Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines rape in this way.
(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.
Intention of perpetrator (the rapists 'state of mind' whilst carrying out the act): Intentional penetration; does not reasonably believe recipient consents; whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regards to all of the circumstances , including any steps man has taken to ascertain whether recipient consents.
Outcome of offense (what has to of happened for a rape to have taken place): Penile penetration of anus, vagina, or mouth (or a combination) without consent.
In a recent discussion on here re abortion Stillness raised the question of female-on-male rape. This was something I hadn't previously given any degree of serious thought to until now.
The word 'rape' generally leads us to picture something terrible like a man dragging a distressed woman down an alley as she struggles piously before he forcefully violates her. As much as I hate to imagine it, this is probably a fairly accurate if somewhat vague description of 'stranger rape'. Stranger rape only represents a small percentage of rapes though, usually it never quite as 'cut and dry', since the issue of consent between people who know each other is much more difficult to prove/disprove in Court when a dispute regarding it arises.
In 2003 the UK consolidated it's sexual offense Law into the 'Sexual Offenses Act 2003'. For the first time in the UK the Law defined consent and also confirmed that rape was a gender specific crime and could only be carried out by a man, although a woman could be an accomplice. It didn't become an offense to rape your wife until 1991, and the Law didn't recognize male-on-male rape until 1994. Child sexual abuse wasn't even recognized by the Law until 1945.
Whilst a only a man can be found legally guilty of a rape the Law does recognizer that a man, who was previously a woman and has undergone gender reassignment surgery and has a surgically constructed penis can be guilty or rape. The Law holds that a boy over the age of 10 (previously 14) can be capable of rape since from the age of 10 boys can possess the capacity to have sex (although I didn't at that age).
The Law also recognizes a distinction between 'submitting' to sex, and 'consenting'. For example if a man makes an indirect threat to a woman i.e., 'I'll kill your children if you don't have sex with me' she is obviously acquiescing and submitting to the threat in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences, not consenting by her own free will. This is obviously a good thing and women should be protected from this.
It would be highly unusual, if not close to impossible for a woman to literally take a man by force and literally rape him in the 'dragging down an alley' scenario I mentioned above, so I don't think it's necessary to mention it again.
Whilst Parliament may not feel the need to draft Legislation protecting men from being raped by women, I think there is a lacuna in the existing Law since a man can certainly coerced into 'submitting' to sex with a woman, or can have a woman have sex with him without consent, so isn't this rape according to the government's definition?
I think the two most likely possible female-on-male rape examples would be as follows:
1) A man is asleep, and either has an erection or the woman induces one and proceeds to have sexual intercourse with him, without consent. This would technically, according to the definition above, be rape since there is an absence of consent.
HOWEVER, if a couple agree that they can have sex with each other whilst one is asleep this of course would not be rape, it would obviously be very difficult to prove or disprove in Court though. A woman could conceive doing this and the man would then be responsible for at least financially supporting the child if he wanted nothing else to do with it or the mother.
2) A woman threatens a man with some kind of consequence if he doesn't have sex with her, this could even be her saying she'll tell the police he tried to rape her if he doesn't have sex with her. This would of course result in the man 'submitting' - again, there is an absence of consent without the direct use of physical force, or even the threat of violence.
In light of examining these two hypothetical scenarios in accordance with the definition the Law outlines above, I now think that it is incontrovertible that a woman can rape a man, since for a rape to take place the victim doesn't need to be taken by force, I think this antiquated view of rape is one of the reasons that men cannot be seen to be raped by women. But if a man indirectly threatening a woman to have sex with him is rape, why can this not work both ways?
However, as I maintain on here - women are MUCH more vulnerable than men - and I have also NEVER heard a man express any fear of being raped or sexually assaulted by a woman, perhaps this, and the lack, or near virtual absence of complaints to the police about female-on-male rape are why the Law opted to not acknowledge it as a crime?
What do you guys think?
Does anyone know a man who claims to have been raped by a woman?
The 2003 Act claimed to be as gender neutral as possible here, yet it fails to acknowledge the possibility of the scenarios I mention above, do you think this is right/fair/reasonable?
Do you agree that the lack of complaints from men are why the Law chose not to recognize this crime?
I don't know anything of USA Law and would be interested if it is any different.
(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.
Intention of perpetrator (the rapists 'state of mind' whilst carrying out the act): Intentional penetration; does not reasonably believe recipient consents; whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regards to all of the circumstances , including any steps man has taken to ascertain whether recipient consents.
Outcome of offense (what has to of happened for a rape to have taken place): Penile penetration of anus, vagina, or mouth (or a combination) without consent.
In a recent discussion on here re abortion Stillness raised the question of female-on-male rape. This was something I hadn't previously given any degree of serious thought to until now.
The word 'rape' generally leads us to picture something terrible like a man dragging a distressed woman down an alley as she struggles piously before he forcefully violates her. As much as I hate to imagine it, this is probably a fairly accurate if somewhat vague description of 'stranger rape'. Stranger rape only represents a small percentage of rapes though, usually it never quite as 'cut and dry', since the issue of consent between people who know each other is much more difficult to prove/disprove in Court when a dispute regarding it arises.
In 2003 the UK consolidated it's sexual offense Law into the 'Sexual Offenses Act 2003'. For the first time in the UK the Law defined consent and also confirmed that rape was a gender specific crime and could only be carried out by a man, although a woman could be an accomplice. It didn't become an offense to rape your wife until 1991, and the Law didn't recognize male-on-male rape until 1994. Child sexual abuse wasn't even recognized by the Law until 1945.
Whilst a only a man can be found legally guilty of a rape the Law does recognizer that a man, who was previously a woman and has undergone gender reassignment surgery and has a surgically constructed penis can be guilty or rape. The Law holds that a boy over the age of 10 (previously 14) can be capable of rape since from the age of 10 boys can possess the capacity to have sex (although I didn't at that age).
The Law also recognizes a distinction between 'submitting' to sex, and 'consenting'. For example if a man makes an indirect threat to a woman i.e., 'I'll kill your children if you don't have sex with me' she is obviously acquiescing and submitting to the threat in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences, not consenting by her own free will. This is obviously a good thing and women should be protected from this.
It would be highly unusual, if not close to impossible for a woman to literally take a man by force and literally rape him in the 'dragging down an alley' scenario I mentioned above, so I don't think it's necessary to mention it again.
Whilst Parliament may not feel the need to draft Legislation protecting men from being raped by women, I think there is a lacuna in the existing Law since a man can certainly coerced into 'submitting' to sex with a woman, or can have a woman have sex with him without consent, so isn't this rape according to the government's definition?
I think the two most likely possible female-on-male rape examples would be as follows:
1) A man is asleep, and either has an erection or the woman induces one and proceeds to have sexual intercourse with him, without consent. This would technically, according to the definition above, be rape since there is an absence of consent.
HOWEVER, if a couple agree that they can have sex with each other whilst one is asleep this of course would not be rape, it would obviously be very difficult to prove or disprove in Court though. A woman could conceive doing this and the man would then be responsible for at least financially supporting the child if he wanted nothing else to do with it or the mother.
2) A woman threatens a man with some kind of consequence if he doesn't have sex with her, this could even be her saying she'll tell the police he tried to rape her if he doesn't have sex with her. This would of course result in the man 'submitting' - again, there is an absence of consent without the direct use of physical force, or even the threat of violence.
In light of examining these two hypothetical scenarios in accordance with the definition the Law outlines above, I now think that it is incontrovertible that a woman can rape a man, since for a rape to take place the victim doesn't need to be taken by force, I think this antiquated view of rape is one of the reasons that men cannot be seen to be raped by women. But if a man indirectly threatening a woman to have sex with him is rape, why can this not work both ways?
However, as I maintain on here - women are MUCH more vulnerable than men - and I have also NEVER heard a man express any fear of being raped or sexually assaulted by a woman, perhaps this, and the lack, or near virtual absence of complaints to the police about female-on-male rape are why the Law opted to not acknowledge it as a crime?
What do you guys think?
Does anyone know a man who claims to have been raped by a woman?
The 2003 Act claimed to be as gender neutral as possible here, yet it fails to acknowledge the possibility of the scenarios I mention above, do you think this is right/fair/reasonable?
Do you agree that the lack of complaints from men are why the Law chose not to recognize this crime?
I don't know anything of USA Law and would be interested if it is any different.
Get The Newsletter
Comment