Discussion
Now I'm not normally one to slate the police but can't help find this article on scotlands all singing all dancing police Scotland a little sexist. We all no woman can be just as capable of sex crimes as men!! http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28383429
The article leans towards rape. Women can't rape (a penis is required), so you can't warn them about it.
BBC article said:
The head of Scotland's new National Rape Task Force
BBC article said:
The Persons of Interest scheme is designed to raise understanding among men of the issue of consent.
Yes, a woman can assist / conspire etc, but not commit the primary act.
The article doesn't specify which offences are covered, but it strongly nods towards being rape offences given the title of the department sending the letters and the mention of men, alcohol and consent. Check this CPS page. It mentions all those key things. It's no coincidence the police statement is totally in-line with the CPS's definition page of rape.
It doesn't actually say women won't receive any letters, either.
But regardless, let's strip it back to the root cause to show why it's not sexist. First some data:
1) There are roughly 100 women and 10000 men in prison for sexual offending. The data isn't perfect as there's potential sentencing inconsistency between the sexes, but we're talking about a 100x difference in scale in offenders here.
2) There were 16041 rapes (the primary offence) recorded in 2011/2012. All committed by men. 0 were committed by women. The entire risk area for committing the primary offence is with men.
3) There were 19780 recorded offences against female victims of sexual assaults compared and 2273 male victims.
So in terms of data, where does that indicate the focus and attention should be to reduce risk, harm and offences? It's quite clear.
Operation Trident was / is a very high-profile gun-crime operation in the Met, focusing on black, afro-Caribbean males aged 16-35 years old. This was because a grossly disproportional amount of gun crime was committed by that demographic. The operation didn't say white males and other demographics can't commit crime, but it was there to focus upon the area which offered the greatest reductions in risk, harm and offences. Following your logic, Operation Trident was racist as it and what police Scotland are doing is fundamentally the same thing; focusing on a specific demographic that dominates an offending area.
A perfectly valid, rational and logical component of a sexual-offence prevention / reduction strategy.
The article doesn't specify which offences are covered, but it strongly nods towards being rape offences given the title of the department sending the letters and the mention of men, alcohol and consent. Check this CPS page. It mentions all those key things. It's no coincidence the police statement is totally in-line with the CPS's definition page of rape.
It doesn't actually say women won't receive any letters, either.
But regardless, let's strip it back to the root cause to show why it's not sexist. First some data:
1) There are roughly 100 women and 10000 men in prison for sexual offending. The data isn't perfect as there's potential sentencing inconsistency between the sexes, but we're talking about a 100x difference in scale in offenders here.
2) There were 16041 rapes (the primary offence) recorded in 2011/2012. All committed by men. 0 were committed by women. The entire risk area for committing the primary offence is with men.
3) There were 19780 recorded offences against female victims of sexual assaults compared and 2273 male victims.
So in terms of data, where does that indicate the focus and attention should be to reduce risk, harm and offences? It's quite clear.
Operation Trident was / is a very high-profile gun-crime operation in the Met, focusing on black, afro-Caribbean males aged 16-35 years old. This was because a grossly disproportional amount of gun crime was committed by that demographic. The operation didn't say white males and other demographics can't commit crime, but it was there to focus upon the area which offered the greatest reductions in risk, harm and offences. Following your logic, Operation Trident was racist as it and what police Scotland are doing is fundamentally the same thing; focusing on a specific demographic that dominates an offending area.
A perfectly valid, rational and logical component of a sexual-offence prevention / reduction strategy.
La Liga said:
There were 16041 rapes (the primary offence) recorded in 2011/2012. All committed by men. 0 were committed by women. The entire risk area for committing the primary offence is with men.
La Liga said:
Women can't rape (a penis is required), so you can't warn them about it.
So what you're saying is that if you word the definition of an offence such that only one sex can ever be considered to commit it, you will find no statistics that support the other sex doing so?I am shocked and amazed.
Replace whatever definition you are using for rape in this context with "having sex with someone who is not in a fit state to give consent due to their alcohol consumption" and post those statistics, please.
InitialDave said:
La Liga said:
There were 16041 rapes (the primary offence) recorded in 2011/2012. All committed by men. 0 were committed by women. The entire risk area for committing the primary offence is with men.
La Liga said:
Women can't rape (a penis is required), so you can't warn them about it.
So what you're saying is that if you word the definition of an offence such that only one sex can ever be considered to commit it, you will find no statistics that support the other sex doing so?I am shocked and amazed.
Replace whatever definition you are using for rape in this context with "having sex with someone who is not in a fit state to give consent due to their alcohol consumption" and post those statistics, please.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Liga didn't invent the definition of rape. It's a fact. Women cannot commit "rape".
It's not a fact, it's semantics over whether the act of having sex with someone too drunk to consent is or is not termed rape based on their sex.TheBear said:
There's plenty of offences for women to commit. The one most relevant if a woman forced a man to have sex with her would be causing sexual activity without consent which carries the same maximum penalty (life).
Exactly. Failing to include the statistics for such is disingenuous.Edited by InitialDave on Saturday 19th July 17:43
InitialDave said:
Exactly. Failing to include the statistics for such is disingenuous.
Maybe if they decide to run an awareness/campaign focusing on female sex crimes against men then they will produce statistics.Edited by InitialDave on Saturday 19th July 17:43
I think you're reading too much into it.
Males can't be the victim of rape by females though. Males are encouraged to report sexual assaults as much as females. Being pedantic over something you can't change is just silly.
Hence why the initial article was directed at females...because guess what, a female cannot commit the offence.
Hence why the initial article was directed at females...because guess what, a female cannot commit the offence.
I produced neutral data. Men and Women were equal in all three data sets. Read them again.
I qualified a couple of them (e.g. women didn't commit the rapes) as that is relevant to why the campaign is focused in the way it is.
You can't send warning letters to females who present a rape risk because they can't legally rape. Simple.
I qualified a couple of them (e.g. women didn't commit the rapes) as that is relevant to why the campaign is focused in the way it is.
You can't send warning letters to females who present a rape risk because they can't legally rape. Simple.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th July 19:08
Mk3Spitfire said:
Males can't be the victim of rape by females though. Males are encouraged to report sexual assaults as much as females. Being pedantic over something you can't change is just silly.
Hence why the initial article was directed at females...because guess what, a female cannot commit the offence.
I'm not arguing but i had a quick google and I found this:Hence why the initial article was directed at females...because guess what, a female cannot commit the offence.
"There are three ways women can rape men. Adult women can and do commit statutory rape against underage boys. When this phenomenon first came to light with a female high school teacher and an underage male student, it was shocking and I think many people assumed such a thing was freakishly rare. Subsequently, a number of such cases have been publicized suggesting this kind of occurrence is not nearly as freakishly uncommon as many believed. As with men and underage girls, the complicity of the victim does not alter the criminality of the act.
The second way women can rape men is through unwilling (anal or oral) penetration of men with fingers or objects. (I don’t know if unwilling oral penetration is always treated as rape in law.)
Finally, a woman can rape a man through coercing them to penetrate the woman with an erect penis. Though it is not easy to ‘will’ an erection, it’s not always impossible, either. Men, like women, can become physically aroused despite not actually wanting to have sex with someone. This may occur in response to physical manipulation or other reasons. Coercion need not be through physical force, obviously; a man can be blackmailed into having sex (as one commenter described his own victimization here)"
In uk law a woman cannot commit rape. Many of those things you quote up there would class as sexual assaults (penetration with a finger) or other sexual offences such as inciting etc.
these are not rape. The definition of rape in British law is very specifically defined under the Sexual Offences act.
these are not rape. The definition of rape in British law is very specifically defined under the Sexual Offences act.
A rape as defined under S1 SOA can ONLY be committed using a penis. A female could commit the offences under S5 including aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring inciting or attempting the commission of a rape could be committed by a female. These are other sexual offences defined by the Act, and not section 1, Rape.
smiffy180 said:
I'm not arguing but i had a quick google and I found this:
"There are three ways women can rape men. Adult women can and do commit statutory rape against underage boys. When this phenomenon first came to light with a female high school teacher and an underage male student, it was shocking and I think many people assumed such a thing was freakishly rare. Subsequently, a number of such cases have been publicized suggesting this kind of occurrence is not nearly as freakishly uncommon as many believed. As with men and underage girls, the complicity of the victim does not alter the criminality of the act.
The second way women can rape men is through unwilling (anal or oral) penetration of men with fingers or objects. (I don’t know if unwilling oral penetration is always treated as rape in law.)
Finally, a woman can rape a man through coercing them to penetrate the woman with an erect penis. Though it is not easy to ‘will’ an erection, it’s not always impossible, either. Men, like women, can become physically aroused despite not actually wanting to have sex with someone. This may occur in response to physical manipulation or other reasons. Coercion need not be through physical force, obviously; a man can be blackmailed into having sex (as one commenter described his own victimization here)"
Your first one is called Sexual activity with a child."There are three ways women can rape men. Adult women can and do commit statutory rape against underage boys. When this phenomenon first came to light with a female high school teacher and an underage male student, it was shocking and I think many people assumed such a thing was freakishly rare. Subsequently, a number of such cases have been publicized suggesting this kind of occurrence is not nearly as freakishly uncommon as many believed. As with men and underage girls, the complicity of the victim does not alter the criminality of the act.
The second way women can rape men is through unwilling (anal or oral) penetration of men with fingers or objects. (I don’t know if unwilling oral penetration is always treated as rape in law.)
Finally, a woman can rape a man through coercing them to penetrate the woman with an erect penis. Though it is not easy to ‘will’ an erection, it’s not always impossible, either. Men, like women, can become physically aroused despite not actually wanting to have sex with someone. This may occur in response to physical manipulation or other reasons. Coercion need not be through physical force, obviously; a man can be blackmailed into having sex (as one commenter described his own victimization here)"
Second one is Assault by penetration.
Third one is Causing sexual activity without consent.
La Liga and Spitfire are right in that the only offence officially called Rape is man on woman and can only be committed with a penis, but really the one's mentioned would cover the "rape" of a man, but they cover a much wider set of circumstances and are called something else.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff