Why can't women be charged with rape?

That's incorrect. It makes it easier to become erect, but if you aren't mentally sexually aroused or manually stimulated, it will not cause an erection. For a young man, (who isn't involved in a multiple-hour porn shoot), manual stimulation will be enough unless they have erectile dysfunction already (which I suppose could be the case). You are massively misinformed.

"Taking sildenafil alone will not cause an erection. You need to be sexually excited for it to work."

They carry different sentences. So a woman can force a man to have sex in the worst ways and only get 10 years. She could conceive through the act and decide that he is going to become a father through that nonconsensual act. She could give him STDs.

A man who forced a woman to have sex in the worst ways can get a life sentence. If she did conceive, she has autonomy to decide what happens with the pregnancy. She wont forcibly become a mother unless it is what she wants for the most part - once she is free from him at least. He could give her STDs.

It depends. For some men, they have to have their mind in the game for viagra to work. For others, not so much. If you were spiked with it, you might not be in the type of mindset that stops you getting an erection.

But yeah for some, especially younger guys, it does just inflate them. That is why porn stars use it even when their head isnt in the game. They are young enough for it to work anyway.

It is. But it's in addition to the crime of sexual assault, not used to enable the assault. And the way the OP phrases it (that the viagra was what made the act possible) frankly makes me raise an eyebrow. I felt it necessary to clarify for readers who may not be aware, that viagra will not give one an automatic erection.

I accept your viewpoint but I think the offences are differentiated in law for a very good reason and I agree with that being the case.

I think if anyone penetrates anyone else without consent, it should be rape, regardless of what they used. Just like I supported oral rape being just that and not SA.

Sexual assault is defined as sexual touching without consent and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Rape is defined as someone with a penis penetrating another person's vagina, anus or mouth without consent, and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

But he knew. And for example, if he had a vasectomy, he could argue that pregnancy was not a risk and he knew that and that is why he did it.

I think you’re misunderstanding the argument here. Perhaps purposely. 😀

I have to say on a forum for women it’s very disappointing to watch people tie themselves in knots to think of ways to make life easier for rapsists

No

Because that’s not how the law works. At all. Rape is too serious to make variations more favourable for perpetrators.

The same way that if someone punches a person and they die because their victim had an egg shell skull, they don’t get let off with just GBH because they didn’t know.

I’m ok with the law which for sexual exposure states it must be genitalia being exposed. The police could potentially have gone with a lesser public order offence instead which they probably would have proved but genitals is its own crime. Just as penises are for rape.

I think that rape is currently an almost majority male crime and the figures are pretty overwhelming. It’s interesting that you don’t seem to want to establish a specific crime for female perpetrators of a certain type of sexual assault, you want to lump them in with those numbers despite it being a different offence. I wonder why that might be.

Right so you are ok with him flashing that at unsuspecting women and it not being illegal because he isnt getting pleasure and it isnt real, right?

Yes, because it wasn’t a penis, it was some kind of prosthetic if I remember rightly. I’m fully aware of my argument thank you.

He didnt get charged with any offence.

I would rethink what I am arguing for here.

Yes, exactly that! The tv programme is a reflection of this scenario in a less serious case. Penises can’t be dildos or hands or anything else but penises so that is why a specific offence is needed.

And the reson you agree with that is because the victim cant get pregnant or get stds so she was assaulted and not raped?

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s how it would be charged.

So if you have a vasectomy and forcibly penetrate a woman with your penis while knowing you dont have any STDs, it should be SA, right? Because you are saying for it to be rape, the chance of pregnancy and stds has to be present..

No i think it is the fact that people are openly admitting that they dont think it is rape if there is limited chance of pregnancy or stds and the rapists pleasure is absent

Rape includes the risk of pregnancy and the options of either termination which some see as murder or a life changing child who you might not want

it’s a specific type of sexual assault

I don’t see what is gained by widening the definition - however it might muddy the waters on collection of data around prosecution success rates to the detriment of women. Because attacks on men I suspect have higher conviction rates.

what matters is that this crime is properly prosecuted and the maximum possible sentance does not diminish the offence

So you sre saying that if a man used a strap on instead of his own penis, then it should not be rape but SA? And then of course that follows that anyone who uses a strap on instead of a penis would not be a rapist.

This reminds me of that 24hrs in PC where a man was let off for flashing because the penis he flashed was flaccid and fake.

I think that’s your agenda speaking.

Is a strap on a sexual organ? I wouldn’t say so, would you?

I cant believe what I am reading here.