To not understand why people don't understand men cannot be raped by a woman?

[TurquoiseChevrotain]

I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view. Why is it? Why can't people understand what rape is? Men can be sexually assaulted by women, but not raped.

So those stories in the press horny that I linked to where a woman has actually been convicted of rape (and others have too) have the courts for it wrong then? Are you saying the courts don't understand the law or that the papers have printed bullshit stories and some poor innocent women are languishing in prison cells for wrongly being convicted of rape?

If a woman held down a man and forcibly penetrated his arse with a foot long strap on I would consider that rape and feel it should be treated as such.

Sexual assault would be an.insult.

I think penetration by object or penis or hand or forcing a Bahia onto a penis is rape quentin. No penetration takes place when a clotoris is grabbed (assuming that is the only act).

horrid women can only be convicted of rape where a man and a penis did the actual penetration. Also the case you linked is pretty much the only one.
I find it so odd how invested people are in "women do it too!!" It's weird.

It isn't the only one.

If a man assaulted a woman using an implement or sex toy, they would be charged with sexual assault and not rape.

Same with a woman, no penis used no assault charge

*no rape charge

Also if rape was no longer defined as someone using their penis, we would have even less way of knowing that the 'woman charged with rape' stories in the press were bullshit and that it was actually (as usual) a male committing the crime.

I think that because the word 'rape ' is used colloquially to mean something wider than the current UK legal definition already allows this blurring. I'd argue that a term such a 'penile rape' would make it less ambiguous.

A young male family member of mine was raped by a female relative on their dads side.
He was a young six year old boy who was subjected to sexual abuse by a female she did horrid things to the poor boy he was raped no matter what anyone says.

I think that should be changed too niki.
Laws can be changed. I'm glad that the law now recognises rape within marriage. We still have a long way to go though. Clearly having such a narrow definition of rape isn't helping secure convictions as the conviction rate is abysmally low. I have no idea what would happen if the definition was changed and more offences included though.

I must also say sorry the abuser was rightly so convicted with rape on a minor and sixteen counts of sexual assault also.

So those stories in the press horny that I linked to where a woman has actually been convicted of rape (and others have too) have the courts for it wrong then? Are you saying the courts don't understand the law or that the papers have printed bullshit stories and some poor innocent women are languishing in prison cells for wrongly being convicted of rape?

If a conviction was for rape, a penis has been involved. A woman could have been involved in the crime, but for it to actually be rape, a penis was involved in the crime.

A woman cannot rape anyone.

Usually, if the papers report that a woman has been convicted of rape, this 'woman' is actually male.

*A woman cannot rape anyone on her own

That should have been

Why can't it be rape with a penis, rape with an object, rape with a vagina.. they are all rape and it still keeps the statistics feminists happy with knowing how many penises were involved.

We are not going to change the culture of not seeing all rapes as equal devastating if the law doesn't categories them as equal.

I know some of you are worried that if we change it to not necessarily include a penis we won’t know who perpetrated the attacks made by “women”.

But I’d say with the way things are going I think that’s going to be an issue anyway. Some trans people are calling penises large clitorisis anyway.

If a conviction was for rape, a penis has been involved. A woman could have been involved in the crime, but for it to actually be rape, a penis was involved in the crime.

The female was definitely female and acted alone. I know what she was charged with I was there.

Were you in the U.K., sunshine?

We need to push back against that idiocy, not make great strides to enable it!! Seriously. These things are so important. And we need to be vigilant about safeguarding women's rights and protections according to the law.

Yes Northwest.

It most likely will be in past papers but don't want to out myself.

There is another thread at the moment where a transman was raped by a man. It's being reported as though the transman is a man, although it does say they are trans. But they referred to throughout as a man and called Mr. (The poor woman couldn't believe she was raped as she assumed that identifying as a man would protect her. Not realising that you can't identify out of your sex).

However, if the man who raped her had been a transwoman, it would have been reported as a woman raping a man.

With nothing to go on other than the word rape, this would put a very different complexion on the story. And the stats.

Is the woman who holds down a woman whilst a man forcibly penetrates her with his penis less guilty because she doesn't have a penis horny?
I quite like the idea of rape by penis, rape by object and rape by vagina as mentioned upthread.

The female was definitely female and acted alone. I know what she was charged with I was there.

Don't understand how this happened at all then. Given in the UK, a penis has to be involved for someone to be prosecuted for rape...

I understand you not wanting to give details as it could be outing. I do not understand how a female person acting alone could be charged with rape in the UK.

Is the woman who holds down a woman whilst a man forcibly penetrates her with his penis less guilty because she doesn't have a penis horny?

No?

Rape by penis, by object and by vagina is a good idea. Seems to complicate things somewhat though when I don't really see any need given the sentences are the same (infact in many cases I expect when the person assaulted/raped is a man, the sentence will be harsher)

Is the woman who holds down a woman whilst a man forcibly penetrates her with his penis less guilty because she doesn't have a penis
Imo yes she is "less guilty" than the man inserting his penis. Without him there would have been no rape. Without her, quite possible for him to have raped the victim anyway.
What she did was horrific and her charge/sentence is entirely appropriate but the man's behaviour was worse.
Why are you trying to derail onto a very rare and specific occurrence horrid?
It's strange how challenging some people find women talking about rape

Why is there always such a focus on women raping men?