Why do people act like it's impossible for a woman to rape a man?

Under UK law, rape requires a penis. Females do not have penises.
Those situations would largely be sexual assault and would carry a similar sentence as the comparable rape charge for a man.

Under UK law, rape requires a penis. Females do not have penises.
Those situations would largely be sexual assault and would carry a similar sentence as the comparable rape charge for a man.

I mean like several ways women are coming up with ways to say they were raped without physical force. Like I could come up with about 2 or 3. A woman gets really drunk and has sex with some guy she was too drunk to consent so it's somehow considered rape. A woman gets drunk passes out and has sex with some guy. That's considered rape. A woman is sober but doesn't say yes or no and has sex with a man. This too an be considered rape. If it is said he persuaded her. Now what I don't get is if that's all three scenarios rape dont women do the same to men? Men have sex while they are too drunk to consent sometimes some women persuade/seduce men a man could have not said yes or no when sex was initiated. A man could pass out and a woman could have sexual relations with him. Those would all count as rape. Yet it's like if the roles are reversed its not a real offense. I feel like if it's not an offense with genders switched then it's not rape for a woman if she got too drunk or has regrets or whatever. If this is the case why is it seen as if men can't be raped by women when either scenario could go for either gender?

Under UK law, rape requires a penis. Females do not have penises.
Those situations would largely be sexual assault and would carry a similar sentence as the comparable rape charge for a man.

I think the UK law is mistaken. General rape definitions don't discriminate rape in this way - and rightfully so. Rape simply constitutes unwanted sex, specifically penetration. And a penis is not needed to penetrate someone.

The UK law on rape should be sex-neutral. The act and punishment should be viewed the same, regardless of whether one is male or female.

OP, I agree with you. US law is slightly more open - I think the wording is something along the lines of 'penetration, no matter how slight, of the mouth, vagina or anus' (not gender-specific), but still.

But I think that regardless of the gender of the people involved, if you have sex with someone who is clearly incapacitated, or unable to even stand up straight without falling over, or clearly not into it whatsoever (see that guy in the news who ****ed a girl who was crying - like, I dunno, if that's not a red flag for somebody then I'm worried), then yeah, you're committing sexual assault.

Naturally occurances are reduced as a drunk guy is physically less able. But more importantly guys are less likely to report it .

What you're saying is quite broken. It is an offense, I can't tell if you're suggesting it isn't, in which case you're wrong and perpetuating the myth men can't be raped by women. This then leads men not to report it. You're part of the problem here.

Only sexists and feminazi will say that 'men can't be raped'.
Society is ignoring the issue because it doesn't happen that often and because again, the sexist approach: women are sexual prey while men are sexual predators.

I don't think it does.

Under UK law, rape requires a penis. Females do not have penises.
Those situations would largely be sexual assault and would carry a similar sentence as the comparable rape charge for a man.

I thought it wasn't considered rape because a man becoming erect denotes arousal and this consent.

👆 might be out dated though!


Ps I agree it should be gender neutral. However that won't do much for the actual number of rapes against women occurring.