I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

Women are prosecuted for having sex with boys under 16 though, aren't they? I've seen articles in newspapers detailing it. So, boys are covered by the same rules if the female is an adult, just not if their partner is also under age?

Chicken

The law is regarding sex between two minors and the disparity of that law.

He is charged under the so-called 'Romeo and Juliet' law - Criminal Law Offences Act 2006 and faces a maximum of five years in jail if convicted. Under the same act, a girl under 17 cannot be charged with the same offence

But presumably she could, technically, be charged with a similair offence of equal seriousness? Sexual assault maybe? Or not?

FellatioNelson, it wouldn't be rape. I have to pop out now, but will ponder my longer response whilst I walk.

Maryz, you know full well that one of the main arguments on that thread was about the lack of equivalence of the potential outcome of sex in a country without access to abortion.

Whre did I say that StayFrosty? In fact where did I even imply it?

Some people are talking about Irish law. Abortion is not available on request in Ireland. A 15 year old girl therefore faces much greater risk than a 15 year old boy when they have vaginal intercourse. I still am not sure if that make the law reasonable but I do think it's relevant.

Interesting point about Irish abortion law. Actually even when abortion is available, it's not exactly a pleasant or trivial thing to go through, especially for a young girl.

I'm not sure how/if it should affect the law re 'Romeo and Juliet' situations either, will have to think about that...

Genuine question, and apologies if I am revealing my ignorance, but would a man/teenager be able to sustain an erection if he was feeling uncomfortable with a sexual situation?

Does the difference in the law's approach not reflect the fact that it is much easier for a man to hold down a woman and force his penis into her, or frighten her into submission, than it is for a woman to hold down a man and force his penis into her?

Should this disparity make a difference to how the law views things?

It was Dittany's point on the thread in Feminism. It made me stop and reconsider.

I think Thistledew that it is easily possible from a physical point of view that man could sustain an erection whilst refusing sex.

Yes they can apparently. There is some interesting stuff on Wiki about female on male rape, but Wiki being Wiki it can be a bit random, so not worth posting the link!

The thing is, regarding the ability to sustain an erection, is that even relevant? A woman could feel very sexually aroused and yet still feel she needs/wants to say no, for any number of reasons, and indeed has the right to, up until the very second of penetration. I'm not sure why that shouldn't be applied to a man as well. Of course, I doubt in practise it is such a common occurance that the man should want to say no having got an erection, but that is quite beside the point.

Sorry that was to Thistledew

I'd be amazed if there had been any prosecutions of that kind (underage boys having consensual sex with underage girls). The police aren't even interested in an adult man + 14 or 15 yr old girl scenario, let alone two underage kids. Anyone got any evidence of prosecutions?

Really must go out now, but here's the SOA 2003

In England & Wales, rape requires a penis. Women cannot rape a man on their own. There has to be a 2nd man involved.

But women can be convicted of sexual crimes against men, right? So it's not like women get away scot free if they do molest/assault an unwilling male? It just can't be defined as rape.

StayFrosty The last link where the man claimed he had raped the wrong woman (interesting that his girlfriend had already refused him because she was ill so even if it had been his gf he was having sex with..er...she'd said no already!) was especially horrible.

First comment I read below the article said: Drunk or not, he still should be held responsible for his actions. But why did the woman not immediately realize what was about to happen when he got into her bed. Even if she was asleep, she would have been startled enough to wake up straight away. Would it not have taken at least a few seconds for him to remove the bed clothes and then her clothes, for her to realize something is not right?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html#ixzz1VCXY4wsP

Jeez. So a woman could be responsible for being raped in her own hotel room because she's a deep sleeper and she wasn't wearing pyjamas that would have alerted her to the fact she's being raped by a stranger! FFS!

at that article StayFrosty

Women can aid and abet rape - conspiracy to do a crime carries the same penalty as actually doing the crime so women can be accomplices to rape and have been charged and convicted as such. I am sure there was a gang one reported where a girl was raped for dissing another girl and the insulted girl was there cheering the blokes on. Will try and find it.

Chickens, yep, while only men can be prosecuted for rape, women can be prosecuted for assault by penetration. All the other parts of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply to both men and women.