Why can't women be charged with rape?

Because words have definitions. The emotion behind such things doesn’t change the meaning of the words.

Rape is the forced penetration of a mouth, anus or vagina with a penis. That is what rape means. That doesn’t mean that sexual assault isn’t just as evil.

I was more replying to others who said the definition should be forced sex, whuch would need defining in a clear way and how do you write it to cover this crime?

most rapes fail to convict as it’s so hard to prove it happened in respect of the consent side, rather than the sex side. Are there stats to show if stranger rapes have higher convictions over where people agree sex occurred and consent was the issue?

They do have clear definitions.
There is a number of laws which the OP’s DS’s ex has broken, he won’t be worse off materially if she’s convicted just because it isn’t legally “rape”

No, what you're talking about isn't the meaning of words, you're talking about judicial continuity.

On meaning of words, its really quite clear. Although there are slight variances between dictionaries, "sex without consent" is the basic common thread. There is a disconnect between the meaning of the word and the offence.

Judicial continuity is not unimportant, but it should never be an end unto itself.

In fact, it hasn't been. The law on what is or is not rape has changed as recently as the 1990s (the common law "marital rape exemption") being abolished.

Re. your reference to 2003 - yes, the SOA was (another, more comprehensive) overhaul - not just adding anal and oral, but also redefining consent. Harking back to the 1400s to lend some authority doesn't really work when the definition has never been entirely static. It will almost certainly changes again, at some point.

There is no reason why would couldn't have additional separate offences under the umbrella of "rape", for better continuity of tracking (in fact, there are already two separate offences that both use the term, those under s.1 and s.5).

I think its time for law to catch up with plain meaning.

All these laws need clear definitions. What is forced sex? You need to define sex then. But then you have to include penetration of x orifices by y items. And still some situations would not be covered by that and have to be sexual assault.

By saying “let’s include all forced sex” you are getting rid of the “penis” definition.

why do you really want to get rid of that definition?? It’s nothing to say that men will have sentences reduced due to infertile women, because WThats been completely debunked.

And BTW there IS a specific law for forced sex without a penis. It’s called assault by penetration. The charge rate is 10x that of rape; and results in an average of 5.5 years in prison.
Happy now?

Okay can you show where specifically the risk of pregnancy was introduced into rape laws or sentencing. The risk of pregnancy. If the victim conceived, that is an aggravating factor. But you are talking about the fact there is a risk of pregnancy.

But who is talking about not including penile penetration in rape? We are talking about including all forced sex in the definition so rapists can be treated as rapists. Like they are in other countries.

Wtf are you going on about? Who’s said they want the definition of rape to be “If someone could conceive”?!
My point is that the penis definition must be retained to recognise the particular risks and consequences of being raped by a penis. Not to say “Oh well if she didn’t get pregnant or get an STI that’s not rape”.

I don’t know what you mean by “if we introduced the risk”?
The risk WAS introduced 22 years ago when the current definition of rape came into law

And yet you can’t find me a single case whereby somebody said “He might have raped her with a penis but he couldn’t get her pregnant” and the judge has said “Good point I’ll reduce the sentence”

Like I say, no court in the land would take into account the medical status of a victim, not could they formally find out. “Her rapist said so” isn’t enough either.

Everything i am listing proves that IF we think something is only rape because someone could conceive, then the absence of that chance will mitigate the sentence.

So only "penis possessors" are able to be charged with rape?

Yes - apart from a small number of anomalies whereby women have directly assisted with rape.

But again, it must be categorised what way to recognised the risks and consequences of being raped with a penis.

Yes they would get that if we introduced the risk of pregnancy or stds as an aggravating factor. We haven't and that is why rape is rape, irrespective of whether the victim could conceive as a result of the attack..

Again that’s nothing to do with the penis definition.

Is there misogyny in the justice system? Of course.
Is that exacerbated by the definition of rape being “penetration with a penis”? No.

From what you say your poor son has been through, the perpetrator should also be charged with domestic violence and administering a substance to control someone for abuse. Ie if some man gives you a date tape drug and then rapes you, that should be an additional charge.
Are you / your son able to find out if additional charges are included?

So only "penis possessors" are able to be charged with rape?

Except the law has been in place, for those very reasons (higher risks of being raped with a penis), for 22 years and this isn’t happening.

Which is awful - but nothing whatsoever to do with the penis definition.
I want you to read this slowly - I would like you to find me a case of something that YOU have claimed on this thread. YOU said men would get reduced sentences for their victim’s infertility or their own virginity or their lack of STD. Show me then. Because surely after 22 ears of rape conviction there’ll b loads of cases

That orcas was about to misogyny in the justice system regarding rapes. Not about the dangers of having the word “penis” in the definition of rape.

And again - why are you so desperate for rape to be downgraded?

That is because it would. If we introduce the risk of pregnancy and stds as a factor that makes rape worse, minimising those risks will make it a "better" rape.

There was also that really famous case of the woman who went home after a night out with a male colleague. The judge said no way would a woman go home with a male colleague/friend and not expect to have sex. Pretty sure the guy got off more or less.

Sadly judges insensitive remarks happen all the time

But you said the reason not to include “penis” in the definition of rape was because it would allow offenders to say “She was infertile/I was a virgin/I definitely didn’t have an STD” - but somehow, although the law has been defined for 22 years, you can’t find one case where this has happened, where the victim’s medical circumstances have been used to reduce a sentence. The reason is - it doesn’t happen. The law is fine as it is.

And no I do not consider risks when it comes to defies sentences so don’t you dare lie and make things up to bolster your point, making me out to be an apologist when YOU ar were apologist

Plenty of men who have raped sex workers have got lighter sentences. I think in that podcast, a judge said that as she sold sex, being raped wouldnt be that bad.

Well yes rape convictions are at 1%. It hardly something to be jealous of!

And yes judges consider sentence reductions for pleading guilty, showing remorse, MH and lifestyle factors. But I do challenge you to find one reduced because of the circumstances of the victim

Unfortunately women often don’t get justice

It mentions several cases where judges gave light sentences or made horrific marks about the victims and positive remarks about the perpetrators followed by a light sentence.

The people who want to consider these risks in sentencing are people like you. The law itself knows it would be ridiculous. Now, anyway. The only reason you want it is so you are more punished for raping a woman than a man and so women are barely punished for forced sex on anyone.