An old thread with useful info: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w6jjsj/we_need_to_be_smart_about_the_uk_legal_definition/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w6t2va/change_the_sexual_offences_act_so_women_can_be/

​

Can someone please rearrange this jumble of text into readable paragraphs? Thanks. I'm trying to put together some stuff about the UK rape law.

​

In the 21st century, the UK is one of the last developed countries that doesn't use a gender-neutral definition of rape. The last government response on this subject was inadequate and wrong: it said that the maximum sentence for "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" is the same if penetration is involved: life. However, most sentences imposed are at the lower end of the scale, and although there are no statutory minimum sentences, the starting points when sentencing for the two crimes are decidedly NOT equal: 4 years' imprisonment is the starting point for a rape sentence, but the other charge has a starting point of a community order.

​

There is no valid reason for the crime of rape to be gendered. Most murderers are men, but we don't call murder a gendered crime that only men can do, do we? By defining rape as requiring penetration with a penis, this sends the wrong message - it implies that women are weak, pure and good, and incapable of serious sexual offences while at the same time being more innocent and more worthy of protection simply due to their gender. It tells people raped by women that they weren't really raped, and in the most egregious cases where men are raped by women, it tells these men "Why are you complaining? Women can't rape. It didn't happen. Even if it did, you wanted it. Even if you didn't want it, you should have, what's wrong with you, are you a "real man"? Even if it did happen and it was serious, why did you say anything? A real man would take it in his stride and shake it off. A real man would keep his mouth shut. Do you want people to laugh at you?" This is highly offensive, but even well-meaning people sometimes subconsciously believe some form of a rape myth. We need to reach an understanding whereby sex without consent is rape, no ifs, ands or buts.

​

Men are not a monolith, and an innocent man is not responsible for the actions of a criminal who happens to be male. Myths like those above are profoundly damaging to men's mental health, and not enough is done to confront toxic feminist talking points when they veer towards extremism and blaming all men.

​

The most important point I have saved for last. As no doubt you are aware, the UK has a major problem with TERFs. Trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Many of them are not feminists at all, but reactionary conservatives joining forces with feminists to oppose transgender ideology. Many of them say they don't hate trans people, just the activists, but their rhetoric harms actual trans children in schools. The hashtag #NotOurCrimes has been used to draw people's attention to news articles where trans women sex offenders are charged with rape or similar offences. TERFs love to point to the UK law to support their bigotry - "look! By definition women can't be rapists!" So by sticking to an outdated, gender-biased law, this government is allowing this bigotry to continue unchallenged. The fairest solution is to make the crime of rape completely gender neutral. The FBI definition is ideal - it works for all genders of perpetrator and victim: "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." Once the law has been updated, it must be put into practice. All too often, female sexual predators are shown leniency, especially by male judges. Sometimes they deliberately get pregnant for no other reason than to seek leniency in court, sad though it is to say.

​

When men are sexually violated, their experiences must be taken seriously. When the law tells them that women can't rape, that what happened to them wasn't really rape, etc. it adds insult to injury. It makes no difference whether he was violated with a penis, a baguette, a vagina (rape by envelopment) or anything else; it is still rape and a deeply personal violation. Female rapists are far more common than most people thought; hardly a day goes by without another female teacher caught sleeping with her students. When someone is in such a position of trust, taking advantage of horny boys must be treated with the seriousness it deserves and given the label "rape". At that age, teenagers are struggling with hormones and dealing with attraction. Some people will blame the victim simply because he's male, but the teacher is the one with all the power. The teacher is older and more in control of her hormones. The teacher knows the boy won't say no to her advances. The teacher... is the one to blame 100%. This leads me to my other problem with the existing law for female-on-male rapists: the very wording implies the male is the active party and the female is the passive one, even though she raped him. Mary Koss used similar wording in one of her studies, saying male victims "engaged in unwanted..." rather than "were raped". She is the person most responsible for defining male victims out of existence, along with female rapists. She even did a radio interview where a man was forcibly raped while unconscious, and she couldn't bring herself to admit anything - she said "I would call it unwanted contact." This is a feminist rape researcher, who is supposed to know what she's talking about, given clear and convincing evidence of a man raped while unconscious by a woman, who was unable to move past her preconceived notions to admit the existence of female-on-male rape. (Actually, those of us who are aware of how advocacy research works? We aren't surprised. Advocacy research is when they have a thing they are working on, such as domestic violence or rape, and they write papers and design studies in such a way that they are guaranteed to get the results they want. If they get results they don't like, they often employ all manner of dirty tricks such as hiding the evidence, lying (conclusion that doesn't follow from data / premises), using confusing percentages etc. (e.g. "A higher percentage of women are murdered by partners or ex-partners in their own home. Only a small percentage of men are murdered by a partner / ex at home." What's the problem? More men by far are murdered! So they are pretending fewer men are murdered by wrongly using a percentage to imply the opposite of what it means!), and most egregiously, intimidation of researchers who don't toe the party line. Bomb threats, career destruction etc. Good researchers should have nothing to fear from the truth. If the truth upsets them, they should propose solutions!