Why can't women be charged with rape?

My ex was raped by a female friend when drunk and high and she went on to have a child he didn’t want.

But our current laws don't categorize on the basis of whether the illegal act can result in pregnancy, and are already broader than that. They include oral or anal penetration-by-penis, of either men or women.

I do appreciate the argument that pregnancy risk is sufficiently unique to justify special categorization, but if that's the threshold for defining "rape", the UK's legal definition would actually need to be significantly narrowed, as no "pregnancy risk" category currently exists.

You could just as easily keep or widen the definition of rape and create a special category within it, and I'm inclined to think that best.

No, they wouldn't be able to call women rapists. They can call them sexual offenders, sexual perpetrators or sexual abusers, but not rapists.

There is a category of sex crime that is unique in that it has the potential to cause unwanted pregnancy and all the harm that may flow from that - regardless of whether the victim can actually become pregnant, or whether the perpetrator takes steps to avoid causing pregnancy. By that definition, it can only be committed by a man. So it's important to have a category that captures the characteristics of that offence that make it distinct from other sexual offences in terms of its potential to cause that specific harm.

Assault by penetration and sexual assault are perfectly adequate categories to capture all other types of sexual offences. And carry similarly weighty sentences to rape.

Individual cases will weigh the facts and the evidence to determine the category of seriousness of offences by looking at culpability factors and types of harm caused, and will be sentenced on that basis. Obviously the scope for variation in determining culpability and harm is very broad and will be different for each case.

Taking into account all of the above, whether rape is 'worse' than sexual assault or assault by penetration is a semantic argument.

Where are you getting that from though? The spectrum of available sentencing for those separate offences is so huge it's impossible to calibrate one against the other.

If an offence of rape is sentenced to 4 years and sexual assault 2 years, that doesn't mean the offences were comparable in terms of categories of seriousness. The rape could fall into higher culpability and harm than the sexual assault, so you're sentencing against different criteria.

I’m giving up with you because you’re either being very obtuse or you genuinely don’t get how the law works

Fair enough, that's where we differ.

I think that the availability of nuanced language is useful and important so I'd rather have more terms rather than fewer.

If you wanted to specifically carve out forced sex or oral sex that doesn't include penetration perpetrator to victim (which would be female perpetrator only, in effect) from sexual assault I'd be perfectly happy to have a further sub-category for that, but not to roll it all up into one lump with other things.

No i wouldnt call all SA rape, I'd call all forced sex, rape. So if you force oral sex on someone, or force them to do it to you, penetrate them (with anything) anally or vaginally, or force them to penetrate you (with anything), that would all be rape.

Sexual assault would be all other nonconsensual sexual contact.

I don't follow the logic link of, it is about victims vs perpetrators and the system that supports them, therefore, I'd classify all forced sex as rape.

Am I right in think you mean, "it's all (rape through to non-penetrative SA) equally bad so I'd have the sentencing guidelines all the same / ensure public awareness treats them all with equal horror."

If so, as I say, little argument from me.

However, words have specific meanings and being able to clearly and easily discuss things at a granular level requires those nuanced words and definitions so I wouldn't agree to just call all sexual assault 'rape' and lose the meaning we've worked with over time, both in common parlance and the common and statutory law.

The reduction of language is never a positive in my book, and doesn't ultimately serve anyone.

Again, that suggests that the absence of risk of conception should have any bearing on the severity or classification of the crime. We dont want that. We dont want rape that cannot cause pregnancy to be seen as a lesser or milder rape.

Does it matter if she gets done for rape or sexual assault? Don’t focus on the wording. Your son has been drugged and sexually assaulted and that is what she should be charged for.

As i have said several times, the average sentence for that is about half that of rape.

That was my fault for using the term “sexual assault” casually. What I meant was there are equivalent charges that women can face, which, while not called “rape”have the same max terms as rape (life imprisonment)

E.g.
Assault by penetration
Causing sexual activity without consent

But they’re not.

Because female “rapists” can’t impregnate anyone

Its not about men vs women for me, it is about victims vs perpetrators and the system that supports them. Therefore, I'd classify all forced sex as rape because it is.

No i am the one arguing that all rapists are the same.

Women haven’t got a penis, which you legally need for a rape charge. Sexual assault can be anything.

The sentencing guidelines for both offences are fairly wide in scope and the severity of sentence will depend on a number of factors unique to the facts and evidence presented in the particular case.

The sentencing range for rape offences is 4-19 years in custody.

For assault by penetration it goes from high level community order up to 19 years' custody.

Why are you obsessively thinking of reasons to suggest male rapists aren’t that bad?

Woman who attack men can’t get them pregnant. It’s really not rocket science. That should be reflected in law

And like I say, there are hardly any female sex offenders. It’s almost all men. We should focus on how the justice system navigates it rather than wasting time worrying about if perpetrators feelings are ok (unless of course if they’re women, apparently)

Was going to post he was sexually assaulted still I hope your lad gets justice.

Correct.

And that is true whether the victim is male or female.

The point being that it is not the case that men do not get the same justice (or women do not get the same punishment) for the same type of crime.

1. Penetration with a penis = rape

(whether the victim is male or female)

1. Penetration with anything else = sexual assault by penetration

(whether the victim is male or female)

1. Sexual assault without penetration = sexual assault

(whether the victim is male or female)

(1)&(2) have the same maximum sentence of life.
(3) has a lower maximum sentence of 10 years.

Reasonable people may differ as to whether 3 should have a maximum sentence of life and, frankly, I don't think that criminals are removed from society quickly or for long enough in general so you'd be unlikely to find me arguing with you if you wanted to increase that maximum term.

But I don't think it's true that there is a discrepancy between how men and women are treated in law as things stand.

Not sure that link works. Hopefully image approved soon

That's because you believe you can quantify the trauma of others. And you likely believe men dont have the same emotional capacity as women

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Assault-by-penetration.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiyjMTKnNSSAxXwQ0EAHcNdIHYQFnoECFEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2KS1hIPRcvuDP8dKQiFNuz

https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/sexual-assault-2/

Agree
there needs to be a change in the law on its definition

Again, you are leaving room for those consequences to be rendered irrelevant when someone has been raped, all so men cant accuse women who force them to have sex of being rapists. Why are you doing that, really?