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I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view.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.

@sunshineintheclouds I'm sorry but I think that's bullshit. It's like saying someone has been charged with murder, even though the victim is alive and breathing.

And I assume that a woman holding another woman down while a man rapes her is an accessory to rape rather than a rapist?

It's rape under joint enterprise bertrand. Basically if a group of people commit a crime they are jointly liable for that crime and can be charged.
www.kaimtodner.com/law/what_is_joint_enterprise/

It's often used for gang murders where it's not clear who caused the fatal blow

Seems to complicate things somewhat though when I don't really see any need given the sentences are the same.

The sentences might be the same but the effect on our culture and perception of what 'rape' verses 'sexual assault' are, is significant enough to consider an update in the law. As many PP have attested to.

And I assume that a woman holding another woman down while a man rapes her is an accessory to rape rather than a rapist?

Well that's getting into the nitty gritty of the crime. To me holding someone down is actually being directly involved in committing the crime and would mean the woman involved is a rapist as well rather than just an accessory.

goldenclaire Fri 13-Oct-17 14:19:05
a man needs to get a sexual attraction to get an errection

Its very sad that people still believe this. It just isn't true.

Yes it really really irks me as well, this apparent need to argue points like this with women as perpetrators. I understand the need to look at things from every theoretical perspective, but honestly, stop going on as if this is something that happens every day. Or even something that might reasonably someday be expected to happen. It's so unusual and unlikely and it actually really, really muddies the water.

Yes, I know there are outlying cases. I know that somewhere in the world there might be a woman who has held down a man and forcibly had sex with him. I know that people think it somehow helps women to try to make everything ostensibly fair, equal and exactly equivalent. But I don't think it does. And while I have every sympathy for any victim of assault, male or female, I do think there are very important considerations to take into account here.

YANBU. The term of ‘rape’ should always be protected to mean it can only be done with a penis.

Of course a man can be raped by a woman, a woman can be raped by a woman or by a man using an object other than a penis. I don't understand why op thinks there should be a distinction. It used to be that a woman could have a bottle (for example) inserted into her vagina against her will and that would not count as rape, it would be sexual assault. The expansion of the definition of rape to include objects other than a penis is a step forward for all victims imo.

Ignore me, it's assault by penetration if anything other than a penis. I think it should be classed as rape. If something sticks something in my vagina or anus against my will then as far as I'm concerned I have been raped.

To simplify, here’s why ‘rape’ should have the definition of ‘with a penis’ protected -

• risk of STIs and pregnancy. A bottle can’t get you pregnant. A woman can’t get a man pregnant. That results in either an abortion or delivering a baby, for someone who has been raped either is horrifically traumatic, and the possibility of this happening should be taken into account
• if it was thought to be ‘lesser crime’ because it’s not with a body part, it would likely get a lower sentence, and that includes for all rapes.
• the sentencing of sexual offenders is more often that not no different for rape than it is for if a woman insert a foreign object into a man’s anus. They’d get the same sentence (factors such as plea, effect etc taken into account) but it would just be called something different.
• above all it would fuel rampant misogynists to do what they’re desperately trying to do - make woman look ‘as bad’ as men. When they’re really not. They’re already too successful in making the world hate women, let’s not give them any more rope

I think it’s also important to remember to penis owners account for 96% of sexually violent crime. To put it crudely - the definition issue just isn’t a big enough problem to change. The problem is the people who have penises using them to assault other people. That should be our focus. “Rape with a vagina” is so inherently rare, that pouring resources into ‘rebranding’ the crime is unjustifiable

@sunshineinthecloudsI'm sorry but I think that's bullshit. It's like saying someone has been charged with murder, even though the victim is alive and breathing.

erm that's a very strange thing to say.
Again she has been charged I was there so regardless of what you think I know it does happen. Rightly so too. The parents of the victim fought very hard for the charge. Penetrating the child was enough for the charge in this case.

Great posts cherry

The offences do have slightly different names, not just "sexual assault". This link explains them well.

criminal-defence-solicitors.com/rape-assault-penetration-sexual-assault/

Obviously it was a very distressing time. If she was charged diffently I certainly didn't know about it. I only know what happened at the court. But then I am not legally trained.

Again she has been charged I was there so regardless of what you think I know it does happen

It's not about "what we think". Women can only be charged with rape under joint enterprise together with a man as rape necessarily requires a penis. Read the SOA 2003. Read the link I just posted. It's the legal definition in all areas of the UK and lawyers tend to be sticklers for these things. So unless you can link to a case where this was emphatically not the case people are going to be sceptical, and rightly so. If you can, please do.

Obviously I cannot link to the case, I have not even looked for newspaper articles myself regarding the case as it was too upsetting to go through it all again .
Like I said it was a traumatic event for all involved and it went by in a horrible daze.
However my thoughts/knowledge on the outcome were as described.

I’m also v skeptic although that a woman was arrested for rape, by definition. Unless the person was a transwoman

I understand that you can't link to your own case and it must be distressing to talk about I'm just explaining why people will be sceptical that the woman was charged with rape if no man involved.

The sentences might be the same but the effect on our culture and perception of what 'rape' verses 'sexual assault' are, is significant enough to consider an update in the law. As many PP have attested to.

Would anyone ever say to a male who had a female force themselves on them that they weren't raped? That a female who had a bottle forced into her that she wasn't raped? I have neever seen this, and hope it doesn't happen.

The only time we ever seem to hear of women forcing themselves on men, is in relation to cases of males attacking. When it is made out to be very common, even in this thread it has been insinuated that females sexually assault as often as males do it. Which is simply not true at all.

I'm not going to go into anymore details as this will near enough out me already.
It's make no difference whether a bunch of people on a internet forum want to acknowledge it.
I certainly did not want to cause offence for others who may have been through similar and got a different outcome. It's horrible situation when anyone is abused in any shape or form. The charge is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and I hope all abusers male or female are locked up forever for the horrid crimes they have committed. to all affected.

Horny that would be a dick thing to do, but in legal terms there are good reasons for making the distinctions between a penis and an object

To clarify, I mean would anyone actually say to the victim...like in a 'dont be silly, only male people can rape females and its not rape if it was not a penis'

Rather than pointing out that, for example, a 'woman' reported in the press as charged with rape, is clearly not a female.

I have not said women are just as likely to abuse men.

I myself and my sister were abused for years by our so called father. As I have talked about many many times on mn in fact mn and the lovely people who chat too me have helped with this many times.

However this thread was aimed at women abusing men and what it is called . Hence why I spoke about what happened in my own family regarding this topic.

Again I didn't mean to upset anyone

Horny that would be a dick thing to do, but in legal terms there are good reasons for making the distinctions between a penis and an object

Yes I know. Just wondering why there seem so many that think this is a huge problem when women who sexually assault are vanishingly rare, the sentences are the same (I suspect that when the victim is male, the sentence on the perpetrator may be harsher actually, but I doubt that data has been colected) and noone in their right mind would make a point of saying to a victim 'no you weren't raped as the law states X'

ALl changing the definition of rape would do would be to muddy the waters a little and help those who seem to like to make out that male and female sexual crime is even, or anything close to even.