Issue with the British definition of rape

[confusedbydating]

I feel the British definition of rape limiting it to a penis is not fair to victims. This is especially the case in women on women violence and in what would be called statutory rape in other countries. I don’t feel it’s fair to victims of something like an older woman sleeping with an underage boy or a doctor and a patient to tell them this wasn’t rape because there was no penis involved when arguably someone had sex with them without them being able to consent. Surely doing this silences victims and erases their experiences?

when I say this to British people I get told no this isn’t right but I do think countries with statutory rape laws are more protective to victims in these cases.

It’s worth noting that Scotland actually reformed its law in 2009 to include penetration by any body part or object in its definition of rape, so there’s precedent within the UK itself for the kind of change I’m arguing for.

i would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

So what about when a man gets raped by another man. There isnt any possibility of pregnancy. Do you think that should be given less severe consequences than raping a woman in the same circumstances?

@GlovedhandsCecilia ‘Pregnancy or sexual disease’

If a woman forces a man to penetrate her or uses a sex toy she has used on herself or others, the chances of an STD are also present. Some other forms of sexual assault which do not include penetration also carry some risk of transmission.

Absolutely true.

People that wish to muddy the definitions of rape seem to want to obfuscate the fact that rape really is something only a man can commit.

And the fact that a man can use a part of his body to violate a woman, or even another man, I think requires a specific definition in law.

No. It’s still the weaponising of a body part and there is still the possibility of STDs.

Pregnancy OR DISEASE. Rape with a penis brings different dangers to sexual assault by penetration with something else.

I don't see the issue with crimes accurately describing what they are.

I certainly don't consider serious sexual assault to be a 'lesser' crime than rape, despite the alternative affects rape can have due to the biological nature of penis/semen.

Perhaps the issue is that some people are minimising sexual assault - I think that ensuring people understand how serious sexual assault is is a better route than changing the definition of rape personally.

I value the specificity and accuracy of the word rape. There are many words for many crimes, and it’s right that this crime is not obfuscated in legal terminology.

When the word rape is used there is no masking the degree, no confusion of terminology. I also appreciate the bald starkness of the word. I actually struggle to use it in reference to the oil crop.

I see no benefit in appropriating the word to give weight to other crimes of sexual assault. I also see no benefit in using the word rapist for a wider group of violent people.

All crimes carry with them associated damage and trauma. I’ve heard people try and claim violent rape is worse than date rape, and diminish coercive rape as a result. I cannot disagree more. Rape is rape. Some rapes also involve violence, betrayal, or poisoning. None of the rapes are less serious. They are all rape.

Maybe we shouldn’t be too eager to dismiss male experience though? If a man said that women didn’t understand what a sexual experience was for girls, posters here would be furious. So maybe when you say that men are projecting their adult experience onto boys, maybe that’s you getting it wrong, and in fact the men who react that way are actually remembering how they were when they were boys?

(I mean, I don’t know, but I do find it odd to see female posters dismissing male experience as just being wrong. If experiencing life as a female is a thing, then presumably so is experiencing life as a male?)

@Emilesgran perhaps mothers are more sensitive to the developmental stage of their sons than men. I mean, I can’t speak for all men, but many don’t know their kids friend’s name, teacher’s name, etc.
Mothers tend to know who eats broccoli and who’ll eat anything as long as there’s cheese on it. Who sits next to who in what class. Who is a nice kid but unpopular because they ask too many questions in class.

So while boys may indeed reflect their Dad’s adult ’niiice’ perspective, mum may be more nuanced having more often picked up the pieces when DV are distressed and unsettled.

But this wasn’t about how parents responded to their own child’s feelings, but rather an example taken from Southpark as an illustration of how men in general, vs women in general, reacted to the concept of an older woman seducing a younger male: the PP said that women were horrified but that men were inclined to project their adult experience as though men had no memories of their own teenage years. Or perhaps they meant that men had no insight into their teenage selves.

Either way, they were clearly saying that women in general understand better than men what a teenage boy feels. Based on a cartoon.

Nobody would accept a man saying that about teenage girls, so I think we need not to dismiss everything men say about being a teenage boy.

They may be the same sex and yet still have less knowledge or experience of the impact of abuse and of DCs emotional development.

A child psychologist may be more aware of the impact on dc than an adult of the same sex as the dc.

It isn’t dismissing the knowledge or experience of men, just acknowledging that theirs isn’t the only authority or perspective.

I don't care what it's called but penetration with a penis should always be a specific offence given the specific risks and the specific meaning attached to it. What's unfair is the conviction rates, no matter what you call it. Bigger fish to fry.

On an individual level, absolutely. Maybe even statistically it could be that more women tend to be empathetic etc, but the claim that women as a category understand teenage male sexuality better than men do seems to me to be arrogant and dismissive of the fact that men are people too.

The reason why male abuse victims mistake what they experience as abuse, especially when perpetrated by a woman, is because from a young age, they are taught that they are the aggressors and they confuse the fact that something can feel good and still be wholly inappropriate. I've had boys say to me that they thought if it was abuse, it would hurt.

When you couple that with the expectation that men should always want sex (which is held here as men are accused of cheating for having a low libido), even when a male understands that is what is happening, he will still feel like real men would enjoy this.

The issues that I have seen come in, particularly where it is a young male abused by an older woman, isnt necessarily about sex. It's because the older woman typically has psychological problems and those behaviours spill into their relationship. Pregnancy threats/scares, threats of self harm, just an inappropriately heavy and intense relationship for a young person that becomes emotionally abusive. That is the point where boys usually start to be able to acknowledge that the relationship isnt healthy and the older person is predatory.

You may not consider it that way but the law gives less time for the most serious SAs than they do for rape. The TV thing i watched said that some studies have shown that to be half the time. So all you have to do to get much less time for sexually violating someone is forcibly penetrate them with something other than your penis. Does that sound right to you?

Obviously all of that is true. But are you suggesting that the definition of rape should be extended to include women sexually abusing men and coercing them into sex?

I think it should include any act where penetration has occurred, either way. I think the sex of either perpetrator, victim, or what was used to penetrate is pretty irrelevant to the fact that nonconsensual sex has happened.

Either that, or the law should make it so judges stop giving much less time when a woman is found guilty of the most severe sexual assaults. As I said, the programme is watched a few months back said some studies showed that SA with penetration got 50% of the sentence that a rape charge got. Bear in mind that one can be orally raped, so it isn't always penetration of the genitals or anus that leads to the higher sentence for rape. A woman could get half the time for penetrating someone with a broom stick than a man else got for oral rape in otherwise identical circumstances.

This would all be part of moving more firmly towards consent based laws where rape without violence or coercion is taking more seriously.

I think it should include any act where penetration has occurred, either way. I think the sex of either perpetrator, victim, or what was used to penetrate is pretty irrelevant to the fact that nonconsensual sex has happened.

Either that, or the law should make it so judges stop giving much less time when a woman is found guilty of the most severe sexual assaults. As I said, the programme is watched a few months back said some studies showed that SA with penetration got 50% of the sentence that a rape charge got. Bear in mind that one can be orally raped, so it isn't always penetration of the genitals or anus that leads to the higher sentence for rape. A woman could get half the time for penetrating someone with a broom stick than a man else got for oral rape in otherwise identical circumstances.

This would all be part of moving more firmly towards consent based laws where rape without violence or coercion is taking more seriously.

Ah. The old “women are just as bad, if not worse than men” argument. Fair enough-I know that nothing I can say will make you realize how wrong you are.

You realise that the victims of any sexual offence are most often women, right? Irrespective of the sex of the perpetrator?

I am more about resolution for the victim, than punishment for the perpetrator, as we all should be.

I’m not sure whether I understand your argument fully though: if an 18 year old woman seduces a 17 year old boy, and heterosexual penis-in-vagina sex occurs, are you saying that she has raped him, because penetration took place?

Yes, I am aware of that. However, the focus of your post was women as perpetrators.

I worked in a prison on the sex offenders unit and we had somebody in for 8 years for rape- he had inserted his his finger into the victims vagina while she was a car with him there was no penis involved
He was convicted in England

The current definition of rape has been in place since 2003. So somebody in this scenario is lying.

well, rape is rape, and has been ever since men grew penises and started using them. i don't see any point in changing the definition of it now, it'll just water it down if anything.