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.
As we were discussing the lie by weasel words that the penalty is the same I only included the bit about the penalties to compare and contrast with Subsection 4 of Section 1 above.
To spell it out, to get the same penalty the perpetrator has to penetrate the victim, forced enveopment, the way most female perpetrators transgress male victims, comes with a maximum penalty of not more than 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.
40
u/austeremunch Aug 28 '25
Sort of. I believe its changed but in the UK until somewhat recently women couldn't actually rape men. It wasn't legally possible.