Rebecca Joynes: Teacher guilty of sex with two boys

Which "should"/"shouldn't" are you referring to? 😁

What's nonsense about it? You're welcome to explain your reasoning but until now you haven't done so.
I'm aware that the current legal definition of "rape" does not allow for women to be rapists. My position is that this definition should be changed. Sexual penetration without consent, the act at the heart of rape (as currently defined), can happen regardless of the sex of the attacker and victim.
Do you have an argument against why the definition should be changed? Or is your position just, 'The law says X, therefore the law should continue to say X'?

I have explained the position several times above. Rape is a uniquely male act. It involves force or deception. Throughout history men have used rape to dominate women. It is almost impossible for a woman physically to force a man to have sex with her.

If an offender of either sex uses an object to penetrate someone else's bodily orifice without consent, that is a distinct offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

That’s not answering Shallow’s question and your simply repeating what the law says when everyone in this thread already knows about the law.
Beyond “the law says so” (this is the argument that keeps being repeated), do you have any valid argument for why said legal definition shouldn’t change to make it so that both sexes as opposed to only one is able to be charged for rape? Should we never argue against laws nor campaign for them to be changed using this rhetoric and just say “well the law says so!”?
People understand the legal definition, but they don’t agree with it and believe that it should be changed so that it applies to both sexes equally. I’m a woman and I’m inclined to agree that the legal definition needs to be updated to make sure that it applies to both genders especially in cases such as in this news story.

That’s not answering Shallow’s question and your simply repeating what the law says when everyone in this thread already knows about the law.
Beyond “the law says so” (this is the argument that keeps being repeated), do you have any valid argument for why said legal definition shouldn’t change to make it so that both sexes as opposed to only one is able to be charged for rape? Should we never argue against laws nor campaign for them to be changed using this rhetoric and just say “well the law says so!”?
People understand the legal definition, but they don’t agree with it and believe that it should be changed so that it applies to both sexes equally. I’m a woman and I’m inclined to agree that the legal definition needs to be updated to make sure that it applies to both genders especially in cases such as in this news story.

I have explained the position several times above. Rape is a uniquely male act. It involves force or deception. Throughout history men have used rape to dominate women. It is almost impossible for a woman physically to force a man to have sex with her.
If an offender of either sex uses an object to penetrate someone else's bodily orifice without consent, that is a distinct offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Given what the word is currently accepted to mean I think anyone who wants the change is the ones who have to justify and explain it, and I'm just not seeing it?

I can totally see why people would want non rape offences treated and sentenced more in line with rape, so push for that. I just don't see broadening the definition of a word as much as to make it meaningless helps this. You're saying it has to be updated to include cases like this story, but imo if you consider these teens rape victims in the same way as someone who got snatched and forced against their will, then I feel you've rendered the word meaningless, possibly even making things harder for what most would consider the real victims of rape, ie not people who intentionally sought out the sexual encounter.

Being a bit facetious here, but where does it stop? Can someone claim rape because someone said something nasty to them online and they feel violated? couldn't they make these same arguments to have the word changed since we're already allowing such a distinct spectrum of meanings rather than 1?

I have explained the position several times above. Rape is a uniquely male act. It involves force or deception. Throughout history men have used rape to dominate women. It is almost impossible for a woman physically to force a man to have sex with her.
If an offender of either sex uses an object to penetrate someone else's bodily orifice without consent, that is a distinct offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I have explained ther position over and over again. The law as its stands reflects reality. It is for those who seek to change the law to explain why it needs to change.

This thread is saturated with misogyny. But the law should not be dictated by angry men.

I’m also mainly saying that the law should apply equally to both men and women. It shouldn’t only apply to biological men.

I think I see it as a law specifically about the use of a penis, you need one to commit the offence.

It does complicate things a bit that I do accept a women can physically force herself on a male but realistically how often does that get occur or reported? while I think it's punishment should be comparable I still think you'd need to make a new category/term for it given that rape is accepted as forced penetration, I don't think it quite works applying it the other way around (forced...enclosement? enveloping? 🤔)

In a nutshell, would you have any specific objection to creating or clarifying the offence of 'forced sex' etc distinct from rape, but with the exact same set of aggravating factors and sentencing guidelines to cover other (extremely rare) situations?

"Rape" should be defined as sexual penetration without consent regardless of the sex of the attacker or how the penetration occurs. Currently we can have almost identical acts being classified differently. This influences sentencing. For example, if a woman forces a man to have sex with her then this is classified as "sexual assault". The maximum sentence this carries is weaker than that carried by "rape".

I think I see it as a law specifically about the use of a penis, you need one to commit the offence.
It does complicate things a bit that I do accept a women can physically force herself on a male but realistically how often does that get occur or reported? while I think it's punishment should be comparable I still think you'd need to make a new category/term for it given that rape is accepted as forced penetration, I don't think it quite works applying it the other way around (forced...enclosement? enveloping? 🤔)
In a nutshell, would you have any specific objection to creating or clarifying the offence of 'forced sex' etc distinct from rape, but with the exact same set of aggravating factors and sentencing guidelines to cover other (extremely rare) situations?

I'll probably be attacked for what I'm going to say, but here goes. Sex with minors is illegal for good reasons and she should be punished. However! This is not the same thing as violent rape. You have every right to be sickened/disgusted by what this woman did with those minor children, but I am not. I support the laws against sex with minors. Children are easy targets for seduction and exploitation and can be harmed by the sexual misconduct of adults. That's bad. But it is possible that she didn't harm these boys at all. It's possible, is all I'm saying. She should still be punished regardless. And maybe she DID harm them, and if she did, she should be punished more harshly for causing that harm. But possibly she didn't harm them.

'The damage caused to Boy B is enormous. He was groomed and enticed into a sexual relationship with his teacher and as a result he now has a child himself – becoming a father at the age of 17.
'I do not, I cannot, say that his life is “ruined” by that – I am sure he is and can be a great father, and having a child is a wonderful thing, but there is absolutely no doubt that he would never have chosen to have a child at that age and that stage of his life, and that now, being a dad, his life will be forever different - all the plans he might have made, and all the things he might have done, altered forever by the lifelong responsibility of being a father. Truly and forever a life changing event. And something that he can never escape or get over because, as he says “I will forever be Rebecca’s victim, and forever linked to her through our child".'
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-joynes/ (page 5-6)
you disagree with Boy B and the judge/jury then, or did you just not read the sentencing? yk that in criminal court the standard is beyond reasonable doubt too, right? this means a 99% certainty, as opposed to civil court where a claimant need only be slightly more believable that damage has been done.
as reported, joynes didn't use physical violence, no – but for clarity rape doesn't have to be violent; another myth that won't die that is seriously harmful to everyone, to perpetrators and victims, and anyone advising them on what is 'real rape'. it's arguable too that nonviolent rape is more harmful than violent rape because it makes it easy for the victim to blame themselves, therefore not report it ('well it's not like he tied me to the bedpost against my will; he is my boyfriend; my fault to be so stupid to be manipulated like that; my fault for eventually giving in').

For clarity, I never said rape had to be violent.
You may have noticed, or maybe not, that I said that I support the laws against sex with minors. You also may or may not have noticed that I said she should be punished.
You bring up many ideas and arguments addressed to me as though I took the opposite side to those arguments. Who are you really arguing with? If your goal is to enjoy your two minutes of hate, by all means go ahead and enjoy it. I won't hold it against you.

i know you said you support the law against sex with minors. what i was refuting was that this isn't a 'maybe/maybe not' situation on whether there was harm done, which is what you said.
you said at comment #114 'But it is possible she didn't harm these boys at all', 'But possibly she didn't harm them' – which isn't true, which isn't what the judge said at a standard beyond reasonable doubt.
yes i am passionate about this, obviously hits close to home as i pointed out earlier (you must have missed it) my ex's father was sexually abused by his school teacher, which led to a series of abuse which ended up with me. you would be passionate too if it happened to you.
i wouldn't dare disparage the real life experiences of these two lads by suggesting perhaps there was no harm. think about how much time the average teenager spends on their smart phone and the internet: i would bet my life savings they regularly google search 'rebecca joynes' just to see what social media is saying about them, might have even seen this thread. this isn't a hypothetical but real people right in our backyard, so let's not take chances in gaslighting them and form opinions on the facts we have available like in the link above.
apologies for my delayed reply as i don't have a reliable device or internet.

No, you miss the point. The point is that there is nothing magical that happens on your birthday when you pass the age of consent. It's not men vs women or boys vs girls. It's men vs boys or women vs girls.

In the post I quoted it was suggested people saying "might not have been harmed" were talking about the gender or sex of the person who might not have been harmed. I'm saying that this misses the point. It's not about the gender or sex, but about their age. The laws are written as though something changed on your birthday when you cross the age of consent. They are written that way because it's difficult to write a law another way and have that law be meaningful in court. Laws are written with 'bright lines' even though maturation is a gradual process and there aren't any natural bright lines. I support writing and enforcing laws this way because it's practical. But we shouldn't be confused about the difference between an 8 year old, a 16 year old, a 20 year old, etc. Not to mention the difference between individuals irrespective to age. These ideas are pretty straightforward and understandable. Aren't they?

Well said. You can think about it another way: what if the victims had been girls? Would people be saying 'they might not have been harmed', 'they probably enjoyed it', etc? Of course not.
A lot of the response to this has been driven by sexist attitudes about men and sex.

Your passion and your experiences make you less objective, not more.