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I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view.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

i) A poster asks why is it so important for some for sexual assault to be called 'rape? Possibly because otherwise sexual assault is a broad continuum from a pat on the bottom to having a broken bottle shoved up an anus.

ii) I had not realised until relatively recently that a penis in mouth was rape (had thought it was restricted to vagina or anus ...

iii) a man needs to get a sexual attraction to get an erection, so in essence at the point of erection it cannot really be deemed rape as the man's senses have naturally gone 'yes, we're gonna have sex'.

No, no, no. With manual manipulation, a man can get an erection without sexual attraction. A woman can orgasm during rape - does not make it not rape

I should probably have put quotes around the term, since it's not actually the way I see it but it seems to be the way many people think of it.

Perhaps the root of the problem many people's perception of the term 'sexual assault'. It covers a wide range of sexual crimes and therefore doens't always convey the magnitude/seriousness of a crime in the way that rape does (in people's minds that is, not legally).

I.e. Someone hears about a victim being violently assaulted by penetration. When it gets called a 'sexual assault' they feel that it is being equated to something more akin to an non-consented bottom squeeze rather than a rape. Rape automatically infers a very grave and frightening crime.

That person would be incorrect in their assumptions, but it does come from of a place of advocating for victims and wanting their ordeal to be recognised (by people generally, not legally where it already is recognised) as seriously as rape is, so I would let it go unchallenged I think.

ii) I had not realised until relatively recently that a penis in mouth was rape (had thought it was restricted to vagina or anus blush...

I don’t think that’s unusual though. You even see it joked about in films, men sort of pushing you down or basically sticking a dick in your face. Because lol it’s not like real rape is it?

Oh, massive cross post there!

Feministcheeseplate

Ok, I see what you mean. You want to upgrade the term rape.

I do understand what you're saying. And I agree, that being penetrated with a broken bottle is as heinous, if not more than with a penis.

But when people say she was raped with broken bottle, no one, or none with any sense, would quibble over the word. Everyone would just accept it at face value. In fact, I don't think it would cross anyone's mind to question the word.

The word rape has cultural connotations. And it is frequently used with respect to objects. People don't tend to say she was 'forcibly penetrated' by a bottle.

So is it the actual law that you want changed?

The law needs to be changed. Rape is rape, whether you use a dick or another body part/implement.

I do get the position women are making but it’s an unusual situation because I feel like it’s one of the rare cases where the feminist position might actually be at odds with helping women. I think women understanding what happened to them as rape and not “something on a broad spectrum of general shit that women have come to expect” is important.

But equally I understand the urge to name rape as a male crime that makes due with their penises.

GAH males do

@RavingRoo do you see your issue with what you have just written? Rape is when a penis is involved, so how can it be "no matter what implement was used"

CRoss post datun. Yes I want rape to include forcible sex acts across the board.

Selective reading are we OP? I’m saying the law needs to change.

And obviously sex acts by people who weren’t “forced” but can’t really consent either

Why is it so important for people to use the term rape for other sexual assault?

Its interesting isn't it. I assume its because rape, by legal definition is a male crime. So those who pop up to tell us that many women rape too...are clearly wrong and cannot blame women for this. Changing the definition would mean that women suddenly can be blamed for it too...besides the usual victim blaming bullshit that you get.

Time for a law change.

Also, for those who see rape as a method of control it doesn’t matter what is used. The penis is almost irrelevant. The rapist hasn’t caused less humiliation with an object than with a penis

I, for one, I'm very glad that the term rape has changed. It's no longer just involving an alley and a stranger. Or this elusive 'grey area' that men seem to have a problem with.

Plying a woman with drink so you can lower her resistance, used to be considered a seduction technique. It's now coercive sex or rape.

There are very many men who would never have considered themselves rapists, who would now classified as exactly that.

So I'm glad it has the highly negative connotations that it does.

I totally see the need to have a similar 'rebranding', for want of a better word, for sexual assault.

I would like to see it becomes more specific. A grope on the tube, is not the same as a bottle penetration. The only good thing, is that all these violations are now being taken seriously and given terms. And the similarity in all of them, lies with the issue of consent boundary violation.

So a man who grabs your boob, will absolutely be considered to have sexually assaulted you. It's important to make these lower level crimes significant and the perpetrators accountable

But in such a way, that it does not dilute the higher level crime, under the same name.

I don't have any ideas how to reword it though.

"Today 14:19 goldenclaire

Technically a woman wearing a strap-on could rape a man grin But yes i get what you mean, a man needs to get a sexual attraction to get an errection, 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'."

Completely and utterly disgusted by this vile comment. Glad to see other posters tackled it before I had chance to.

Some women find their bodies respond during a rape, against their will, by either producing lubrication or orgasming. That does not in ANY WAY suggest consent or negate lack of consent. The body will sometimes respond against one's will. Many rapists use the physical response of their victim to humiliate them and prove they 'enjoyed it', threatening that nobody will believe them as they clearly 'wanted it' or wouldn't have 'enjoyed it'. Responding with pleasurable sensations/arousal during an attack is one of the most disturbing aspects for victims who've experienced it. The shame that they were unable to prevent it, that their attacker will think they enjoyed it, that others won't believe them as surely nobody can feel pleasure from an assault, that they'll be told that meant they wanted it. Often abusers (especially of kids) will deliberately try make it pleasurable so that the victim is less averse to it happening again than if it's been painful, to have a stick to beat them with (you clearly wanted it) and to ensure future compliance. It can mess someone up for years and make it impossible to ever feel pleasure with a consensual partner without immense shame and guilt and reminders of the assault.

To imply that a body's physical response from either a man, woman or child during a rape means it isn't rape is absolutely appalling. I hope you can see the vile implications of that view now it's been explained.

One of the reasons it’s important for me to see the definition of rape broadened is that I think, using the real life example I gave earlier, a policeman who forcibly penetrates a protestor’s anus with a truncheon deserves the title of ‘rapist’ and deserves to have ‘rape’ on his criminal record. Not ‘sexual assault’, which could mean something as minor as squeezing somebody’s bottom. And the victim should have the right to call himself a rape victim, without people nitpicking like on here.

And yes I wholeheartedly agree that the comments on male ejaculation meaning one hasn't been raped or sexually assaulted are horrendous. Both on their own terms and by their female equivalent and what it means for rape myths.

Really cannot believe that people are so glib about this.

Sorry if it has already been said but a woman can legally and technically be guilty of raping a man. She can be guilty under joint enterprise law - in a scenario where a man with a penis penetrates another man but the woman is guilty under joint enterprise because of her involvement.

Kity please read on down the thread to my further comments. ps theres no need to come back after you have done that and apologise for your rant but you can if you wish.

@SevenSheep but it would be sexual assault by penetration, so wouldn't be thought of as something else. People often assume sexual assault by penetration is rape anyway. On local police Facebook, people put in the comments "so rape then" whenever sexual assault by penetration comes up.

It is definitely a difficult issue and yes of course I can see your point quite clearly. The example you used is a valid one. I'm just not sure exactly how it should be navigated. It's not nit picking, either. These definitions and their ramifications are important and need to be very carefully considered. The law should not just be chopped and changed without due consideration. But I agree that it is an issue that needs addressing.

OK that’s true, but he still wouldn’t legally be considered a ‘rapist’ in this country, which I think it wrong.