Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

civilsaint · 2016-05-05T22:29:37+00:00

To put it in other terms, only a man can be a rapist.

What you might be thinking about is called 'forced to penetrate' which is when a woman forces a man to have sex. That is not counted as rape, and it is almost never prosecuted, yet it happens just as often as rape and sexual assault.

Lethn · 2016-05-05T21:53:34+00:00

That's the correct definition of rape, if it were touching somebody sexually without their consent and so on, that would be sexual harassment.

ThePigmanAgain · 2016-05-06T04:15:17+00:00

Sorry, you are not reading it wrong. Sick, sad world, huh?

JakeDC · 2016-05-06T14:40:37+00:00

You are looking at a federal government website.

It is important to remember that (this is an oversimplification), the federal government does not have robust general police powers, and rape is usually prosecuted by state/local jurisdictions under state law. Here is the state of play from about a decade and a half ago, when I took criminal law (not much has changed, though, I don't think): Rape laws vary state-to-state. All require penetration. But they differ on issues like the genders involved, where a person is penetrated (oriface), and with what (body part, object). The result, though, is that in most jurisdictions, it is difficult or impossible for a woman to rape. I remember discussing a hypothetical where, depending on local law, a woman who forced a male to perform oral sex on her might be covered, because portions of her genitals penetrated the victim's mouth. But such possibilites would be rare.

I see lots of comments here about how news stories, editorials, etc. don't call an act "rape" when a woman does it. I am sympathetic to the motivation for these comments, and it does suck. But, in most of these cases, the act is not called rape bcause it isn't rape under the law, and the woman gets charged under some other sex-related statute. It would be inaccurate for the media to say that the woman committed, or allegedly committed, rape. And saying otherwise also could give rise to a defamation lawsuit.

cld8 · 2016-05-06T03:10:09+00:00

This is the federal definition. States may have different definitions. Also remember that rape is only one type of sexual crime. If the victim is not penetrated, it may be some other crime.

Blutarg · 2016-05-06T04:51:24+00:00

Weird, isn't it?

vtschoir · 2016-05-06T05:22:04+00:00

It seems to be saying that it's only rape if the victim is penetrated. Am I wrong?

Yes. I'll clarify it for you.

Let's suppose I am a woman for argument's sake. I hop up on a guy, and forcefully fuck him. There is penetration, however slight, of my imaginary vagina without the consent of the other party. Therefore, it is indeed rape. Yes, this considers men as potential victims right along with women.

Buuuuuut, it gets ridiculous if you consider it in the context of foreign objects. Suppose a guy tackles a woman and crams a hot curling iron up her vagina, just absolutely destroying her parts, it's absolutely aimed against her ability to express her sexual capacity, oh yeah... that's a slew of charges, one of which is rape.

Suppose this same sicko perv guy kidnaps a dude, ties him up and proceeds to get his jollies from jerking his victim off with a flesh-light, fucks him up the pee-hole and then chops the guys dick off and rubs another one out all over it. Same motive, same aim, same slew of charges... except for rape because of a lack of penetration of a mouth, anus or vagina. Holy fucking shit, how broken is that law?

If our sicko goes back to that woman, tackles her, leave her panties on so there can't be ANY penetration, gives her a roofie colada full of ecstasy pills and hold her at gun-point over a industrial strength vibrator... and proceeds to titty-fuck her at the same time, eventually spooging all over her face and hair. That's still not rape. It's twenty kinds of sexual assault, sure... but it still just ain't rape according to the FBI. On the flip side, if that predator guy just sucks on a random stranger's finger or pulls a Koncho, he's a rapist according to the FBI.

The penetration model is awful, and the attempt to distinguish amongst certain typed of sex crimes to (theoretically) punish crimes accordingly has resulted in pushing key factors such as consent and motive aside to focus on trying to figure out how best to label people.

The distinctions are certainly an attempt at assigning punishment in appropriate quantities. But because of the language used, and because there's always one motherfucker to come along and make people take notice, someone is bound to get off the hook for some "Hollywood won't even touch that with a 20 ft stick" type of shit sooner or later.

eixan · 2016-05-06T05:35:07+00:00

The only use that definition for reporting. If you got raped as a guy you could arrest your female rapist. It's just that if in 2016 the 99% of perpetrators were female the first would still report more male perpetrators for that crime.

derpylord143 · 2016-05-06T08:48:50+00:00

you think thats bad, in uk law you need a the perp to have a penis that penetrates the victim, therefore a women can never be the perpetrator of rape (though they can be an accomplice to it)

TheDude41 · 2016-05-06T03:58:40+00:00

Chivalry is demented sexist shit that needs to be razed from the face of the planet.

Title	Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
Author	SnakesFromHell
Upvotes	13
Comments	25
Date	May 5, 2016 9:44 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4i253g/please_tell_me_im_reading_this_wrong/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/please-tell-me-im-reading-this-wrong.950181 https://theredarchive.com/post/950181

Comments