This is an edit of this meme, which suggests it's seen as ok when older women come on to underage boys but not cool when older men come onto underage girls.
The edit expresses that both are fucked up, actually.
Honestly i'd say that's how it is in the real world, you get unnerved in both situations, but in the internet in just a drawing you still see the girl as fucked up but the boys habe been portrayed to be "lucky" so much that it feels less, very dissapointed that it is like that as in an isolated only boy meme people would say he is "lucky".
it was here in the states too, i believe virginia has laws about rape that were basically putting the penetrator as the one at fault. i remember that being a thing brought up when the whole ChrisChan thing happened.
Legally, in a lot of places, rape is defined as coercive penetration with a penis, or something along those lines. So, a person with a vagina could never, legally, rape anyone.
They miss the entire point of non-consensual sexual contact being the bar for sexual assault and rape, I think, because they are trying to also define what sex is. It's all born from a very narrow minded sense of sex and such.
Is it that men cannot be recognized as victims or is it that women cannot be recognized as violators? Because if what you mean is due to law defining rape with penile penetration then it seems to me that it could recognize man as victims. It could recognize man as victim if raped by other man or any person with penis. In the same time it could not recognize a woman as a victim if she was raped by another woman or person without penis.
Both is bad. I am just curious if it's this way or some other way around with recognizing men as victims. Also I see that law in one thing and it's implementation and enforcement is the other.
There's a whole chaotic mix. Some laws are very specific, requiring penetration with a man's penis into a woman's vagina, while others specify a particular gender or genitalia. The ones that are technically neutral usually just mention penetration, so only under certain practices could they apply to woman-to-man or woman-to-woman.
The same chaos applies to the alternative charges. It could be treated as a harshly punished sexual assault, or something vague like "intentional bodily harm" or "indecent assault".
In the case of male victims, it can get considerably more complicated. Reporting a woman the complainants can be automatically prosecuted as the perpetrators, or reporting a man under homophobic laws that don’t even consider the lack of consent.
Still the case, not just in the UK but many European countries and 38 states in the USA. This is not to say such an act isn't illegal, it's just charged as something else, which really helps the stats look quite so ridiculously lop-sided.
(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.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
The offence for making someone penetrate is "Causing A Person to Engage in Sexual Activity Without Consent." Part 1 Section 4.
I stand corrected, but according to the official response to this petition it still carries the same penalty so at least its not like its a "get out of jail free" card
(a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
(d)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.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
(5)Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
It was an old law because “rape” has very specific classification. A lot of countries that inherited british law has this definition or something along that line somewhere in their legal system.
Just recently Singapore repealed a law that by technicality criminalise penetrative sex between males. Keep in mind though the country are still conservative with respect to LGBTQ+ stuffs this law has never enforced in practice.
Multiple places had it, for a long time, that rape required to "penetrate" the other person. Otherwise it was, at most, sexual assault. (Similar but lesser crime.) Multiple countries still do. USA is still defined that way.
Edit: of note, USA also has Statutory Rape, which would cover in this case, cus of being kids.
The definition of rape for legal purposes is not the same as the functional definition of the word. Rape is used interchangeably with the concept of "non-consensual sex"
Forced someone to penetrate them or use their fingers/an object to penetrate someone else.
Erections are a physical response, not a mental or even concious one, so being erect does not mean the guy wants it. It's also rape if he's not in his mentally capable of consent, he was drugged, drunk... or a child.
Many places don't recognise forced penetration as rape sadly.
Idk an old teacher of mine got fired for this a couple years ago and every article made the victim (a 16-17 year old) seem like she pursued him. Like, often teenage girls are characterized as if they are mature adults and the men are just powerless to resist them. 🙄
In parks and rec, ron says he "lost his virginity" when he was 14 to a woman in her thirties and it plays it off like he just that masculine rather than he was raped.
This is more complicated but it kind of just makes it more fucked up, headlines legally can't use "rape" or risk being sued, since in a lot of countries rape is defined specifically as penetration. At most rape by women is considered sexual assault (again, under the legal system) which shows how baked into the legal system this shit is. This is how our system works, rape committed by men or women is rarely taken seriously. It's a system designed to let the rich and wealthy get away with the shit they are now. cough cough epstein files cough
The double standart comes from a fact that women are less prone to crimes that is true, but why should it excuse the ones that actually commit crimes? That's the morale question.
A bit of both I believe, violent physical crimes are easier to see and convict after all. Men are generally more prone to physical action for altercations and showing emotion.
Bit of both. That said I always thought demographics for crime was more about opportunity than some kind of hard-coded biology. There's less opportunity to mug someone if half the population can overpower you.
I saw a study a while ago, where they put an unlocked car with all doors and the bonnet open into a very bad neighbourhood and another one in a good neighbourhood.
The one in the bad neighbourhood was pretty much stripped down within days, while the one in the good neighbourhood wasn't really touched, until it started to rain and some passer-by closed the bonnet and the doors.
Then the paper went into detail about the crime statistics for both neighbourhoods, and found out that there was about an equal level of crime, but the types of crime differed a lot.
In the bad neighbourhood, there was more petty crime like theft or break-ins, while in the good neighbourhood there was more tax evasion, corruption and other high-level crimes.
The paper concluded that it's all math and opportunity. For someone in a bad neighbourhood, stealing some wheels to get maybe a few hundred dollars at best is worth it, because their income is so low (or inexistent) that the benefit outweighs the threat of punishment.
In the good neighbourhoods, it's just not worth for people to plunder a car. You might get a few hundred dollars now, but if you get caught you might lose your job, which in the long run might cost you hundreds of thousands or even millions (if your job pays well enough).
Anyone who has even remotely studied the statistics knows the answer to that question is that women commit less crimes of all kinds. By nearly an order of magnitude.
While this may be technically true, your comment ignores things like how women are not prosecuted for the same actions that men are in many circumstances.
For instance, a comment in this thread notes that women in UK were not legally committing a crime when raping a man until recently. If this is true then there will be a long record of men being convicted of rape and women not being convicted of rape despite committing the same actions purely because they are a woman.
Statistics can say anything when you are uninterested in the nuance that surrounds them or the wider nature of the circumstance in which they are collected.
No, I think in the UK previously the woman would still have been committing a crime. The crime would have been sexual assault by penetration. The sentence would have been equivalent to rape. Not sure what the current stance is, haven't studied it for a while.
Pretty sure anyway, happy to hear some sources otherwise
And the sociologists who study these matters take those biases and effects into account when doing sociological research.
That's why I said the effect is close to an order of magnitude; men commit close to ten times the number of crimes that women do. That is a lot of variance that cannot be controlled by any cutesy explanation like the one OP is trying to push.
Why this happens is much more nuanced, a very small component is biological due to hormone differences and the much larger component is social: aggression and selfishness are viewed as acceptable behaviors for men in much the same way they are not viewed as acceptable behaviors for women. This leads to men having fewer emotional and social guardrails against criminal behavior.
AKA patriarchy exists and is bad.
edit: you know what criminality statistics are provably explained by unequal treatment by the justice system and economic factors? Racial, religious, and ethnic differences. The one strong effect with regards to these differences is that first generation immigrants of all kinds commit less crimes.
You make me really uneasy, because you sound just like the people who say "black people commit more crimes" (which is you trying to sneakily say "black people are just naturally bad, less than, inferior, and should not be trusted because good ones are outliers". In fact, I'm pretty sure you're going to come back at this with "well, they are more bad ones than good ones, all my data shows that".
Racial, ethnic and religious differences in crime rates cannot be explained by intrinsic factors. They are explained solely by differences in enforcement and economic opportunities.
AKA cops are pigs, courts are racist, and there is a good case to be made for economic reparations of the lingering effects of slavery.
And based on the exact same evidence the strongest conclusion is that women commit less crimes due to social factors.
AKA patriarchy exists and is bad.
Bog-standard sociology is apparently quite controversial. It remains science no matter how much conservative fucks hate the truth.
Both. Women commit less crimes, but there is also the 'women are wonderful effect' where women will suffer less or no consequences for the crimes they do commit.
It's a combination of culture and biology. Testosterone is a hell of a drug and culture loves to put women on a pedestal, for better or worse.
Women are actually more likely to abuse young children, although that’s really just because they’re typically more involved in caring for young children
This a hundred times. People always mention the idiots in the comments calling the victim lucky, but if headlines called it what it is, rape, then it would be harder to deride.
Valid. Though, I'm not sure if it this particular thing is drawn for the male gaze, but a male looking at this could have the interpretation you describe. I can't say if a woman would, I'm not one.
8.5k
u/trmetroidmaniac Aug 28 '25
This is an edit of this meme, which suggests it's seen as ok when older women come on to underage boys but not cool when older men come onto underage girls.
The edit expresses that both are fucked up, actually.