[Hugo-B]

Didn't read this. It's WAY to long to read. So I'm just gonna go with my simple answer.



Yes - a woman can rape a man. That's what roofies and alcohol are for. Why do you think the term Coyote Ugly came into being?

What if BOTH parties are drunk AND consenting at the time the sexual act takes place? Consent cannot be retracted after can it? I know some people will try. If I'm too drunk to exercise proper judgement and end up in bed with someone I wouldn't otherwise have had sex with, have I been raped or just failed to moderate my own behavior? I think the latter. Should it be any different for women? If I'm stone cold sober walking home and see a drunk girl stagger out of a bar alone then I'm at the VERY least taking advantage of her if I end up having sex with her. If she's too intoxicated to consent or dissent it's rape.

What if we BOTH get so hammered neither of us know what we're doing? If we enter into a drinking competition at the bar and hammer down the sambuca shots until we drag each other into a taxi and suck each others faces off all the way home before having drunken sex with each other - which neither of us would have done sober - then I think we're both equally as culpable, no rape taken place. Consent isn't something you can just retract the next day.

I think the issue is more who is responsible for the intoxication, if the individual is coerced or tricked into being excessively intoxicated then consent has been illegitimately obtained, or more accurately the individual is too intoxicated to consent OR dissent. The fact there is an absence of consent and the individual lacks capacity to consent constitutes rape.
If I got drugged that's different, though if I was unconscious due to having imbibed too much alcohol and rohypenol I doubt I'd be getting an erection in a hurry, though I've never tried rophy so I can't comment accurately.

[Claret]

In Canada (I can only speak for here) the law states that whether it be considered abuse or not, if a woman of legal age of consent and has sex with a male under the age of sexual consent, it shall be considered rape and sexual interference is likely the charge. If a young male (your hypothetical 10 year old) could not be charged with rape per se. He would be charged with a lesser crime under the youth offenders act and sentenced accordingly (probably would not receive any time in a correctional facility) but would have to undergo counselling. The family would be looked at to determine whether or not he came from a "suitable" home and the parenting skills of the parents would be put into question as well. I would think the US and the UK countries would have similar laws.
A child of the age of 10 is considered NOT to have enough knowledge, NOT to have enough world experiences to provide consent. Heck, they can't even legally stay home alone until they are 12.

[Hugo-B]

Thanks Claret, sounds like the Law is quite different over here although there would still be legal consequences for a woman who has sex with a man under the age of consent I don't think it would be labelled as rape, more likely child abuse.

[Little]

The law is clearly lacking. Men should be protected from rape and any instance of coerced sex just as women should. It wasn't very clear from the words of the law, are men protected from instances of rape perpetrated by other men on them? I don't personally know any men who have been raped by a woman, but I know a few who were molested as a boy by other boys.

Which brings me to the second point: Is a 10 year old boy at the same time capable of rape and incapable of consent? I think so. There is a world of difference between a minor having a supposedly health sexual relationship with an adult - the idea of consent- versus the idea that he could realize his penis was functioning and want to use it regardless of the victim reaction on the other end.
I have anecdotal evidence of the latter - a boy related to me by marriage raped two of his female family members. Obviously, this points to some kind of a mental problem, lack of empathy, inflated regard for himself perhaps, whatever. But his ability to have sex, his having sex (or something resembling it; I'm not saying here that rape is sex by any means,) doesn't take away his inability to consent any more than losing her virginity makes a girl automatically receptive of sex from any partner.

So, if this boy, who's naturally an effed up little monster (in my world, anyways - pardon my negativity!) is not exempt from the possibility of being raped, then certainly a boy under the age of consent who is physically capable of sex is also not exempt from the possibility.

This is an interesting thread, for all that the title is a bit simple :P While I do enjoy my usually infallible ability to answer a thread completely based on the title, I'll take the fail in exchange for interesting conversation.

EDIT: sex with a minor below the age of consent is called statuatory rape in the US, to differentiate it from "forcible rape" (which is a buzzword in American politics at the moment, as is "legitimate rape.")

[Hugo-B]

It wasn't very clear from the words of the law, are men protected from instances of rape perpetrated by other men on them? )

I gave it a brief mention, yes male-on-male rape is recognized in the UK, but has only been so since 1994.

In the UK we now have the equivalent of statutory rape on girls of 13 and under, or under 13 I'm not exactly sure. I have limited knowledge of the Law but I'm sure that where the term 'rape' may not be applicable to some offenses perpetrated by women on men there would certainly be at least a possibility that some sort of sexual assault charge could be applicable, I just don't see why they wont call it what it is.

[Stillness]

In Soviet Russia...

Google "weirdest Russian crime story of the year Moscow Times 2009" and you'll find an account of a would be robber overpowered and raped. Also, in Zimbabwe gangs of women have apparently raped many men. Google "3 women in Zimbabwe charged in series of sex attacks on men" and there's a CNN article from a little under a year ago.

I don't know how reliable these accounts are, but women can and have raped men. It probably typically involves restraint and/or drugging as DSemcho pointed out and as it does in the cases above.

Also I found some studies:

"Women's Sexual Aggression Against Men: Prevalence and Predictors"

&

"Men's Reports of Nonconsensual Sexual Interactions with Women: Prevalence and Impact"

I couldn't fully access them, but the abstracts alone have some interesting information. IAS or sp346 may have better access or input. The latter abstract had this curious statement: "Ratings of affective impact revealed that men rated their nonconsensual experiences as moderately upsetting." "Moderately upsetting"??? To be fair, some cases were just kissing/petting, but one of the studies had 30.1% prevalance of "completed" nonconsensual interaction.

I think this stuff is hugely underreported and unexplored, because it's not "manly" to be a victim.

[DreamP346]

In the US, rape is defined by the FBI by penetration: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Based on this definition, you can see how a woman can rape a man. The sad part is this was only defined like this this year. Previous definitions required that the victim physicially resisted (another good discussion topic). Of course laws are different in each state.

I will see what I can research on women raping men. So far I haven't found much.

[Magnetism]

I feel that men can be raped by women, but I only knew of one instance of a man telling me that he was given the rape drug by a woman. What's ironic is that this man also had sexual predator tendencies. Abusive men can play the victim and make it look like the woman treated him very poorly.

Aside from that, I think a woman raping a man is possible.

[Claret]

Lets just call a spade a spade -- Anytime any person of any age, or any sex, is co-erced or forced into performing a sexual act, it is rape and it would fall under the law that governs sexual misbehaviour. Also, small babies are capable of having erections, does this mean they are inviting touching or any other activity? I think not. They do not have the capability or informed capacity to make informed decisions based on the mind, but it is only a bodily function at that point in time. I think the same would be true for the 10 year old male. He is physically capable but is he emotionally and logically capable?

[ItsASecret]

What if BOTH parties are drunk AND consenting at the time the sexual act takes place?

I thought I heard somewhere that as soon as you become intoxicated your ability to consent is diminished in the law's eyes because intoxication greatly reduces your judgement and hence you lose your ability to give true consent. I heard that a long time ago so I am not sure if that was just something from tv or a real matter lol, but if it were true that would make any bar situation technically void of true consent and therefore rape because the parties are incapable of actually giving that consent with a clear mind. Though if it were true I really do not believe all the bar hookups, disappointing or not, should be considered rape just because the ability to give pure judgement and make that pure consent is not there. People choose to go to the bar, they choose to get drunk, they may decide far ahead of drinking that they want a hookup at some point in the night...they are choosing that situation but I know drinking does not equate wanting sex though so it can get cloudy in that sense.

Consent cannot be retracted after can it? I know some people will try.

A lot of people will do the "uh oh what did I do and why did I end up with that person" in the morning but that is beer goggles creating the situation. But even so I think all it takes is an individual saying "I did not actually give consent" and the doubt is placed and from that it can enter the matter of rape. Also if there is a single mention of "no" during the sexual encounter, then it is no longer consent. At least that is how I understood it before.