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?

Okay can you show where specifically the risk of pregnancy was introduced into rape laws or sentencing. The risk of pregnancy. If the victim conceived, that is an aggravating factor. But you are talking about the fact there is a risk of pregnancy.

By saying “let’s include all forced sex” you are getting rid of the “penis” definition.

why do you really want to get rid of that definition?? It’s nothing to say that men will have sentences reduced due to infertile women, because WThats been completely debunked.

And BTW there IS a specific law for forced sex without a penis. It’s called assault by penetration. The charge rate is 10x that of rape; and results in an average of 5.5 years in prison.
Happy now?

All these laws need clear definitions. What is forced sex? You need to define sex then. But then you have to include penetration of x orifices by y items. And still some situations would not be covered by that and have to be sexual assault.

No, what you're talking about isn't the meaning of words, you're talking about judicial continuity.

On meaning of words, its really quite clear. Although there are slight variances between dictionaries, "sex without consent" is the basic common thread. There is a disconnect between the meaning of the word and the offence.

Judicial continuity is not unimportant, but it should never be an end unto itself.

In fact, it hasn't been. The law on what is or is not rape has changed as recently as the 1990s (the common law "marital rape exemption") being abolished.

Re. your reference to 2003 - yes, the SOA was (another, more comprehensive) overhaul - not just adding anal and oral, but also redefining consent. Harking back to the 1400s to lend some authority doesn't really work when the definition has never been entirely static. It will almost certainly changes again, at some point.

There is no reason why would couldn't have additional separate offences under the umbrella of "rape", for better continuity of tracking (in fact, there are already two separate offences that both use the term, those under s.1 and s.5).

I think its time for law to catch up with plain meaning.

They do have clear definitions.
There is a number of laws which the OP’s DS’s ex has broken, he won’t be worse off materially if she’s convicted just because it isn’t legally “rape”

I was more replying to others who said the definition should be forced sex, whuch would need defining in a clear way and how do you write it to cover this crime?

most rapes fail to convict as it’s so hard to prove it happened in respect of the consent side, rather than the sex side. Are there stats to show if stranger rapes have higher convictions over where people agree sex occurred and consent was the issue?

Because words have definitions. The emotion behind such things doesn’t change the meaning of the words.

Rape is the forced penetration of a mouth, anus or vagina with a penis. That is what rape means. That doesn’t mean that sexual assault isn’t just as evil.

I did earlier. It would cover all nonconsensual oral, vaginal and anal sex. Regardless of whether the victim "gave" or "received".

Shes likely to half the sentence a convicted rapist would get on average.

What have you based this on?

Yes because it is not relevant to forced sex. It should be any forced sex. I understsnd that you think it is more traumatic to be penetrated with a penis by a man and that any other rape pales in comparison, but that isnt how victims feel when they are raped in other ways.

But it is clear that you want female rape victims to be seen as more harmed than anyone else..we get that.

I have posted the source many times. Average term for assault by pen is 5.5 years. 10 years for rape.

Stop making things up - I didn’t say it was more traumatic, I said the potential consequences and the risks were greater.

And what do you mean assualt by penetration isn’t related to forced sex?

Materially, sexual assaults all carry hefty sentences. So what’s the problem?

But it is clear that you want female rape victims to be seen as more harmed than anyone else..we get that.

They have potentially worse consequences yes. You may want to pretend that’s not the case but I don’t.

Source please

But they aren't necessarily greater risk. You just perceive it that way because you think it is worse when it happens to a woman. We get it. Your views arent concealed or abstract. You just want men who rape women to get the most extreme sentencing and women who rape anyone to be able to get a lighter sentence and not cast as a rapist in the same way as a man because you believe it is less of a violation. You have posted your thoughts many, many times now.

I posted it several pages ago. Go back and look for it. It is from the sentencing Council. If.yoh werent so busy trying to type back and read what was posted, you'd see it is true and would have stopped your line of argument then.

Of course it’s a greater risk!
Women can’t get men pregnant
The fact that some women can’t get pregnant is totally irrelevant - the rapist doesn’t know or care about this.
you think it is worse when it happens to a woman

Why do you keep lying by saying this?? It’s baffling. Or is it because you aren’t winning?

Google

Average sentence for rape UK

Then Google

Average sentence for assault by penetration UK.

You'll come up with something that showed in recent years, the Average sentence for assault by pen was 5.5 years and just under 10 years for rape.

You just want men who rape women to get the most extreme sentencing and women who rape anyone to be able to get a lighter sentence

What is it like to be such an unhinged liar?

I have

It doesn’t say what the average sentence for rape is. Unless you have different results.

It does say 5.5 years for assualt by penetration, as I said in my earlier post.

No it is because you are adamant that only men who rape women should be rapists because women can theoretically get pregnant.

That is the foundation of your argument.

It does. I posted it earlier. Its 9 years 10 months I think it was.

https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/sexual-assault-2/

If you weren’t so busy telling lies maybe you’d see that the risk for women being raped by men is greater than for other groups. That’s not to say that other groups shouldn’t be taken seriously of course or that it’s “better”. But a man doesn’t have to take a pregnancy test when assualted by a woman, and that my MUST be taken into account

No it really doesnt have any basis on the law and shouldn't. Becauae then women who sre raped and cannot get pregnant by the rapist wil be seen as not as victimised. No sensible person wants that, no matter how much they hate men and excuse female criminals.