Woman forces man to have sex with her at knife point, stabs him when he refuses - article does not mentionthe word "rape".

[drater]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194240/Angelina-Jolie-lookalike-stabs-taxi-driver-refusing-sex-her.html

Utterly ridiculous and the police give her an excuse - she was on medication!
I am appalled!

MysogynistToolMagnet, you accused me of peddling rape myths at 14:38. I am still waiting for you to either back this up, or withdraw the accusation.

I believe that in some other countries a person may be raped by any object and not only a penis. I remember reading an horrific account of a woman in the US (I think) who had been raped with a knife. But in the UK, at the moment at least, this would be sexual assault (and grevious bodily harm and possibly attempted murder). That is not to say that it is in any way a lesser crime in the eyes of the law. I think it simply has a broader legal definition.

Hypothetical question - for those who would like to see a change in the definition of rape in the UK what would you see it defined as? And on the other hand, should all rape be recognised under the broader category of serious sexual assault instead? I wonder if this would result in more convictions?

I certainly don't apply the same logic to women. Women (and men) don't need any physical signs of arousal to be penetrated, "

Which is why I limited it to women who have shown physical signs of arousal, to show the flaws in your logic, I.e. how can they be aroused against their will.
Getting an erection can be 100% a response to physical stimulation and have nothing to do with the will of the person.
Fwiw I've long thought that the terminology surrounding rape should be widened to include a definition whereby the actual reus could be committed by a woman. I think that the gendered nature of the crime is potentially one of the factors for the poor cinvocation rates and social approach to the crime.
Not necessarily for scenarios as alleged in the op or the hair salon case years ago as they are extremely rare. But for situations where consent is vitiated by deception or a where consent is not capable of being given due to intoxication or consciousness, where the exact same conduct would see a man charged with rape and a woman with sexual assault I do think there's a danger that you will have jurors thinking along the lines of "well if a woman did it they wouldn't be charged with rape, so I don't see how this guy can be labelled a rapist"

Waspie, I think this depends on your definition of sex. For lesbians, this is obviously not PIV. So I don't think it's about redefining what rape, as a word means, but what can come under the rape umbrella.

'It is perfectly psysiologically possible for a man to have an erection and even orgasm when utterly terrified. I am surprised so few adult women seem not to understand this.'

Yes, I agree with this. Men who have been raped by another man often report that they got an erection and that that made them feel bad because they didn't want to and didn't consent.

I agree with some posters that this is not contentious for many.

Yes, a man can't raped in this country apart from by another man.
Yes, a man can be subjected to assault by penetration by a woman.
Yes, a man can be sexually assaulted by a woman, have an erection and even have ejaculated.

Consent is the issue, and sex without consent is wrong in all cases and not amusing. I was surprised to see any posters on this board expressing surprise about it.

Canada's laws on this do not contain the word "rape" are are wholly based around consent.

bonzo77 Tue 28-Aug-12 15:57:25
I just didn't realise it would be physiologically possible to achieve or sustain this under force.

Just to pick this up.
Force isn't the issue. Consent is.

TheCunningStunt - yes but I'm guessing that "sex" is difficult to define in law. Should any form of sexual assault which involves penetration without consent be considered to be rape? I'm not sure this is broad enough to protect people from all "rape" as we might define it ideologically and instinctively.

I agree with OneMoreChap and others the issue is sexual contact without consent. There should be no need to specify that rape involves any form of penetration by a penis.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or unfeeling I'm just wondering if the law of rape should be disposed of completely and incorporated into the laws of sexual assault base around consent. As BoneyBackJefferson says that Canada's laws have.

"It is perfectly psysiologically possible for a man to have an erection and even orgasm when utterly terrified. I am surprised so few adult women seem not to understand this."

^ I agree with this too.

I do think "rape" should have a broader definition, absolutely. But I don't question why a newspaper doesn't use the word "rape" for something that isn't legally rape.

And "who knows what the actual facts are" because this appears to be a third-hand story cobbled together by the DM from the Internet. I'm not claiming at all that the victim is lying. I am suggesting, based on the way the story was reported, that the DM hasn't spoken to the victim, or to the police, or to anyone even remotely involved with the case, and that they've published the story to further their own agenda (chiefly "we haven't printed photos of Angelina Jolie for a while" plus "let's have a jolly good laugh at the idea of men being victims of sexual assault by women). I buy into the "We believe you" campaign, but not to a "We believe the Daily Mail" campaign. I don't disbelieve the fundamentals here and am more than happy to put forward a point of view in principle, but I am not getting into a "well, the article says specifically that this, this and this happened" discussio over the details of a Daily Mail story.

Do you think if rape had a broader definition it might actually discourage some people from telling their story? So many women feel they may have "asked for it etc" when actually raped by an acquaintance and don't want the perpetrator to get in trouble because they may have led him on so it wasn't "really rape".

If a woman feels that she was "only fingered" but that if she goes to the police her attacker would be charged with rape I think it might discourage some women... because the truth is many people (friends in school, colleagues etc) would feel it wasn't that big a deal and that maybe her attacker was getting a raw deal. It happens even now to women who go after their rapist when the word rape is being used in the narrowest sense to mean PIV.

Why are you even posting this? Just to goad feminists?

"Person forces another person to have sex with them at knife point, stabs them when they refuse - Artcle does not mention the word "Rape""

Is that a better tittle Risotto?

MsRisotto - yes I think so. Seems to be a fair bit of that just recently. Not really worth bothering with.

The law on rape is so wrong. How do we expect men to report when in these scenarios, they have no chance at justice?

An erection can be involuntary. Women can become aroused and orgasm during rape. Doesn't mean it's not rape.

No means no. The law should reflect that for men as well, however rare female on male rape is. The law should protect EVERYBODY from rape.

I don't understand why people are assuming the OP posted to goad? I would have posted here too because it is a serious equality issue and I believe it needs to be discussed and laws need to protect everybody.

It isn't about the title.
It's just like, when there's a tidal wave of rape, rape myths and undermining of women, as soon as there is a drop of violence against men, people come on here as if it is proof of something. As if it undermines the feminist concern with the problem of violence against women in society.

I'm not saying it isn't important, IMO it isn't appropriate that it is in the feminist section.

Ok so I failed. I clicked the dreaded link.

The article is illustrated with pictures of the accused, showing her face only.

There is also a photo of angelina jolie, so we can compare their looks. The jolie picture is full length and shows her naked leg.

I think its fair to say the dm are not trying to open a serious debate about the law on sexual attacks on men.

I only glanced at the comments but one was 'she looks nothing like angelina'.

Why are you even posting this? Just to goad feminists

The only feminists here being " goaded" are those who struggle* with the idea that sex crimes are sex crimes irrespective of which sex is being the criminal

*sadly, very predictable

It says he phoned 999 - I didn't think that would work in Romania.

I don't thing any sane person struggles with the idea that men can be sexually assaulted. Or that consent is a two way street- no should mean no regardless of gender or sexuality. Some people may not know that men's errections are not necessarily connected with arousal or desire, but having read this thread, they do now. And of course a man who has been sexually assaulted should have the right recourse, without the silly sniggering"wish I had your problems mate" response that any case made public seems to get.

What I think some of us are struggling with is the idea implicit in some posts on here, the agenda of MRA and some reporting inn the press that "look, women can be rapists too" which is inteded to move the spotlight away from men, who are, incidents like this notwithstanding, th perpetrators in the vast mqjrotuiybofnrape and sexual assault cases.

Saying that 'violence against women in society is bad' as opposed to 'violence against people/vulnerable people in society is bad' does rather imply that 'violence against men in society isn't bad'.
Many people associate feminism with equality and don't like the inequality of men raping women being bad, but women raping men not technically being rape and being a bit of a laugh.

"Many people associate feminism with equality and don't like the inequality of men raping women being bad, but women raping men not technically being rape and being a bit of a laugh."

Women can't technically rape men. As has been explained on this thread.

And nobodynon here has said anything about it being a "bit of a laugh"

No they can't rape men, but as explained on here it will bloody well feel like rape to the victim. Change that sentence to "sexually assaulting men and sexually assaulting men" if you want.

A bit of a laugh? Read the comments at the end of the article.
"Taxi!!!!!"
"At least this woman is far hotter than the original."
And there'll be loads more comments like that in pubs and offices up and down the country.

I did say nobody on this thread is regardingbit as a bit of a laugh.

I didn't say they had.