TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman pleads guilty, but law says only men can be guilty of rape

Myfeelzarespecial

September 6, 2016
248 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/woman-pleads-guilty-law-says-only-men-can-be-guilty-rape
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman pleads guilty, but law says only men can be guilty of rape
Author

Myfeelzarespecial

Upvotes 248
Comments 22
Date September 6, 2016 9:33 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/51hlyo/woman_pleads_guilty_but_law_says_only_men_can_be/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-pleads-guilty-but-law-says-only-men-can-be.942166
https://theredarchive.com/post/942166
Top posts by Myfeelzarespecial

Youngstown woman sentenced to probation for killing boyfriend

392 upvotes
December 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

University of Kansas maintains women's-only lunchroom for Muslims - The College Fix

136 upvotes
January 20, 2017
/r/MensRights

Danish doctors come out against circumcision

97 upvotes
December 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman at center of Emmett Till case tells author she fabricated testimony | US news

89 upvotes
January 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

Nurse faked DNA test to trap man

80 upvotes
September 12, 2016
/r/MensRights

Lena Dunham is saying sorry to Odell Beckham Jr. after facing criticism for reverse-sexist, racist comments

61 upvotes
September 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Indiana Mom Accused of Injecting Feces into Son’s IV During Cancer Treatments

57 upvotes
November 29, 2016
/r/MensRights

Twittergate: More 'massive child porn rings' emerge on following shock discovery

54 upvotes
November 22, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]DillipFayKick 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey. If anyone is interested, here is a real, live, actual incidence of institutional sexism and rape culture.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Daktush 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

-"muh wage gap"

-"muh rape culture"

-"muh patriarchy

It's just a scam, it has always been

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She had pleaded guilty to six charges of sexually penetrating an underage girl with a sex toy and her fingers.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' jail with a fine.

Yesterday, Zunika Ahmad, 39, who is biologically female but had lived as a man since she was 16, and had even "married" two women, turned up in the High Court expecting to be jailed for her offences.

Both the prosecution and defence had also agreed on the facts and charges of the case.

But in an unexpected landmark ruling, Senior Judge Kan Ting Chiu rejected Zunika's guilty pleas and acquitted her of the sexual penetration charges.

His reason: Under the law, only a man can be charged with sexual penetration.

[–]Link5261 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because men have no anus, and women have no fingers. GENIUS

[–]HeForeverBleeds 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Things like this are why the argument that female rapists are so insignificantly rare because men "statistically" make up the vast majority of rapists is complete bullshit. Of course men make the vast majority of rapists, statistically, when in the vast majority of places it's legally impossible for women to rape people regardless of what they do

It's even more ridiculous that the argument I often hear against making rape laws gender neutral in the first place is that "rape is a men's crime and women almost never commit rape," like the moron says in this case

"Many of our laws remain gender specific because they reflect situations where men tend to be the aggressors.

Men "tend to be the aggressors" because when women are the aggressors you say it doesn't count. Text book circular logic: women must not be raping people, because the conviction statistics say they don't; we shouldn't start convicting women of rape, because women aren't really raping people

If a court were to interpret A to include a woman, it would be rewriting the law...

And why isn't rewriting such an inane law worth protecting people from predatory women like this in the first place? In this case we can clearly see the injustice. Just think of how much more often women do things like this to girls and boys and it never even makes it to the newspaper

The only reason we're hearing about this is because a trans-man penetrated a girl; if a woman forced a 13-year-old boy to penetrated her in an otherwise similar situation, we'd probably not even be hearing about it. She wouldn't have even been sentenced to 8 months for it

[–]muh-soggy-knee 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with everything you said except one thing:

A court has no remit to rewrite a law. That falls to the executive to draft and the legislature to ratify.

The judiciary may interpret, nothing more.

Whether it was or wasn't possible to interpret this to include women would require a reading of the specific language used in statute

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can interpret based based on the idea of the creator. (Common practice in germany). The idea was to protect ppl from beeing raped. Problem solved.

[–]muh-soggy-knee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like I say it depends on the wording used. They can interpret but it is limited, even if they draft a statute which is severely hampered by the wording it has used they can't rephrase it. Their interpretation has to follow the actual words used.

If the statute relates specifically to a male, then that's jenga, not a damn thing a court can do about it.

If it's non-specific or ambiguous, then yes, they can interpret it to include women if they chose.

And there's every chance it is specific on the matter, I don't know the law in Singapore but in the UK for example the offense of rape literally requires that the penetration be "with a penis"

[–]jakelove12 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having considered the matter, we have decided not to take the approach that all offences should be 'gender neutral'.

Many of our laws remain gender specific because they reflect situations where men tend to be the aggressors.

E.g. rape will remain an offence that only males can commit.

>Define rape as something only a man can commit

>Result: Only men are charged with rape, female rapists are literally not legally possible

>Conclusion: Defend law that defines rape as something only men commit, because only men have been recorded of committing rape

These people are either incredibly, incredibly stupid, or just plain evil. Like, I can't think of another explanation.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In what country is this?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Singapore

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What?! That's a really modern country! I was expecting like India or something in the middle East...

[–]pupunoob 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Modern economically. But south east Asia has a long way to go in most other areas. I'm from Malaysia myself.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well at the rate of feminist this will be everywhere.

[–]Lord__Beerus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's way more dummer than saying humongous and being yelled at for sexually assaulting a woman.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lord__Beerus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean?

[–]Meistermalkav 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How about you upgrade the charge in absence of a working law to the next biggest thing that a man could be convicted for. Or, you know, directly charge her with sexual battery and such.

Sick and tired of the "Only men can rape" bullshit. Hope when she gets prison she gets what she deserves.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi, doggy.

[–]feedmecarrots -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is very singular, exceptional case. It is one for the books, if ejudicated properly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no i believe this also happened in new Zealand.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter