"Women can rape too"

[CeeBeeBee]

I was told yesterday when we were having a conversation about why I think it's problematic to allow trans women in women safe spaces.

As you can imagine, it got very heated when I mentioned that only men can rape by the legal definition. I am prepared to be corrected on this.
I am not denying that sexual violence committed by women, against men, doesn't exist, but should we ever discuss this topic again, then I would like to be armed with the facts. Does anyone here know a good article or report about this subject? Where could I find data comparing sexes of the perpetrator of sexual violence and are there any well known cases where women have been charged and convicted of rape?

Thanks in advance.

Wikipedia has some interesting statistics. Female on male rape is nowhere near as prevalent as the other way round. Although probably more prevalent than we think given the under reporting. It cites a couple of cases.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

I always assumed that rape required a penis. But this wiki definition seems to be a bit confused. As it says any person, but then refers to a penis and using an object is called sexual assault, not rape.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, rape can be committed by any person, involving any type of non- consensual penetration. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Sexual Assault by Penetration".

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) they intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

In the UK rape requires a penis. Women can be convicted if they are also involved e.g. they hold the victim down.
In the conversation you were having ceebeebee it's a red herring and a way to derail your argument. It's quite common for people to imply there are hordes of predatory lesbians in women only areas so we are being precious thinking men are a risk.

Quite Quentin, he couldn't understand why I thought it was a bad idea to allow a trans woman into a women's only prison and when I tried to explain, he went off to say how there has been 2 cases where women went to court for rape. In the first case, the male victim was laughed out of court and the second was taken seriously but the female perpetrator had a lenient sentence.

Women occasionally get tried under "common purpose" - e.g. if they held the victim down while the male accomplice penetrated her. It's incredibly rare. Then we have (thanks to the clusterfuck that is current hard-of-thinking on "gender") the fact that rapes (penetration by the penis) carried out by men who claim to be transwomen are now reported as being perpetrated by women. (For example, Davina Ayrton, that bloke in Glasgow who anally raped another man, the guy in Sheffield who went on the run and the newspaper reports covered it as "woman, who may be dressed as a man" - translation: "cross dresser who has temporarily taken off women's clothes in order to evade capture).

The prison services stats are worth looking up - 90% of those incarcerated for violent crime are male, 98% of those incarcerated for sexual offences are male. There's really no getting away from numbers like those.

If I recall, women can be prosecuted for rape in Sweden.
Rape includes coercion by threats, including non-physical ("I'll leave if you don't", etc) so it makes sense to me that women can.
Maybe it should be written into law, I'm sure the numbers would be heavily tilted in favour of male rape, though.

This graph is quite effective. 98% all sexual crime is committed by men. As the law will allow anyone access, trans or otherwise. You wouldn't know if they were trans or not. As they can dress just like a man. And being trans has no definition other than saying you are.

Also these two videos.

Although, to be frank OP, if someone thinks that women saying no requires more justification than just that, they will not be the type who cares about violating women's boundaries in the first place.

What an interesting op. I actually think.ot is possible for a woman to rape a man or a woman. I dont think a penis has to beinvolved for it to be rape.

However i obviously concede that stats show men are more likely to. I also think its really fucking dangerous that trans women are being reported as women raping. They're not women, a woman can not rape a man with her penis.

Deydo, What makes you so certainty that figures will be biased towards male rape?

Under English law rape has to involve a penis and a lack of consent. Otherwise it's sexual assault. This is why it is a nonsense when the BBC report a woman being accused of rape. There's a lie in there one way or another (unsuprisingly, it wasn't a woman, it was a MTT).

Either way, it is a predominantly male crime, something like 98% of violent sex offences are committed by men. Bit like violent crime in general. But hey, let's stick these violent male criminals in women's prisons, where a disproportionate number of the inmates will have suffered violence at the hands of me, just because they've stuck on a frock and said their name is now Mary.

CeeBeeBee, just based on current data. If men were concerned about being coerced into sex they didn't want right now, they'd be kicking up a fuss about it.
I'm sure it happens, but is not a large enough problem for them to demand legal change.
Whereas male rape of women is currently extremely common and widely reported.

Men. Not me.

Plus, the 98% figure people keep quoting, I have no reason to believe it's not true.

I can't speak for Deydo, but present evidence for violent crime and all sexual crime (including rape) is massively skewed towards male perpetrators, so including serious sexual assault of types which could be carried out by women as well as men in the definition of rape (e.g. penetration with an object) presumably would shuffle around what categories within the general heading of "sexual offences" women were charged with, not alter the fact that 98% of people incarcerated for sexual offences are male.

Morally, I'd be in favour of this (though I know some people here point out that rape with a penis carries additional risks of STIs and pregnancy which penetration with an object does not, hence should remain a separate offence). On a practical level, it's damn useful to help hack your way through the transwhacktivist jungle of misinformation - if you see a headline which says "Woman rapes man after drunken night out", you know it's a transwoman. And now that police forces are recording statistics by gender rather than sex, over the next decade or so, rape (penis into orifice) stats are going to be the only numbers feminists will have at their disposal to point out that the sudden surge in sexual offences committed by "women" might have a reason other than that women born with vaginas have suddenly started committing more offences - that instead it might be an artefact of the statistics and the way people are being divided into "men" and "women" changing.

Slightly off topic but I wouldn't say rape is reported widely. The vast majority of rapes, even committed by attackers entirely unknown to the victims, scarcely make any news. For example within a week in January there were two separate attacks by men who'd been previously convicted of rape (of unknown victims), deemed no longer a threat and let out by the parole board who then went on to do the same again. Despite these horrific crimes and the complete failure of the parole board to protect women against these violently misogynist men the reporting wasn't exactly widespread. Then there's the 17 year old boy recently charged with rape and attempted murder on an unknown victim in Leicester, two men still at large who raped and sexually assaulted two women unknown to them who were trying to get home in Manchester and countless others. I suppose these barely get reported in part because they're not considered remarkable.

Going back to the OP, as has been said, the man was clearly trying to derail the conversation and avoid the issue of male violence against women and rape. It says a lot about him that his reaction to your concern for women's safety is to claim "women rape too" as if this is in any way comparable, and completely dismiss your concerns. It shows he's not bothered in the slightest about risks to women and girls.

Ah Deydo, I misunderstood you when you said "malw rape" , I took that as meaning, rape where the male is the victim.

Sorry for the misunderstanding CeeBeeBee.

By widely reported I mean, well, I could open any local or national newspaper, or news website right now and find rape stories immediately probably. I agree many are never reported though, but people read about rapes of female every day, not so much rapes of males (I'm sure we'd hear about them if they happened).

Although the vast majority of victims of rape are female, when the victims are male the attackers also are.

NoLove, how did you know about those cases if they weren't reported?

By widely reported I mean, well, I could open any local or national newspaper, or news website right now and find rape stories immediately probably.

Local yes because this tends to be the only place rapes are reported. National newspapers tend not to cover them - I have read of so many horrendous cases just this year alone which most are completely unaware of. There also seems to be an acceptance this is a risk women face when the scale of sexual violence against women should warrant far more.

Far more action that is.

I said they didn't receive much reporting in the national press. Local newspapers tend to report these things and you can sometimes find them buried in a brief article on the BBC News site.

I agree Deydo that we don't hear about female perpetrators of sexual violence in the news. I think the last time I read about one, it looked like the perpetrator was a trans woman.

Here

You would be far more likely to hear about a female perpetrator of sexual violence in the news than a male one because they're so rare. There are male perpetrators of sexual violence constantly attacking but barely reported on. In March, a man followed a 15 year old girl entirely unknown to him in her school uniform off a bus, dragged her into bushes and sexually assaulted her in the middle of the afternoon in Twickenham, but it wasn't reported anywhere beyond their local news site.

Practically speaking, any of the boyfriends I've had could have held me down and raped me with very little effort on their part (luckily only one did), and a reasonable chance of success unless I got a lucky kick/hit in.

I couldn't have 'enveloped' them, or shoved anything into an orifice without them being asleep/very, very drunk first, and even then, the moment they'd felt it they would have no problem stopping me.

Any average man claiming that he couldn't stop the average woman physically is talking rubbish. I do understand that women could instead gain mental control through abuse or blackmail, but I don't think that is any more common among women than men.

When I said "widely reported" I meant there are a lot of stories reported in the news, not "most rapes are reported". I'd have said that if I meant it. Everyone (on this board) knows they are under-reported.
I feel it's derailing OPs topic now though.