What do you think the definition of rape is?

[Cyclone 10]

Did you busy day* just say I created a definition that doesn't fit my definition?

 

*Bloody predictive text

 

More specifically I said that men being forced to have intercourse doesn't fit your definition.

[redfox 10]

I believe there have been cases where women have been charged with rape by using objects or even their fingers

 

 

A woman can only be convicted of rape in my view whilst as an accomplice to a male committing rape; women do not have the necessary equipment.

 

The legal definition of rape requires the penetrative act to be with a penis

 

Use of fingers/objects is an Assault by Penetration (s.2 SOA) - I suspect thats what you are getting at -

[RootsBooster 24]

More specifically I said that men being forced to have intercourse doesn't fit your definition.

 

Why doesn't it?

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2018 at 20:29 ----------

 

A woman can only be convicted of rape in my view whilst as an accomplice to a male committing rape; women do not have the necessary equipment.

 

The legal definition of rape requires the penetrative act to be with a penis

 

Use of fingers/objects is an Assault by Penetration (s.2 SOA) - I suspect thats what you are getting at -

 

Yes, the articles I'm thinking of may have been American, or another country of origin.

[El Cid 221]

The legal definition of rape requires the penetrative act to be with a penis

 

Use of fingers/objects is an Assault by Penetration (s.2 SOA) - I suspect thats what you are getting at -

 

I assume that would carry a lesser sentence? Not that men often complain.

[Cyclone 10]

Why doesn't it?

 

Because it required penetration.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2018 at 08:31 ----------

 

A woman can only be convicted of rape in my view whilst as an accomplice to a male committing rape; women do not have the necessary equipment.

 

The legal definition of rape requires the penetrative act to be with a penis

 

Use of fingers/objects is an Assault by Penetration (s.2 SOA) - I suspect thats what you are getting at -

 

Which is fairly ridiculous really.

For example, a woman can withdraw consent at any point and expect the proceedings to stop.

Now, this is going to be a little convoluted to avoid all the obvious objections, but imagine a BDSM session, male/female, restrained male, viagra. He says stop. She doesn't.

If it were the other way around that would be rape.

In reality it doesn't have to involved restraints and viagra, some women are stronger than some men, and the choice to stop doesn't make an erection magically disappear.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Cyclone

[RootsBooster 24]

Because it required penetration.

See post #15

[Stranza 10]

It is muddier still.

 

There were no women rapers because, by definition, they couldn't.

Some women who self ident now have functioning penis so can be rapers.

 

Just to keep it interesting some women who used to be men with penises were rapist. But now id as women so are women rapers even though when they raped they were men.

[redfox 10]

I assume that would carry a lesser sentence? Not that men often complain.

 

Same starting point on the guidelines.

[willman 10]

Because it required penetration.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2018 at 08:31 ----------

 

 

Which is fairly ridiculous really.

For example, a woman can withdraw consent at any point and expect the proceedings to stop.

Now, this is going to be a little convoluted to avoid all the obvious objections, but imagine a BDSM session, male/female, restrained male, viagra. He says stop. She doesn't.

If it were the other way around that would be rape.

In reality it doesn't have to involved restraints and viagra, some women are stronger than some men, and the choice to stop doesn't make an erection magically disappear.

 

And that is the crux of why women supposedly can't force men to have intercourse.

The use of viagra btw doesn't affect the issue - the defence is that the man has to be aroused to attain an erection,viagra doesn't change that.

[Halibut 12]

And that is the crux of why women supposedly can't force men to have intercourse.

The use of viagra btw doesn't affect the issue - the defence is that the man has to be aroused to attain an erection,viagra doesn't change that.

 

Are you claiming that a man cannot be brought to a state of erection against his will?

[willman 10]

Are you claiming that a man cannot be brought to a state of erection against his will?

 

Did i say i was making any claim.

I was stating the case as the law sees it.

 

Are you claiming a man cannot prevent an erection at will?

[RootsBooster 24]

Did i say i was making any claim.

I was stating the case as the law sees it.

 

Are you claiming a man cannot prevent an erection at will?

 

Do you have any examples of this defence that a man has to be aroused to have an erection?

 

Also, of course a man can't (always) prevent an erection at will. Without specific conditioning we have very little control over our bodies' reactions to unexpected situations.

Edited March 24, 2018 by RootsBooster