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.

"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"

Really? Have you seen the "sleep sex" debates on here? Plenty of people don't think a man having sex with a sleeping woman, especially if he went to bed with her the night before, is a crime of sexual violence.

Just report the thread.

It does hold. The law's full of highly specific terms that apply only to a certain type of crime committed in a certain manner. Rape is one of those. The complaint, as put by these hypothetical chaps of yours, is that there's a word for a crime which can only be committed with a penis. That's all it boils down to. Daft, when you think about it, eh?!

I mean, if they really want to be raped they could place themselves in suitably vulnerable circumstances until a nasty enough penis-owner comes along ...

Yeah, fair point, Puffins.

AWholeLottaNosy... two different issues. No reason why both can't be implemented. Like I said, what harm would it do to women to change the law?

Report the thread? What for? I doesn't breach any of the rules.

Yes it would harm women. It would not recognise the gendered nature of the crime for a start. It would minimise the millenia of years that rape has been used as a tool to keep women frightened and hurt them and the fact that is continues still today.

May be when we have true sexual equality we can start changing terms to reflect that equality. But whilst the oppression is there, it needs to be named.

And no men are not frequently raped by women. As said before 99% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men.

If you care so much about this issue why not go on a men's forum and campaign on there. Most men are actually raped by other men not women anyway.

Rape is NOT an equal opportunities crime OP

Men can be raped by other men. But I doubt most men would consider that to be exactly the same offence as a woman having sex with them against their will or without consent (though I may be wrong).

Also, let's remember the word "rape" is not meant to be a judgement on how bad a particular sexual offence was, it rather describes a particular type of act. A crime classed as a serious sexual assault could potentially be just as "bad" (whether you mean violent/harmful/degrading or whatever) as rape, but just not involve that particular act. So I don't see that men (or, for that matter, women who are sexually assaulted but not raped) are necessarily losing out through the difference in terminology.

There is one other difference too (though men being raped is an anomaly here). Male-on-female rape carries the risk of pregnancy, which other sexual assaults are at least less likely to. This is relevant for several reasons. Firstly it is sometimes part of the reason rape happens - e.g. when used as a weapon of war by impregnating "the enemy's women", but for that matter also in abusive relationships to keep the woman tied to the abuser. Secondly, a pregnancy (particularly an unwanted pregnancy) may well have massive and permanent physical, mental, emotional, financial and social effects for the woman, on top of the effects of the rape itself (don't forget, pregnancy and childbirth can still kill you, even in the developed world but far more elsewhere). So I would see this as another reason to distinguish rape from other forms of sexual assault.

Even if folks agreed with you that changing the definition how you wish "wouldn't do women any harm", feminists tend to focus more on the many issues that DO do women harm. Which seems reasonable, don'tcha think?

^ Yes that.

I dislike the still-frequent "just hop on!" jokes that abound, and am aware that some men - probably far more than ever say something - have felt cheated/abused/disrespected by women having sex on them without consent.

But, firstly, it isn't technically rape; it's sexual assault. If violent, it's aggravated sexual assault. That's a serious crime.

Secondly, it's likely that few men report such abuse. I refer you to Nosey's statistics above, on unreported rapes.

That arrow was meant to point too AWholeLottaNosy's post.

Not that I don't agree with yours Yonic.

Men are more likely to report abuse, not less likely, Garlic.

Good post, Inigo. I'd also add that the transmission of STDs is higher from penis to orifice than from orifice to penis.

Iirc, oral and anal rape used to be sexual assaults and vaginal rape with a penis was the first definition of rape - and I think the acknowledgement of the pregnancy risk is a part of the reason for this specific word for the crime.

I didn't know that, scallops!

MyNameIsInigoMontoya...

Regarding your first point: It's not for us to say what affect a man may feel when a woman has sex with him against his will, some men might be devastated by it in exactly the same way a woman would, no? We certainly can't use assumptions about how most men would feel as a basis for law.

Regarding your last point: The case of a woman raping a man has many of (but not all of) the same consequences since both kinds of rape carry at least an equal probability of pregnancy*. If the woman gets pregnant after raping a man, then the rape could have been used to tie the abused man to the abusive woman. Similarly, there would be mental, emotional, financial and social effects for the man too if he were to father a child through being raped. Men in this situation would not face any of the physical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, of course, but there are still significant consequences.

*One could even say that female rape of men carries a higher risk of pregnancy, since men cannot take any action after the fact to reduce that risk (morning after pill, abortion, etc).

Yes Garlic, they are also statistically more likely to over estimate women's violence to them, while minimising their violence to women.

And report the thread because MNHQ gets antsy about brand new sign ups posting ridiculously contentious threads while not being entirely truthful.

Garlic, thanks for the panacea.

I think our main point of disagreement is the extent to which the current definition of rape in UK law is a barrier to thinking of rape in terms of women raping men. For the United States, this was not a barrier and they changed the law to be gender neutral. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue.

Scallop... I'm wary of quoting statistics regarding this matter, since there are numerous methodological problems with determining how many people are the victims of rape (for either gender). It's simply not possible to accurately say how many women are raped, or how many men are raped.

Righty ho, night all.

Weird, you said you had only just started thinking about this......

What's weird?

Do we have an influx of rape apologists tonight? Because we have a great one (albeit not a new one) on the Ched Evans thread too.

But you're still arguing about a word, OP. it's ridiculous. All the other things you describe are already crimes!

Firearms Act 1968, Section 16: Possession of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life.

Should this be extended to include possession of a teddy bear or any other object with intent to endanger life?

Having intent to endanger life is already a crime. Having it while carrying a gun is a differently-named crime.

Sexual assault is already a crime. Doing it with a penis is a differently-named crime.

Words for crimes! If you're too lazy to even start a petition, you're on a hiding to nothing with the entire body of English law.