Why can't women be charged with rape?

[Ourlovelyson]

My son attempted to take his life last year. Turns out his partner has been abusive and she was drugging him with Viagra being him aroused and sitting on top of him he kept telling her no but she did what she wanted to do. But rape is defined by the penetrating male, my son is not the person he once was.
I have been on Google for weeks and I can't find anything to help him. He obviously isn't the only one.
Why is this?

Not in this county, and it must stay that way. Being penetrated by an object or fingers doesn’t carry pregnancy risk so it shouldn’t be in the same category as a penis.

Simple and effective. Totally bonkers you’re butthurt about it

If it was an aggravating factor or anything to do with the definition of rape, then you wouldnt be a rapist for forcing oral sex on anyone or for a man raping a man .you know men cant get pregnant right?

It is that way in this country because men can be raped by men. Pregnancy has never been a part of it at all.

Pregnancy is not the only aggravating factor. I’m happy with the law as it is and have never implied only women should be considered ones who can be raped

still awaiting these sneering reports. There must be loads according to your logic!

You want it to be part of it, and I am saying we do not want that to be an aggravating factor because then it can be a mitigating factor. The defence can say that the perp knew there was no chance of pregnancy and so what a nice rapist he is.

I provided a podcast where several cases where complied some pages back. It is They Walk Among Us. Search rape judge they walk among us podcast

That podcast didn’t mention any reduced factor being an inability to impregnate or give an STI.

It mentions several cases where judges gave light sentences or made horrific marks about the victims and positive remarks about the perpetrators followed by a light sentence.

The people who want to consider these risks in sentencing are people like you. The law itself knows it would be ridiculous. Now, anyway. The only reason you want it is so you are more punished for raping a woman than a man and so women are barely punished for forced sex on anyone.

Unfortunately women often don’t get justice

And yes judges consider sentence reductions for pleading guilty, showing remorse, MH and lifestyle factors. But I do challenge you to find one reduced because of the circumstances of the victim

Well yes rape convictions are at 1%. It hardly something to be jealous of!

Plenty of men who have raped sex workers have got lighter sentences. I think in that podcast, a judge said that as she sold sex, being raped wouldnt be that bad.

Sadly judges insensitive remarks happen all the time

But you said the reason not to include “penis” in the definition of rape was because it would allow offenders to say “She was infertile/I was a virgin/I definitely didn’t have an STD” - but somehow, although the law has been defined for 22 years, you can’t find one case where this has happened, where the victim’s medical circumstances have been used to reduce a sentence. The reason is - it doesn’t happen. The law is fine as it is.

And no I do not consider risks when it comes to defies sentences so don’t you dare lie and make things up to bolster your point, making me out to be an apologist when YOU ar were apologist

There was also that really famous case of the woman who went home after a night out with a male colleague. The judge said no way would a woman go home with a male colleague/friend and not expect to have sex. Pretty sure the guy got off more or less.

That is because it would. If we introduce the risk of pregnancy and stds as a factor that makes rape worse, minimising those risks will make it a "better" rape.

Which is awful - but nothing whatsoever to do with the penis definition.
I want you to read this slowly - I would like you to find me a case of something that YOU have claimed on this thread. YOU said men would get reduced sentences for their victim’s infertility or their own virginity or their lack of STD. Show me then. Because surely after 22 ears of rape conviction there’ll b loads of cases

That orcas was about to misogyny in the justice system regarding rapes. Not about the dangers of having the word “penis” in the definition of rape.

And again - why are you so desperate for rape to be downgraded?

Except the law has been in place, for those very reasons (higher risks of being raped with a penis), for 22 years and this isn’t happening.

From what you say your poor son has been through, the perpetrator should also be charged with domestic violence and administering a substance to control someone for abuse. Ie if some man gives you a date tape drug and then rapes you, that should be an additional charge.
Are you / your son able to find out if additional charges are included?

So only "penis possessors" are able to be charged with rape?

Again that’s nothing to do with the penis definition.

Is there misogyny in the justice system? Of course.
Is that exacerbated by the definition of rape being “penetration with a penis”? No.

Yes they would get that if we introduced the risk of pregnancy or stds as an aggravating factor. We haven't and that is why rape is rape, irrespective of whether the victim could conceive as a result of the attack..

So only "penis possessors" are able to be charged with rape?

Yes - apart from a small number of anomalies whereby women have directly assisted with rape.

But again, it must be categorised what way to recognised the risks and consequences of being raped with a penis.

Everything i am listing proves that IF we think something is only rape because someone could conceive, then the absence of that chance will mitigate the sentence.

I don’t know what you mean by “if we introduced the risk”?
The risk WAS introduced 22 years ago when the current definition of rape came into law

And yet you can’t find me a single case whereby somebody said “He might have raped her with a penis but he couldn’t get her pregnant” and the judge has said “Good point I’ll reduce the sentence”

Like I say, no court in the land would take into account the medical status of a victim, not could they formally find out. “Her rapist said so” isn’t enough either.

Wtf are you going on about? Who’s said they want the definition of rape to be “If someone could conceive”?!
My point is that the penis definition must be retained to recognise the particular risks and consequences of being raped by a penis. Not to say “Oh well if she didn’t get pregnant or get an STI that’s not rape”.

But who is talking about not including penile penetration in rape? We are talking about including all forced sex in the definition so rapists can be treated as rapists. Like they are in other countries.