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I've read a lot whenever this comes up on here or elsewhere, that it's 'terrible' and such an outdated view.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

Which one, goldenclaire? This one:

"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 The whole penis only definition is out of date."

Because that's not exactly correcting your previous post that if a man has an erection it's not rape. Most people already believes that rape is a violation of someone's body without consent. You, however, felt that didn't apply to a man who had an erection.

Am I missing some other post? If you can point me to one where you address/retract what you said about a victims body responding I'll happily apologise for having missed it.

You have some strange priorities if you think a long response to someone stating that a mans body responding means 'cannot really be deemed rape' is excessive or a "rant", can you really not see how damaging that sort of view is to victims of assault?

Incidentally, who the fuck puts a GRIN on a post about serious sexual assault?! Seriously, sort yourself out. These are fucking serious things we're talking about here, not the latest episode of Love Island!

Ps if you're being snooty because you're embarassed now you've actually thought about your comment in more depth then fine, that's a good thing. I'd much prefer you to recognise how problematic your comment is and take it out on me and others bringing it up than double down and refuse to reconsider

HolgerDanske pretty hard to believe. "Lol. Men getting raped is so funny! Nowhere near as bad as women seeing as if he didn't want it he wouldn't get it up, he probably sees it as a treat nudge wink" like those comments on articles about female teachers raping underage students where everyone calls him lucky and says how they wish it'd happened to them at school. Beyond repugnant.

Can you imagine if someone told a female victim of rape it wasn't really rape because she had an orgasm against her will or her body lubricated? People would be up in arms, rightly. If you think responding passionately against that kind of statement as it's 'too much' and it's not worth more than a casual remark in disagreement then you're part of what's wrong in our culture in the way victims of rape and assault are seen and treated. Jesus.

To illustrate my point about women being legally and technically capable of rape, this case is the type of scenario I was trying to explain (sorry it's a daily mail link but in sure the case or similar cases can be found elsewhere too).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html

Guardian link to the case
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall

having people often seem to forget women can rape women, personally I feel it should be considered rape whether by penis or object but know that the law doesn't reflect that currently.

Jesus wept! Some of the comments on this thread are embarrassing.

Rape by definition is only the penetration of mouth vagina or anus by a penis.
*
Rape is not just sex, it’s forced penetration.*

Therefore no a man is not raped by having a woman have sex with him if he’s got an erection while asleep. He has not been penetrated.

I agree kity. I really think the legal definition of rape needs to be altered to include a broader spectrum of forced sexual acts.

people often seem to forget women can rape women

They don't forget it, its that they can't, if you are in the UK.

Would you tell a woman raped by her husband in 1980 it wasn’t really rape as it didn’t meet the legal definition?

Interesting. Any takers?

I agree that this distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' seems slightly spurious, given the common intent and emotional fallout.

They can mint see the case I linked above - joint enterprise makes it rape.

"Changing the definition would mean that women suddenly can be blamed for it too...besides the usual victim blaming bullshit that you get."

Loading the agenda

There are different types of sexual assault, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator, but forced penetration with a penis needs a name, a legal definition of its own, and it has one, rape.

I mean people when debating whether or not a woman can rape/assault regardless of country rarely consider the existence of female on female sexual violence, focusing instead on whether women can assault men.

Will people please stop saying that a woman cannot commit rape - they can and women have been convicted of it in the UK. Joint enterprise law means that a woman can be convicted of rape.

If you think 'sexual assault' is a lesser act its you that has the problem, not the law

Sorry to bring up what might trigger a few posters bad memories, but I for one (and I think many others too), do subconsciously hear the two terms 'sexual assault' and 'rape' as two very different terms - And naturally I do conclude in my subconscious mind that sexual assault isn't quite as bad.

I've been sexually assaulted on more than one occasion. The first was as a 4 year old child. I was not raped.

And I sincerely believe I would be incredibly more emotionally impacted by rape than I have been by being sexually assaulted.

LucieLucie. Yes that's the legal definition as the vast majority of people on this thread know. There are a number of us who disagree with the legal definition and think it should be expanded to more like the colloquial definition. If you disagree, fine, but I'm not sure what you think is embarrassing about that.

Changing the definition would mean that women suddenly can be blamed for it too...besides the usual victim blaming bullshit that you get."
Hang on here. If a woman 'rapes' a man in the sense that's been discussed here (no need to remind me that legally she can't!), why should she not be blamed, and how might she be the victim?

"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."

Also what does it say to women from other countries who have been raped by the British definition but live in a country which does not have a specific crime of rape or perhaps doesn't recognise rape with in marriages as a crime.

"Nah sorry, you weren't raped. Rape is impossible in your circumstances"

forced penetration with a penis needs a name, a legal definition of its own

Why? It doesn't seem to need one in every country. What makes the UK different?

In Scottish law rape is defined as penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus. Men can therefore clearly be raped by women under Scots law.

forced penetration with a penis needs a name, a legal definition of its own
What does one specific method of rape need a separate name? Whether its rape with an object, a penis or a vagina its still rape. I don't see why some rapes should be treated as less serious because they were only sexual assaults.

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

datun I could see sexual assault put out in terms of class A, B, C assault etc (or like abh, gbh etc) that would work. But you’d have to have very specific definitions and that in itself cause offence to victims.

If that were the case though I think I’d want rape taken out of legal use and used as and how victims feel comfortable using it. Otherwise you’d still have the hierarchy and people seeing a woman who “only” had a class a assault as not as much as a victim as a someone who’d experienced rape. Someone mentioned Canada not having rape specifically in their laws.. maybe a similar situation?