This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Isn't it about time that attitudes changed towards rape?

Scroll to see replies

Seriously feels like I'm banging my head against a wall here

Posted from TSR Mobile

Banging your head on a wall will give you brain damage, that's probably why you keep getting it wrong. 18 women in 3 years is exceptionally low, so yes I do think that all of those convictions will be because of assisting rape, because as has been repeatedly said to you the definition of rape is to force a penis into a vagina, unless a women has a male accomplice this is physically impossible. If you think this is wrong show us a story where a women has been convicted of rape in the UK without an accomplice, because showing a story where there was one and then claiming that it's different is other cases without any proof isn't going to convince anyone.

Reply 81

blue n white army

Original post by snowyowl

So you're telling me SuBo couldn't rape you because you'd be well up for it?

you don't look at the mantle piece when you're stocking the fire

Reply 82

LewisG123

If you read the quote i posted it says convicted of rape or aiding and abetting; had it been only aiding and abetting then it would say "18 women have been convicted of aiding abetting..."

In any case I said women can be convicted of rape, which I have proven to be correct

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 83

Eljamaispa

Original post by LewisG123

Why try and correct someone without researching it first?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I have researched it. Hence I corrected.

Reply 84

LewisG123

Original post by Eljamaispa

I have researched it. Hence I corrected.

Funny that you were wrong though, great research skill

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 85

Eljamaispa

Original post by LewisG123

Funny that you were wrong though, great research skill

Posted from TSR Mobile

You don't know the UK law's definition of rape? Hilarious.

Reply 86

james22

Original post by LewisG123

Can you (or indeed the people who disagree with you) find any quotes from judges that clear this up? I am genuinly intruiged as to why women have been convicted of rape when the law is worded in a way that makes it appear to be impossible for that to happen.

Reply 87

Theflyingbarney

Original post by james22

Accomplice liability, i.e. where somebody aids, abets, counsels or procures a full criminal offence to happen, is charged under the same full offence. So women can be guilty of rape as an accomplice; for example if they restrained the victim while the principal offender commits the rape proper.

However, this obviously requires a male to do the full act of rape for the woman's accomplice liability to stem from, so a woman can thus only be convicted of rape where a man has also committed the full offence - they can't be independently guilty of rape in their own right.

Reply 88

mmmpie

Original post by james22

The current legal definition of rape comes from the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Since LewisG123 quoted statistics from 1995-1999, possibly that explains the confusion.

If Lewis has a link to the source for those figures, that might clear things up

Reply 89

LewisG123

Original post by Eljamaispa

You don't know the UK law's definition of rape? Hilarious.

So hilarious that the only point I've made I've proven is correct: women can be convicted of rape

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 90

Theflyingbarney

Original post by LewisG123

So hilarious that the only point I've made I've proven is correct: women can be convicted of rape

You mean apart from this one?

Original post by LewisG123

"Home Office figures show between 1995 and 1999, 18 women were convicted of rape or aiding and abetting it, but most of those were against children." - I think it's highly unlikely they're all merely helping

Reply 91

InnerTemple

Original post by LewisG123

You're wrong. Lesson number 1 - don't use news sources to research the law. They are often wrong.

Original post by james22

Original post by mmmpie

Rape in English law has always required penile penetration - even before the 2003 Act. It used to be known as 'carnal knowledge' and slowly evolved. A full discussion of the old law as well as how the present law came into being can be found here, in this Home Office report:

Setting the boundaries

The only way a woman could be convicted would be under joint enterprise laws - where she assists in the rape.

Reply 92

Jessica_T

Original post by LewisG123

A quick google search will also show you that women have been convicted of rape.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're plain wrong. In England, women CANNOT be convicted of rape. The statutory definition of rape is penile penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina. Newspapers may report "WOMAN CONVICTED OF RAPE", but the newspapers are wrong too - she will have been convicted of a form of sexual assault.

EDIT: Here is the source for the statutory definition of rape: section 1(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 93

SannaS

Does rape even hurt men? The reason women are affected is that when they are frightened their body doesn't loosen up to prepare for penetration therefore making it incredibly painful.

Reply 94

Jessica_T

Original post by LewisG123

So hilarious that the only point I've made I've proven is correct: women can be convicted of rape

Posted from TSR Mobile

Women can be convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring rape - they cannot be convicted of rape.

Citing newspaper articles is not legal authority to back up your claim - newspapers do not know the law and misuse legal phrases with specific definitions.

Reply 95

SannaS

Though I think a woman could rape another woman but very unlikely rape a male,

Reply 96

Jessica_T

Original post by SannaS

Though I think a woman could rape another woman but very unlikely rape a male,

Women cannot rape anyone in the eyes of the law. Women do not have penises. Rape requires penile penetration.

Reply 97

Theflyingbarney

Original post by Jessica_T

To be fair, as I've laid out above, when a person is accused of aiding/abetting, etc, an offence, they are charged with the full offence, so technically women can be guilty of 'rape' - but only where there's a man that's actually committed the full offence, and not by having forced sex with someone themselves.

Reply 98

Shockolate

Original post by Cable

The current law (in the UK and probably in most countries) defines rape in such a way that only men convicted of rape:

But imo, the law on rape is outdated and quite stupid. Anyone who has had sex or watched porn knows that women can take an active role in sex. It's not just men who do all the work. Women can do cowgirl, bouncing up and down on a man's rod. Hell, in the doggystyle position, instead of the man thrusting from behind, the woman can just rock forwards and backwards against his cervix smasher.

Additionally, it's well known that men can get unwanted erections. Hence it makes sense that they can be "raped" by women.

Since it's clear that women can take an active role in sex, why can't they also be convicted as rapists? Why can't the law be changed to accomodate women into it as being capable of committing rape? Why is it that only men that must bear the shameful and destructive title of "rapist"?

Many times I read of a man and woman who got drunk in a club and eventually had sex. Then many people (usually feminists) would claim only the woman was raped. I'm like "Wtf?" How can they come to such a retarded and dangerous opinion? Both the man and woman were drunk when it all happened. The woman may have taken an active role during the sex session (e.g. cowgirl). Does that mean the man was also raped? Or is drunken consent only considered irrelevant in the woman's favour just because she's a woman and therefore, the drunk man is automatically the rapist? Don't they know that encouraging the woman to report the incident as rape can cause unnecessary hurt if the man was innocent of rape?

Isn't it about time that attitudes towards rape changed globally? Isn't it about time that women were also known as rapists instead of men only?

I think the attachment of the "rapist" title to men only is quite sexist. Which begs the question. How come I haven't seen many protests in the name of feminism for women to also be convicted of rape? They have the time to protest against page 3 girls and girls freely choosing to wrestle half naked in jelly at Cambridge Uni. But they don't seem to have much time to protest against the inequality of only men being convicted of rape. Do feminists (generally) only want equality where it suits women afterall?

So what do y'all think? Should the law on rape stay the same? Or should women also be convicted of rape? And what are your reasons?

I think the attitude towards rape needs to be changed globally, but in a way that that supports the victim (whether male of female) and fully places responsibility with the perpertrator (whether male or female).
I don't think they are encouraging anyone to report drunken consensual sex as rape, just saying that if a person is passed out/on the verge of passing out/so drunk they don't know what's going on and another person decides to do something to them, that people should recognise that this is a sexual assault. They aren't saying that if a couple happily participate in drunken sex together, that the man is somehow a rapist.
I think that any woman who violates a man should be punished at the same level as a man who violates a woman (and I think the level should be a lot heavier than it is now - people get away with sexual assault too lightly.
I think there needs to be a global change to where no one thinks that rape/sexual assault is acceptable or excusable and where the responsibility is fully with the perpetrator. A society in which the idea that it's acceptable to touch another's body without consent is challenged, and laws and attitudes that support and protect victims. This is where your concern should lie - the fact that this behaviour is allowed to continue in the world.

Reply 99

Steevee

Original post by SannaS

Does rape even hurt men? The reason women are affected is that when they are frightened their body doesn't loosen up to prepare for penetration therefore making it incredibly painful.