Why can't women be charged with rape?

Yes, this would be under joint enterprise. You'd need a man to commit the rape on Woman A as the 'principal' offender but Woman B could be charged with that same rape (that was actually physically carried out by a man) if she was also considered legally culpable for it being done.

This may be of general interest but of course it doesn't apply to the perpetrator of the OP's son https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories

How terrible for your poor son.

As others have said, sexual assault carries the same sentence as rape; rape is just a particular type of sexual assault with a specific meaning.

It's like someone being charged with a theft offence and someone querying why they're 'only' being charged with theft and not fraud (despite them both ultimately being about depriving someone of something unlawfully).

It's not a value judgement, with only the worst offences being termed 'fraud', it's just that fraud is a specfic word meaning that you've gone about depriving someone of something in a particular way, with slightly different legall elements that need to be proven compared to the offence of theft.

My heart goes out to your son and I hope he's managed to access some professional support.

Well, the feeling is mutual!

You dont have to believe me. I think the fact you would even think it an appropriate line of argument is pretty disgusting regardless of your sex.

There is a sort of joint enterprise thing where women can be charged with rape.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so? I'm sure I've read that aiding a man in the commission of rape can result a woman in being convicted of rape. (Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone!)

No, I don't believe you in the slightest, but that's fine.

Can a woman be charged with rape if she holds a man's penis and pushes it into a non-consenting woman?

No I am not a man. I dont know what someone might choose in the moment but when forced to think about why I might choose to be vaginally raped over penetrate men anally, it would probably be because I know what to expect from a physical perspective and could perhaps disassociate somehow. Rather than have to be perfectly conscious and coordinated enough to get my fingers in etc.

Ok?

He's a proven incel with clean results. Al of his motivation was proven to be around fhe fact he cant get the sex he feels entitled to so he went out and raped someone. If you believe that he is this incel, then you would have to accept that his risk of STD transmission is minimal.

No. You're seriously trying to argue that a woman might choose to be vaginally raped by ten men, rather than being forced to penetrate them. That's pretty offensive (and ridiculous).

Are you a man, by any chance?

Considering you proposed these scenarios, Id argue it isnt me being offensive...

Age. Lifestyle.

I already quoted a case where a judge remarked on the consideration of the perpetrator because he wore a condom. Ie he minimised risk to the victim.

https://shows.acast.com/b6c618e4-c51c-41a5-b044-9649b9e828ed/6954f8405f9b0b61aaa00204

This podcast has a collection of a few similar cases and why we really dont want to go backwards on this.

Except I doubt you'd ever hear anyone say that. You're being silly, and frankly, a little offensive.

It doesn’t matter what he can prove. That’s not how the law works, what aren’t you getting?

I’ll tell you what - find me a case in the UK where a man got a lesser sentence because he was a virgin.

How can a man prove he’s a virgin?!

Op, what your son experienced is horrific and regardless of the terminology, I hope he finds a way forward to process and heal from what happened to him.

If you penetrate

It is a separate offence and any sentence would likely run alongside the one for SA or even be dropped in favour of that.

SA by penetration has a max life sentence.

Maybe you might also benefit from some support, to process your own feelings about this, and so that you can be the best support for your son.

Your son has been very brave to talk to you about this and to report this to the police. If he does not already have one in place, he might find it useful to have an independent sexual violence advisor support him.
https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/rape-sexual-assault-support/

If the sexual assault was aggravated by poisoning, as in the hypothetical scenario of this thread, that could increase culpability and lead to a longer sentence.

How’s he going to do that? A clean STD test prior to the attack and definitive proof (how?) that he hasn’t engaged in any activity since the test? Preferably with a second, follow up test to catch anything that had been developing prior to the first test? It would need to be that robust to prove he wasn’t being at the very least reckless as to transmission. A clean test after the attack wouldn’t show that he knew 100% he was clean, nor can he prove he’s a virgin.

As for proving 100% there is no risk of pregnancy, again, how is that going to work in practice?

That’s before we get to the fact that the victim (male and female for the former, female for the latter) will not know the medical status of their attack so the fear they are in and trauma they experience won’t be reduced.

It’s so utterly, utterly beyond the realms of reality that it will never act as a mitigation and it is right that STD and pregnancy risk is factored in across the board. The baseline for sentencing is the risk exists with no mitigation, with actual pregnancy or transmission of an STD as an aggravating factor.

He can definitely prove he didnt have one at the time of the offence through testing or virginhood. That could be said to show that he minimised risk to the victim. This kind of thing used to be argued in court and worked to get rapists lighter or next to no sentence despite a guilty plea or verdict.

Not at all

Sentencing would reflect for example if a rapist impregnated his victim. Sentencing mitigates the perpetrator with things like if he pleaded guilty, if he is remorseful. Not if he could prove he can’t get STIs (which is impossible to prove).

Im very sorry for you and your son and I hope he gets justice and support.
The wording of rape is what makes it rape. I wouldn't support changing that. What I would support is for sexual assault, as a term and a concept, to be taken as seriously as rape (whether the victim is a man or a woman, I mean).