Why can't women be charged with rape?

No it doesnt. SA has maximum term of 10 years. Rape has max term of life.

It’s awful what happened to the OP’s son, and she would carry a hefty sentence if convicted.

I know it makes people uncomfortable but the truth is that women commit so few sexual crimes- 2% to men’s 98%. Laws must be centered around data like this to reflect a fair justice system and to recognise risks. Not around “Oh but women do it too”

I dont like to think of it personally. But if I heard someone say that they chose penetration maybe because theyve consented to that before and it felt more familiar than whatever else they were asked to do, I would believe that was their truth.

Similarly, if someone wasnt given a choice but was made to anally penetrate several men and they said they said it was worst than the other, I would believe them. Even if they hadnt experienced the other.

In either case, I would believe that they were exactly as traumatised as they said they were. If they said they on a scale of 1-10, their trauma was 10, I wouldn't think actually it is 9 because if you were gangbanged, it then that would be a 10.

Sexual assault cases the same sentences.

Really? You genuinely think that ANYONE in the world would choose to be vaginally gang-raped over penetrating ten men? Or that a man would choose to be anally penetrated vs penetrating?

You're having a laugh.

As to your other post... I think it's important to be factual, and not spread misinformation. So I highlighted that viagra does not cause erections. From that, you claimed a lot of bizarre things about my supposed position on the matter of serious sexual assault, all of which were wrong.

For what it's worth, I don't think the risk of pregnancy or STIs should make a notable difference in sentencing, only the actuality of them. And on the face of it, I don't see an issue with classifying the crimes as 'sexual violation via forced penetration' and 'sexual violation by penetration', although that's just my initial thoughts, and not a concrete final position.

I dont care whether the post is true or not. I do care about how people have responded to the scenario.

I dont think that is true. I think we need to consider the individual circumstances of each case rather than try and define how traumatised the victim is according to what someone else thinks would be worse.

To be fair, men can use the word 'rape' if they like in a day-to-day sense - like 'my girlfriend raped me'. It's only when it comes to a trial that they need to use legal terminology.

It's like how people won't say they had grievous bodily harm inflicted on them in ordinary conversation - they'll say that they were badly beaten, or brutally assaulted.

I am sorry about your son, but I think the definitions do need to be distinct. The vast majority of sexual assault victims are women, and being penetrated with a penis carries other potentially very serious and long reaching consequences for the victim, beyond just the assault itself.

That doesn’t mean that what has happened to your son is not awful, or that women can’t be the perpetrators of sexual assault but rape has a very specific legal definition and it’s important to keep that distinction.

There is also the fact that the vast majority of male sexual assault victims are assaulted by other men - that is a very different type of assault to what your DS has experienced, and thus the definition it’s important in that context too.

It isnt just words though. The law reflects this in sentencing.

Yes but you are giving them mitigation for sentencing. What if he can prove he knew he couldn't conceive or transmit an STD? You are giving him that out.

I agree with this , if a woman told you she'd been sexual assaulted obviously it's horrible and you'd be sympathetic, but you wouldn't think she had been raped .

Perhaps the term should be forced intercourse or something similar that is applicable to both sex's

I think what also needs to be taken into account is that penetration is far more likely to cause injury and long-term damage than being forced to penetrate. It's also more of a violation, in a very literal sense. One's body is actually being invaded.

That isn't to say that being forced to penetrate isn't violating and traumatising too, but I think if you gave a non-consenting woman a choice between being vaginally gang-raped by ten men, or anally penetrating those same ten men with a strap-on or her fingers, at their demand, she'd choose the latter every time.

I also think that if you gave a man a choice between being forced to penetrate another man, or being anally penetrated by the man, he'd choose to be the one penetrating every time.

It would still be awful, and a sexually violating crime, but a little less awful.

Pregnancy is still a risk with vasectomies. And unless you take an STD immediately before you rape someone, it’s not reliable.

It doesn’t matter AT ALL that not every single rape with a penis will carry exactly the same risks of pregnancies and STDs to the victim. that’s not how the law works. Punishments must be victim focussed not perpetrator focussed

Not at all

I have explained that rape with a penis must have its own definition because of the risks. People are clamouring to contradict me that it’s not always that risky. It is

Erm, okay? Good for you, I guess?

My point is merely that viagra does not cause an erection, so unless the OP's son has erectile dysfunction, it was not relevant to the assault.

Frankly though, the entire post seems a little off.

It should all just be rape. It only isnt to stop women being cast as rapists when they commit such crimes and give them lesser time (if any at all)

True in this specific case it’s sexual assult.

but in all the other cases people described above of dildos or strap ons or objects. That’s sexual assault with penetration and charged same sentence as rape.

if we need a whole new offence of using a man’s penis to penetrate yourself do you also add using another’s fingers to do that? Or is that a third type of offence?
does the law need amending for this over other issues (like how hard it is to actually prove or get a conviction in a rape case)

Yes but not if they force someone else to penetrate them, so for instance, tying a man down and then riding his erect penis. That is SA.

It could have definitely made it more possible. I dont know if youve ever been with a guy using viagra or anything like that. There is something about the way they get erect which is so artificial. The way it stays too. I mean I have had consensual fun with it but it is a bit dildoish.

Sexual assult sentencing is less than rape but sexual assult with penetration is the same as rape. That one covers penetration with finger or other object. That one women can be guilty of.

But if someone has taken viagra and you touch their cock, some men will get hard, even if they aren't into you.

And to address this: with the average young man, whether or not they're 'into' it, if you manually stimulate them, then they'll get erect without the help of viagra.

This does not make it consensual, obviously. It is still serious sexual assault.

Many people become physically aroused during nonconsensual acts anyway.

Exactly my point!

The viagra is almost certainly not what enabled the sexual assault, but the way the OP was describing the situation made it sound like the perpetrator 'drugged' their son with it, and the viagra was what made the sexual assault possible. I wished to make it very clear that it doesn't cause erections on its own.

As for the rest of what you're saying - you're putting words in my mouth, and making things up out of whole cloth to an incoherent extent. It's bizarre. I've said nothing dismissing sexual assault whatsoever.

I in fact agree that if the OP is genuine, then their son was seriously sexually violated - which would be the case whether or not viagra was used.

So we have established that SA and rape have very different sentencing lengths and that some people believe that the absence of perpetrator pleasure and the lack of risk of STD and pregnancy should mitigate the sentence too.

I'm really not. It depends on the person. But if someone has taken viagra and you touch their cock, some men will get hard, even if they aren't into you.

Many people become physically aroused during nonconsensual acts anyway. It doesnt make it consensual because a woman got wet or a man got hard. Some women even orgasm during rape. Yes lawmen tried to use that to prove it isn't rape.

Why do you think you are keen to dismiss the idea of men not consenting to sex?