Should the UK law on rape be changed?

[prashad]

I anticipate some flack for this post, but please hear me out and hopefully we can have an interesting discussion about this.

UK law current states that rape is necessarily committed by a man; that the perpetrator has to insert their penis into the victim. Of course, this means men can rape women, and men can rape men, but women cannot rape anyone.

However, many people would define rape as 'forcing someone to have intercourse against their will'. In the dictionary, rape is defined as;

"1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person."

It is my view that according to this dictionary definition, a woman can rape a man. Typical objections include the issue of erection when not aroused, but we all know that men can have involuntary erections when not aroused.

In light of the feminist aim of equality, should be campaign to change the law so that men who have been raped by women can have justice?

I know men who have woken up with a woman on top of them, or who have drunkenly had sex with a sober woman that they otherwise would not have slept with. Perhaps it occurs more frequently than we may think but men don't report it?

I am well aware that the above mentioned hypothetical assaults are against the law in the UK, but called sexual assault, and that the maximum sentences are the same, but why not brand such women 'rapists'?

Conversely, how would you feel if the rape of women by men was just called 'sexual assault' instead and the term 'rape' abolished from our lexicon?

Some men that I have spoken to about this are frustrated and unsupportive of feminism because of the perception that it seeks to increase the rights of women, rather than seeking to promote gender equality... and they site the lack of campaigning by feminists on issues where men are disadvantaged. Do you think that campaign for equality in rape law would be good for feminism because it would show a concern for equality in an issue where men are disadvantaged?

I'd also note that other countries (such as the United States) have updated their rape laws so that women can be convicted of raping men.

Thanks for reading.

I don't think it's odd at all to use the right words for the right things.

Some acts are rape, some are sexual assault. They are both terrible, but one has a specific word for a specific act and one doesn't.

How about going the other way, and calling everything sexual assault rather than dilute the meaning of a word?

You didn't manage to remain neutral

HTH

x-post with Yonic who put it better, and made a good point about how many people think of the words themselves.

Let's get really feminist here, shall we. Ask why, when men are and have always been the lawmakers, they have not taken the opportunity to criminalise women for sexual crime against men.

The answer, imo?

Men are much more comfortable with the idea that they can rape, than the idea that they can be raped.

It is part of the discourse of power. It is an artefact of the patriarchy that feminists seek to dismantle and men block at every turn

Cry me a river

Btw, women can be convicted of rape if they conspire in the rape of a man or woman.

rooty...

It's not 'men' as a group that are in a position to make a change though, is it? The vast majority of men in this country have as much influence on the matter as women. That is, they're voters rather than politicians.

It is only a handful of men who hold the power, and political changes are made as the behest of the electorate. Assuming women are equal voters to men (I don't know if this is the case or not), we are equally powerless or empowered to push for change as the average man.

Feminist is a well established movement with at least some political sway, it's achieved many great things. Meanwhile, the men's rights movement is relatively tiny and useless. Feminism is in a good position do act on this if change was wanted by feminists.

'The men's rights movement is relatively tiny and useless'

A bit like the coalition for 'bears wanting to shit in the woods' and 'popes aspiring to Catholicism'.

Chunky...

Words only have meaning according to their common usage, so hanging on to old meanings for their own sake seems pedantic.

If we change the meaning of the word in law, then your objection will soon have no basis.

Indeed, in the United States... the word 'rape' does not mean what you say it does, it means what I say it does. All because of the way the word is used. Dilution of the word is not a big issue in my opinion, in that it still remains pretty specific (forcing another person to have sex against their will).

Yes, it is men as a group who make laws. If lawmakers at any point in history had wanted to make the crime of a woman having sex on a man without his consent called rape, they would have done.

Plus, I read your OP and I answered it. You don't like the answer because it doesn't fit your agenda, fine, but don't tell me I don't understand you. It's patronising and rude.

Why don't you ask your workmates why they don't get off their backsides and campaign, instead of whining that women won't do it for them. Like I said, we're busy.

But it is the MPs who bring in legislation . So the fact that they are disproportionally male is more likely to have a disproportional effect. Similarly, the justice system is run by men, for men (Helena Kennedy is very good on this if you are interested. I suspect not though).

But again it goes back to the thousands of years of history of male violence against women as a means of oppression. The opposite cannot be said. The UK recognises that rape is a specific crime perpetrated by men for that reason (even if its against other men).

Rape is about penetration too. I think you'll find that even in those countries where women can be convicted of rape. That rape is done by penetration.

Feminists fight for the liberation of women. Once we've got that, sexual equality will be more achievable. Your posts seem to be coming from a position that equality has been achieved. If that is the case then you don't know what equality looks like. Because it certainly doesn't look like 85000 women a year, in the UK alone, being raped by men.

And at remaining neutral. Yeah right. Your first post on MN is in FWR, innocuously asking about all those nasty women raping men. Course it is. (Btw 99% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. There is a pattern there.)

"Meanwhile, the men's rights movement is relatively tiny and useless." You said it. There may be a reason for this.

scallopsrgreat...

So are you saying that the primary goal of feminism is to liberate women, and then sexual equality, in that order?

Everything I've read states that feminism is about "defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women". Equality is the priority, not something that comes 'after' liberation.

It seems to me to be common sense that if there was a vote on any issue, a feminist would vote for whichever option was the most equal?

Buffy...

I don't think women should PRIORITISE areas where men feel disadvantaged... I just think that if it were ever as simple as voting on the matter then a feminist should vote in favour of equality even if it does not enhance the rights of women (as in this issue).

I've gotta say, I'm startled by the opposition to it. How would women be worse off if this law was changed?!

No I'm saying that once women are liberated sexual equality will come. You can't have sexual equality until women are liberated.

Do you think that women have been liberated from male oppression?

Buffy...

I can't quite put my finger on it, it just feels wrong.

Like if we said white people can be mugged, but black people are 'relieved of their money' (Bad example I know).

I wouldn't say women are advantaged, since that seems ludicrous given the context. But I do think that nobody takes seriously the effect that men may feel having woke to found a woman having sex with them, in the same way they would if the roles were reversed... and surely this has all sorts of implications in the reporting and prosecution of such crimes?

I think not using the word 'rape' is part of this... to say 'men cannot be raped by women' unintentionally sounds like 'if a woman has sex with you against your will, it's not the same as if you had sex with a woman against her will', when the intention of the perpetrator and consequences for the victim may well be identical. We do have laws against it, but I don't think it's enough.

Furthermore, I think having differences like this does affect women. It perpetuates the idea that men having sex forced on them is no big deal, and the natural conclusion many men will have is that forcing it on women is no big deal either. It's like a race to the bottom; if the issue is not important enough to label female perpetrators 'rapists', then maybe it's not important at all? Lots of men in my workplace seem to think it's ok to leer and sexually harrass women and I can't help but think that it's not made any better but the reverse not being taken equally as seriously.

I don't know. I can see that my thoughts aren't well developed, and I'll continue to think about it.

It's be interesting, anyway.

Scallop...

No, I do not think women have been liberated from male oppression.

"Like if we said white people can be mugged, but black people are 'relieved of their money' (Bad example I know)." No because it is a false equivalence. You are reversing the power dynamic there. White people oppress black people. Men oppress women, yet you are arguing for men (the greater power) on this thread and then reversing it to argue for the oppressed in your example.

I am actually pro renaming rape to "grievous sexual bodily assault"

Me, too. For now, though, as has been exhaustively explained, rape is the legal term for a specific type of grievous sexual bodily assault that is perpetrated using a penis. If some person shoves a broken bottle up your fanjo, that is not rape.

It isn't complicated prashad. And your "but whyyyy shouldn't feminists campaign on behalf of men?" arguments are a bit wet.

Equality means having equal rights, opportunities, rewards, etc. Currently one half of the population has markedly fewer of those, taking an overall view. So campaigning for the right to use a special legal term, on behalf of the privileged sector, doesn't seem like a major priority.

You also seem to be avoiding the fact that men can be, and frequently are, raped.

Yeah, ok, it was a bad example.

Still, I don't think the historical oppression of women by men means we can't make laws gender neutral. What's the big deal? It really wouldn't harm women.

Garlic... I agree that men can be, and frequently are raped. By men, and by women.

It's been explained that rape is a 'specific legal term' but I objected to that argument on the grounds that in some countries the legal definition is different. The point then, is that there is a precedent for legal definitions of words to be changed, and so the defence of 'that's just what the word means' does not hold.

I can't fucking believe this OP. There are aprox 85,000 women a year who are victims of rape, only 5-10% of them report it. Of those who report it, only 6% get a conviction. AND SOMEONE IS PROPOSING WE CHANGE THE LAW SO THAT WOMEN CAN BE ACCUSED OF RAPE???

Give me strength. I used to work for a charity that supported rape victims and I went to a lot of meetings and conferences about how to increase rape convictions. I attended one once where Betsy Stanko, an academic and advisor to the Met Police on violence against women, attended. She basically said the only way we could get realistic convictions for women who were victims of rape would be if they were tried by specially trained judges ( as opposed to juries )

That's what I think should happen, not this ignorant, bullshit proposal.

Sorry for rant. ( actually I'm not. I'm sick of this shit)