Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    I don't believe it's morally more or less wrong, but I do believe it's a different act. It affects the person's body differently, and raping a women is potentially more invasive and damaging - the equivalent of a male raping a male, or a female actually penetrating the male they are raping.
    But that certainly doesn't need to neccessarily be the case - and things like that, which make a crime worse but aren't really neccessary for it to be that crime, is what minimum and maximum sentences are for. Again - if a man gets a woman drunk and has sex with her, and vice versa, are "the people" any more or less in danger if it's one rather than the other?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You cant 'police' sex, consensual or otherwise. Lets face it, its not a pretty business at the best of times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    well, the fact that a man cannot be raped says it all to be honest. because rape is classed only as vaginal it cant be :|

    Do you actually have any idea on what the law on rape is.
    1. Rape is penatration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis. A man has both a mouth and an anus therefore he can be raped

    s.1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
    (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.

    Also drunken consent is still consent (R. v Bree-Held that if, through drink, the complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she was not consenting; that, however, where the complainant had voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agreed to do so, she was consenting; that capacity to consent might evaporate well before a complainant became unconscious, but whether that was so or not was fact-specific and depended on the actual state of mind of the individuals involved; that for those reasons the 2003 Act provided a clear definition of “consent” for the purposes of the offence of rape and by defining it in section 74 of that Act with reference to “capacity to make that choice”, sufficiently addressed the issue of consent in the context of voluntary consumption of alcohol by the complainant; that where the complainant was affected by her own voluntarily induced intoxication, the jury should be given some assistance with the meaning of “capacity” and whether and to what extent they could take that into account in deciding whether she had consented; and that since the jury had been given no or no sufficient directions on the issues of consent and voluntary intoxication, their verdict was unsafe and the conviction would be quashed)

    Therefore drunken consent is still consent as long as the victim is in a state of mind where the court believes that she/he has the capacity to give consent. In R v Bree the victim was drunk (in fact the defendant had had to help her wash vomit out of her hair) and was unable to remember a lot of details about what had actually happened. Yet the court still decided that she had consented to sex.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    But that certainly doesn't need to neccessarily be the case - and things like that, which make a crime worse but aren't really neccessary for it to be that crime, is what minimum and maximum sentences are for.

    Again - if a man gets a woman drunk and has sex with her, and vice versa, are "the people" any more or less in danger if it's one rather than the other?
    No, but two acts being equivalent in the amount of danger they put someone in does not mean they are the same act. Also I don't really see how rape is about danger.

    (Original post by little.miss.vicki)
    Do you actually have any idea on what the law on rape is...
    Thank you! I don't understand how people have got this so wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the whole drunken consent issue depended on precedent rather than the letter of the law as such and the recent consensus among British judges was that drunken consent is still consent - I'm sure that's the last I heard..

    personally I think drunken consent is still valid consent and should always be treated as such (except in the case of a drink spiking but that's something completely different..)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Couldn't the man just as easily claim to have been raped by the woman then? Because if they were both drunk, it's going to be a bit difficult to determine who came onto whom...

    Rape (intentionally having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you) is one of those things which I wouldn't mind having the death penalty for :rolleyes:
    How the **** can those two paragraphs sit comfortably together in one person's mind?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    However, ultimately rape is a man's crime. One friend said to me once that men get raped "just as much as women do" and that is completely false. It is also officially a war crime. The Japanese soldiers raped approximately 80,000 women during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre. In World War II, approximately 200,000 Korean and Chinese women were forced into prostitution in Japanese military brothels. Also, the Red Army were guilty of raping over 2,000,000 German women and young girls.
    And in 2006, a UN statistical report showed that over 250,000 cases of female rape had been recorded that year.

    No wonder the rape laws lean in favour of women.
    Rape is a mans crime. A woman cannot commit rape as she doesn't have a penis.
    However this doesn't mean that a man cannot be raped by another man.
    A woman (or man) who sexually penetrates another person with an object other than a penis commits assault by penetration. They have the same maximum sentance but are technically not the same offence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, I've read this whole thread and I have a good question. Imagine this scenario:

    A random woman jumps a man in an alleyway. She penetrates him anally with a strap on . But in an sudden turn of events, the man manages to over power the woman and penetrates her vagina.

    What kind of verdict would that situation have? Could the woman plea that he was raped and the man be put into the wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    how do you define cannot give consent though? "If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape." thats very broad
    It's up to the jury to decide on the facts of the case. Although from the case law (R v Bree) it seems that the woman has to be very drunk in order to be deemed incapable of consent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nytorious)
    Ok, I've read this whole thread and I have a good question. Imagine this scenario:

    A random woman jumps a man in an alleyway. She penetrates him anally with a strap on . But in an sudden turn of events, the man manages to over power the woman and penetrates her vagina.

    What kind of verdict would that situation have? Could the woman plea that he was raped and the man be put into the wrong?

    They both get charged.
    She would be charged with assault by penetration.
    He would be charged with rape.
    The fact that he has to overpower her in order to have sex with her suggests that he doesn't reasonablely believe she consents.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nytorious)
    Ok, I've read this whole thread and I have a good question. Imagine this scenario:

    A random woman jumps a man in an alleyway. She penetrates him anally with a strap on . But in an sudden turn of events, the man manages to over power the woman and penetrates her vagina.

    What kind of verdict would that situation have? Could the woman plea that he was raped and the man be put into the wrong?
    They are both in the wrong.

    The man has committed rape, and the woman as committed a serious sexual assault (which has the same penalty as rape).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Scenario:

    Woman puts rohypnol and viagra in a guys drink, he's off his face with a raging hard-on and she takes advantage. Verdict?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's ridiculous and obscene that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, the man can be done for rape. If they're both off their heads, why is one judged to be more responsible than the other?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fraternité)
    How the **** can those two paragraphs sit comfortably together in one person's mind?
    Why can't they?

    The first paragraph is referring to drunkenness which is a bit of a grey-area in my mind. If two people have sex while drunk, I don't see why the girl can claim to have been raped, when she has done exactly the same thing that the guy has done. But then again, it depends how drunk each one was, and their ability to express their reluctance to have sex, which is quite subjective.

    The second paragraph is referring only to proven sober undisputed rape. When someone knows for certain another person doesn't want to have sex with them, and has sex with them anyway. If they've said quite that they don't want to, or are trying to physically resist, or have expressed their reluctance in some other way. If someone quite obviously doesn't want to have sex, I think that forcing them to have sex against their will should be punishable by death, just because there really is no excuse for it
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If a woman walks up to a guy, hits him round the head with a frying pan and knocks him out, ties him up well enough to stop him from moving, wakes him up and then has sex with him against his will, does that not count as rape? Can she not be punished for that? Because you know... if that happened to me I'd be pretty pissed off
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If a woman walks up to a guy, hits him round the head with a frying pan and knocks him out, ties him up well enough to stop him from moving, wakes him up and then has sex with him against his will, does that not count as rape? Can she not be punished for that? Because you know... if that happened to me I'd be pretty pissed off
    women cannot get done for rape im afraid, as they dont have a penis
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lisa.22)
    are you stupid??... its hte 'fantasy' of it.. of a male being forceful you know like when they like being tied up and stuff... and i can imagine it hurts like mad and be the most awful think to happen to you if you get raped!
    if the rapists hot then surely youve done well, and it might b enjoyable? dont knock it untill youve tried it! mayb they suld hav harsher fines for ugly rapists?

    sorry i'm offending any1, this is just my opinion and many people i know at uni (few girls aswel)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Rape isn't all that bad. I mean, rape is just surprise sex.

    As long as you shout SURPRISE everything'll be okie dokie.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How about this rape law:

    All charges against the rapist will be dropped if the rapist agrees to marry the rapee.


    That, is messed uppp.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the way that some guys always joke around about rape. It's incredibly despicable and harmful and no woman should ever have to go through it. We as a society really need to become educated on rape and change our ideas about it.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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