To wonder whether a man can be raped?

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

I do not mean Anally.

Reading the thread about rape being any form of non mutual enthusiasm (although I can't seem to put it so eloquently, sorry). I think it has opened my mind to what rape actually is.
I was wondering therefore can a man be raped because they have to have some enthusiasm to gain an erection. (unless drugged I guess?)

I believe there some american campuses where sex between students does actually require written consent. (I have to admit that I haven't checked this so it could be an urban myth.)

I can definatly confirm this happened to my friend, the woman was charged with bodily harm (I think it was actual bodily harm but I can't be sure) and it went to court. I wasn't there when the police said that to him, but thats what he told me, and as the woman was pregnant when she went to court but had no partner I am inclined to believe what was said.

It's not an unreasonable question.

But the answers are pretty simple.

Can a man be raped? Only by another man, because the definition of rape requires a penis.

Can a man be sexually assaulted by a woman? Yes.

Is that just as bad as rape? It can be, the same way a woman can be sexually assaulted in a way that doesn't involve a penis and it can be just as bad.

Does it happen anywhere near as much as men assaulting/raping women? No. But that doesn't mean it's not serious when it does happen. One person or group's suffering does not diminish or take away from that of another group. There's not a limited amount of "we should stop sexual assault" to go around.

Do I need a signed bit of paper every time I have sex? No, you only have to reasonably believe that your partner consents.

Is it hard to tell if my partner is consenting? Not really, not if you are a normal reasonably human being.

Is an erection a guarantee of consent? No.

If I did X in the past, does that make me a rapist? Not if your partner wanted X.

What if they didn't really want to, but went along with it anyway? If they agreed because they like you and want to make you happy - probably not. If they agreed because they were scared of the consequences of not agreeing, it might be rape. Consent must be freely given.

Have I missed anything?

Paiviaso Fri 24-Aug-12 09:42:17
I have to agree with Changey concerns - if you have a regular sexual relationship with someone, and then on one occasion said someone doesn't want to have sex, but doesn't say anything and makes no effort to stop the sexual act, how on earth is the other party meant to know that this time is not ok?

That's the other parties problem, You have to ascertain consent.

Doesn't have to be any bollocks like in writing, or "May I do this to you..."

I think these discussions about sexual boundaries are really eye-opening. One night, I came home at 3am and found DP asleep in bed (he is a heavy sleeper). I crawled into bed and started giving him oral sex to wake him up. DP and I had never done anything like this before, and had only been dating a few months. He woke up, and was obviously into it, and we had sex. But I suppose, he could have woken up, been upset, and I would have sexually assaulted him. Nothing like this crossed my mind as I started the act though, I never thought, "I'm putting myself at risk of being accused of sexual assault."

That'' the problem, though. Lots of men don't recognise rape - and more worryingly nor do some women. I'd add that I've been called both a rapist and a rape apologist on here, so there are a lot of sensitivities.

You're invoking my opinion? Goodness! Where are my double standards? My concern was with the consent issue, gender has nothing to do with it. My opinion of that particular situation would not change if the genders were reversed. The 'victim' did not give his regular consensual partner any sign that he did not want the experience to happen - he actually chose not to stop her.

If there was really no sign whatsoever, if the partner who was unwilling behaved exactly as they did on the occasions when they did want to have sex, then the other partner would have reasonable belief of consent, and so could not be charged with rape.

But in reality I think it is pretty unlikely that two people who know each other would not be able to tell that something was different.

ChangeyMcName Fri 24-Aug-12 10:20:24
The 'victim' did not give his regular consensual partner any sign that he did not want the experience to happen - he actually chose not to stop her.

"Well, I climbed on top of her, and she din't say nuffing, and she din't push me away, so that's oright innit?"

No, unless you ascertained consent you are at risk of a sexual assault charge.

Was your belief in consent reasonable?
What did you do to ascertain it?

That's the law. I didn't write it.

It depends by what definition that you are going by, a lay person's understanding, the law or the victims.

A difference in rape and serious sexual assault should never have been that wide, sentencing wise and luckily because we now have a greater recognition of 'gateway' crimes and the effect on the victim, serious sexual assault is considered as serious as rape, to professionals.

I don't think that it is helpful to turn this into a gender issue. It was more a lack of recognition about this sort of crime and removing preconceived ideas by those in power.

As inadequate as the law is, leglislation for offences against males has lagged well behind those of females and so has crimes against children.

I can remember how Steven West (Fred and Rose West son) was treated quite differently by the press, because it came to light that he was able to have sex (get an erection) with Rose.

In every case where the child/teen has gotten an erection, this is the one aspect that they find difficult to come to terms with and it is what takes their future sex life from them, as they cannot dissocciate getting an erection from the abuse.

Baby boys get hard, it can be an involuntary reaction and does not mean that sex is wanted, iyswim.

In line with "men can get an erection even when they don't want have sex", and that being the thing that is difficult for them later.

There has been some research done into vaginal secretions (by showing people videos of various things), and shown that women secrete the same sort of "making the vagina ready for sex" stuff at two quite different times:
1- when they are turned on and want to have sex
2 - when they are scared and fear rape
(not necessarily consciously)

The conclusion, which unlike a lot of "evolutionary biology" makes a lot of sense, is that women who produced lubrication when scared were less likely to be injured and more likely to survive assault than those who did not.

It explains a lot of strange uncomfortable "Am I getting turned on by this? I don't think I am" feelings.

There is lots of research around rape and sexual assault, it just isn't ever published in the press.

The media like to decide who victims and perpetrators are and then will report accordingly, to back themselves up.

There will be better reporting in newspaper such as the Guardian, but that isn't that widely read.

We know all what we need to in terms of DV and sexual crimes, all we have to do is wait for the law, education for the public and funding for victims to catch up.

Trills Fri 24-Aug-12 10:31:36
There has been some research done into vaginal secretions (by showing people videos of various things), and shown that women secrete the same sort of making the vagina ready for sex" stuff at two quite different times:
1- when they are turned on and want to have sex
2 - when they are scared and fear rape
(not necessarily consciously)

There have been reports of women who have had what appeared to be orgasms during rape. Does it mean they enjoyed the experience, or consented to it? No. It's why I tell what is to me the embarrassing story of my assault. (Why embarrassing? I'm a bloke, I'm "meant" to always enjoy sex)

I think it is very valuable that you tell that story - physical reactions do not always reflect mental state.

I'm a bloke, I'm "meant" to always enjoy sex

Rape/sexual abuse, isn't sex, it's assault.

Who would enjoy being assaulted?

In a longer form then, to avoid misunderstanding.

Men are expected, by society, to always want sex.

If sexual assault of a man takes the form of them having their penis stimulated in a way that, if it were consensual, would be considered sex, then some (many) people will have a hard time realising that it's possible for the man not to enjoy it.

Better?

The conclusion, which unlike a lot of "evolutionary biology" makes a lot of sense, is that women who produced lubrication when scared were less likely to be injured and more likely to survive assault than those who did not

Actually, thats is exactly what evolutionary biology would predict, as its an adaptation that increases survival.

I'm saying that a lot of evolutionary biology seems a bit too "just-so story", whereas this one I agree with the conclusion.

Am staggered that anyone can think a regular partner can mistake lying there in shock and not doing anything to stop the activity for willing participation.

Can any of you really imagine believing a completely prone person is actively participating in what is going on?

While the man described on page 1 did not actively refuse sex, he certainly didn't actively consent either.
I doubt he held her, thrust back or engaged in any of the caressing which would normally accompany the act. It must have been utterly shocking to him and the fact that he had an erection at the time would have compounded his sense of shame, guilt etc.

When people wake a partner for sex, there is usually a sort of questioning foreplay going on where you are watching for signs of consent: kissing and being kissed back, the other person turning around and putting their arms around you etc.

To stimulate someone to the point of erection while they're sleeping and effectively proceed to use them as a dildo is a horrible thing to do.

The best possible light this shows her in is as an utterly selfish, domineering and bullying partner.

If a man had done this to a woman it certainly would be rape. I can't see how the effect is any different with the genders reversed.

Why embarrassing? I'm a bloke, I'm "meant" to always enjoy sex

This is IMO why lots of people struggle with the concept of a woman raping a man.

Men are percieved to be 'ever ready' and 'up for sex any sex' by default.

As though they have no control over their sexuality/erect penis and that if they have an erection they have to 'use it'

Its the same bollocks that perpetuates the myth that a man can't stop once started.

I know this and yet I will admit to seeing it differently depending on the sex of the perpetrator.

I'm not saying I don't think a woman can rape a man but because of these (wrong) messages fed to us about men/sex I think of it differently.

I think another big factor is the threat and use of violence during rape. I'm aware rape in itself is violence but a woman raped by a man is much more likely to be assaulted in ways other than by a penis/hands during rape.

This is what a BBC website about rape definitions says about women being charged with rape:

"Act uses "he" and defines rape as involving penetration by a penis. But women who facilitate gang rapes can be - and have been - prosecuted for rape, says Gerry. A woman could also be charged with an offence carrying an equivalent penalty such as sexual assault by penetration."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

Remember, my instance is comparatively trivial to other people's experience. I suffered no long term damage - at least I don't think I did. I stayed with the woman for a further year, and have had successful relationships with a number of partner in the ensuing 30 odd years.

My learning point was the requirement of consent - and the fact I was right that I didn't enjoy it. I was also rather... startled by the realisation that assault/rape cases aren't at all straightforward - that victims can experience different emotions.

I think the law needs to be tweaked a bit here. Rape if penetrated by a pens? What about an object? Or does sexual assault carry the same heavy sentence as rape?

Changey - if you honestly don't know whether your partner is consenting or not then you're on very dodgy ground. In fact "I didn't know you didn't want it" would be an admission of rape in my book - it would be an indication that the rapist didn't take any account of how the other person was acting. A person who is not happy about having sex will not participate in the same way as someone who is happy would. It is normally very clear when a person is enjoying sex - they smile, vocalise, kiss, touch, make eye contact, move their body etc. If they are not enjoying it they are likely to be disengaged and unresponsive.

The woman in the scenario you are referring to started to have sex with her partner while he was asleep. He was given no opportunity to refuse the sex, therefore she did not wait to ascertain consent. He may have consented, in which case there would be no problem. As it stood he didn't consent but he felt unable to stop her, that wasn't his fault. It was the woman's duty to be sure her partner was happy, not the man's duty to stop her. She ran a very high risk and it backfired because her partner felt he had been raped. It was at best a very stupid move on her part, at worst a horrible disrespectful violation of someone who trusted her.

If you have sex to make your partner happy then you are having sex that you want. You don't want the sex for the sake of sex, you want the sex for the sake of your partner. Therefore it is not rape, as you are choosing to have sex for a positive reason, without coercion or resentment. If you have sex to appease your partner because you feel threatened or under pressure then that is most definitely rape as you are not choosing freely.

Bookmarks Trills's post at 10:18.

mynewpassion Fri 24-Aug-12 12:47:23
I think the law needs to be tweaked a bit here. Rape if penetrated by a pens? What about an object? Or does sexual assault carry the same heavy sentence as rape?

Have a look at some of the links. Assault by penetration is what you are looking for and yes, it can carry severe sentences [but let's not divert into crap sentencing policies]

TDOE Trill's post was good, wasn't it?