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I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view.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

If you want another word that says penetration with a penis that might not result in pregnancy, then fine

Who said they wanted another word? I’m saying your definition doesn’t work, if you say it’s about pregnancy then an anal rapist and a man with a vesectomy can only sexually assault a woman.

I think that penetration with a penis does need a ringfenced name. While penetration with an object can cause more physical damage, it can't cause pregnancy or STDs. It seems to me to be a unique crime-the ultimate act of dominance and dismissal. Apart, obviously, from.pregnancy the same applies to men who are raped by other men too.

It's not only about pregnancy. It's about using a penis. The possibility of pregnancy was probably used to differentiate it from penetration where there was no possibility of pregnancy.

Men being able to weaponise their own bodies, needs a name.

If we want to discuss legal ideas then I’d agree forced pregnancy should be an extra crime on top of rape.

But I don’t want the police telling elderly women “it wasn’t rape because you can’t get pregnant”

I would say it is the same as the difference between punching someone and hitting them with a belt/bottle/crowbar/lumphammer. The effect can be the same, but the reasons, motivation and preparation etc would possibly be different and need examining.

A child could also be born of a female teacher raping her 12 year old student though. He then has a baby he didn’t want and knows is in the world. He’s not old enough to consent to fatherhood (even though he isn’t physically going through pregnancy). It’s still a life altering situation he wasn’t able to avoid.

Men being able to weaponise their own bodies

Everyone can weaponise their body.

Those of you who think it’s important to ring fence the a political agenda are throwing mostly women under the bus and by saying they can’t name their trauma. If someone puts something in you and you call it rape, it’s rape.

"Everyone can weaponise their body."

In what ways?

People tend to say rape when they mean sex has been forced on someone that does not want it. As such, men can be raped by those terms. Legally a woman cannot rape a man, as rape requires a penis. Though with the new breed of 'women with penises' women can now legally rape men too. Its a bit stupid.

The British legal system is not on the side of women. We don’t need to say “well it’s the law innit”. It’s not the law everywhere and it’s certainly not the way people know the word to mean.

Sexual assault is very broad, it’s disgusting, and I’ve felt degraded by being groped in bars but it is 100% not the same as a woman who has been penetrated by a sexual sadist with a weapon.

In what ways?

Punching, headbutting, gouging, scratching, kicking, kneeing, poking to name but a few.

I’m much more concerned with people defining women as “occasionally having penises” than by rape meaning “sex with a penis, vagina, or object that the person could not consent to.”

I'm inclined to think 'assault by penetration' should be classified as a form of rape. Its a serious sexual assault, as the sentencing reflects but the stigma on the perpetrator may not.

Maybe the terminology should be changed to something like 'penile rape' and 'non-penile rape'?

I'd bet the results would be very few women rapists, and more male rapists. Doubt the profile of victims would change much.

Feministcheeseplate

I'm really not saying that at all. I, and I think all the women here, completely agree with you. Forced penetration with an object is every bit as bad as rape, if not worse.

I, for one, have absolutely no problem with a woman saying she was raped by a dildo, or another object. Culturally and linguistically, I completely agree. I'm just saying the law makes a distinction. Which they have made sure in no way reflects the sentencing.

I’m much more concerned with people defining women as “occasionally having penises”

The world is a very, very strange place.

TBH I'm not sure why this would be an issue. Is there an epidemic of woman-on-man assaults for which current law is inadequate?

Sexual assault could literally mean anything though, it could mean a woman groped my penis for example. Of course that isn’t as serious as rape, and it just doesn’t have the same connotations does it?

If everyone can agree being sexually assaulted by penetration is just as serious then what’s wrong with calling it rape?

The standard definition of rape is different to the legal offence. The OED defines rape as:

The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.

A woman can rape a man (in non legal terms).

A woman cannot be guilty of the criminal offence of rape.

If it’s just semantics, then why does it need to be an issue or even pointed out?

I also think rape as a definition must remain ring-fenced, and agree with Datun in particular.

All these scenarios which try to argue otherwise seem so tortuous - a whole group of women holding down a man, a teacher who gets pregnant after somehow forcing a twelve year old to ejaculate... Fact is, men rape women, and it's much easier for them to do so than any other scenario that is comparable in the distress and damage it could effect.

I think that penetration with a penis does need a ringfenced name. While penetration with an object can cause more physical damage, it can't cause pregnancy or STDs.

I normally agree with you Bertrand but I disagree here, there are plenty of jurisdictions where penetration with an object is rape and I do think it makes more sense. As many pps have noted this is affects far more women than men.

@minttea
"Rape means unwanted penetration with a PENIS. So a woman cannot rape a man. "

Are you fucking thick?

Maybe the terminology should be changed to something like 'penile rape' and 'non-penile rape'?

That sounds perfect to me. All encompassing. And attaching the right kind of gravity to non penile rape. It also separates sexual assault from penetration.

Speaking of the crime of rape, some posters on another thread are not understanding that an adult who has sex with children under the age of consent is committing rape.
People who are unable to consent (underage, incapacitated etc) are by definition un-consenting.

Is it a common view that it is not rape and is not something to have a problem with? Because those other posters are telling me I am ridiculous to point out it is not ok to have sex with people who cannot consent.