Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys

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.

Serial groomer and rapist deserves a long prison sentence. Of course our justice system is a joke so she'll get 6 months suspended and back to teaching in a year.

Consistently trying to turn DACA into the Sun's comment section.

To regard what Joynes did as equivalent to rape is to disregard the violation of bodily autonomy which rape involves. In rape, one of the participants in sex is unwilling. In the Joynes case, both participants were willing, but for sensible reasons of public policy, the law does not regard a fifteen year old as capable of giving consent to sex.
It is wrong for an adult to seduce a minor, and Joynes has been rightly convicted and will be sentenced, probably to a term of imprisonment.
Statutory rape is not a concept which exists in the laws of the United Kingdom.

If the law does not regard a fifteen year old as capable of giving consent to sex then the sex was not consentual. It should, if not already, be considered rape. "Rape", at the heart of it, is sex / penetration without consent.

As I mentioned above, rape involves physically forced sex. Rape can only be committed by a male. When an adult woman persuades a fifteen year old boy to have sex with her, she does not physically force the boy to have sex. This is a material difference. In that situation the law deems that the boy's actual consent is immaterial to the illegality of the adult's action, but her action is not rape.

The discussion is about the Joynes case. The current law is sensible. The law reflects the reality that rape is a physical act of which only men are capable.

The discussion is about the Joynes case. The current law is sensible. The law reflects the reality that rape is a physical act of which only men are capable.

If you don't think one is worse than the other and that they should hold the same sentence then why not just make them the same thing? Especially since, in practice, the act of rape(as currently defined) can be almost identical to a lot of forms of sexual assault (as currently defined).

Rape is a specifically male crime for very good historical and sociological reasons. Rape is and has been an instrument of Patriarchy since forever. It is next to impossible for a woman physically to force a man to have sex. But a man can overpower a woman and physically force her to have sex. This is a key distinction.
What Joynes did was wrong, but it was not rape.

To regard what Joynes did as equivalent to rape is to disregard the violation of bodily autonomy which rape involves. In rape, one of the participants in sex is unwilling. In the Joynes case, both participants were willing, but for sensible reasons of public policy, the law does not regard a fifteen year old as capable of giving consent to sex.
It is wrong for an adult to seduce a minor, and Joynes has been rightly convicted and will be sentenced, probably to a term of imprisonment.
Statutory rape is not a concept which exists in the laws of the United Kingdom.

Because words mean different things? Why change it to mean something wider for what in most cases seems to be emotive reasons and no apparent purpose? Like if you attack someone with say fists, a gun or a car....the victim might be just as badly hurt and the motive the same but the law differentiates what the specific crime you are trying to prove is, we don't just call it all 'Harm' do we?
I don't feel it's so much that I don't think one is worse, as that I feel one shouldn't be specifically more lenient or tie a judges hands. In this teachers case I don't think I can call her a rapist, but due to the ages, position of authority and repeated offending I have no issue with her getting a sentence equal to a rapist, but I still don't feel it in any way helpful to try and relabel her crime.
When I erroneously mentioned statutory rape earlier, what I refer to is 'technical' rape, where the state legislation says it is even if both parties don't agree which is always going to be tricky and imo, not the same thing. I feel it makes little sense to label these teenagers rape victims, when at least one of them went out of their premediated way to make this happen, they weren't in any way confused, misled or surprised, sex was their aim. I cant possibly put them in a similar category as someone who is physically grabbed and forced upon.

I'll return the question back at you: why have two different terms to begin with? Why is sexual assault by a male perpetrator, specifically using their penis, "rape" when other forms are all lumped together as just "sexual assault"? Why even have that distinction when the fundamental problem in all cases, the violation of consent, is the same?
Is there a difference between rape and sexual assault that warrants them being defined differently? If so, what? Your example of attacks using fists, guns or cars is not comparable. An attack from a fist does not hold the same likelihood of killing you as an attack with a gun or car, nor does it hold nearly as much danger to those other than the victim and attacker. The scale of harm is vastly different between them.

Just to turn things to another example, having my penis grabbed by a female without my consent is not as bad as me sticking my hand in someone's vagina without their consent. Attacking someone's extremities is not generally as bad as attacking their internals. It's still bad but they would rightly attract different sentences.