The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Can a man be raped

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Comus
Both are sex without consent.

thats your blanket definition but because they both fall under that colloquial term doesnt mean they are equal in harm caused. that is the presumotion of everyone on this thread and that is just that, a presumption based on the vagueness of everyday language.
both are two very different actions that fall under that same vague and meaningless definition (particularly the word 'sex' is impossibly vague legal language).
you want equalise them in the eyes of the law now give the proof that they cause the same amount of harm.
Original post by Harrie Lyons
I have no empirical evidence to back up that claim, it's just my personal experience.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion men's rights activities are worse than feminist white knights.


If you think any kind of sexual abuse is funny, you must have a pretty screwed up sense of humour.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 62
Avatar for Comus
Comus
10
Original post by Harrie Lyons
thats your blanket definition but because they both fall under that colloquial term doesnt mean they are equal in harm caused. that is the presumotion of everyone on this thread and that is just that, a presumption based on the vagueness of everyday language.
both are two very different actions that fall under that same vague and meaningless definition (particularly the word 'sex' is impossibly vague legal language).
you want equalise them in the eyes of the law now give the proof that they cause the same amount of harm.


Even if one form is more severe than the other this could be reflected in sentencing but in principle they are the same and should therefore come under the same offence and carry the same stigma.
Original post by lamp-y
If you're in the UK, rape isn't just sex without consent – here's the proof:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
So the question isn't whether men can be raped but whether women can rape.


dude that legislation really needs changing.

like SERIOUSLY needs changing.

of course women can rape, women can force someone to have sex against their will WHICH IS LITERALLY RAPE D:
Original post by Comus
Even if one form is more severe than the other this could be reflected in sentencing but in principle they are the same and should therefore come under the same offence and carry the same stigma.

whyyyyyyyyyyy?
just because they fall under the same colloquial random unprecise definition of 'sex without consent' whatever the hell that means.
Reply 65
Avatar for Comus
Comus
10
Original post by Harrie Lyons

just because they fall under the same colloquial random unprecise definition of 'sex without consent' whatever the hell that means.


Are you seriously trying to dismiss the concept of consent as somehow unimportant?
Only willingly, unless its with another man.
Original post by Exon
Although rare (for obvious reasons), it is possible for a woman to force a man to have sexual intercourse. To deny this as the legal definition on post #3 does is inherently sexist yet you never hear feminists crying about it. I wonder why.



Original post by Rosasaurr
dude that legislation really needs changing.

like SERIOUSLY needs changing.

of course women can rape, women can force someone to have sex against their will WHICH IS LITERALLY RAPE D:


A women doing that can still be prosecuted for sexual assault though. As has been mentioned, some countries do not include "rape" as a separate offence, and deal with all these activities as sexual assault of differing levels of severity. IMO, this is more sensible as it allows for more flexible sentencing depending on the nature of the crime.

Ken Clarke pointed this out a few years back and got a s***storm for it, and Richard Dawkins touched on this a few weeks back...and got a s***storm for it. Thinking about sexual offences just seems to turn some people's brains to mush.
Original post by Comus
Are you seriously trying to dismiss the concept of consent as somehow unimportant?

im dismissing the concept of 'sex' as unimportant, consent no. a lack of consent creates a sexual offence but it is the nature of that sexual act that defines its severity.
penetration without consent: crime. touching of a sexual nature without consent: crime. causing someone to oenetrate without consent: crime. they are all different actions and all are sexual offences but currently in the law only the first carrries the weight of the name rape and receives the heaviest sentences. you are advocating that the third action be moved from being equal to the second to being equal to the first in the eyes of the law. why? where is the evidence that it causes as much psychological harm?
yes the term 'sex without consent' is far too vague to mean anything.
Original post by chazwomaq
A women doing that can still be prosecuted for sexual assault though. As has been mentioned, some countries do not include "rape" as a separate offence, and deal with all these activities as sexual assault of differing levels of severity. IMO, this is more sensible as it allows for more flexible sentencing depending on the nature of the crime.

Ken Clarke pointed this out a few years back and got a s***storm for it, and Richard Dawkins touched on this a few weeks back...and got a s***storm for it. Thinking about sexual offences just seems to turn some people's brains to mush.

yeah there is a ridiculous amount of rape dogma swirling round in this thread. the subject causes too many emotional responses (which is a good thing in real life of course, but not in a legal debate)
Reply 70
Avatar for Comus
Comus
10
Original post by Harrie Lyons
im dismissing the concept of 'sex' as unimportant, consent no. a lack of consent creates a sexual offence but it is the nature of that sexual act that defines its severity.
penetration without consent: crime. touching of a sexual nature without consent: crime. causing someone to oenetrate without consent: crime. they are all different actions and all are sexual offences but currently in the law only the first carrries the weight of the name rape and receives the heaviest sentences. you are advocating that the third action be moved from being equal to the second to being equal to the first in the eyes of the law. why? where is the evidence that it causes as much psychological harm?
yes the term 'sex without consent' is far too vague to mean anything.


When we as a society discuss rape, it is usually defined as sex without consent, obviously this is not specific enough for a legal definition in itself, nonetheless, the law should reflect this understanding. I would suggest something along the lines of...
A commits an offense if:

1.

A penetrates B with a penis in the anus or vagina; or if A causes B to penetrate A in the anus or vagina; or if A performs cunnilingus or fellatio on B; or if A causes B to perform cunnilingus or fellatio on A.

2.

B did not consent.

3.

A could not reasonably believe that B consented.

(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ldsbabe
I feel like it's a grave tragedy that in 2014 a person would even need to ask this question.


While I agree a man can be raped by a member of the same sex but by the opposite sex, is that possible? In that respect I think it is a good question because how does it work with a woman potentially raping a man?
Reply 72
Avatar for Truths
Truths
15
Man can be raped tho. Via Anal. But it has to be a real penis, no dildo.
Original post by Comus
When we as a society discuss rape, it is usually defined as sex without consent, obviously this is not specific enough for a legal definition in itself, nonetheless, the law should reflect this understanding. I would suggest something along the lines of...
A commits an offense if:

1.

A penetrates B with a penis in the anus or vagina; or if A causes B to penetrate A in the anus or vagina; or if A performs cunnilingus or fellatio on B; or if A causes B to perform cunnilingus or fellatio on A.

2.

B did not consent.

3.

A could not reasonably believe that B consented.



i wasnt asking you for a specific definition of what you would call rape. you based your proof of what was the null hypothesis was what falls under the common definition of rape. this isnt proof of anything: common imprecise language proves nothing legally. that it is 'usually' defined as etc etc means nothing.
thats the whole problem of this thread, people think rape means sex without consent. it may mean that colloquially but the fact it means that in everyday language means nothing.
so no that is wrong, how the average person defines things has no bearing.
Reply 74
Avatar for Comus
Comus
10
Original post by Harrie Lyons
i wasnt asking you for a specific definition of what you would call rape.

I merely suggested how an expanded legal definition might look, as you have mentioned sex without consent is too vague for legal use, so I put forward a definition that encompasses this concept in a way that is more precise.


thats the whole problem of this thread, people think rape means sex without consent. it may mean that colloquially but the fact it means that in everyday language means nothing.


And what is the problem with bringing the legal definition closer to the layman's definition?
I thought men get butt raped in jail?
This thread is so sad. Every single woman on here has said yes without hesitating, some being disgusted you'd even ask such a question. Some guys on here have actually said no...


:facepalm:
Original post by Comus

I merely suggested how an expanded legal definition might look, as you have mentioned sex without consent is too vague for legal use, so I put forward a definition that encompasses this concept in a way that is more precise.



And what is the problem with bringing the legal definition closer to the layman's definition?

No problem so long as that is the correct thing to do but the layman's definition as it is, offeres no proof that that is the correct thing to do.
So saying that both actions cause equal trauma is not the null hypothesis just because it laymen name them with the same name.
You need to prove that is the case.
Personally I haven't seen men who didn't consent to sex with women due to intoxication suffer at all, but that's just my experience.
Like I said, I don't have the burden of proof.
Reply 78
Avatar for Comus
Comus
10
Original post by Harrie Lyons

Personally I haven't seen men who didn't consent to sex with women due to intoxication suffer at all, but that's just my experience.

Objective research seems thin on the ground regarding the amountof trauma suffered by F->M victims in comparison to M->F/M victims (though making it some sort of sick competition would be rather immature - and it seems likely that in both cases there will be a range of experiences) but there are some horrifying anecdotes to be found in the comment section here.
Original post by Ronnie G
Apparently by law a man can't be raped I don't think this is true do you?


A man can be raped, but only by another man, not by a woman. This is because in order to "rape" someone, you must penetrate them with your penis; something which women obviously cannot do.

Women can, in theory, commit analogous sexual offences (e.g. forcing a man to penetrate her without his consent), but they're just not called "rape".

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you