Woman forces man to have sex with her at knife point, stabs him when he refuses - article does not mentionthe word "rape".

MsRisotto - yes I think so. Seems to be a fair bit of that just recently. Not really worth bothering with.

"Person forces another person to have sex with them at knife point, stabs them when they refuse - Artcle does not mention the word "Rape""

Is that a better tittle Risotto?

Why are you even posting this? Just to goad feminists?

Do you think if rape had a broader definition it might actually discourage some people from telling their story? So many women feel they may have "asked for it etc" when actually raped by an acquaintance and don't want the perpetrator to get in trouble because they may have led him on so it wasn't "really rape".

If a woman feels that she was "only fingered" but that if she goes to the police her attacker would be charged with rape I think it might discourage some women... because the truth is many people (friends in school, colleagues etc) would feel it wasn't that big a deal and that maybe her attacker was getting a raw deal. It happens even now to women who go after their rapist when the word rape is being used in the narrowest sense to mean PIV.

I do think "rape" should have a broader definition, absolutely. But I don't question why a newspaper doesn't use the word "rape" for something that isn't legally rape.

And "who knows what the actual facts are" because this appears to be a third-hand story cobbled together by the DM from the Internet. I'm not claiming at all that the victim is lying. I am suggesting, based on the way the story was reported, that the DM hasn't spoken to the victim, or to the police, or to anyone even remotely involved with the case, and that they've published the story to further their own agenda (chiefly "we haven't printed photos of Angelina Jolie for a while" plus "let's have a jolly good laugh at the idea of men being victims of sexual assault by women). I buy into the "We believe you" campaign, but not to a "We believe the Daily Mail" campaign. I don't disbelieve the fundamentals here and am more than happy to put forward a point of view in principle, but I am not getting into a "well, the article says specifically that this, this and this happened" discussio over the details of a Daily Mail story.

TheCunningStunt - yes but I'm guessing that "sex" is difficult to define in law. Should any form of sexual assault which involves penetration without consent be considered to be rape? I'm not sure this is broad enough to protect people from all "rape" as we might define it ideologically and instinctively.

I agree with OneMoreChap and others the issue is sexual contact without consent. There should be no need to specify that rape involves any form of penetration by a penis.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or unfeeling I'm just wondering if the law of rape should be disposed of completely and incorporated into the laws of sexual assault base around consent. As BoneyBackJefferson says that Canada's laws have.

"It is perfectly psysiologically possible for a man to have an erection and even orgasm when utterly terrified. I am surprised so few adult women seem not to understand this."

^ I agree with this too.

bonzo77 Tue 28-Aug-12 15:57:25
I just didn't realise it would be physiologically possible to achieve or sustain this under force.

Just to pick this up.
Force isn't the issue. Consent is.

Canada's laws on this do not contain the word "rape" are are wholly based around consent.

I agree with some posters that this is not contentious for many.

Yes, a man can't raped in this country apart from by another man.
Yes, a man can be subjected to assault by penetration by a woman.
Yes, a man can be sexually assaulted by a woman, have an erection and even have ejaculated.

Consent is the issue, and sex without consent is wrong in all cases and not amusing. I was surprised to see any posters on this board expressing surprise about it.

'It is perfectly psysiologically possible for a man to have an erection and even orgasm when utterly terrified. I am surprised so few adult women seem not to understand this.'

Yes, I agree with this. Men who have been raped by another man often report that they got an erection and that that made them feel bad because they didn't want to and didn't consent.

Waspie, I think this depends on your definition of sex. For lesbians, this is obviously not PIV. So I don't think it's about redefining what rape, as a word means, but what can come under the rape umbrella.

I certainly don't apply the same logic to women. Women (and men) don't need any physical signs of arousal to be penetrated, "

Which is why I limited it to women who have shown physical signs of arousal, to show the flaws in your logic, I.e. how can they be aroused against their will.
Getting an erection can be 100% a response to physical stimulation and have nothing to do with the will of the person.
Fwiw I've long thought that the terminology surrounding rape should be widened to include a definition whereby the actual reus could be committed by a woman. I think that the gendered nature of the crime is potentially one of the factors for the poor cinvocation rates and social approach to the crime.
Not necessarily for scenarios as alleged in the op or the hair salon case years ago as they are extremely rare. But for situations where consent is vitiated by deception or a where consent is not capable of being given due to intoxication or consciousness, where the exact same conduct would see a man charged with rape and a woman with sexual assault I do think there's a danger that you will have jurors thinking along the lines of "well if a woman did it they wouldn't be charged with rape, so I don't see how this guy can be labelled a rapist"

I believe that in some other countries a person may be raped by any object and not only a penis. I remember reading an horrific account of a woman in the US (I think) who had been raped with a knife. But in the UK, at the moment at least, this would be sexual assault (and grevious bodily harm and possibly attempted murder). That is not to say that it is in any way a lesser crime in the eyes of the law. I think it simply has a broader legal definition.

Hypothetical question - for those who would like to see a change in the definition of rape in the UK what would you see it defined as? And on the other hand, should all rape be recognised under the broader category of serious sexual assault instead? I wonder if this would result in more convictions?

MysogynistToolMagnet, you accused me of peddling rape myths at 14:38. I am still waiting for you to either back this up, or withdraw the accusation.

mayor I guess it's just my ignorance, based on my own (limited) experience, where men cannot get it up when feeling shy, nervous etc. I certainly don't apply the same logic to women. Women (and men) don't need any physical signs of arousal to be penetrated, logistics dictate that the perpetrator forces it. But a man has to have an erection to penetrate. I just didn't realise it would be physiologically possible to achieve or sustain this under force. So mayor, oldlady I apologise and stand corrected if I am wrong.

Exactlly Stunning: the law is a disgrace and out of date.

I find our rape laws amazing....old fashion for one! I am a lesbian, I know lesbians who have been raped by other women. It was not sexual assault. It was rape. It's time the law caught up.

I took it back as i am niave and it was a highly stupid thing for me to say.

I am amazed at the "he got an erection so can it be rape" lot! Really??!!
Women can get turned on,but then say no to sex...but men can carry on anyway, this is rape. This situation is no different. His body had a physical reaction to something that his mind didn't want. Mind over matter does not always work.

pumkinsweetie hmm i don't know how it is at all possible for a woman to rape a man. Wouldn't the man have to be aroused ? (which she took back)

Zhaghzhagh But how is it possible for PIV sex if a man is not interested/hasn't got a hard on?

I do believe a man can be raped Stewie.
I don't agree with rape myths just never heard of a woman raping a man and was wondering how it could happen without am erect penis, but BigOldFanny made a valid point that a man of course has erections throughout the day therefore this story is most possibly true.
I think rape is intrusive and an absolutely horrific act of control

Regardless of whether it actually fits the definition of rape, it probably felt like rape to the person involved.

I am probably being very naive here, but I actually don't see how this scenario is physically possible. Can a man get an erection under these circumstances?"

Do you apply the same logic to women who show physical signs of arousal during sexual assaults and rapes?

I think the Daily Fail ran the story in order to print a few pictures of Angelina Jolie as much as anything.