Rape or.......

[jaedba2604]

10 Pence Short said:

Men and women being different with respect to their capabilities in instances of rape is a fact, whether fair or not. It would be unfair if the law failed to recognise those differences.

nope, i disagree.

rape is a psychological intention; and the act can be carried out in a variety of ways.

[10 Pence Short]

jaedba2604 said:

rape is a psychological intention; and the act can be carried out in a variety of ways.

With regards to the law, it is a very narrow definition of physical acts:

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.


If you wanted to discuss the psychological drivers of rape, that's perhaps another discussion.

[jaedba2604]

10 Pence Short said:

jaedba2604 said:

rape is a psychological intention; and the act can be carried out in a variety of ways.

With regards to the law, it is a very narrow definition of physical acts:

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.


If you wanted to discuss the psychological drivers of rape, that's perhaps another discussion.

(a)he intentionally...

as cited earlier, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

i'm not talking about the inclination of someone's demeanour which predisposes them to the act, i'm talking about the 'spirit' in which it was undertaken.

[Snowboy]

I guess it’s the same as the laws about abortion only talk about women having abortions not men.

Rape as a legal term has a very specific meaning.
Other crimes may be classed as sexual assault or some other term.

I don’t think anyone would say that a woman couldn’t sexually assault a man.
I’m sure most would agree that a woman could ‘rape’ a man in the non-legalese sense of the word.

[10 Pence Short]

The legislation is not talking about the intent to rape but the intent to put his penis in the described orifice.

In other words, it protects someone who may accidentally put their penis in someone's mouth (however that might happen), but not someone who puts it in there intentionally, whilst (wrongly) believing they had consent.

There is no requirement in that legislation to prove intent as there is with murder.

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Tuesday 24th April 14:46

[Gene Vincent]

Snowboy said:

I’m sure most would agree that a woman could ‘rape’ a man in the non-legalese sense of the word.

I think the 'problem' is that in the manner in which rape is defined [setting aside the 'male only' aspect] the law quite clearly shows that legally a woman could rape a man, the only thing that takes the definition away from that being the case is the very exclusion of women from the law!

Rape is a one-way street now apparently, penetration is all the mans fault, no matter what may have occurred.

It is a law built on political correctness toward the female lobby.

It is lop-sided and therefore a bad law and what do bad laws mean? Miscarriages of justice usually.

[10 Pence Short]

Gene Vincent said:

I think the 'problem' is that in the manner in which rape is defined [setting aside the 'male only' aspect] the law quite clearly shows that legally a woman could rape a man, the only thing that takes the definition away from that being the case is the very exclusion of women from the law!

Rape is a one-way street now apparently, penetration is all the mans fault, no matter what may have occurred.

It is a law built on political correctness toward the female lobby.

It is lop-sided and therefore a bad law and what do bad laws mean? Miscarriages of justice usually.

How is the law lop sided, specifically with reference to the offence of Assault By Penetration?

[Hugo a Gogo]

Gene Vincent said:

Snowboy said:

I’m sure most would agree that a woman could ‘rape’ a man in the non-legalese sense of the word.

I think the 'problem' is that in the manner in which rape is defined [setting aside the 'male only' aspect] the law quite clearly shows that legally a woman could rape a man, the only thing that takes the definition away from that being the case is the very exclusion of women from the law!

Rape is a one-way street now apparently, penetration is all the mans fault, no matter what may have occurred.

It is a law built on political correctness toward the female lobby.

It is lop-sided and therefore a bad law and what do bad laws mean? Miscarriages of justice usually.

don't be ridiculous, rape is one thing only, inserting your penis into an unwilling person - women don't have penises
women can sexually assault men (or other women), of course, including penetrating them with something else which is effectively the same crime and can carry the same sentence

[HundredthIdiot]

Gene Vincent]I think the 'problem' is that in the manner in which rape is defined [setting aside the 'male only' aspect said:

the law quite clearly shows that legally a woman could rape a man, the only thing that takes the definition away from that being the case is the very exclusion of women from the law!

Rape is a one-way street now apparently, penetration is all the mans fault, no matter what may have occurred.

It is a law built on political correctness toward the female lobby.

It is lop-sided and therefore a bad law and what do bad laws mean? Miscarriages of justice usually.

I've read that a few times and it just reads as complete gibberish. Political correctness? What?

Penetration of a woman with a penis is an act undertaken by the man to whom that penis belongs. The woman may or may not give consent.

Is your argument that if a woman is sober enough to speak (or presumably thrash around encouragingly) she is sober enough to give consent?

[Gene Vincent]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Gene Vincent said:

Snowboy said:

I’m sure most would agree that a woman could ‘rape’ a man in the non-legalese sense of the word.

I think the 'problem' is that in the manner in which rape is defined [setting aside the 'male only' aspect] the law quite clearly shows that legally a woman could rape a man, the only thing that takes the definition away from that being the case is the very exclusion of women from the law!

Rape is a one-way street now apparently, penetration is all the mans fault, no matter what may have occurred.

It is a law built on political correctness toward the female lobby.

It is lop-sided and therefore a bad law and what do bad laws mean? Miscarriages of justice usually.

don't be ridiculous, rape is one thing only, inserting your penis into an unwilling person - women don't have penises
women can sexually assault men (or other women), of course, including penetrating them with something else which is effectively the same crime and can carry the same sentence

But it is perfectly possible, it happens, I have even outlined it clearly how it can and does happen.

I have [genuinely] woken up to find a woman doing a damned fine impression of an accomplished Bronco buster on the end of mine more than once!

So I call bullst on this 'male only' clap-trap.

[10 Pence Short]

Gene Vincent said:

But it is perfectly possible, it happens, I have even outlined it clearly how it can and does happen.

I have [genuinely] woken up to find a woman doing a damned fine impression of an accomplished Bronco buster on the end of mine more than once!

So I call bullst on this 'male only' clap-trap.

If you did not consent to it and took exception, they could be reported and prosecuted for Assault By Penetration, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. By coincidence, the same as for rape.

You haven't got a clue, have you?

[Gene Vincent]

10 Pence Short said:

Gene Vincent said:

But it is perfectly possible, it happens, I have even outlined it clearly how it can and does happen.

I have [genuinely] woken up to find a woman doing a damned fine impression of an accomplished Bronco buster on the end of mine more than once!

So I call bullst on this 'male only' clap-trap.

If you did not consent to it and took exception, they could be reported and prosecuted for Assault By Penetration, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. By coincidence, the same as for rape.

You haven't got a clue, have you?

Ad homs... nice.

So, like I was saying, the female lobby lays claim to rape with all its historical weight of meaning whilst a 'new' law of assault by penetration is the male domain name... and that isn't pandering the female PC lobby... right...

[10 Pence Short]

Gene Vincent said:

Ad homs... nice.

So, like I was saying, the female lobby lays claim to rape with all its historical weight of meaning whilst a 'new' law of assault by penetration is the male domain name... and that isn't pandering the female PC lobby... right...

Have you got a point? Anything?

You are seriously now backtracking into a complaint that you think the difference in offence names is so unfair?

You didn't know what you were talking about before and that hasn't changed now.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Gene Vincent said:

But it is perfectly possible, it happens, I have even outlined it clearly how it can and does happen.

I have [genuinely] woken up to find a woman doing a damned fine impression of an accomplished Bronco buster on the end of mine more than once!

So I call bullst on this 'male only' clap-trap.

it's perfectly possible
it's just not rape, it's sexual assault

same as if a woman woke up and found you doing any other act, other than inserting your penis

[Gene Vincent]

10 Pence Short said:

Gene Vincent said:

Ad homs... nice.

So, like I was saying, the female lobby lays claim to rape with all its historical weight of meaning whilst a 'new' law of assault by penetration is the male domain name... and that isn't pandering the female PC lobby... right...

Have you got a point? Anything?

You are seriously now backtracking into a complaint that you think the difference in offence names is so unfair?

You didn't know what you were talking about before and that hasn't changed now.

Backtracking?

I stated very early on that this is just a naming exercise, a PC slanted load of tosh.

The two names are for what can be the same thing, except 'rape' has shocking overtones that 'assault by penetration' hasn't.

My guess is also that for most if a woman were to be accused of 'assault by penetration' that the instant 'minds eye view' of that term would be far different from the one I have outlined.

You've been inside, you get the picture right? But with a strap-on or similar.

So for penetration by a Penis it's rape but not for a woman, in that instance it's given a 'ladylike' name.

"Assault by Penetration"... PC clap-trap and you seem to be a protagonist.

[Derek Smith]

BlackVanDyke said:

My (absolutely NAL) understanding is that rape, specifically, is sexual penetration without consent (and without the genuine belief that consent has been given) - absolutely nothing in this definition ties to gender, perceived gender, or the involvement of any particular body part. So you absolutely could have (and it's happened) the 'classic' violent stranger rape where the rapist was a woman using a strap-on or some other object to rape the victim.

Worth bearing in mind that intentional rape (rather than 'just' failing to ensure consent, which is still irresponsible but not on the same scale) is all about power/domination and not at all about genitalia or sexual gratification.

Regarding your first paragraph: the clue, I think, is in the word penis. This excludes women so is tied to gender quite closely.

So you cannot have rape by way of an instrument.

Second para: I'm not sure what you consider the difference between intentional rape and not having consent. Irrisponsible is, perhaps, not the most precise modifier. Both are, quite clearly, rape.

[10 Pence Short]

Gene Vincent said:

Backtracking?

I stated very early on that this is just a naming exercise, a PC slanted load of tosh.

The two names are for what can be the same thing, except 'rape' has shocking overtones that 'assault by penetration' hasn't.

My guess is also that for most if a woman were to be accused of 'assault by penetration' that the instant 'minds eye view' of that term would be far different from the one I have outlined.

You've been inside, you get the picture right? But with a strap-on or similar.

So for penetration by a Penis it's rape but not for a woman, in that instance it's given a 'ladylike' name.

"Assault by Penetration"... PC clap-trap and you seem to be a protagonist.

I'm just someone with (very sadly) a much closer understanding of the whole situation than some idiot like you on the internet, who's worried about a name. Sorry if that's a touch ad hominem for you.

[Gene Vincent]

10 Pence Short said:

Gene Vincent said:

Backtracking?

I stated very early on that this is just a naming exercise, a PC slanted load of tosh.

The two names are for what can be the same thing, except 'rape' has shocking overtones that 'assault by penetration' hasn't.

My guess is also that for most if a woman were to be accused of 'assault by penetration' that the instant 'minds eye view' of that term would be far different from the one I have outlined.

You've been inside, you get the picture right? But with a strap-on or similar.

So for penetration by a Penis it's rape but not for a woman, in that instance it's given a 'ladylike' name.

"Assault by Penetration"... PC clap-trap and you seem to be a protagonist.

I'm just someone with (very sadly) a much closer understanding of the whole situation than some idiot like you on the internet, who's worried about a name. Sorry if that's a touch ad hominem for you.

Aaaah, we'll add 'special pleading' to your itinery of internet twerpery shall we!

I guess that most here have experience of someone close on the receiving end of some form of sexual assault [generic term] both inside and out of a relationship.

But you are special right! You have a 'special insight' right!

I keep forgetting you're special, just remind us all occasionally... or just type something, anything, we'll pick up on it sooner or later.

[Derek Smith]

Gene Vincent said:

So, like I was saying, the female lobby lays claim to rape with all its historical weight of meaning whilst a 'new' law of assault by penetration is the male domain name... and that isn't pandering the female PC lobby... right...

When I joined the police in 1975 the max penalty for rape was 7 years. The max penalty for indecent assault on a male was life. The norm was that forcible buggery of a male was punished more severely that rape of a women.

Further, rape can only be committed by a man but victims can be male or female. Rape was extended to include male victims in 2004.

So just to clarify, historical weight indeed when the penalties were higher for male victims. Females do not claim ownership of rape, just the opposite in fact, so the female lobby has not been pandered to.

[HundredthIdiot]

Gene Vincent said:

Aaaah, we'll add 'special pleading' to your itinery of internet twerpery shall we!

I guess that most here have experience of someone close on the receiving end of some form of sexual assault [generic term] both inside and out of a relationship.

But you are special right! You have a 'special insight' right!

I keep forgetting you're special, just remind us all occasionally... or just type something, anything, we'll pick up on it sooner or later.

Stop digging. Really.