Problems with UK rape law, specifically excluding female offenders:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/95769958-f129-416c-9610-c8f96504ce77

This article is surprisingly good for the BBC, probably because it covers female victims of female perpatrators. Of course this is a male advocacy sub, but all victims of female perpetrators are excluded under UK rape laws from legally being rape victims. Apparently the CEO of Rape Crisis believes women are 10% of perpetrators, although I'm not sure if that's specifically 10% of those offenders with female victims or 10% of rapists overall.

This article:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/these-men-say-women-raped-them-but-the-law-doesnt-agree_uk_5d396ed7e4b0419fd338515d

has some problems with MRAs. It does focus on male victims of female offenders, and it does point out flaws in the existing law, and it's probably the best we can expect from the HuffPo, but it does spend the end of the article shitting on the MRM. Maybe that's how it got published.

Obviously we should support a sex-neutral rape law.

The situation in America shows rather more gender symmetry than in Britain.

This study shows very similar incidence, to within a couple of percent, of all forms of sexual victimisation. As does this one. And also this.

Similar evidence from Britain is hard to find, such research seems to be verbotten, with no-one looking into rates of made-to-penetrate in particular. We do have this:

http://empathygap.uk/?p=1993#_Toc498111528

My doubts vanished earlier this year, thanks to Naomi Murphy’s presentation at the 2017 Male Psychology Conference. Naomi Murphy is a psychotherapist working at HM Prison Whitemore, a top security prison housing serious violent and sexual offenders (men, obviously). Naomi reported that 54% of the male sex offenders had been sexually abused themselves as children by women. Moreover, she emphasised to me in private conversation that this was generally women acting alone – not typically in conjunction with a man, as the usual narrative goes. Mothers feature large in this abuse, but other female relatives, neighbours, baby sitters, etc., also feature.

If half of male sex offenders had themselves been victimised by women in the past, it raises the possibility that there might be half as many female offenders as male. But then most victims don't go on to commit offences themselves, so half as many would be a low minimum.

There is a thing called rape by deception. There is a Palestinian man in prison for not telling his lover that he wasn't a Jew, because she would never have had sex with a non-Jew. That got a bit of attention because of the racism angle. She only consented, you see, because of the deceit, that he didn't say he wasn't a Jew. The consent was conditional, and the conditions were not met.

When it's racist it doesn't seem good, but rape by deception is a legitimate concept. Although right now it's a talking point for TERFs, who a paranoid about transwomen tricking lesbians into sucking their dicks. Okay, TERFs and racists are bad standard bearers for the concept, but the concept as a whole is correct.

This is a case where a man intentionally put holes in a condom. That makes sense to me. This is a case where a man agreed in advance to practice the withdrawal method, then announced during the act that he would actually be ejaculating within the woman. It seems like cases like this would be difficult to prove, because of the difficulty of proving intent, but I can see why this would be illegal.

But then we have this case. Like the last case, it is a case which resulted in a pregnancy by breaking previous made agreements. The consent he gave to get his dick sucked was conditional. The conditions were not met. The court decided it couldn't be assault. One of the judges worried that women who stopped taking the pill could otherwise be charged with sexual assault, and avoiding that possibility is the point of his ruling.

I mean, yes. That's the point, right? That's what rape by deception is meant to be about, you consent because you've been lied to. The standard example is probably a case of mistaken identity, like in Revenge of the Nerds, having sex with someone because they made you think they were someone else, but the above cases show that lying to someone to get them pregnant is rape by deception. That's probably a good thing, it should be rape by deception. It just isn't when a woman does it.

I don't think rapists should have custody of children resulting from the rape. Feminists have laws along those lines passed in many places, including over forty American states. The problem is that all of those laws explicitly exclude female rapists. The result is that female rapists end up being paid child support by their victims.

I'm not sure what should be done about this. Leaving a child with no parents isn't a great option. Forcing custody on the father is probably worse than the child support. Letting a rapist, frequently a child rapist, have custody of the child isn't great, especially with the child support being paid to them by their victim. The current system, though, is insupportable.