Rape or.......
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
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.
But I can't ever recall there being anything in the zeitgeist about male rape until the Jeremy Thorpe affair, but I also recall around that time a woman by the name of Joyce McKinney kidnapped and repeatedly raped a Mormon preacher, those were the days, women were free to rape men and no-one called it a load of PC clap-trap.
Funny old world.
GV and 10PS.
I think that the point is that "at home" most people would, when discussing such things around the dinner table as you do, consider that the unwilling participant in forced or un-consented to sexual intercourse was a rape victim.
In the eyes of the law and using the correct legal definition of Rape only a female can be raped unless it is a male on male offence. If the unwilling or non-consenting party were the male and the accused female it would be called Assault by Penetration.
Whilst all this might be correct I think that the point GV is trying to make is that if a bloke were to say he had been assaulted by penetration many would need it spelt out to them what this meant and would quite likely not actually understand what might have gone on there. Tell almost anyone over 10 that a woman has been raped and they know exactly what you mean and are already formulating their opinions before the sentence is even out.
Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
I think that the point is that "at home" most people would, when discussing such things around the dinner table as you do, consider that the unwilling participant in forced or un-consented to sexual intercourse was a rape victim.
In the eyes of the law and using the correct legal definition of Rape only a female can be raped unless it is a male on male offence. If the unwilling or non-consenting party were the male and the accused female it would be called Assault by Penetration.
Whilst all this might be correct I think that the point GV is trying to make is that if a bloke were to say he had been assaulted by penetration many would need it spelt out to them what this meant and would quite likely not actually understand what might have gone on there. Tell almost anyone over 10 that a woman has been raped and they know exactly what you mean and are already formulating their opinions before the sentence is even out.
Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
Gene Vincent said:
Derek Smith said:
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.
But I can't ever recall there being anything in the zeitgeist about male rape until the Jeremy Thorpe affair, but I also recall around that time a woman by the name of Joyce McKinney kidnapped and repeatedly raped a Mormon preacher, those were the days, women were free to rape men and no-one called it a load of PC clap-trap.
Funny old world.
Rude-boy said:
GV and 10PS.
I think that the point is that "at home" most people would, when discussing such things around the dinner table as you do, consider that the unwilling participant in forced or un-consented to sexual intercourse was a rape victim.
In the eyes of the law and using the correct legal definition of Rape only a female can be raped unless it is a male on male offence. If the unwilling or non-consenting party were the male and the accused female it would be called Assault by Penetration.
Whilst all this might be correct I think that the point GV is trying to make is that if a bloke were to say he had been assaulted by penetration many would need it spelt out to them what this meant and would quite likely not actually understand what might have gone on there. Tell almost anyone over 10 that a woman has been raped and they know exactly what you mean and are already formulating their opinions before the sentence is even out.
Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
Very neatly put.I think that the point is that "at home" most people would, when discussing such things around the dinner table as you do, consider that the unwilling participant in forced or un-consented to sexual intercourse was a rape victim.
In the eyes of the law and using the correct legal definition of Rape only a female can be raped unless it is a male on male offence. If the unwilling or non-consenting party were the male and the accused female it would be called Assault by Penetration.
Whilst all this might be correct I think that the point GV is trying to make is that if a bloke were to say he had been assaulted by penetration many would need it spelt out to them what this meant and would quite likely not actually understand what might have gone on there. Tell almost anyone over 10 that a woman has been raped and they know exactly what you mean and are already formulating their opinions before the sentence is even out.
Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
10PS has issues with me, so don't worry, he'll find another thread I'm in to grind his little axe in soon enough.
Derek Smith said:
Strange that you should remember McKinney so clearly yet forget that penetration of a male by a male was considered much worse than rape of a female.
That is because at the time JT was a 'poof' and of no interest to me at all whereas Miss mcKinney was a feisty little minx who wore outrageous clothes and had big tits.No competition.
Rude-boy said:
Whilst all this might be correct I think that the point GV is trying to make is that if a bloke were to say he had been assaulted by penetration many would need it spelt out to them what this meant and would quite likely not actually understand what might have gone on there. Tell almost anyone over 10 that a woman has been raped and they know exactly what you mean and are already formulating their opinions before the sentence is even out.
Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
which do you imagine to be 'worse' and more like the experience of rape for a woman - a woman climbing on top of your erect member against your will/without your knowledge - or a woman sticking foreign objects up you without your consent?Following on after the event and court, etc if the woman were found guilty most would consider her to be a 'rapist' and carry the stigma of all that. The stigma of having been found guilty of assault by penetration is likely to be somewhat less as for a start it is likely it would need to be elaborated upon for Joe Public to know what the woman had done. Indeed "Oh her, you know she assaulted a man once." has a lot less baggage than "Oh him, he raped a girl once you know." And you know that the “by penetration” bit will not always come out.
most men would laugh at you if you claimed the former (I'm not saying that's right though..)
most men would be horrified by the latter, and that would be the offence I personally would be more likely to call 'rape' of a man, not Gene Vincent's wake-up surprise
I think it’s fair to say that as the years go by the definitions and laws will continue to change.
I would suggest that there was some thinking that penetration by penis can bring with it pregnancy which can’t happen with hands or implements and hence needed to be kept separate.
The horror of getting pregnant by a rapist is one that man can’t experience.
But, the law of rape now includes actions that couldn’t result in pregnancy.
So that original comment isn’t relevant.
For purely academic interest, it would be interesting to see how the laws evolved over the years and the rationale behind each change.
I would expect that the next few versions of the law will bring it back into one offence for men and women who do any sort of sexual assault.
Perhaps one offence for the Assault and a second offence for any potential risk of infection.
Perhaps Rape will come to mean specific penis/vagina sex – with a higher crime of Rape without protection.
But – this is veering well away from the Topic.
Sounds to me like the second bloke got what he deserved.
But (as mentioned before) I’m surprised the first guy wasn’t done as some sort of accessory.
I would suggest that there was some thinking that penetration by penis can bring with it pregnancy which can’t happen with hands or implements and hence needed to be kept separate.
The horror of getting pregnant by a rapist is one that man can’t experience.
But, the law of rape now includes actions that couldn’t result in pregnancy.
So that original comment isn’t relevant.
For purely academic interest, it would be interesting to see how the laws evolved over the years and the rationale behind each change.
I would expect that the next few versions of the law will bring it back into one offence for men and women who do any sort of sexual assault.
Perhaps one offence for the Assault and a second offence for any potential risk of infection.
Perhaps Rape will come to mean specific penis/vagina sex – with a higher crime of Rape without protection.
But – this is veering well away from the Topic.
Sounds to me like the second bloke got what he deserved.
But (as mentioned before) I’m surprised the first guy wasn’t done as some sort of accessory.
Derek Smith said:
Strange that you should remember McKinney so clearly yet forget that penetration of a male by a male was considered much worse than rape of a female.
Prior to JT being revealed as a homosexual the only time I had any thoughts about him at all was the far more shocking revelation that he was a Jimi Hendrix fan and had been to see him play live at least half a dozen times and was actually a friend of Hendrix and went drinking with him.THAT, I think was quite a revelation at the time.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Tuesday 24th April 17:16
Gene Vincent said:
Very neatly put.
10PS has issues with me, so don't worry, he'll find another thread I'm in to grind his little axe in soon enough.
On the first point, the 'dinner conversation', it matters not the title of the offence. A man raped by a woman will describe it the same way as the other way around. Of course, unless in your world, where women riding you senseless as you wake up is seemingly the norm, men being penetratively raped by women is so rare as to be an absolute exception against the occasions where men rape women.10PS has issues with me, so don't worry, he'll find another thread I'm in to grind his little axe in soon enough.
On the second, someone very close to me was beaten to the point of having many broken bones and requiring a spell in intensive care, whilst being raped over a prolonged period of time in ways that you would not want your worst enemies to suffer, all the time expecting death at any moment. The offender was imprisoned for at least 14 years on an IPP sentence and will not see the light of day until it can be shown he's no longer a danger to society.
Whether it was written in the Act as Rape or Assault by Penetration is about as important as whether it was sunny outside that day or raining.
So I apologise if your f
kwitted way of dealing with this thread causes me to describe you as an imbecile with a keyboard, but that's just the way it is.Hugo a Gogo said:
most men would laugh at you if you claimed the former (I'm not saying that's right though..)
most men would be horrified by the latter, and that would be the offence I personally would be more likely to call 'rape' of a man, not Gene Vincent's wake-up surprise
I have to agree that from a purely anatomical point of view the act of inserting something into someone who does not want something inserted into them is likely to be physically far more injurious to the victim than having something of theirs inserted into someone else against their will.most men would be horrified by the latter, and that would be the offence I personally would be more likely to call 'rape' of a man, not Gene Vincent's wake-up surprise
That is the pure anatomy of it.
BUT.
We know from countless studies that ‘rapists’ don’t tend to do it for the sex as a rule; it is far more a ‘power’ crime. A crime of one person forcing themselves and their will upon and over another.
It is a difficult problem, exacerbated by the emotions such a crime engenders well above and beyond someone getting a beating outside a nightclub. Something which incidentally would be likely to be referred to as a form of assault.
10 Pence Short said:
Gene Vincent said:
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.t on this 'male only' clap-trap.You haven't got a clue, have you?
Gene Vincent said:
I'll just quietly mention that it is only within the EU that women cant 'rape' a man, every other place on earth allows it to be called what it is.
EU PC clap-trap.
10p Short was right first time.EU PC clap-trap.
Didnt read all the posts, but whats all this st about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?
If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can you imagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
t about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can you imagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 24th April 19:59
Vipers said:
Didnt read all the posts, but whats all this st about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?
If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can youimagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
You're not daring to suggest that the law was framed under pressure from a a strong and vocal feminist lobby are you?t about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can youimagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
Gene Vincent said:
Vipers said:
Didnt read all the posts, but whats all this st about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?
If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can youimagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
You're not daring to suggest that the law was framed under pressure from a a strong and vocal feminist lobby are you?t about twitter naming the woman? The papers eagerly published the mens names, one of which was found non guilty, why do the womans names get kept out?If her name was published there is a chance someone could say she tried it on them, is she did of course.
Can youimagine if your neighbour cried rape, your name is splattered over the papers, only to be found non guilty, and they couldnt publish her name, why?
You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
Gene Vincent said:
You're not daring to suggest that the law was framed under pressure from a a strong and vocal feminist lobby are you?
You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
To date the only point of view you seem to hold is that it's some feminist conspiracy that one offence is called the nasty name of rape and the other, equally punishable offence (maximum life imprisonment), where no penis is involved, is called something else.You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
If you believe the name of the offence is more important than the remedy available for it, I think you need to speak to more victims of the crimes in question. Maybe you're too busy waking up and being f
ked like the superstud you so obviously are to do so?As for victims remaining anonymous, it isn't anything to do with men and women- the victim of a rape could be a man or woman and both get the same rights.
My opinion is that all involved should remain anonymous until the outcome. If a not guilty is returned, the whole case should go unreported in my opinion.
Twitter users who act with contempt of court should and deserve to be dealt with harshly. The fact the technology allows information to be dissipated more quickly than before does not make the law or reasons for it bad.
10 Pence Short said:
To date the only point of view you seem to hold is that it's some feminist conspiracy that one offence is called the nasty name of rape and the other, equally punishable offence (maximum life imprisonment), where no penis is involved, is called something else.
If you believe the name of the offence is more important than the remedy available for it, I think you need to speak to more victims of the crimes in question. Maybe you're too busy waking up and being fked like the superstud you so obviously are to do so?
As for victims remaining anonymous, it isn't anything to do with men and women- the victim of a rape could be a man or woman and both get the same rights.
My opinion is that all involved should remain anonymous until the outcome. If a not guilty is returned, the whole case should go unreported in my opinion.
Twitter users who act with contempt of court should and deserve to be dealt with harshly. The fact the technology allows information to be dissipated more quickly than before does not make the law or reasons for it bad.
If you believe the name of the offence is more important than the remedy available for it, I think you need to speak to more victims of the crimes in question. Maybe you're too busy waking up and being f
ked like the superstud you so obviously are to do so?As for victims remaining anonymous, it isn't anything to do with men and women- the victim of a rape could be a man or woman and both get the same rights.
My opinion is that all involved should remain anonymous until the outcome. If a not guilty is returned, the whole case should go unreported in my opinion.
Twitter users who act with contempt of court should and deserve to be dealt with harshly. The fact the technology allows information to be dissipated more quickly than before does not make the law or reasons for it bad.
10 Pence Short said:
Gene Vincent said:
You're not daring to suggest that the law was framed under pressure from a a strong and vocal feminist lobby are you?
You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
You bad person, you'll be called rude names on here if you dare suggest such a thing.
Twitter users who act with contempt of court should and deserve to be dealt with harshly. The fact the technology allows information to be dissipated more quickly than before does not make the law or reasons for it bad.
And how are those who exposed the womans name in question supposed to know these stupid laws?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff