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?

Sexual assault is defined as sexual touching without consent and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Rape is defined as someone with a penis penetrating another person's vagina, anus or mouth without consent, and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

I think if anyone penetrates anyone else without consent, it should be rape, regardless of what they used. Just like I supported oral rape being just that and not SA.

I accept your viewpoint but I think the offences are differentiated in law for a very good reason and I agree with that being the case.

It is. But it's in addition to the crime of sexual assault, not used to enable the assault. And the way the OP phrases it (that the viagra was what made the act possible) frankly makes me raise an eyebrow. I felt it necessary to clarify for readers who may not be aware, that viagra will not give one an automatic erection.

It depends. For some men, they have to have their mind in the game for viagra to work. For others, not so much. If you were spiked with it, you might not be in the type of mindset that stops you getting an erection.

But yeah for some, especially younger guys, it does just inflate them. That is why porn stars use it even when their head isnt in the game. They are young enough for it to work anyway.

They carry different sentences. So a woman can force a man to have sex in the worst ways and only get 10 years. She could conceive through the act and decide that he is going to become a father through that nonconsensual act. She could give him STDs.

A man who forced a woman to have sex in the worst ways can get a life sentence. If she did conceive, she has autonomy to decide what happens with the pregnancy. She wont forcibly become a mother unless it is what she wants for the most part - once she is free from him at least. He could give her STDs.

That's incorrect. It makes it easier to become erect, but if you aren't mentally sexually aroused or manually stimulated, it will not cause an erection. For a young man, (who isn't involved in a multiple-hour porn shoot), manual stimulation will be enough unless they have erectile dysfunction already (which I suppose could be the case). You are massively misinformed.

"Taking sildenafil alone will not cause an erection. You need to be sexually excited for it to work."

I'm really not. It depends on the person. But if someone has taken viagra and you touch their cock, some men will get hard, even if they aren't into you.

Many people become physically aroused during nonconsensual acts anyway. It doesnt make it consensual because a woman got wet or a man got hard. Some women even orgasm during rape. Yes lawmen tried to use that to prove it isn't rape.

Why do you think you are keen to dismiss the idea of men not consenting to sex?

So we have established that SA and rape have very different sentencing lengths and that some people believe that the absence of perpetrator pleasure and the lack of risk of STD and pregnancy should mitigate the sentence too.

Many people become physically aroused during nonconsensual acts anyway.

Exactly my point!

The viagra is almost certainly not what enabled the sexual assault, but the way the OP was describing the situation made it sound like the perpetrator 'drugged' their son with it, and the viagra was what made the sexual assault possible. I wished to make it very clear that it doesn't cause erections on its own.

As for the rest of what you're saying - you're putting words in my mouth, and making things up out of whole cloth to an incoherent extent. It's bizarre. I've said nothing dismissing sexual assault whatsoever.

I in fact agree that if the OP is genuine, then their son was seriously sexually violated - which would be the case whether or not viagra was used.

But if someone has taken viagra and you touch their cock, some men will get hard, even if they aren't into you.

And to address this: with the average young man, whether or not they're 'into' it, if you manually stimulate them, then they'll get erect without the help of viagra.

This does not make it consensual, obviously. It is still serious sexual assault.

Sexual assult sentencing is less than rape but sexual assult with penetration is the same as rape. That one covers penetration with finger or other object. That one women can be guilty of.

It could have definitely made it more possible. I dont know if youve ever been with a guy using viagra or anything like that. There is something about the way they get erect which is so artificial. The way it stays too. I mean I have had consensual fun with it but it is a bit dildoish.

Yes but not if they force someone else to penetrate them, so for instance, tying a man down and then riding his erect penis. That is SA.

True in this specific case it’s sexual assult.

but in all the other cases people described above of dildos or strap ons or objects. That’s sexual assault with penetration and charged same sentence as rape.

if we need a whole new offence of using a man’s penis to penetrate yourself do you also add using another’s fingers to do that? Or is that a third type of offence?
does the law need amending for this over other issues (like how hard it is to actually prove or get a conviction in a rape case)

It should all just be rape. It only isnt to stop women being cast as rapists when they commit such crimes and give them lesser time (if any at all)

Erm, okay? Good for you, I guess?

My point is merely that viagra does not cause an erection, so unless the OP's son has erectile dysfunction, it was not relevant to the assault.

Frankly though, the entire post seems a little off.

Not at all

I have explained that rape with a penis must have its own definition because of the risks. People are clamouring to contradict me that it’s not always that risky. It is

Pregnancy is still a risk with vasectomies. And unless you take an STD immediately before you rape someone, it’s not reliable.

It doesn’t matter AT ALL that not every single rape with a penis will carry exactly the same risks of pregnancies and STDs to the victim. that’s not how the law works. Punishments must be victim focussed not perpetrator focussed

I think what also needs to be taken into account is that penetration is far more likely to cause injury and long-term damage than being forced to penetrate. It's also more of a violation, in a very literal sense. One's body is actually being invaded.

That isn't to say that being forced to penetrate isn't violating and traumatising too, but I think if you gave a non-consenting woman a choice between being vaginally gang-raped by ten men, or anally penetrating those same ten men with a strap-on or her fingers, at their demand, she'd choose the latter every time.

I also think that if you gave a man a choice between being forced to penetrate another man, or being anally penetrated by the man, he'd choose to be the one penetrating every time.

It would still be awful, and a sexually violating crime, but a little less awful.

I agree with this , if a woman told you she'd been sexual assaulted obviously it's horrible and you'd be sympathetic, but you wouldn't think she had been raped .

Perhaps the term should be forced intercourse or something similar that is applicable to both sex's

Yes but you are giving them mitigation for sentencing. What if he can prove he knew he couldn't conceive or transmit an STD? You are giving him that out.

It isnt just words though. The law reflects this in sentencing.

I am sorry about your son, but I think the definitions do need to be distinct. The vast majority of sexual assault victims are women, and being penetrated with a penis carries other potentially very serious and long reaching consequences for the victim, beyond just the assault itself.

That doesn’t mean that what has happened to your son is not awful, or that women can’t be the perpetrators of sexual assault but rape has a very specific legal definition and it’s important to keep that distinction.

There is also the fact that the vast majority of male sexual assault victims are assaulted by other men - that is a very different type of assault to what your DS has experienced, and thus the definition it’s important in that context too.

To be fair, men can use the word 'rape' if they like in a day-to-day sense - like 'my girlfriend raped me'. It's only when it comes to a trial that they need to use legal terminology.

It's like how people won't say they had grievous bodily harm inflicted on them in ordinary conversation - they'll say that they were badly beaten, or brutally assaulted.