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?

I dont think that is true. I think we need to consider the individual circumstances of each case rather than try and define how traumatised the victim is according to what someone else thinks would be worse.

I dont care whether the post is true or not. I do care about how people have responded to the scenario.

Really? You genuinely think that ANYONE in the world would choose to be vaginally gang-raped over penetrating ten men? Or that a man would choose to be anally penetrated vs penetrating?

You're having a laugh.

As to your other post... I think it's important to be factual, and not spread misinformation. So I highlighted that viagra does not cause erections. From that, you claimed a lot of bizarre things about my supposed position on the matter of serious sexual assault, all of which were wrong.

For what it's worth, I don't think the risk of pregnancy or STIs should make a notable difference in sentencing, only the actuality of them. And on the face of it, I don't see an issue with classifying the crimes as 'sexual violation via forced penetration' and 'sexual violation by penetration', although that's just my initial thoughts, and not a concrete final position.

Sexual assault cases the same sentences.

I dont like to think of it personally. But if I heard someone say that they chose penetration maybe because theyve consented to that before and it felt more familiar than whatever else they were asked to do, I would believe that was their truth.

Similarly, if someone wasnt given a choice but was made to anally penetrate several men and they said they said it was worst than the other, I would believe them. Even if they hadnt experienced the other.

In either case, I would believe that they were exactly as traumatised as they said they were. If they said they on a scale of 1-10, their trauma was 10, I wouldn't think actually it is 9 because if you were gangbanged, it then that would be a 10.

It’s awful what happened to the OP’s son, and she would carry a hefty sentence if convicted.

I know it makes people uncomfortable but the truth is that women commit so few sexual crimes- 2% to men’s 98%. Laws must be centered around data like this to reflect a fair justice system and to recognise risks. Not around “Oh but women do it too”

No it doesnt. SA has maximum term of 10 years. Rape has max term of life.

Im very sorry for you and your son and I hope he gets justice and support.
The wording of rape is what makes it rape. I wouldn't support changing that. What I would support is for sexual assault, as a term and a concept, to be taken as seriously as rape (whether the victim is a man or a woman, I mean).

Not at all

Sentencing would reflect for example if a rapist impregnated his victim. Sentencing mitigates the perpetrator with things like if he pleaded guilty, if he is remorseful. Not if he could prove he can’t get STIs (which is impossible to prove).

He can definitely prove he didnt have one at the time of the offence through testing or virginhood. That could be said to show that he minimised risk to the victim. This kind of thing used to be argued in court and worked to get rapists lighter or next to no sentence despite a guilty plea or verdict.

How’s he going to do that? A clean STD test prior to the attack and definitive proof (how?) that he hasn’t engaged in any activity since the test? Preferably with a second, follow up test to catch anything that had been developing prior to the first test? It would need to be that robust to prove he wasn’t being at the very least reckless as to transmission. A clean test after the attack wouldn’t show that he knew 100% he was clean, nor can he prove he’s a virgin.

As for proving 100% there is no risk of pregnancy, again, how is that going to work in practice?

That’s before we get to the fact that the victim (male and female for the former, female for the latter) will not know the medical status of their attack so the fear they are in and trauma they experience won’t be reduced.

It’s so utterly, utterly beyond the realms of reality that it will never act as a mitigation and it is right that STD and pregnancy risk is factored in across the board. The baseline for sentencing is the risk exists with no mitigation, with actual pregnancy or transmission of an STD as an aggravating factor.

If the sexual assault was aggravated by poisoning, as in the hypothetical scenario of this thread, that could increase culpability and lead to a longer sentence.

Maybe you might also benefit from some support, to process your own feelings about this, and so that you can be the best support for your son.

Your son has been very brave to talk to you about this and to report this to the police. If he does not already have one in place, he might find it useful to have an independent sexual violence advisor support him.
https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/rape-sexual-assault-support/

SA by penetration has a max life sentence.

It is a separate offence and any sentence would likely run alongside the one for SA or even be dropped in favour of that.

If you penetrate

Op, what your son experienced is horrific and regardless of the terminology, I hope he finds a way forward to process and heal from what happened to him.

It doesn’t matter what he can prove. That’s not how the law works, what aren’t you getting?

I’ll tell you what - find me a case in the UK where a man got a lesser sentence because he was a virgin.

How can a man prove he’s a virgin?!

Except I doubt you'd ever hear anyone say that. You're being silly, and frankly, a little offensive.

Age. Lifestyle.

I already quoted a case where a judge remarked on the consideration of the perpetrator because he wore a condom. Ie he minimised risk to the victim.

https://shows.acast.com/b6c618e4-c51c-41a5-b044-9649b9e828ed/6954f8405f9b0b61aaa00204

This podcast has a collection of a few similar cases and why we really dont want to go backwards on this.

Considering you proposed these scenarios, Id argue it isnt me being offensive...

No. You're seriously trying to argue that a woman might choose to be vaginally raped by ten men, rather than being forced to penetrate them. That's pretty offensive (and ridiculous).

Are you a man, by any chance?

He's a proven incel with clean results. Al of his motivation was proven to be around fhe fact he cant get the sex he feels entitled to so he went out and raped someone. If you believe that he is this incel, then you would have to accept that his risk of STD transmission is minimal.

No I am not a man. I dont know what someone might choose in the moment but when forced to think about why I might choose to be vaginally raped over penetrate men anally, it would probably be because I know what to expect from a physical perspective and could perhaps disassociate somehow. Rather than have to be perfectly conscious and coordinated enough to get my fingers in etc.

Ok?

Can a woman be charged with rape if she holds a man's penis and pushes it into a non-consenting woman?