Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Male dominance still present in society? Patriarchy Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Habibul Bashar)
    They basically do have as much of a chance as men. The level of discrimination against women is minimal and can easily be overcome as many female politicians have shown.
    I feel that "basically" is the key word here. Women have the absolute legal and moral right to enter high level politics. In this sense you are right; women "basically" do have the same chance as men.

    However, due to current male dominance in parliament, there is a great divide of the genders. In the current UK cabinet of 22 ministers, only 4 are women. This cannot be due to voter preferences, as, naturally, half of the voters are women! Instead, this is evidence of the male dominance of the current government.

    This is not a debate regarding whether women can enter politics; they unequivocally can and do. This is a debate regarding whether male dominance still exists in society, and the current makeup of our government acts as fairly solid evidence that it does!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    I feel that "basically" is the key word here. Women have the absolute legal and moral right to enter high level politics. In this sense you are right; women "basically" do have the same chance as men.

    However, due to current male dominance in parliament, there is a great divide of the genders. In the current UK cabinet of 22 ministers, only 4 are women. This cannot be due to voter preferences, as, naturally, half of the voters are women! Instead, this is evidence of the male dominance of the current government.

    This is not a debate regarding whether women can enter politics; they unequivocally can and do. This is a debate regarding whether male dominance still exists in society, and the current makeup of our government acts as fairly solid evidence that it does!
    Countdown to "but men are just naturally better, that's why they're in the majority in government" in three... two... one...

    But seriously, good post, thumbs up
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    I feel that "basically" is the key word here. Women have the absolute legal and moral right to enter high level politics. In this sense you are right; women "basically" do have the same chance as men.

    However, due to current male dominance in parliament, there is a great divide of the genders. In the current UK cabinet of 22 ministers, only 4 are women. This cannot be due to voter preferences, as, naturally, half of the voters are women! Instead, this is evidence of the male dominance of the current government.

    This is not a debate regarding whether women can enter politics; they unequivocally can and do. This is a debate regarding whether male dominance still exists in society, and the current makeup of our government acts as fairly solid evidence that it does!

    OK sure male dominance does still exist in society, but why is that necessarily a problem?

    It's hard to change the way a society is structured and especially something so deeply ingrained into all cultures across the world. So, the progress women have achieved in the past 100 years is therefore astonishing.

    For there to be 4 female cabinet members is amazing given the position of women in society a few generations ago. Maybe you could argue that there could be a few more female cabinet members and no doubt in a generation or two there'll be 7/8 female cabinet members out of 22, which is probably the optimal number for society.

    This reminds be of black football players grumbling about not getting coaching jobs. Yes, they suffer discrimination, but it is minimal and easy to overcome. The ones complaining were just using the race card to justify why they hadn't been offered a job.

    Others have got stuck-in at the lower levels and are now starting to be rewarded.

    Just go and achieve whatever you want and if you've got any strength about you, you'll be able to overcome any small discrimination you face.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Habibul Bashar)
    OK sure male dominance does still exist in society, but why is that necessarily a problem?

    It's hard to change the way a society is structured and especially something so deeply ingrained into all cultures across the world. So, the progress women have achieved in the past 100 years is therefore astonishing.

    For there to be 4 female cabinet members is amazing given the position of women in society a few generations ago. Maybe you could argue that there could be a few more female cabinet members and no doubt in a generation or two there'll be 7/8 female cabinet members out of 22, which is probably the optimal number for society.

    This reminds be of black football players grumbling about not getting coaching jobs. Yes, they suffer discrimination, but it is minimal and easy to overcome. The ones complaining were just using the race card to justify why they hadn't been offered a job.

    Others have got stuck-in at the lower levels and are now starting to be rewarded.

    Just go and achieve whatever you want and if you've got any strength about you, you'll be able to overcome any small discrimination you face.
    Bit in bold made me lol. Also, the last sentence? "any small discrimination"? How do you suggest we do that? Easier said than done, mate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Yes, it obviously does count as rape when a man does it to a man, because in the UK is legally defined as a non consensual act of penetration...
    Err, no. It's defined as rape.

    Sexual Offences Act 2003

    1Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I don't assume, I've got statistics to prove it.
    Then it will be easy to provide a citation.

    So, that makes it okay because a few bigoted men say so? Why not do the same with female circumcision? Oh wait....
    Neither are okay. But in what parrallel universe is male circumcision the fault of women? Was there some ancient misanthropic queen who decreed we must genitally mutilate young boys? Or was it in fact a male dominated society who so decreed?

    Not a good enough reason for it to not count as rape, in Sweden forced envelopment is definitely classified as rape
    Really? What's the Swedish word for rape, and what's the Swedish word for penetratory rape, and what's the word for coercive envelopment?

    so again why shouldn't it be the case in the UK?
    Why should we change what is a fundamental legal term of art simply because another country, which is not common law and speaks a different language, has characterised forced envelopment in a certain way?

    The terminology of a criminal act is extremely
    important, of all people you should know that.
    It's biased against male victims. Do women have a penis? No. It's obviously important because female sex offenders get ligher punishments because of it rape is at least ten years imprisonment and rightly so, but with sexual assult the punishment is widely variable.
    So are you claiming that women dominate our society? Are we living in a matriarchy?

    And I quote women " family courts award mothers sole custody in 71% of cases and fathers sole custody in 7% of all cases, joint custody is awarded in the remaining 21% of cases."
    Do you have any evidence that in each of these cases this is, in fact, the wrong judgement? (Btw, that web-page provides no citation, and it's on a website that is clearly biased... a neutral citation would be appreciated... I'm not saying I doubt it per se, just that I doubt you have a reasonable basis for your belief)

    I was trying to point out men face sexism in different areas.
    No doubt. One wonders what problem you have with my original post.

    So women lawyers dominate custodial and divorce court battles? Hmmmm.... :holmes:
    So you think that it's because women are powerful as a gender that originally their only route into the judiciary was by dealing with "women's" issues like family law? You do realise family law is pretty much the lowest rung on the ladder?

    :lolwut: really?
    medicine and law? considering women make up at the very least, around 55% of graduates in both of those fields, they certainly aren't underrepresented. Women actually make up the majority in law and medicine....
    They make up the majority of graduates. And yet, they are very small proportions of QCs, judges, of consultants. Even by the first year of pupillage for the bar, men overwhelmingly dominate the prestigious practice areas like chancery and commercial practice.

    And how exactly is teaching or nursing a bad career field?
    Caring for children is not as prestigious as, say, being a judge. Or would you claim that teaching was one of the few areas women could break into the professions before the 1970s because... they secretly rule our society?

    I'm not sure you know what you believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Err, no. It's defined as rape.

    Sexual Offences Act 2003
    :confused: how on earth did I say it wasn't? I was stating that a woman can't get charged with rape in the UK, whereas in Sweden she can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    :confused: how on earth did I say it wasn't?
    So what were you claiming "in the UK is legally defined as a non consensual act of penetration..."

    I was stating that a woman can't get charged with rape in the UK, whereas in Sweden she can.
    I'm just wondering on what basis that's an argument that we should change the law.

    Also, it's hardly sexist because a man also won't be charged with rape for forced envelopment.

    Btw, are there any actual instances of this dubious crime occurring?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Neither are okay. But in what parrallel universe is male circumcision the fault of women? Was there some ancient misanthropic queen who decreed we must genitally mutilate young boys? Or was it in fact a male dominated society who so decreed?
    Does it matter which? Does it justify keeping it legal? if a man decided to cut off a child's ear at birth, does that mean it should still be viewed as acceptable in society because the one getting the ear cut off was a boy?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Really? What's the Swedish word for rape, and what's the Swedish word for penetratory rape, and what's the word for coercive envelopment?
    I don't know, I'm not Nordic, but they certainly have included the envelopment into rape.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Why should we change what is a fundamental legal term of art simply because another country, which is not common law and speaks a different language, has characterised forced envelopment in a certain way?
    Why should they have included anus or mouth into rape charges? Because America decided to? You cannot really justify this being okay in terms of law without sounding very misandric. Are you saying that forced envelopment should get reduced conviction charges for having a vagina?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So are you claiming that women dominate our society? Are we living in a matriarchy?
    In society? Definitely not. In terms of family law? It's quite a possibility. Do tell me, which parent gets sole custody rights by Default after a divorce? If there wad a patriarchal family system men would get custody as default instead of women as father's rights would be above mother's rights (like in the past), which undoubtedly is wrong but that doesn't justify women now getting sole custody by default now.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Do you have any evidence that in each of these cases this is, in fact, the wrong judgement? (Btw, that web-page provides no citation, and it's on a website that is clearly biased... a neutral citation would be appreciated... I'm not saying I doubt it per se, just that I doubt you have a reasonable basis for your belief)
    No, there's no wrong or right in civilized matters, as this isn't a criminal court it's a civil court, but sole custody is only ever entitled to men rarely and usually only with very good reasons whereas for women, getting sole custody is common. But if men and women are stereotyped and family law is seen a women's job by society wouldn't that mean that women are going to receive bias in court hearings?

    It's very hard to analyze civil cases like these as there's no black or white, just grey usually, unlike with criminal cases, where there's actually guilty or not guilty of a criminal act.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    No doubt. One wonders what problem you have with my original post.
    Well stating that women only for the vote in the last 100 years, although true, it's misleading, as men only got the right to vote in 1918.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So you think that it's because women are powerful as a gender that originally their only route into the judiciary was by dealing with "women's" issues like family law? You do realise family law is pretty much the lowest rung on the ladder?
    No, I wasn't aware it, but if women are dominating the area, clearly there could be bias for women in court? Just a suggestion.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    They make up the majority of graduates. And yet, they are very small proportions of QCs, judges, of consultants. Even by the first year of pupillage for the bar, men overwhelmingly dominate the prestigious practice areas like chancs and commercial practice.
    I'm not a lawyer so I'm not aware of the prestige of those fields.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Caring for children is not as prestigious as, say, being a judge. Or would you claim that teaching was one of the few areas women could break into the professions before the 1970s because... they secretly rule our society?

    I'm not sure you know what you believe.
    I don't believe society Is patriarchal nor matriarchal, it is a horrible mix of men and women doing badly in different areas of life like men facing gender bias in family disputes, women for positions like CEO.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Ew jreid sort that wall o text out, you messed up the quotes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Habibul Bashar)
    OK sure male dominance does still exist in society, but why is that necessarily a problem?

    It's hard to change the way a society is structured and especially something so deeply ingrained into all cultures across the world. So, the progress women have achieved in the past 100 years is therefore astonishing.

    For there to be 4 female cabinet members is amazing given the position of women in society a few generations ago. Maybe you could argue that there could be a few more female cabinet members and no doubt in a generation or two there'll be 7/8 female cabinet members out of 22, which is probably the optimal number for society.

    This reminds be of black football players grumbling about not getting coaching jobs. Yes, they suffer discrimination, but it is minimal and easy to overcome. The ones complaining were just using the race card to justify why they hadn't been offered a job.

    Others have got stuck-in at the lower levels and are now starting to be rewarded.

    Just go and achieve whatever you want and if you've got any strength about you, you'll be able to overcome any small discrimination you face.
    Even ignoring the obvious immorality of sexism, male dominance is a problem as, by its very nature, it serves to exclude half of the intelligence (whether that be creative, scientific, political, emotional or in any other form) in a society. Viewed from that angle, it is utterly backward and can serve to actively harm said society by preventing half of its members from taking said society forward. Male dominance can only hinder.

    Discrimination often is not easy to overcome. To take your example of racism in football; were black players able to easily overcome barriers against becoming coaches, they wouldn't have had to speak out about it. Hence if it becomes easier to appeal to the rest of the world rather than simply surmount the issue, discrimination has become a problem.

    Agreed, it is hard to change the way a society is structured. However, if a society is unfairly dominated by one group or another, such change is vital. If humanity had shirked away from change just because it was difficult, we'd still be hunter gatherers living solely in one region of Africa.

    Finally, 8 female cabinet ministers would not be optimal for society; this is male dominance which can only be detrimental as outlined above. 11 female cabinet ministers out of 22 would fairly represent the sexes, removing male dominance from parliament.

    I do, however, agree with your final point; the only way discrimination can end is by being overcome.

    I still hold by my initial post; hopefully, male dominance is on the way out...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great example of male dominance in society right here:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Bit in bold made me lol. Also, the last sentence? "any small discrimination"? How do you suggest we do that? Easier said than done, mate.
    Sorry meant to + your post, but stupid iPhone -'d it instead and I can't get it to go back
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    Sorry meant to + your post, but stupid iPhone -'d it instead and I can't get it to go back
    Darn it! never mind, it happens
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    In society? No. In terms of family law? It's quite a possibility. Do tell me, which parent gets sole custody rights by Default after a divorce? If there wad a patriarchal family system men would get custody as default instead of women as father's rights would be above mother's rights (like in the past), which undoubtedly is wrong but that doesn't justify women now getting sole custody by default now.
    In many ways, I would probably agree. But the point is, is it not, that there are gender inequalities against both sexes? And that overwhelmingly, when it comes to the exercise of real power, it favours men?

    No, there's no wrong or right in civilized matters, as this isn't a criminal court it's a civil court, but sole custody is only ever entitled to men rarely and usually only with very good reasons whereas for women, getting sole custody is common. But if men and women are stereotyped and family law is seen a women's job by society wouldn't that mean that women are going to receive bias in court hearings?
    Sure, they might well be the subject of bias. Do you concede that they might even receive bias from male judges, who see childrearing as "women's work", and thus could hardly be said to be the fault of women that this state of affairs has come to be?

    It's very hard to analyze civil cases like these as there's no black or white, just grey usually, unlike with criminal cases, where there's actually guilty or not guilty of a criminal act.
    My point exactly. I would not dispute that women may receive a more favourable hearing in custody disputes, but doesn't this speak to the fact that it's because women are seen as being more suitable for it? That's not exactly a bias that favours women.

    Well stating that women only for the vote in the last 100 years, although true, it's misleading, as men only got the right to vote in 1918.
    But it's not like all men were barred from voting before that, whereas all women were certainly barred from voting prior to that. Also, you do realise that it was legally impossible to rape your wife prior to 1991? That's how recently women were seen as essentially the property of men.

    No, I wasn't aware it, but if women are dominating the area, clearly there could be bias for women in court? Just a suggestion.
    I would concede that, but posit that it fits into a much broader, structural context in which women are seen as primarily capable of looking after children, whereas men are the hunter-gatherer-breadwinners etc.

    I don't believe society Is patriarchal nor matriarchal, it is a horrible mix of men and women doing badly in different areas of life like men facing gender bias in family disputes, women for positions like CEO.
    Again, we would agree that society is not a patriarchy per se. But does it not speak volumes that the areas in which men are discriminated against are ones of less consequence (traditionally speaking, and in terms of authority and power).

    I also agree that men have a raw deal when it comes to doing the most dangerous, dirtiest, must unpleasant jobs in society. The male suicide rate is higher. Men die younger.

    The relationship between the genders is not easy, but surely you would have to concede that historically and in many ways still today, the overall power balance is one in which men dominate still?

    One must separate this from class considerations (i.e. the aristocratic woman had power over the working class man, but she was still subject to her husbands authority. The working class woman was bottom of the heap... perhaps except for a working class woman from a non-white race)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ynang)
    Even ignoring the obvious immorality of sexism, male dominance is a problem as, by its very nature, it serves to exclude half of the intelligence (whether that be creative, scientific, political, emotional or in any other form) in a society. Viewed from that angle, it is utterly backward and can serve to actively harm said society by preventing half of its members from taking said society forward. Male dominance can only hinder.

    Discrimination often is not easy to overcome. To take your example of racism in football; were black players able to easily overcome barriers against becoming coaches, they wouldn't have had to speak out about it. Hence if it becomes easier to appeal to the rest of the world rather than simply surmount the issue, discrimination has become a problem.

    Agreed, it is hard to change the way a society is structured. However, if a society is unfairly dominated by one group or another, such change is vital. If humanity had shirked away from change just because it was difficult, we'd still be hunter gatherers living solely in one region of Africa.

    Finally, 8 female cabinet ministers would not be optimal for society; this is male dominance which can only be detrimental as outlined above. 11 female cabinet ministers out of 22 would fairly represent the sexes, removing male dominance from parliament.

    I do, however, agree with your final point; the only way discrimination can end is by being overcome.

    I still hold by my initial post; hopefully, male dominance is on the way out...

    Dominance (either way) is fine and is the best thing for society in many areas.

    On average women:

    - have less interest in politics than men,
    - are less willing to give everything else up and focus on developing a career in politics.

    Hence, a smaller proportion of women are suitable as MPs. That's not to say there isn't a role for women in these areas. I'd guess that the optimal level for society (ie to have the best politicians) is to have 7/8 female cabinet members rather than 11. If we had 11, a few of them would be there just because they were women.

    On the flip side, men are:

    - less emotionally intelligent than women.
    - less caring

    So, a smaller proportion of men are suitable as Nurses. Men can still play a role in nursing and many will make great nurses, but is it really best for society for 50% of nurses to be men? Because 'we're all the same duuuuuuuuude'.

    No, of course it isn't and we'd be better off by having a higher proportion of women as nurses. Or similarly as Primary School teachers. Women are more likely to be good Primary School teachers, so a higher proportion of primary school teachers are (and should be) women.

    But, it's important men have some representation in this area, but as with women and politics they face some mild discrimination.

    Everything is fine, good day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    So what were you claiming "in the UK is legally defined as a non consensual act of penetration..."
    Because to be a rapist you have to penetrate a victim without consent.... how isn't it a non consensual act of penetration?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'm just wondering on what basis that's an argument that we should change the law.

    Also, it's hardly sexist because a man also won't be charged with rape for forced envelopment.

    Btw, are there any actual instances of this dubious crime occurring?
    Well because first and foremost, rape can ruin lives and forced envelopment can aswell, obviously the first reason why it should be included into rape is because it's just like rape except instead of getting penetrated against will its getting forced to penetrate against will, both are obviously horrible crimes and can cause stress and deep psychological trauma.


    Yes, they could, but it excludes female offenders of "rape", why should a severe sex offender get a lighter punishment for being a woman? It does happen.


    Yes, it does occur, I'm definitely not going to say it's as common as rape, but that doesn't mean that it is not as severe,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Because to be a rapist you have to penetrate a victim without consent.... how isn't it a non consensual act of penetration?
    I was just querying this because I'm wondering where in UK law it's defined in those terms. Certainly, that's not an imprecise description. But I'm wondering about your claim that it is actually defined that way legally?

    Well because first and foremost, rape can ruin lives and forced envelopment can aswell, obviously the first reason why it should be included into rape is because it's just like rape
    Is it not fair comment, based on your own words, to say that it's like rape, but it isn't rape? It's a violation, certainly. And I would concede that the Sexual Offences Act should treat them with equal severity. But it's not rape in the sense that it's not penetration of the anus, mouth or vagina with a penis without consent.

    both are obviously horrible crimes and can cause stress and deep psychological trauma.
    I agree completely.

    Yes, they could, but it excludes female offenders of "rape", why should a severe sex offender get a lighter punishment for being a woman? It does happen.
    We agree on this point. But the question would be, does this mean that mean are socially inferior to women? Is it not more a comment on the status of men and traditional stereotypes held thereof that it is not? Can women be blamed for this?

    Also, and I speak without knowledge and perhaps insensitively, and I apologise for any offence... but I would instinctively think that rape is a more serious offence. Violent or unconsensual penetration is, one would think, more traumatic and more violating, than, say, being tied down and being given an unconsensual blowjob (whether it's a woman doing it to man, or a man doing it to a man).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    In many ways, I would probably agree. But the point is, is it not, that there are gender inequalities against both sexes? And that overwhelmingly, when it comes to the exercise of real power, it favours men?

    In terms of aristocracy? Probably. In terms of average men and women? Not really.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Sure, they might well be the subject of bias. Do you concede that they might even receive bias from male judges, who see childrearing as "women's work", and thus could hardly be said to be the fault of women that this state of affairs has come to be?

    No, but that does not justify it....

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    My point exactly. I would not dispute that women may receive a more favourable hearing in custody disputes, but doesn't this speak to the fact that it's because women are seen as being more suitable for it? That's not exactly a bias that favours women.

    It undeniably does favor women, as whoever has the children, receives the largest divorce payments... She decides whether or not the man has split custody or if she has sole custody..... Meaning that she does get a better deal as she decided whether or not he gets to have split custody.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    But it's not like all men were barred from voting before that, whereas all women were certainly barred from voting prior to that. Also, you do realise that it was legally impossible to rape your wife prior to 1991? That's how recently women were seen as essentially the property of men.
    No, but i certainly would have not been able to vote. I'm trying to point out that, yes at the top or overclass, men dominate there, but when you look down the ladder, how had a working class man got a much better deal than a working class woman?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I would concede that, but posit that it fits into a much broader, structural context in which women are seen as primarily capable of looking after children, whereas men are the hunter-gatherer-breadwinners etc.

    Yes I know.... So why would you agree that it's justifiable if it's based around stereotypes?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Again, we would agree that society is not a patriarchy per se. But does it not speak volumes that the areas in which men are discriminated against are ones of less consequence (traditionally speaking, and in terms of authority and power).
    How on earth is losing custody of a child, less consequence? It's quite a devastating thing...

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I also agree that men have a raw deal when it comes to doing the most dangerous, dirtiest, must unpleasant jobs in society. The male suicide rate is higher. Men die younger.
    What's this got to do with sexism?

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    The relationship between the genders is not easy, but surely you would have to concede that historically and in many ways still today, the overall power balance is one in which men dominate still?
    I'm aware....majority? Certainly, dominates in? Quite possible, but it is not exclusive to men...

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    One must separate this from class considerations (i.e. the aristocratic woman had power over the working class man, but she was still subject to her husbands authority. The working class woman was bottom of the heap... perhaps except for a working class woman from a non-white race)

    I'm not exactly upper or even middle classed... And I don't think that working class women have much more problems than working class men, both have it pretty badly at the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, trust me on that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I was just querying this because I'm wondering where in UK law it's defined in those terms. Certainly, that's not an imprecise description. But I'm wondering about your claim that it is actually defined that way legally?



    Is it not fair comment, based on your own words, to say that it's like rape, but it isn't rape? It's a violation, certainly. And I would concede that the Sexual Offences Act should treat them with equal severity. But it's not rape in the sense that it's not penetration of the anus, mouth or vagina with a penis without consent.



    I agree completely.



    We agree on this point. But the question would be, does this mean that mean are socially inferior to women? Is it not more a comment on the status of men and traditional stereotypes held thereof that it is not? Can women be blamed for this?

    Also, and I speak without knowledge and perhaps insensitively, and I apologise for any offence... but I would instinctively think that rape is a more serious offence. Violent or unconsensual penetration is, one would think, more traumatic and more violating, than, say, being tied down and being given an unconsensual blowjob (whether it's a woman doing it to man, or a man doing it to a man).
    I wouldn't say that, forced envelopment can easily be just as nasty and violent as rape... I would undeniably state that unlike the UK, Sweden is more egalitarian than over here, but.... That's doesn't justify forced envelopment not coming under rape, it's like putting an intentional murder under manslaughter.

    I've got to admit you're quite obviously a decent lawyer...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.