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

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    Why try and correct someone without researching it first?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have researched it. Hence I corrected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eljamaispa)
    I have researched it. Hence I corrected.
    Funny that you were wrong though, great research skill


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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
    You're wrong. Lesson number 1 - don't use news sources to research the law. They are often wrong.

    (Original post by james22)
    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.
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Though I think a woman could rape another woman but very unlikely rape a male,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessica_T)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Surely you're not serious?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.