OK. Please can we talk about women raping men?

I am not sure that renaming that type of offence would make any difference to reporting/awareness. I think the rape apology/women should be submissive type culture is so ingrained that if it were to be a big news item, it would just end up as a big joke in the media, men who'd been through it would feel more ashamed not less. That's just a feeling/my lack of faith in media though.

Don't know about any other situation, but my DH, when married to his ex (who was emotionally and physically abusive) sometimes woke up to her on top having sex with him. He was on heavy medication and couldn't stop it.

It is very likely to be how his twin DDs were conceived (going by dates - they virtually never had consensual sex), he never confronted her about it or told anyone but me, it is so humiliating for him to remember.

I have no idea how common that would be in abusive relationships.

It's just that the counter argument is often "if a woman did it then x,y & z" and no matter how moronic or insincere it may be for people to claim they can't get past this it remains a problem.

Like I say person A holds a knife to another's throat / obtains consent by deception/ takes advantage of a drunk person and are male they're charged with rape but if female then they're not rapists.

I agree they're not hierarchical but many will say then why the need for an offence of rape at all and not just sexual assault regardless of gender.

I think that we have such a society of rape apology that people have loaded the term rape with so much baggage that they feel labelling someone a rapist is so serious that they apply a higher burden of evidence to it than other offences and hesitate to convict even in the clearest of circumstances.
Perhaps a reclassification would greatly improve convictions where people think "oh well what he's done us clearly not right it's not 'rape rape'" etc

I'm not really sure, it's something I've often thought but not really bounced off people so its kind of hard to see the faults in your own arguments

or educate people about the existing terms, rather than educate them about a new made up one.

I'm not saying its hierarchical in their legal definitions but I do think they are viewed as such in societal terms.

I also can't think of any analogous offences whereby the same actus reus and the exact same mens rea would result in different charges based purely on gender.

Now I know that argument will be that they don't have the same actus reus as rape specifies penetration by a penis so perhaps the answer would be to create new offence which was gender specific for women.

But sexual assault and rape aren't in a hierarchy, it's not that one is automatically worse than the other. In law I mean. 'Rape' means penetration by penis, not anything else.

i am trying to think of analogous crimes - say between burglary and robbery. they are both serious, but have their own definitions that have nothing to do with severity

There was that russian woman who drugged men and raped them with a dildo That almost certainly is rape?

Apologies for typos
Posting from phone

"Well, much as I would love to point out that if they didn't want to be raped by a woman they shouldn't go getting drunk and flaunting their manliness in the face of all those women who simply can't help themselves in the face of a well turned testicle it might be worth pointing out to them that the legal definition of rape explicitly mentions men doing the act."

I do think that as the concept of consent has developed in jurisprudence that rape convictions might improve of there was either a reclassification of rape to make it gender neutral or perhaps a narrowing of the types of actions which would be classed as rape with others falling into the category of sexual assault.

This isn't to say that males being assaulted in this manner is anywhere near as common an occurrence or that it has the societal and historical weight that aggressive male on female rape has.

However I do think that many jurors will take issue with the notion that where the actions of Male A would be classed as rape the exact same actions of Female A would be sexual assault.
While obviously both are still very serious and can carry the exact same sentence I do believe it is a road block many can't get around.

As I said at the beginning I'm thinking in terms of actions which are to do with wider concepts of consent.
So it's clear that consent can be vitiated by deception. If person A climbs into bed with person B and impersonates their partner then consent will be seen to be vitiated.
Similarly if person A has sex with person B when they are intoxicated to the point that consent will not be valid.
I do think that in those situations having a gender specific crime should person A be male but not if they are female will lead many jurors to think "well if it was a woman nobody would be calling her a rapist etc"

Now MRAs saying that men are getting taped by women on anything like a similar level is patently moronic, but I do believe that either the offence of rape should be made gender neutral as it may help to cut out some of this fake polemic that many rape apologists trade in.

and that was me responding to the question "Does this happen a lot?".

I think it happens less than the MRAs suggest and that their determination to make it sound like it does is purely because they want to derail and disrupt the obvious fact that women are treated appallingly before during and after sexual assault and rape and are raped far more often as well as having to live in a societly which encourages rape culture. I am not saying that male victims of assault shouldn't be given the help they need to seek justice and healing but that the lies and misinformation out there are actually damaging to those men who have been assaulted (by men and women).

Oh and I also know a man who woke up at a party with a woman on top of him. Not actually penetrating her but if he hasn't woke up who knows....

what I said Sinful1 is "I don't think most women have the physical strength to make a man penetrate them through force" which, yes, does mean that I don't think most women have the strength to do this. Though maybe I should have phrased it as 'most men have the strength to stop a woman forcing them to penetrate them'.

"So any woman who is raped who doesn't have a completely pulverised face from a severe beating wouldn't be classed as raped in your book?"

don't be so ridiculous.

I am not saying they should have fought harder. I am saying that it is rare, not that it doesn't happen.

When I was 18 I was away on a gap year. A girl on the same programme started a romance with an 18 year old guy from a different country. He was religious and didnt believe in sex before marriage. He did however consent to doing lots of other naked stuff with her, but drew the line at penetration.
One night while they were missing around she jumped on him (if you know what I mean). He was really upset and immediately ran out. I never really talked to him about it but she fully admitted what she did and said 'he needed to get over it' and he 'clearly wanted to'.
He broke things off with her and she said he was completely over the top about it all. I often wonder what would have happend if it was the other way round. At the time it didnt even occur to me to report it. I hope it didnt, but I suspect it deeply affected him.
Woman raping men does happen, she absolutely knew she didn't have consent!

I would imagine that men are far more likely to be raped by other men, than be forced into penetrating a woman. What do the sites you have seen have to day on that topic?

But it's not forceful penetration because the person using force isn't doing the penetration. It's sexual assault.

I don't doubt that being coerced into sex and made to feel like they have to go along with something (either by other men, or the woman, or a group of women) happens. Maybe the women who do this or condone or encourage this, are part of the faux emancipation 'laddish' culture? Taking on the worst traits of the male culture and adopting them as their own? To be equal to men we have to dominate them in the same way they do us? My brain is meandering a bit, sorry.

This can't possibly be a serious discussion as you have got the very definition of the word rape wrong from the off.

Women cannot rape.

They can sexually assault.

But lets be clear here.

I suspect that MRAs are confusing rape with sexual assault. If rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis, then it is very unlikely that many men are raped by women. However, I'm sure that there are many more men who are sexually assaulted by women who are unable to believe that a man wouldn't welcome their attentions with open arms.

So what are the MRAs doing about it?

And just to clarify I was thinking more with the rape culture thing, that women (in general) are conditioned to be meeker, less violent, not to rock the boat, watch what they are doing and where they are and who they are with to avoid rape. Much much more so than men.

However, a man being drunk or drugged would alter the physical dynamic certainly. But still a female rapist would need that sense of entitlement to sexually assault the man and that is something that tends to be conditioned out of women. I'm doing a class analysis here - again for clarification.

I totally understand what you were doing curlew, definitely. I don't think DuellingFanjo was wrong to bring up one element of the power dynamic as to why far more women are raped by men than vice versa and why far more men are raped by other men than by women.

I wasn't doing any victim blaming Sinful1. Not sure how you are reading that into my posts. But hey ho, clearly you have an agenda.

Gotta love the use of "rape culture" to justify victim blaming.

Please next time.theres a rape thread say the victim.should have fought harder