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I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view.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

Surely a strap-on up a man's arse would be deemed as rape? It would be against his consent. That is what rape comes down to, no? Consent.

so in essence at the point of errection it cannot really be deemed rape as the man's senses have naturally gone 'yes, we're gonna have sex

Some women orgasm during rape, a physical response is not the same as saying yes. This belief that an orgasm implied willing stops women and men who’ve been attacked by another man from going to the polic out of shame. Don’t perpetuate it

Why are you so insistent that the the current legal definition is the correct one TC?

Legally it would be sexual assault. Just as a man penetrating a woman with a bottle against her will, is sexual assault.

Surely a strap-on up a man's arse would be deemed as rape? It would be against his consent. That is what rape comes down to, no? Consent

It's not a penis though. So if you're talking about UK law, its not rape. Somewhere else, it might be

I can’t speak for other posters but personally it’s important to me (as I explained previously) as it will mostly hurt women if we narrow definitions of rape. Not that I don’t care about men I just know they’re the minority here.

I don't actually think it is a problem here to assume we're talking about the UK, or the actual country from which we're posting, on reflection. We can only work in the language we speak or the legal system within which we're living - otherwise all comparisons fall apart.

In English language, kicking and punching mean different things, so it's a fair comparison to raping and sexually assaulting.

Surely a strap-on up a man's arse would be deemed as rape? It would be against his consent. That is what rape comes down to, no? Consent

Lack of consent plus a penis. That's the definition in UK law.

The presence of an erection in the victim absolutely does not discount it from being rape. Jesus.

If you are penetrated with a penis without your consent, legally it is rape.
If you are penetrated with an object without your consent, legally it is sexual assault by penetration (but personally I would consider it the victim's choice whether or not to define it as rape).

It doesn't matter whether the victim had a physical response or not. Both male and female victims of rape / sexual assault have experienced orgasms during the act. That doesn't stop it from being rape / sexual assault.

Maybe the crimes are seen in law as equally bad but it's judges who sentence people. If some idiot judge cannot understand that not consenting to having an inanimate object rammed up his anus multiple times is a horrifying experience and gives out a paltry few hours community service as a punishment then the law is ineffectual. Maybe they think men should be to strong to be put in that position maybe they think (like many do regarding women ) that they asked for it. It doesn't matter what they think it is sending out a clear message that you can brutally sexually assault someone but hey its only 'sex play' and she is a woman after all so it doesn't matter any more than not paying your parking ticket.

Double standards work both ways.

There are lots of words where the colloquial meaning is different to the legal one. Most of the time when people are talking, it is the colloquial meaning that they are using.

Wasn't there that case the other year with the two lesbians? One lesbian claimed her ex was pretending to be a man and used a strap-on?Didn't she get done for rape? Or something like that. It was a strange case. Anyhow, I thought rape all came down to consent, not a penis.

It’s not about saying women rape too, it’s about not throwing the victims who don’t fall in to the specific definition under the bus. The vast vast majority of whom will be be women. The vast vast majority of perpetrators will be men.

Exactly. It's not about being desperate to see women labelled as 'rapists'. It's about believing that penetration by an object or a body part (other than the penis) should be called rape too. It wouldn't just mean that women could rape men, it would mean that women could rape women, and men could rape men and women without using their penis. And the overwhelming majority of victims would surely be female.

Just because something is the law doesn't mean it shouldn't change. It wasn't long ago in the UK that men were legally allowed to rape their wives. And they still can in many countries. In France/South Africa etc the definition of rape includes penetration by any object or body part, and I think we should use that definition in the UK.

For instance, I think it's sickening that this case would be labelled as sexual assault not rape if it had happened in the UK: metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/man-raped-with-police-truncheon-gives-graphic-details-of-attack-6433162/

Anyhow, I thought rape all came down to consent, not a penis

yeah, that's wrong though.

Feministcheeseplate

What would you like to happen? Is it because rape, culturally, seems more serious than sexual assault? Because that's minimising the damage done by sexual assault? Because, as far as I know, it doesn't minimise it in the eyes of the law.

Is it because, culturally people may not see it the same or as serious?

Instead of downgrading the negativity to the term rape, wouldn't it be better to upgrade the negativity to the term sexual assalt?

She wasn’t a lesbian. Hence the woman pretending to be a man. And I’d say that woman raped her and the law should call it rape not assault.

goldenclaire, that was Gayle Newland and she was sentenced to 6 years for sexual assault, not rape.

And that is what people are saying - by most people's understanding of it, that is rape, irrespective of what the legal definition is.

Men who are sexually assaulted are more likely report to the police,to be believed and their perpetrators are more likely to receive stiffer sentences. Men who have sex with men, are those most likely to be sexually assaulted, by other men.
The exception to this is prostituted men. Like prostituted women, some believe that being prostituted means you can not be raped or sexually assaulted.

We can’t upgrade the entire culture to accept sexual assault as equal. We can alter laws. In fact I think altering the law is one way to get people to change perceptions. Drunk driving etc

Additionaly “sexual assault” is a very very broad term that encompasses minor assaults and life altering assaults. I don’t think my arse being grabbed though humiliating and uncomfortable is the same as a woman who has been abused with a bottle.

To be me, rape is a violation against someone's body without their consent. Consent is the key. I think the laws need tweaking personally. The whole penis only definition is out of date.

The technical legal definition might be that only a men can rape women. But in the real world, most people use rape to mean forcing someone into sexual intercourse without their consent. whether its forcing a penis into a vaginal or forcing a vagina onto a penis, it makes no difference which way around it is, no means no, rape is rape whether its a man or a woman.

Also the point made up thread that when someone says “women rape too” it’s a very easy way to shut down those comments and tbh, I’m not confident I haven’t said it myself to trolls- it does slap women who’ve been sexually assaulted down at the same time.

I agree that rather than downgrading the specific definition of rape, we should upgrade the seriousness in our own minds of the equivalent sexual assault.

It is important to understand why these classifications exist and I don't believe going for the lowest common denominator is necessarily the right way to go about it. I would rather the law assume understanding of nuance than change every definition of everything to play to those whose intellectual capability isn't strong enough to allow for proper considerations of all the various levels of the given context.

I agree that rather than downgrading the specific definition of rape

Do you think it’s downgrading it to include a woman assaulted with a bottle? Do you see it as a lesser crime?

No, not at all. I see both as equally serious. But I understand that there is good reason for the difference in terms.