Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys
Scroll to see replies
I know my view is unpopular with younger people today, who seem to want 'equality' in everything. But a male rapist is several leagues worse than a female one - except in one way.
A penis is a semen injector. To have that forced in to you is a far more gross prospect than to have your own cajoled.
For the male who is the victim to have ejaculated in to the female, the male must have become aroused.
For a female to have been raped by a male, the female need not have become aroused at all. There is also the frightening possibility of becoming pregnant with your rapist's baby.
A male victim does have the frightening possibility - as happened in this recent case - of their abuser giving birth to their child without their knowledge or permission. So a sentence needs to be fairly tough.
But the sentence for a male rapist must remain notably tougher - and nowadays, fortunately, it tends to be a lot tougher than it used to be.
A penis is a semen injector. To have that forced in to you is a far more gross prospect than to have your own cajoled.
For the male who is the victim to have ejaculated in to the female, the male must have become aroused.
For a female to have been raped by a male, the female need not have become aroused at all. There is also the frightening possibility of becoming pregnant with your rapist's baby.
A male victim does have the frightening possibility - as happened in this recent case - of their abuser giving birth to their child without their knowledge or permission. So a sentence needs to be fairly tough.
But the sentence for a male rapist must remain notably tougher - and nowadays, fortunately, it tends to be a lot tougher than it used to be.
(edited 4 months ago)
I agree, subject to one reservation, which I mention below.
A man forcing sex upon a woman is an order of magnitude worse than what happened in the Joynes case. The law rightly treats rape as a crime that can only be committed by a man. Joynes acted badly, and she will be sanctioned for that. She did not rape anybody.
Women are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by men than men by women. But, whenever a case such as the Joynes case occurs, or whenever a woman is shown to have made a false accusation of rape, the tabloids and the man-o-sphere go crazy, with scarcely concealed misogyny evident in much of the reporting and commentary.
I disagree on one point. A woman doesn't require the permission of a man by whom she has become pregnant to have the child. A man doesn't have a right of veto in respect of a pregnancy.
A man forcing sex upon a woman is an order of magnitude worse than what happened in the Joynes case. The law rightly treats rape as a crime that can only be committed by a man. Joynes acted badly, and she will be sanctioned for that. She did not rape anybody.
Women are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by men than men by women. But, whenever a case such as the Joynes case occurs, or whenever a woman is shown to have made a false accusation of rape, the tabloids and the man-o-sphere go crazy, with scarcely concealed misogyny evident in much of the reporting and commentary.
I disagree on one point. A woman doesn't require the permission of a man by whom she has become pregnant to have the child. A man doesn't have a right of veto in respect of a pregnancy.
(edited 4 months ago)
Original post by stiffy byng
I agree, subject to one reservation, which I mention below.
A man forcing sex upon a woman is an order of magnitude worse than what happened in the Joynes case. The law rightly treats rape as a crime that can only be committed by a man. Joynes acted badly, and she will be sanctioned for that. She did not rape anybody.
Women are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by men than men by women. But, whenever a case such as the Joynes case occurs, or whenever a woman is shown to have made a false accusation of rape, the tabloids and the man-o-sphere go crazy, with scarcely concealed misogyny evident in much of the reporting and commentary.
I disagree on one point. A woman doesn't require the permission of a man by whom she has become pregnant to have the child. A man doesn't have a right of veto in respect of a pregnancy.
A man forcing sex upon a woman is an order of magnitude worse than what happened in the Joynes case. The law rightly treats rape as a crime that can only be committed by a man. Joynes acted badly, and she will be sanctioned for that. She did not rape anybody.
Women are far more likely to be raped or assaulted by men than men by women. But, whenever a case such as the Joynes case occurs, or whenever a woman is shown to have made a false accusation of rape, the tabloids and the man-o-sphere go crazy, with scarcely concealed misogyny evident in much of the reporting and commentary.
I disagree on one point. A woman doesn't require the permission of a man by whom she has become pregnant to have the child. A man doesn't have a right of veto in respect of a pregnancy.
But the difference is he's not legally a man. I think if you have sex with someone aged under 16 (or aged under 18 if you're in a position of responsibility over them), the law should be allowed to compel you to have an abortion IF there is no prospect of the 'relationship', if there is one beyond that act, legally continuing. The foetus, albeit through no fault of its own, is the result of a crime. But we do not regard foetuses as having rights. If we did, we wouldn't allow raped girls to have abortions, or anyone to have abortions.
It is an unnecessary burden, or an unnecessary lie against the boy, that he forever know that, despite not being legally allowed to do the thing that caused him to become a father, the fruit of that crime has been allowed to blossom. Or it is an unnecessary lie against him if he never be told that his DNA is now forever in an illegally conceived child.
n.b. If a girl under 16 becomes pregnant by a boy under 16, the default position should be abortion, unless the boy and the girl both say otherwise.
(edited 4 months ago)
The concept of the State compelling a woman to have an abortion is horrific. A society which permitted such a thing would be dystopic.
Original post by Stiffy Byng
The concept of the State compelling a woman to have an abortion is horrific. A society which permitted such a thing would be dystopic.
Very much agreed.
Original post by Picnicl
But the difference is he's not legally a man. I think if you have sex with someone aged under 16 (or aged under 18 if you're in a position of responsibility over them), the law should be allowed to compel you to have an abortion IF there is no prospect of the 'relationship', if there is one beyond that act, legally continuing. The foetus, albeit through no fault of its own, is the result of a crime. But we do not regard foetuses as having rights. If we did, we wouldn't allow raped girls to have abortions, or anyone to have abortions.
It is an unnecessary burden, or an unnecessary lie against the boy, that he forever know that, despite not being legally allowed to do the thing that caused him to become a father, the fruit of that crime has been allowed to blossom. Or it is an unnecessary lie against him if he never be told that his DNA is now forever in an illegally conceived child.
n.b. If a girl under 16 becomes pregnant by a boy under 16, the default position should be abortion, unless the boy and the girl both say otherwise.
It is an unnecessary burden, or an unnecessary lie against the boy, that he forever know that, despite not being legally allowed to do the thing that caused him to become a father, the fruit of that crime has been allowed to blossom. Or it is an unnecessary lie against him if he never be told that his DNA is now forever in an illegally conceived child.
n.b. If a girl under 16 becomes pregnant by a boy under 16, the default position should be abortion, unless the boy and the girl both say otherwise.
"unless the boy and the girl both say otherwise."
Boy's say so shouldn't be required, that's just another wild situation where a male gets a deciding say over a woman's body. If they don't want to be involved, walk away, forfeit all rights that's ok,. but they don;t get a final say on the pregnancy. You obv want new parents to have a support network and resources, but this isn't something that should be given to the state to decide imo.
Original post by striderhort
"unless the boy and the girl both say otherwise."
Boy's say so shouldn't be required, that's just another wild situation where a male gets a deciding say over a woman's body. If they don't want to be involved, walk away, forfeit all rights that's ok,. but they don;t get a final say on the pregnancy. You obv want new parents to have a support network and resources, but this isn't something that should be given to the state to decide imo.
Boy's say so shouldn't be required, that's just another wild situation where a male gets a deciding say over a woman's body. If they don't want to be involved, walk away, forfeit all rights that's ok,. but they don;t get a final say on the pregnancy. You obv want new parents to have a support network and resources, but this isn't something that should be given to the state to decide imo.
It's not just 'a male'. It's a boy. It's not fair to allow his DNA to become a child if he doesn't want it to. It was an illegal situation. I suppose we can't force someone to have a medical procedure but we could at least explain the moral issues of the situation.
Once it's no longer an illegal situation though the male rightly has no say.
(edited 4 months ago)
You appear to be retreating from your horrendous suggestion of enforced abortion.
As a general observation, I find it surprising how ready some people are to suggest authoritarian solutions to societal problems. I wonder if this is a generational thing. When I was a child and a teenager, many of the adults whom I met, including my teachers at school and university, had clear memories of the 1940s, and were strongly opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms. As memory of the 1940s fades, are people becoming once again disposed to support authoritarian ideas?
The "agree with us or shut up" approach to some issues of at least some university students is concerning. It is a regrettable fact that universities in Germany (faculty and students alike) rapidly embraced Hitlerism in the 1930s. A fish rots from its head.
As a general observation, I find it surprising how ready some people are to suggest authoritarian solutions to societal problems. I wonder if this is a generational thing. When I was a child and a teenager, many of the adults whom I met, including my teachers at school and university, had clear memories of the 1940s, and were strongly opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms. As memory of the 1940s fades, are people becoming once again disposed to support authoritarian ideas?
The "agree with us or shut up" approach to some issues of at least some university students is concerning. It is a regrettable fact that universities in Germany (faculty and students alike) rapidly embraced Hitlerism in the 1930s. A fish rots from its head.
(edited 4 months ago)
Original post by Picnicl
It's not just 'a male'. It's a boy. It's not fair to allow his DNA to become a child if he doesn't want it to. It was an illegal situation. I suppose we can't force someone to have a medical procedure but we could at least explain the moral issues of the situation.
Once it's no longer an illegal situation though the male rightly has no say.
Once it's no longer an illegal situation though the male rightly has no say.
For better or worse the boy made that choice already. They don't get a veto over it now, esp when we're talking about the girls body.
The male doesn't get an extra say for being young. By means advise and morally support etc. But they do not get a vote to end the pregnancy. No way.
Original post by stiffy byng
You appear to be retreating from your horrendous suggestion of enforced abortion.
As a general observation, I find it surprising how ready some people are to suggest authoritarian solutions to societal problems. I wonder if this is a generational thing. When I was a child and a teenager, many of the adults whom I met, including my teachers at school and university, had clear memories of the 1940s, and were strongly opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms. As memory of the 1940s fades, are people becoming once again disposed to support authoritarian ideas?
The "agree with us or shut up" approach to some issues of at least some university students is concerning. It is a regrettable fact that universities in Germany (faculty and students alike) rapidly embraced Hitlerism in the 1930s. A fish rots from its head.
As a general observation, I find it surprising how ready some people are to suggest authoritarian solutions to societal problems. I wonder if this is a generational thing. When I was a child and a teenager, many of the adults whom I met, including my teachers at school and university, had clear memories of the 1940s, and were strongly opposed to authoritarianism in all its forms. As memory of the 1940s fades, are people becoming once again disposed to support authoritarian ideas?
The "agree with us or shut up" approach to some issues of at least some university students is concerning. It is a regrettable fact that universities in Germany (faculty and students alike) rapidly embraced Hitlerism in the 1930s. A fish rots from its head.
Isn't a curious thing for you to decide to wholeheartedly support though? A woman's right to have a baby that she created with a child.
It at least deserved pause for thought, didn't it - as I subsequently did myself.
If we deem the boy not a child as such because he is sexually developed enough to create a child, should we regard the same of a girl of about the same age?
(edited 4 months ago)
Original post by Picnicl
I know my view is unpopular with younger people today, who seem to want 'equality' in everything. But a male rapist is several leagues worse than a female one - except in one way.
A penis is a semen injector. To have that forced in to you is a far more gross prospect than to have your own cajoled.
For the male who is the victim to have ejaculated in to the female, the male must have become aroused.
For a female to have been raped by a male, the female need not have become aroused at all. There is also the frightening possibility of becoming pregnant with your rapist's baby.
A male victim does have the frightening possibility - as happened in this recent case - of their abuser giving birth to their child without their knowledge or permission. So a sentence needs to be fairly tough.
But the sentence for a male rapist must remain notably tougher - and nowadays, fortunately, it tends to be a lot tougher than it used to be.
A penis is a semen injector. To have that forced in to you is a far more gross prospect than to have your own cajoled.
For the male who is the victim to have ejaculated in to the female, the male must have become aroused.
For a female to have been raped by a male, the female need not have become aroused at all. There is also the frightening possibility of becoming pregnant with your rapist's baby.
A male victim does have the frightening possibility - as happened in this recent case - of their abuser giving birth to their child without their knowledge or permission. So a sentence needs to be fairly tough.
But the sentence for a male rapist must remain notably tougher - and nowadays, fortunately, it tends to be a lot tougher than it used to be.
Disagree entirely, the punishment for rape should not depend on the sex of the victim. Rape is the violation of another person's consent to sex irrespective of whether ejaculation occurs, the 'grossness' of it (which is subjective) should not be relevant to sentencing.
Your comment about male arousal comes across as victim blaming, which it basically is. Not all men can control whether they become erect or ejaculate. It is rape regardless, it is the violation of consent which matters. Furthermore, male victims can also be drugged or incapacitated during rape in which case questions about arousal become irrelevant.
Taking your logic at it's word, should a male rapist get a weaker sentence if they don't ejaculate? Or if they do ejaculate but are infertile? Or if the victim is infertile? Or if they don't penetrate a victims vagina?
Original post by Talkative Toad
Agreed and according to the UK law the woman cannot be viewed as a rapist (read this somewhere but I have no idea whether that’s true or not).
Time to change the law.
Time to change the law.
It is a law and there have been petitions to change the legal definition of rape but it has been denied which is messed up
Yes, they should get a weaker sentence (although not necessarily by much) if they don't ejaculate. Just like someone who kills someone with a knife gets a harsher sentence than someone who nearly killed, or tried to kill, someone with a knife. The penetration itself is one perversion. The unwilling spread of DNA in to someone's body is an extra perversion. To be clear, I think the 'weaker' sentence should be longer than the normal sentences we actually have now.
If a female has literally drugged and incapacitated a male, that should substantially add to her sentence.
If a female has literally drugged and incapacitated a male, that should substantially add to her sentence.
(edited 4 months ago)
Original post by spencerspencah
It is a law and there have been petitions to change the legal definition of rape but it has been denied which is messed up
But if the term rape means a specific thing (and afaik always has done) why do you need to change it's definition? esp when the acts we are discussing are already covered by other sexual offences legislation.
It feels like saying, 'The legal definition of attempted murder should be changed to include grevious bodily harm' when these are already distinct offences meaning specific things.
Original post by StriderHort
But if the term rape means a specific thing (and afaik always has done) why do you need to change it's definition? esp when the acts we are discussing are already covered by other sexual offences legislation.
It feels like saying, 'The legal definition of attempted murder should be changed to include grevious bodily harm' when these are already distinct offences meaning specific things.
It feels like saying, 'The legal definition of attempted murder should be changed to include grevious bodily harm' when these are already distinct offences meaning specific things.
Because it is rape, not sexual assault. Rape gets higher sentences and so a female rapist should get treated the same way
Original post by spencerspencah
Because it is rape, not sexual assault. Rape gets higher sentences and so a female rapist should get treated the same way
But they don't have a penis to commit rape with? so I can't treat them the same. By all means strengthen sexual assault and unlawful sexual act legislation to make punishments relative, but I don't believe you can do this by deciding to change what a word means when it describes a specific act. I'm no legal pro but I suspect that spreading a legal definition to include other specific yet varied things rather than strengthening the existing offences creates a diluted and weaker law that's easier to wriggle out of.
Can you really call this incident rape since at least one and likely both of the 2 teens actively sought out the teacher for sex?
Original post by StriderHort
But they don't have a penis to commit rape with? so I can't treat them the same. By all means strengthen sexual assault and unlawful sexual act legislation to make punishments relative, but I don't believe you can do this by deciding to change what a word means when it describes a specific act. I'm no legal pro but I suspect that spreading a legal definition to include other specific yet varied things rather than strengthening the existing offences creates a diluted and weaker law that's easier to wriggle out of.
Can you really call this incident rape since at least one and likely both of the 2 teens actively sought out the teacher for sex?
Can you really call this incident rape since at least one and likely both of the 2 teens actively sought out the teacher for sex?
Yes it is rape. Even if it’s a woman doing it
Original post by spencerspencah
Yes it is rape. Even if it’s a woman doing it
Without wanting to be needlessly argumentative, I feel many inc myself would reply 'No, rape is the act of rape, everything else is everything else, vile and coercive as it may be'. As said before, I feel you literally need a penis to commit the act of rape and this is a crime based on penetration where we also make a legal distinction for other forms of penetration, making it clear the penis is also considered distinct This feels like wanting to pick the punishment but then having to work backwards to try and bend the circumstances and jargon to fit, rather than just picking the right punishment in the first place, it sounds like an emotional request rather than a factual one.
If there have been petitions to change it, and they failed, then the default is surely that other acts are legally not rape.
Original post by StriderHort
But they don't have a penis to commit rape with? so I can't treat them the same. By all means strengthen sexual assault and unlawful sexual act legislation to make punishments relative, but I don't believe you can do this by deciding to change what a word means when it describes a specific act. I'm no legal pro but I suspect that spreading a legal definition to include other specific yet varied things rather than strengthening the existing offences creates a diluted and weaker law that's easier to wriggle out of.
Can you really call this incident rape since at least one and likely both of the 2 teens actively sought out the teacher for sex?
Can you really call this incident rape since at least one and likely both of the 2 teens actively sought out the teacher for sex?
I don't know anyone, aside from people who work in law or are interested in law, who would define the word "rape" using the legal definition. If someone forcibly inserts a sex toy into someones mouth, vagina or anus without their consent then I think the vast majority of people would consider that "rape", despite it legally being only "sexual assault".
One sexual assault should not be considered worse than another because of the sex of the victim or the sexual organ / object being used to force penetration.
Original post by SHallowvale
I don't know anyone, aside from people who work in law or are interested in law, who would define the word "rape" using the legal definition. If someone forcibly inserts a sex toy into someones mouth, vagina or anus without their consent then I think the vast majority of people would consider that "rape", despite it legally being only "sexual assault".
One sexual assault should not be considered worse than another because of the sex of the victim or the sexual organ / object being used to force penetration.
One sexual assault should not be considered worse than another because of the sex of the victim or the sexual organ / object being used to force penetration.
I think that's exactly the bit I disagree on, I'm not so sure that would be a vast majority at all. I still see rape as a very specific act, and this part of the conversation arose talking about the legal side.
I'm certainly not trying to say one is 'worse' than the other or minimise any other form of attack. By all means as said, bring sentencing guidelines for other sexual offences up to the point where they can give out the same sort of punishment, but I still can't get behind changing the definition.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Was I sexually assaulted/ abused?
- rant about the biggest embarrassment of my life
- How are you revising for AQA GCSE 9-1 Food Preparation and Nutrition!!!????
- What are the best Quran recitations?
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Struggling to cope with my little sister growing up
- When should I start revising for gcse?
- Where should I do my A-levels??HELP
- Top 3 worst ever songs?
- My best friend almost got me raped
- jan book of the month - Book Club
- BTEC H&S Care Unit 12: Supporting Individuals with Additional Needs Work Explained
- HELP my Mother found out i was watching porn
- What’s going to happen next to Huw Edwards?
- I cry myself to sleep every night
- going through a dry spell and needing help
- Ted hughes cie english lit igcse
- Uclan -medical sciences degree
- is this normal?
- Body count of 5 at 16
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
