). It's a different offense which you could find if you looked in the act
What...? A person under 13 can in principle consent, their consent or lack of consent is just irrelevant to the offence. You're not drawing any distinction. The offence is called "rape of a child under 13". Can you distinguish the case in America (obviously other than merely in age range for which the offence applies)?
S5 is the exact kind of offence for which the term "statutory rape" is colloquially used.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by `R92
I wouldnt mind being raped
Are you sure about that?
I agree with a lot of what you said, but it doesn't work in favour of women that the law only considers penis-in-vagina sexual attack to be rape. It's a pain for everybody. It doesn't matter whether you're male or female, if you're sexually attacked but it's not PIV you won't be able to put forward a case for rape. It helps nobody. And equating the law with feminism is a bit crazy - I don't remember anybody lobbying for men to be excluded from rape laws! The current laws need do to be changed, for everyone.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by non
apparently my sex education teacher said that if a women forced a man into having sex with her it wouldn't be classed as rape because it's not the penis going into the vagina it's the other way around. if it went to court it would only be classed as harassment. also if a women had drunk alcohol and a man had sex with her he would be prosecuted for rape because she wasn't in a 'stable' condition because of the alcohol even if the man had drunk as well it would still be classed as rape. but it's still classed as rape if it's 2 men. other things in the law where it favours women over men, divorce and abortion, men get no say about abortion and divorce.
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
A women? your teacher is right, a women cannot rape a man, because "a women" does not exist.
Now if we are talking about a woman, things are different...
Original post by non
apparently my sex education teacher said that if a women forced a man into having sex with her it wouldn't be classed as rape because it's not the penis going into the vagina it's the other way around. if it went to court it would only be classed as harassment. also if a women had drunk alcohol and a man had sex with her he would be prosecuted for rape because she wasn't in a 'stable' condition because of the alcohol even if the man had drunk as well it would still be classed as rape. but it's still classed as rape if it's 2 men. other things in the law where it favours women over men, divorce and abortion, men get no say about abortion and divorce.
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
It's odd your sex ed teacher said that about drunk girls, because I remember seeing a documentary a while back which said that it was almost impossible to get a rape conviction if the girl was hammered at the time as it was impossible for her to say for sure whether or not she had given her consent.
Original post by notastampcollector
It's odd your sex ed teacher said that about drunk girls, because I remember seeing a documentary a while back which said that it was almost impossible to get a rape conviction if the girl was hammered at the time as it was impossible for her to say for sure whether or not she had given her consent.
I doubt a girl in an intoxicated state wouldn't be able to show discomfort and request an end to the sexual activity. If you are inside a drunk girl and she is kicking, screaming, biting, yelling 'get off of me', squirming, crying, hitting you, or trying to crawl away, you should probably stop. Sure this could be interpreted as 'foreplay', 'kinky/fetish activity', or 'dirty talk', but only a rapist wouldn't be able to read these actions in context, act accordingly, and ask her if she's OK. If she responds, 'yeah, don't stop.' Then you're in a clear and you can continue. Sounds sensible to me. I know people get caught up in the heat of the moment, but it doesn't seem fair to claim it 'was impossible' for the guy to know she wasn't consenting.
Original post by Id and Ego seek
I doubt a girl in an intoxicated state wouldn't be able to show discomfort and request an end to the sexual activity. If you are inside a drunk girl and she is kicking, screaming, biting, yelling 'get off of me', squirming, crying, hitting you, or trying to crawl away, you should probably stop. Sure this could be interpreted as 'foreplay', 'kinky/fetish activity', or 'dirty talk', but only a rapist wouldn't be able to read these actions in context, act accordingly, and ask her if she's OK. If she responds, 'yeah, don't stop.' Then you're in a clear and you can continue. Sounds sensible to me. I know people get caught up in the heat of the moment, but it doesn't seem fair to claim it 'was impossible' for the guy to know she wasn't consenting.
Re-read what I wrote. The man could tell whether or not she was consenting, but afterwards, if she was sufficiently drunk, the girl would not be able to say for certain whether she had given consent or not.
I said: "as it was impossible for her to say for sure whether or not she had given her consent"
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by notastampcollector
Re-read what I wrote. The man could tell whether or not she was consenting, but afterwards, if she was sufficiently drunk, the girl would not be able to say for certain whether she had given consent or not.
I said: "as it was impossible for her to say for sure whether or not she had given her consent"
I said: "as it was impossible for her to say for sure whether or not she had given her consent"
Yikes, read that wrong, indeed. I see what you mean, haha.
Original post by stargirl63
Is this true? I didn't know this. I thought that if a guy gets an erection, he is aroused, and therefore wants sex to satisfy himself. Would that happen if he doesn't want to have sex?
Being physically aroused is not consent. When women are aroused they get "wet" right? But no one in their right mind would consider that consent. Even being attracted to someone isn't consent. A female rape victim may have initially been attracted to their attacker, that doesn't mean she agreed to have sex with him.
I take it you didn't read about the Russian woman who imprisoned a man who was robbing her shop, tied him down and gave him viagra...
Original post by non
apparently my sex education teacher said that if a women forced a man into having sex with her it wouldn't be classed as rape because it's not the penis going into the vagina it's the other way around. if it went to court it would only be classed as harassment. also if a women had drunk alcohol and a man had sex with her he would be prosecuted for rape because she wasn't in a 'stable' condition because of the alcohol even if the man had drunk as well it would still be classed as rape. but it's still classed as rape if it's 2 men. other things in the law where it favours women over men, divorce and abortion, men get no say about abortion and divorce.
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
How are these things fair? we want a fair society and people go on about this thing called feminism and i don't see how these things are fair.
As pep_ has said, the law classes rape as:
Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
cheers ,i will bring it up on my law module on my 61ys old teacher ,i think he will be delighted!
Ah, that would actually make a lot of sense. I guess I need to think about how I word my arguments in the future, thank you for the clarity.
And no, just to clear that up I'm not implying that no blame lies with the man, quite the opposite. If you rape someone you're definitely in the wrong no matter how the victim dressed. I just said it as something to consider/another point of discussion in a similar area.
And no, just to clear that up I'm not implying that no blame lies with the man, quite the opposite. If you rape someone you're definitely in the wrong no matter how the victim dressed. I just said it as something to consider/another point of discussion in a similar area.
(edited 4 years ago)
DPM Nick Clegg just said on BBC Breakfast that rape is when "Someone does not consent to sex, and is still forced to do so." He went on to say that although this can be sometimes teenage boys that are victims, it's largely teenage girls (he stated that 68% of rape is of people underage).
Original post by `R92
I wouldnt mind being raped
You sure about that?
Original post by `r92
i wouldnt mind being raped
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
