Apparently you can't be raped by a woman in the UK ( by legal definition)

Apparently you can't be raped by a woman in the UK ( by legal definition)


Thank you for posting to r/pointlesslygendered! We are really glad you are here. We want to make sure that all users follow the rules. This message does NOT mean you broke a rule or your post was removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pointlesslygendered) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Just to be clear, this is the title of an article detailing why experts (obviously) think it should be legally classified as rape, even though it isn't in England and Wales today. It's not a case of a journalist being a moron.


I guess sadly it’s another case of a good article with a rage clickbait tittle to get clicks and possibly bring hate and harassment towards the writer.


I don't think they wrote the headline in that way to encourage harassment.


I will give you that I didn’t word it in the best way possible. What I was trying to get across was more the idea that they’re willing to throw one of their writers under the bus for easy clicks and harassment can end up being a byproduct of that.


I was being a bit cheeky.


I’ll take it :)


"Could I be jumping to conclusions too quickly? No, it's the very concept of rhetorical questions that is wrong."


They know what they’re doing, it’s sad, but we do live in a world where people mostly just look at the headline (this post being a perfect example). There is no way the wrote that title with the best intentions in mind.


I saw this after I left my comment. Duh of course I fell for it.


Isnt the point of the BBC being publicly funded to qvoid dumb motivations like clicks?


Welp, apparently they haven’t succeeded.


Nah, the BBC is pretty mich fucked.


>even though \[rape by a woman\] isn't \[legally rape\] in England and Wales today. Is it different in Scotland?


Not as far as I'm aware, but the legal systems function somewhat differently, so it makes sense for the article to only focus on one. I also have no clue for Northern Ireland.


No, it's the same.


I haven't seen the article, but do they say anything about same sex rape? I'm in the US but the reason I never reported my date rape 19yrs ago was because it was another woman. I didn't think the police would take me seriously.


Lots of jurisdictions criminalized forcible or nonconsensual "penetration" of the victim by the perp. So in most cases of male on male rape, yes; but there are likely woman on woman cases that wouldn't qualify. It's not about gender, it's about penetration.


Which is also kind of stupid because plenty of things can be types of rape that don't involve penetration. For me since it was so long ago in a very conservative area I didn't trust that the police would help me. I was actually more worried they would hurt me in some way.


I hate threads like these because all they do is spread misinformation and discourage men from reporting because they actually think what she did is somehow not illegal even if it doesn't meet the *legal definition* of rape in that country. This is because in some places *in legal terms only* rape does not mean "unwanted or nonconsensual sex." Legally it's sexual assault and this is not gendered either, and l will explain why. 1st, the legal definition of rape in some countries including the UK is a person (male or female) being sexually penetrated by *anything,* not just a penis, it could an object, fingers, etc. by either a man or a woman. It's not gendered *at all.* Everything else is sexual assault. The everyday common definition/understanding of rape has a different definition as the legal term- for reasons that aren't sexist at all and I'll explain why. We all define rape as unwanted or nonconsensual sex. We'd all say, yes that man was raped. Just like if a man performed oral sex on a woman against her will, we'd say he raped her *even though it's not under the legal term.* Forced sex without penetration is sexual assault and it is punished harshly and fairly. Sexual assault is not "lesser than rape." Sexual assault survivors do not neccessarily have less trauma than those whose forced sex involved penetration and it is NOT less serious, or less valid nor do the legal distinctions reflect that in any way. Making a legal distinction is not making a value statement, and it's definitely not gender based. So. In legal terms only: Unwanted forced sex w/o penetration, by a male or female perpetrator on a male or female victim is sexual assault. -although yes, in everyday speech we'd just say rape, because most people use the word as an umbrella term for all forms of forced sex. Notice this is not gendered. Rape in legal terms refers to unwanted/forced sex by a male or female perpetrator on a male or female victim that involves penetrated in some way, *and not just by a penis.* By an object, fingers, anything. This means under the legal definition a woman can rape another woman with an object or her fingers, a woman can rape a man the same way if his anus is penetrated, a man can rape a man and a man can rape a woman. It literally covers very gender, victim or perpetrator. *It's not gendered.* The reason for the distinction is also not sexist and has nothing to do with percieved levels of *mental* trauma. It has to do with the physical pain and bodily violation of being penetrated specifically. Forced penetration is more physically violent than sexual assault. It often leaves the victim hospitalized and with lasting physical damage. Separating those aspects allows us to punish the perpetrator accordingly. Not just by mental trauma and damage *where sexual assault is the same as rape* but by physical trauma and damage. IT'S NOT SEXIST. It is not making a statement that men can't be raped, *especially* if we are using the word to refer to all nonconsensual sex. No one using that definition would say it wasn't rape. No one. This post is clickbait nonsense. And in the comments I always see men freaking out, or worse saying that this false belief is why they didn't report. When they could have and she could have been charged with sexual assault and he could have gotten resources. But instead, reddit spreads more misinformation about male victims and how men are so persecuted in society and it HARMS men. Okay. Am I opposed to the definition being changed? No, actually I'm not. The definition is not sexist. Anyone saying it is has no idea what they're talking about. I'm going to read the article. IF they have a good case for why the distinction isn't needed, as in the legal definition can change to nonconsensual sex with or without penetration, and the differences in levels of physical violence between both can still be reflected in how harshly they're punished then, yeah. +Yes, there is still a particular stigma of male reporting and that comes from misogyny and a patriarchal society where part of being a man is dominating women. Hence, the shame of a man being dominated by a person "lesser than a man." Women and men face different *kinds* of stigma, but women still face just as much stigma as men. It's just for different reasons. *This should not stop men from reporting.* Women still report even though we aren't believed and face stigma. We fight it. Men need to do the same. ++There was a time when rape was gendered, it was defined as a male penetrating a man or a woman with his penis. *It still recognized male victims,* but gendered because the penetration involved a penis specifically. Again, when this was the legal definition women could still be charged with sexual assault if she raped him (using our current colloquial definition of rape). So women didn't just get away with raping men either, because it was still recognized that women could force a man to have sex. This idea that anyone has ever or currently believes "men can't be raped" when using the colloquial definition of forced sex is not real. This entire hysteria of men claiming people actually think that and the law reflects it is misinformation and harmful. So the definition was changed to person, and the penetrating object could be an object or fingers, and not just a penis. This way women penetrating other women or men could be recognized as rape. However, before that happened, all of that was *still illegal* it was just called sexual assault. Some ignorant people do believe in certain myths regarding male victims such as an erection means he wanted it. Not true. But these myths have never been reflected in law


I'm a woman. I was raped by another woman.


The UK defines rape as "with a penis". So, it's only the sex of the perp that matters. That said, there also exists a law which, though it's not called rape, covers all the other bases and applies the exact same penalties.


I know lots of legal systems don't have a crime of rape on their books. For example, in my State in the US, there is not a crime of rape. It is classified as criminal sexual conduct. In non legal terms, it would be rape, in legal terms it is not.


It also seems to ignore the idea that men can be penetrated, even by people who don’t have penises.


watch r/memes or one of the 999999 similar subs take this one image and twist it into "cringe feminazi journalists think raping men is okay"


Also to be clear, the legal consequences of forcing a man to penetrate you are (theoretically) the same as that of forcibly penetrating someone. It's just a semantic thing of one being called rape and the other not. That being said, criminal justice systems favour women so while theoretically they receive similar sentences, in actuality they probably don't. But changing the name of the crime to rape probably won't help


Flip it around and try it for size: We'll get rid of the crime of rape against women. I mean it'll still be illegal to force a woman to have sex, even violently. But it'll be grouped with a much lesser crime, sexual assault. In theory they could have the same penalty but in reality that never happens and sexual assault is a far lesser crime. But that's enough protection, right? Not so great, is it?




In terms of sentencing yes they fucking do. The sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times worse than the sentencing gap between black people and white people.


Does this account for number of charges? If men get arrested 6 times more often then that number has nothing to do with the courts.


You're almost there, go on.


I did some training with a UK rape crisis centre and learned this. They said it is prosecuted (if it gets that far) and sentenced as an equally serious offence, but yeah the law seriously needs to change


When I was in secondary school, we had a lawyer come in to talk to us and she told us this. She said “by UK law, if you don’t have a penis, you can’t rape someone.” I remember the class was all outraged because surely there are cases where women force people into sex against their will. She said “If a woman does force someone into a sex act, we prosecute that as sexual assault.”


It doesn't carry the same sentencing though, and obviously there's a different social stigma around the word rape. IIRC it carries the same maximum sentence but not the same minimum sentence. And in practice women get off a lot easier. There have been multiple protests in London about this. Also the UK isn't the only place where this is a thing. In many US states the laws are even more gendered, to the point that it's only a misdemeanor if a woman does it. Usually they can avoid being put on the sex offender registry and things like that too. See: ###### Siobhan Weare, *Lancaster University*. (2017). Men forced to have sex with women aren't being properly recognised by the law -- legal expert. THE CONVERSATION. http://theconversation.com/men-forced-to-have-sex-with-women-arent-being-properly-recognised-by-the-law-legal-expert-81638 ###### Rumney, P. N. (2007). In defence of gender neutrality within rape. *Seattle J. Soc. Just.*, 6, 481. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/14750/1/RumneySJSJ.pdf


Irrelevant to the discussion, but as an open acess librarian, thank you for for linking a repository for the scholarly article! :)


TIL getting bottom surgery can get you out of a rape charge in the UK.


Have fun getting bottom surgery in the UK though


I’m 16 and we had the exact same talk a couple weeks back. It’s really disgusting (wasn’t in so my GF told me)


I know a lot of western nations just define it as any form of forced sexual activity regardless of the exact mechanics and the sex of the perpetrator and victim, which is how it should be defined imo.


But that leaves it open to interpretation and abuse. Is penetration the finish line? Or does oral or jerking off count? What's rape vs sexual assault?


From what I understand there has to be physical contact. That way ex. lesbian rape still qualifies as rape even without any penetration whatsoever.


That's a good definition, physical genital contact.


Something like that, though I think oral also qualifies in this case.


That’s still genital contact


>What's rape vs sexual assault? In Canada, at least, there is no legal charge of rape. It falls under the umbrella of sexual assault, just like non-penetrative sexual touching, over-the-clothes fondling, and other such acts. The difference is in the sentence, of course, but technically "rape" is not a term used in our criminal code. Frankly, I prefer it this way. There are a LOT of physical violations that can be done to a person without a penis being involved. Forced oral sex, use of inanimate objects, and digital penetration come to mind. And this way also captures same-sex acts and female-on-male acts.


That makes sense actually.


In many Australian states you have rape which is generally defined as forced nonconsentual vaginal intercourse, and sexual assault which covers nonconsentual penetration which also includes when a female forcefully penetrates herself on a male. The easiest way to explain it to people who can't seem to wrap their head around the distinction is that all rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. They hold the same sentencing severity.


But what about gay rape and lesbian rape?


That's covered under sexual assault.


If it's just semantics, then why does it need to change? (Why downvote a genuine question?)


Because if semantics didn't matter basically all communication falls apart. Same reason we needed gay marriage when we had civil partnerships; labels rightfully matter to people, they carry meaning and weight.


It falls under sexual assault not rape.


In the UK they are the same.


Rape falls under sexual assault.


Iirc rape carries a harsher punishment than sexual assault


"Causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent" is under the same law with the same punishment.




Nope. If a woman "rapes" a man, it is ostensibly treated the same b y the courts, albeit with a different name appearing no the charge sheet


They're two different things in the eyes of the law


They're under the same law with the same punishment. So what is your definition of rape that is so much better than "Causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent"?


Rape and sexual assault are two different things in the eyes of the law, I'm not going to argue over it.


Yeah, why bother understanding how laws work?


I think you'd benefit from a short break from Reddit


How about one of the two of you post a link to the relevant law or code section which addresses this rather than arguing without proof like a couple of twats?


first rule of law is its all about semantics, even if its functionally the same thing a slightly different wording means it can be interpreted differently


Changing it would make sure that they're actually getting equal consequences for the same crime, and would prevent potential loopholes and complications. It would also just be a nice symbolic gesture, and hopefully remove some of the stigma. It's arguably not the most pressing issue, but it's still an issue. Edit: Assuming this is an accurate interpretation of British law, I'm not exactly an expert on British law, and I've heard differing accounts tbh.


Course it is but as you say the legal definition here In the uk is a penis that penetrates a Vagina, anus or mouth with out consent, legally the other acts are sexual assault. I always see people angry (rightly so) about news papers and articles saying it should be rape but if they actually published that they would be liable and legally it’s not true. Hopefully changes in the future.


in switzerland rape is even more specific - it has to be vaginal penetration. thankfully it seems as if that is going to change somewhat soon.


Aww that’s good it’s changing! It feels like it’s not acknowledging or validating male on male rape either otherwise


Its not even validating certain acts of rape with female victims. Its a very strange, extremely patriarchal law - becaus its only rape if it could lead to pregnancy. It honestly feels more like a ‚you knocked up my wife/daughter‘ law, rather than a ‚you did one of the most despicable things one human can do to another.‘


That’s not quite right as it covers penetration of the mouth or anus too. But it does require a penis to do the penetrating. Thus a man can be raped but only by another man


it does not cover other forms of penetration. the word 'Beischlaf' in judical practice was always interpreted as vaginal penetration in switzerland. there have been specific interpellations in parliament talking about that - and even amnesty international alludes to that in a report on general problmes with current laws concerning rape and the incomplete implementation of the Istanbul-Convention. Sources: AI Analysis: [https://www.amnesty.ch/de/themen/frauenrechte/sexuelle-gewalt/dok/2019/sexuelle-gewalt-in-der-schweiz/switzerland-legislation-on-rape-a-human-rights-analysis.pdf](https://www.amnesty.ch/de/themen/frauenrechte/sexuelle-gewalt/dok/2019/sexuelle-gewalt-in-der-schweiz/switzerland-legislation-on-rape-a-human-rights-analysis.pdf) INterpellation 13.3485: [https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20133485](https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20133485) And a very specific (and quite gruesome) case in which both rape and sexual coercion happened - with a female victim: [https://entscheide.weblaw.ch/cache.php?link=16.07.2015\_6b\_1149-2014&sel\_lang=de](https://entscheide.weblaw.ch/cache.php?link=16.07.2015_6b_1149-2014&sel_lang=de) In this case, in the 'Sachverhalt' it clearly states, that there was a rape AND sexual coercion in the form of anal/oral penetration. ​ edit: Or this one, where the federal penal court specifically states, that oral penetration is not rape (Erwägung 2.5): [https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight\_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F132-IV-120%3Ade&lang=de&zoom=&type=show\_document](https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F132-IV-120%3Ade&lang=de&zoom=&type=show_document) 2. edit: And on the notion that men can be raped by men: Interpallation 14.3651: [https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20143651](https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20143651) and an article from Swissinfo: [https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/strafrecht\_maenner-koennen-in-der-schweiz-nicht-vergewaltigt-werden/44391718](https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/strafrecht_maenner-koennen-in-der-schweiz-nicht-vergewaltigt-werden/44391718) by law it is impossible to rape a man, and it is even more so impossible for a woman to rape anyone. Beischlaf means literaly a penis needs to penetrate a vagina. every other form of penetration is considered Beischlafähnlich and is therefore not covered by Rape ([ART 190 STGB](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#lvl_d1325e348/tit_5/lvl_2/lvl_d1325e572)), but by Sexual Coercion / Sexual assault ([ART 189 STGB](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/de#lvl_d1325e348/tit_5/lvl_2/lvl_d1325e570)) Also in Art 190 STGB begins with the words: Wer eine Person **weiblichen** Geschlechts \[...\] it is literaly qualified as only applying to female victims.


Oh my bad, didn’t realise I commented on the Swiss part of the thread. In the uk it covers penetration of the mouth and anus. It’s depressing that different countries can’t even agree on what rape is when it seems so obvious


But the notion of consent will still not be taken into account in the legal definition of rape


No, a woman causing someone to penetrate her is Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and would be up to life imprisonment.


There was a somewhat famous case in the 70s where some American women drugged and raped a guy in England before going back to the US. They didn’t get extradited because the charge wasn’t rape and the UK gov didn’t take it seriously. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manacled_Mormon_case


Thanks u/gamergirlwithfeet420 !


\>They didn’t get extradited because the charge wasn’t rape No extradition request of the US was ever made. The US would almost certainly have complied because the two were charged with kidnapping, a very serious crime.


That’s what I meant, the UK never made a request because they didn’t take it seriously


The fact the UK charged the two with kidnapping shows they did take it seriously. The Wikipedia writeup doesn't provide any details why the government failed to request extradition. It may have been at the request of the young man who was being made fun of by the media and the public.


Forcing and lack of consent is rape no matter what


This is just the wording of the law, it specifies penetration in its definition of rape and creates this loophole. It’s a definition that needs to be updated but it doesn’t mean a guilty woman would be untouchable by the law.


Because the law is outdated and written with the idea that man always dominant women and all there is to sex is vaginal penetration. It is a sad excuse for a law.


Not quite, it includes sodomy and to be fair, covers the vast majority of rape but is clearly due revision.


If a woman is forcing a man to penetrate her by enveloping his penis without his consent, "forced penetration" or "vaginal penetration" is still happening, and I think would/should still be prosecutable even with this vocabulary.


Look up Mary Koss and the FMF. They've had a lot of influence on how similar laws like this were written in the US. The idea that "men always dominate women (sexually)" might be something going back to the stone ages, but rape being defined as "penetration" is a modern development by some nefarious actors in society with institutional power and ulterior motives. That's why the CDC uses that definition for example (leaving out millions of men who are raped by women every year from official statistics, and creating the false idea that "most men who are raped, are raped by other men").


Maybe just me but millions/year seems to be alot of men?


It is. A roughly equal number of men are raped every year as women. Lifetime stats show about 1 in 6 men and 1 in 5 women being victims. Around 45% of self admitted rapists are women also. If you want to talk about something being pointlessly gendered, just about everything around rape and sexual assault is pointlessly gendered. See: https://1in6.org/


The Sexual Offences Act 2003 explicitly defines an offence of a woman forcing someone to to penetrate her and it has exactly the same sentencing guidelines as a man penetrating anyone else.


It is not the "exact same" sentencing guidelines (only the maximum punishment is the same) and I find it odd that you're all over the comments here trying to push this obvious falsehood. FYI: http://theconversation.com/men-forced-to-have-sex-with-women-arent-being-properly-recognised-by-the-law-legal-expert-81638 http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/14750/1/RumneySJSJ.pdf


> At present, forced-to-penetrate cases can only be prosecuted in the UK as sexual assault or “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”. These are less “serious” sexual offences within the legal framework, and are heard in either the Crown or Magistrates Courts, where custodial sentencing is capped at 12 months. The offence of rape, meanwhile, can only be heard in the Crown Court and has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Your first link makes the mistake of assuming any offence under section 4 is either way, when subsection 4 makes it clear that any offence involving penetration is on indictment, so only to be tried in the Crown Court. From the Crown Prosecution Service: > * This section creates two separate offences, penetrative and non-penetrative. > * The mode of trial and maximum sentence varies depending on whether there is penetration. > * The non-penetrative offence is either way and attracts a maximum 10 year sentence on indictment > * The penetrative offence is indictable only and attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment > > ... > > One of the purposes of this offence, in addition to the wider range of sexual activity, is to create a female equivalent of the offence of rape, which carries the same level of punishment for what amounts to the same type of offending behaviour. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences The rest of the article is referring to a survey they ran, so not relevant. Your second link is rather long, so you'll forgive me if I don't respond immediately. **Edit:** Okay, I've just wasted my time reading that paper and it has nothing to do with sentencing in England and Wales. The article is from four years after the 2003 act, so there hadn't been a significant amount of time for cases to come before the courts. Neither of your links support your comment at all. All they do is waste people's time while they discover that they're irrelevant.


UK here, our laws massively don’t protect men who have been victims of rape or sexual assault. The article is trying to push to update our laws to include them.


They protect victims of sexual assault. It's just the definition of rape that doesn't apply because you need a penis. Serious sexual assaults still carry the same sentencing guidelines.


Cropping these days


People don't wanna read the article, they just wanna be mad


To be fair, when you title an article like that, it makes me not wanna read it at all


Of course it's r*pe. But in my country for a long time it was impossible (by law) for a husband to r. his wife, until people stand up and protestet. Laws will only change if the people in a country stick together for each other.


Im curious as to why you feel there is a need to censor the word rape. Honestly i dont really think there is one 😅


They may have just felt uncomfortable writing the word out themself. Nothing wrong with that.


Ohh i did not think of that. Thats fair.


Seeing the full word may trigger repressed memories for survivors


But... It's literally in the title of the post and the picture, I'm pretty sure they would've already seen the word before reaching this comment.


Maybe just a force of habit. I'm not bothered if someone wants to censor it! I still know what the word is


I imagine even the censored word will do that too in context, so censoring doesn't really help. Also the uncensored word rape is literally in the title of the original post.


It's unhelpful though because people often use filters to hide posts and comments containing the word, so if you use an asterisk their filters don't work. Also if you're triggered by the word "rape" you aren't likely to be less triggered by the word "r\*pe".


bruh that's fucking stupid


Who knows for what nonsense I get banned. So, I try to censor everything some could made feel uncomfortable.


Yeah in Australia Rape is penetration (pretty sure with a penis) and everything else is assault


Well that a stupid ass law


No no, we aren't supposed to learn anything from this, we should just get mad based on our ignorance of the law and call the article that would teach us something clickbait.


Doesn't the UK have like a 1% rape conviction rate ? Wait: I'm right. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48095118 "In the year to March 2020, just 1.4% of rape cases recorded by police resulted in a suspect being charged (or receiving a summons)."


Yeh the woman is raping the male




Where I live a man can’t be a rape victim and it doesn’t count as rape unless the victim actively resists which is… It makes me wonder why I live here.


I remember how much ‘fun’ people had watching Geordie Shore when Holly raped James


....... Why would this even be a question like obviously that's rape huh


The headline is hypothetical and designed to get your attention, if this is the article I think it is then the author is actually arguing against the different definition in the UK.


It's absolutely not in many jurisdictions. That is bad, because it should be. You should help change those laws, not get mad at people informing you of the injustice.


No means no. Not saying no is not a yes. Even a yes can be forced. Don’t assume somebody wants it; find out and see.


Your honor he said yes I Said yesn't!


I've said it before and I'll say it again,my county is ran b total fucking morons. And a special "fuck you" to people who say "yOu GoT hArD sO yOu MuSt WaNt It" because you're a cunt.


Swag my countries dumb as shit


If it’s a sexual act without proper consent it’s rape so


Legally in the uk rape can only happen if you are penetrated specifically by a penis


I Know a guy who believes a man cannot be rapped by a woman and it’s ridiculous


This is one of the reasons why I fucking hate being British


Not unexpected from a island owned by terf


It's even worse in switzerland : the legal definition of rape applies only were there is a forced penetration of a penis into a vagina. The notion of consent is not in this definition. So basically, according to swiss law : - Men can't be rapped - Forced anal/oral sex isn't rape - If there is no physical violence, there is no rape. ... I live in a shitty country


Same thing here in switzerland - but even worse - it's only rape if a vaginal penetration happens. There is of course sexual assault for everything else (including male victims) that carries the same maximal penalty - but a much lower minimal penalty, as it also includes things like groping etc.


The fact that this question even has to be asked is disappointing.


[Meanwhile in Sweden...](https://www.thelocal.se/20080826/13950/) TL;DR: Woman forced another woman at knife-point to perform cunnilingus on her, and fellatio on the attacker's brother, gets sentenced to five years imprisonment for aggravated rape.


This article, and the comments here, make quite a lot of cisnormative and heteronormative assumptions. As has been said, in the UK, rape is only counted as such under the law if there is penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina by a penis - regardless of the gender of either the assailant or the victim. Anything else that we'd call rape, the law counts as sexual assault. The law considers these separately, but the sentencing can be the same. It's a bit like the difference between the narrow definition of say, murder in the law, or culpable homicide^1, whereas in society we'd probably call them both murder. Now there are some issues with this, imho, but I don't think it's like, the number one priority needing fixed right now. Given the horrifically low prosecution rate for rapes, I'm not sure how expanding the definition would help. ^1 That's what we call it in Scotland, I think it's manslaughter in England & Wales. Not sure about other places.


I mean most legal experts in the UK disagree with you. For whatever reason a lot of people want to downplay this, and they use the fact that both laws have the same maximum sentence to act like they're "the same" when in practice every other sentencing guideline is lower for women. And most people don't call female-on-male sexual assault rape anyway. That's a known systemic (and in this case institutional) form of sexism against men and it deserves to be brought up and fixed. See: ###### Siobhan Weare, *Lancaster University*. (2017). Men forced to have sex with women aren't being properly recognised by the law -- legal expert. THE CONVERSATION. http://theconversation.com/men-forced-to-have-sex-with-women-arent-being-properly-recognised-by-the-law-legal-expert-81638 ###### Rumney, P. N. (2007). In defence of gender neutrality within rape. *Seattle J. Soc. Just.*, 6, 481. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/14750/1/RumneySJSJ.pdf


One issue is that transphobes can use it to argue that trans women are infinitely more likely to be rapists than cis women. Because no cis woman has \*ever\* raped anyone according to the legal definition.


Yes you can : boys can be penetrated too. Also i don't about the UK, but in my country "rape" and "sexual assault" are two different things on the legal point of view, but are still punished roughly in the same way.


but penetration isn’t the qualifier for rape, a lack of consent is


Morally I agree, but unfortunately in the UK the legal definition does specify penetration with a penis


Is it really "with a penis" ? I though it wasn't specified leading any kind of non consensual penetration being defined as rape.


Yeah it is, or more specifically "with his penis". One of the many reasons the laws seriously need updating. I did some awareness training with a rape crisis centre and was shocked by a lot of what I heard


Indeed S.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003, Rape: (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. (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.


that’s so incredibly fucked up


The definition of rape is forced sex. So, no consent given. If a man does not give consent, then he was raped.


I'm not saying that the law is a good representation of what is commonly understood behind the word "rape", nor that it's a good thing that it's not the case. But this kind of headline can tend to make people believe there is absolutely no justice for male victims of rape while that's not the case : those crimes are qualified as "sexual assault" and are punished (not in an ideal way, of course, there is still a lot of things to do for sexual crimes to be treated properly).


The problem is that rape is water down to sexual assault for men. In many countries this is laughed at.


Which is why in England and Wales the definition doesn't talk about the gender of the victim, just the body parts penetrated > he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, A woman would be covered by section four > (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else (E&W legislation always uses the masculine pronoun, but that is defined to include everyone)


Maybe flair this one with a content warning or something?


Whilst it isn’t rape it’s sexual assault and I think it gets the same amount of time (5 years) which is stupid low anyway


No, it's up to life imprisonment. See Section 1 and 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003


Yeah that wasn’t a max that was a min btw^^^


She is forcefully making you penetrate her, how is that any different.


If you sit on the toilet and push fecal matter out your ass is that shitting?


In school, a lady came in to talk to us about sex ed and made a big deal about how “men cannot be raped” cause of some reason that was too dumb to remember. She said this to a group of impressionable preteens.


It's the same in Switzerland: a woman can't rape anyone and a man can't be raped because rape is basically defined as inserting your penis into the vagina of someone who doesn't want you to do that. There is also 'sexual assault' which is discussed in the next paragraph of the law or something but the highest possible amount of time you can spend in prison for that is lower.


It’s under ‘sexual assault’ but not ‘rape’ and it fucking grinds my gears what the FUCK.


Minnesota only recently got rid of the legal language preventing husbands from being charged for rape with their wife. There are a lot of backwards laws in the books.


Can someone link the original article please?


Yeah, British law can be pretty backwards sometimes. Example: Pitbulls are banned because they look threatening


Fun fact: For some reason adultery in British law is defined as an extramarital affair between a man and a woman. Meaning that if you are a gay couple and your husband cheats with another man, it does not constitute "adultery" in legal terms and cannot be used as, for example, grounds for divorce. Source: This happened to a friend.


How is everyone mad at this headline? Right now, in many jurisdictions, *this isn't rape.* That's bad. Apparently lots of people didn't know it. And they're mad at the writer, not the legislators?


How is this even a question? Rape is rape.


British person here! The exact definition last I checked was a person intentionally penetrates another person vagina, anus or mouth with a penis without the other person's consent Completely wrong and unfortunate, the most I believe a woman can be convicted with is sexual assault


If a woman forces her partner to finish inside her, especially with the intent of getting pregnant, while that man is begging No, No,-it is still Rape. But Bridgerton seems to think otherwise.


I'm from the UK but no longer live there, but similarly I remember reading my local area 'rape crisis centre' website and seeing that they felt the need to specify that they will help "women, non-binary people, people under 18, and trans people" (or something worded very closely to that). Like they list specifically everyone apart from cis adult men, so if you're a cis man who has been raped I guess they won't offer any help? Even though it's a rape crisis centre? Seems messed up.


There are resources set up by men's activists in the UK because of this problem: https://www.survivorsuk.org/ https://1in6.uk


forced penetration can also be forcing to penetrate


Not sure this really belongs here. The BBC aren't pontificating on the morals, they're discussing the law. Yes, the law is fucked up but this meme doesn't really make that point now, does it.


The title's a little misleading. In UK rape is defined by forced penetration, so if a woman has sex with a man against his will and forcefully penetrated him with whatever was on hand, that would qualify as rape. However it IS true that it is not considered rape without that forceful penetration, so assuming a woman forces a man into sex without using any objects, yes, bizarrely, that doesn't count as rape


That's not accurate. The offence of rape requires the penetration by the offender's penis. Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent would be the offence of a woman raping a man, which requires the offender to cause the victims body to penetrate someone's body (which would include the offender). Both have up to life imprisonment. **Edit:** fix bitcoin -> victim typo


Edit- Sorry, replied to wrong comment


I presume the argument is that women are raped when they are forcefully penetrated. I.e. the definition of rape is when Forced Penetration occurs. Now I'm no legal scholar but that would make make male on male rape a thing even by this ridiculous standard. And! And! It would mean a man can be raped by a woman if she *forces him to penetrate her.* I suppose forced hand jobs would have to be argued differently in this particular dystopia but I think my point stands. Even with this definition, male rape is a thing and anyone arguing it isn't is a moron.


You are right in that you are not a legal scholar. In "forced penetration" jurisdictions, the person being penetrated isn't violating the statute, only the person doing the penetrating.


that kind of disparity is so fucked up


I'm all for changing the definition of rape within law, but it doesn't achieve anything. Forced penetration would still obviously be classified as sexual assault, and would still be sentenced as such, so all we are really talking about is semantics


The point of the article is the horrible fact legally speaking in the UK a woman cant rape a man. They dont have a law to protect men from women. This is experts discussing that law.


ITT: people not understanding that legal language is different from "normal" language.


Another reason I hate Britain.


How is that even a debate ffs...


Only if they have to shove a number 2 pencil in your unit to keep it hard.


Bill Nye saves the world just absolutely killed this guy for me


If you think that's bad look at nordic countries there shit is wild


Dude please tell me this isn’t true I’m reeling rn.


I think in summer countries the legal definition for being raped by a woman is a different word with different legal meaning Threw me for a loop


A+ use of Bill Nye there.


I know. It's a sad truth.


Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)


I'm many US states oral rape isn't legally rape as well


Does anyone have a link to the full article


Fun fact: exhibitionism laws in Germany only and specifically mention males. Combined with self-id gender laws, I know where I’m spending my next holidays…


You as in men or you as in in general?


From the article’s subtitle: > **When a man has penetrative sex with a woman without her consent, that's rape. But what if a woman makes a man have penetrative sex with her, without his consent? That's not rape under the law of England and Wales, but the author of a new study of the phenomenon says perhaps it should be.**