To think the rape laws in the UK are sexist and should be changed?

[StuartAteMyStrawberries]

Only men can be charged with rape in the UK. Women can be charged with sexual assault but not rape.

AIBU to think this is outrageous and that anyone who has sex with another person is a rapist and should be charged as such?

It was legal for a man to rape his wife up until the 1990's and the law was rightly changed to make it a criminal offense. AIBU to think we should change the definition of rape so that women can be charged with it too?

It is about penetration
Yes I agree with that, but it should be about who has caused that penetration. And the man or the woman could have caused the penetration. When considering a crime of murder by stabbing we consider who caused that stabbing, not just who held the knife.

JassyRadlett, I can see your making a legal argument but I am making a populist argument. Society does not class them as crimes of equal depravity. A woman might or not be believed she was raped, a man faces the higher societal burden of it not even being possible for a woman to rape a man, (and public perception affects legal change and vice versa, chicken and egg).

Given the total ignorance by most people on this thread (including myself for a while) of the legal definitions, I'm not sure that's the case Most people have an idea of what it means (wrongly or rightly) about a person who has committed rape. When they here sexual assault the perception is very different.

I do vividly remember a case (not to sure of the country but the victim was British. He was drunk and then drugged and taken to a lap dancing bar where he received a private lap dance bought for by his associates. He did become aroused from the affects of the drugs and the lap dancing. She then against his proceed to have sex with him and film it for blackmail purposes. She wasn't the one who drugged him nor the one who attempted to black mail him so she was never charged with anything! Not even sexual assault. How is that right? She raped him pure and simple she had sex with him against his will knowing he was intoxicated and his errection was drug induced

When they here hear sexual assault, the perception is very different.

I think the 12,000 men being raped per year, where the crime is described as rape, are men being raped by other men? I'm given to understand that is far more common as a form of sexual assault, and also meets the common and legal definition of rape. In looking at statistics of convictions for serious sexual assault (which focuses on the offender profiles, not victim), 99% of perpetrators in single victim incidents were male.

Women convicted of serious sexual offences are more likely to be found guilty of crimes against children. There are various incidents of female grooming/seduction of children. Domestic sexual violence within same sex relationships is also something that crops up, and I'm aware of a couple of cases of lesbian rape/sexual assault. Actual sexual violence/assault by adult women against adult men is exceedingly exceedingly rare and while I'm sure it does need dealt with appropriately by the justice system, I don't think it's exactly an endemic issue being overlooked by the current definition of rape.

In general, I'm in no way a strident feminist talking about teh evil menz, but really, female on male sexual violence is not exactly the most overriding issue right now. I would like to see more support for male victims of sexual assault, but that won't happen by changing the definition of rape, as I think the 'forced penetration' definition already covers them. I think what is needed there are men's refuges, counselling aimed at men raped by other men, and for us all to generally challenge some of our fucked up attitudes to men who have sexual contact with other men.

We generally consider who got stabbed as the victim in a murder case, so the analogy doesn't work. It's about who got penetrated without consent, not the fact that a penetration took place as the perpetrator wasn't the one doing the penetrating. So it is a different offence.

Anon, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, both on the ability of this particular legal change to effect broad societal change, and to change some of the ugly perceptions we have seen on this thread, and also that rape is taken particularly seriously in our society, except for the 'stranger in a park with a knife' cases where people feel the victim attracts absolutely zero blame. In all other cases women are generally assumed to have some culpability for their own rapes.

And btw the sentencing guidelines notwithstanding (and I quite agree they need changing/clarifying in the different areas of sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity) 4 years is not the minimum sentence possible for rape. There have been cases where less than this has been handed down.

I think the 12,000 men being raped per year, where the crime is described as rape, are men being raped by other men?

Why does it matter if its male or female? Either its rape or its not! Only its not because its men. evil bastards they deserve it.

I don't think it's exactly an endemic issue being overlooked by the current definition of rape.

It not an endemic issue, its a small number and some of us just end up killing ourselves because no one believes us. I know because that is where I am at. We dont need refuges or special treatment. We just need society to recognize us and they wont until we are taken seriously by the legal system.

We generally consider who got stabbed as the victim in a murder case
We do until there is evidence they stabbed themselves. Your point? It about who didn't give consent.

Goodnight for now

Anyone else getting the impression that certain posters weren't aware that men could be raped by men under the law?

And, I should add, that despite complaints of 'men being raped not being called rape' and male rape victims being neglected by the law, their actual complaint seems to only be that penises have their own specific crime?

You can't spend your whole time drawing attention to the fact that you think it's discriminatory for there to be a penis-specific crime that makes a subset of male sex offenders apparently look 'worse' in the public eye due to the term used, then try to argue that you're just bothered about male victims. The two are not the same argument. One belies your agenda, it seems.

Actually up until 2009, the definition of rape in Scotland was only vaginal rape. It now, as in England, includes anal & oral rape.

Men being raped by other men are penetrated without consent. It is the same offence. What you are talking about isn't.

Sorry that was to anon.

Sorry if the thread has moved on but got the rage when I read this so I'm gonna post and run

Because the nasty feminists gang up on them.

You never see feminists trying for parity of the justice system because women are given more lenient sentences

You never see feminists trying for parity in the building profession

So how do those saying It cant be rape because a woman cant hold a guy down, how would he keep an erection? You're being rape apologists.

Would you be ok if a slight man raped a woman and the judge dismissed the case because the attacker thought she was enjoying the stimulation

Sorry if this triggered anyone I'm really not trying to be offensive, rape as rape regardless of sex or gender

Actually up until 2009, the definition of rape in Scotland was only vaginal rape. It now, as in England, includes anal & oral rape

The Scottish statute also, unlike the English statute refers to "person A" and "person A's" penis rather than "his penis"

A penis and a vagina can be surgically constructed and it will still be rape. A trans man with a surgically created penis could in law rape a trans woman with a surgically created vagina, by vaginal , oral or anal penetration. If he uses a dildo or other object he would commit sexual assault by penetration. Obviously oral or anal penetration of a man by a penis is rape.

I'm a bit taken aback at the lack of imagination by posters saying things like

Okay then. So how would a woman force a man to have sex with her without the use of physical force?
Enlighten me please

I suppose it is children rather than men but the majority of adult women /underage boys cases reported seem to me to have sufficient elements of coercion, control, abuse of power and authority to be for all practical purposes rape even if not legally rape. In the case of adult men the Joyce McKinney case shows one way it is possible.