~ archived since 2018 ~

Women cannot be charged for rape in the UK only sexual assault which carries a lower sentence

ExMuzzy
May 13, 2022
373 upvotes
/r/MensRights

I'm sure most of us are aware of the lack of gender neutral rape laws in the UK. Just in case, women can only be prosecuted for sexual assault as they lack the appropriate genitalia required for rape by law:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Or for statutory rape:

(1) A person commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and (b) the other person is under 16.

The usual rebuttal by feminists is that the sentencing is equal and it's just a case of semantics so it is not a big issue. However, this is not true. Looking at the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing for sexual assault has a minimum of community order (curfew, community service, etc.) and a maximum of 10 years.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/sexual-assault/

Whereas the range for rape is 4 years to life.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/MensRights.

/r/MensRights archive

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 Women cannot be charged for rape in the UK only sexual assault which carries a lower sentence
Author ExMuzzy
Upvotes 373
Comments 55
Date May 13, 2022 9:02 PM UTC (8 months ago)
Subreddit /r/MensRights
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/women-cannot-be-charged-for-rape-in-the-uk-only.1114341
https://theredarchive.com/post/1114341
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/up1dfm/women_cannot_be_charged_for_rape_in_the_uk_only/
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by ExMuzzy

Men’s rights activists aren’t allowed to open men’s shelters and feminists won’t either

498 upvotes
April 6, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Swedish Equality: There’s not enough female victims. Let’s classify violence against men as violence against women. Zero male victims? Guess they won’t be needing those shelters

398 upvotes
February 10, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Attempt to defend a woman who tried to trap and rape a guy because he rejected her

355 upvotes
April 13, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Oh no, little boys must be incels if they’re using that word 🤣

332 upvotes
April 16, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Even more disgusting when you consider that men live shorter on average

317 upvotes
January 18, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

By Schumer’s own account the guy was so drunk he passed out several times. Leave it to a feminist rape apologist to imply the guy was actually the rapist

315 upvotes
April 2, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Scottish feminist wants to scrap jury trials for rape cases. This man would have been in prison had it not been for a jury which demonstrates why she’s an absolute imbecile.

233 upvotes
January 24, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

I’ve realised why I hate how romance is portrayed in movies and the media.

207 upvotes
August 24, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Comments

[–]CursedCrypto 54 points55 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This needs to be changed, it's ridiculous, sexist and illogical.

[–]ExMuzzy[S] 38 points39 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep, it also makes sense now why female teachers who "have sex" with underaged pupils often don't see prison.

[–]rocker12341234 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it also now makes so much more sense why the murdoch mafia always refer to males, especially underage boys being raped as the woman "having sex".

[–]tenchineuro 26 points27 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

There have been maybe half a dozen petitions to the Crown to change this, all denied.

[–]Clemicus 18 points19 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's more than that, they're deleted after a while. Yeah and none of them have gotten anywhere close to 100k signatures

The ones that got over 10k signatures received the same annoying response about S4

[–]tenchineuro 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's more than that, they're deleted after a while.

That explains it. Originally when I researched this years ago I remember finding maybe 1 or 2 dozen petitions, but the last time I checked I found only about half a dozen.

[–]Clemicus 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I tried to find one Sargon promoted. I couldn't find it (it had around 17k signatures). It had the usual response but the first sentence was along the lines of "the government doesn't believe a man can be raped and the crime is predicted on penetration [sic]"

[–]Alarming_Draw 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So it also means adult women can rape male KIDS and it STILL isnt reported as rape.

What. The. Actual. Fuck.

[–]TexasDude29 15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Why would such a stupid law exist?

[–]tenchineuro 19 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's my theory.

In 2001 a teenage girl was convicted of rape in the UK. It was known as the 'towpath' rape.

  • https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/17/sarahhall
  • Woman found guilty of towpath rape
  • Teenager punched victim and held her down in gang attack
  • Sarah Hall

  • Fri 16 Mar 2001 20.24 EST

  • A teenager became what is believed to be the youngest woman ever to be convicted of rape yesterday when a court ruled she stripped, punched and pinned down a 37-year-old woman during a "particularly vile and horrifying" sex attack.

  • Claire Marsh, 18, joined the handful of women convicted of the crime after the jury found she was a central figure in the gang rape, which happened after 14 people lured the victim to the side of the Grand Union canal in Ladbroke Grove, west London, in July last year.

Actually she was more of an accessory, but that's the way the laws were written.

The UK found this quite unacceptable and re-wrote the sexual offenses laws. In just two short years they released the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which made it impossible for a woman to commit the act of rape. They came up with an equivalent offense that a woman could be convicted of called something bizarre that I don't recall to the effect that even if a woman was convicted it would not be for rape.

[–]ChilOfAnIdleBrain 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only the fuckin tea pots would change a law because it was used properly

[–]skgody 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you look into the history of rape laws you will find it has changed over time and is likely not fit for purpose. The current disparity between genders makes only men rapists which creates biased statistics.

[–]ChilOfAnIdleBrain 4 points5 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

Ok, wait, so even if a woman ties a guy up and penetrates him with foreign objects she can’t be charged with rape? I’m not sure how that can possibly be justified even under their unbelievably sexist and antiquated rape laws.

[–]NebulousASK 7 points8 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

If a man ties a woman up and penetrates her with foreign objects, he can't be charged with rape either. The crime of rape is defined to require using the criminal's penis.

[–]ChilOfAnIdleBrain 2 points3 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Ok, but how does that make sense? What exactly changes when using a penis? What if a transgender man has a penis created that pumped up, is that now rape? What’s the difference between that and a dildo? Then a dildo or a bottle? You see the logical pathway?

[–]NebulousASK 1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

It only makes sense in the context of "rape" having a very specific meaning, and these other crimes being punished under "sexual assault" instead.

[–]ChilOfAnIdleBrain 0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy Link

I just don’t see a logical reason for the legal definition of the act to be changed based on the tool used to accomplish the same ends. To me, it feels like having a legal definition for the commission of murder with a hammer to the head or a gun. While I understand that there are many ways and differences to HURT people that probably should have successive meanings, like flaying someone to kill them or shooting them, this isn’t that. This is using a different tool to commit the exact same trauma. Flaying someone with a knife, rather than finger nails. Do you see what I’m saying?

[–]NebulousASK 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

If you're really fine with me using my penis the same as any other tool, I can give you a great discount on some housework.

Most people, even today, still understand that there's something uniquely violative about the traditionally defined act of "rape," which uses a penis.

I agree that other crimes should have the same punishments, and they do. Most laws don't make this distinction. But don't act like the distinction isn't at least understandable in terms of historical and traditional meanings.

[–]UnconventionalXY 2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Yet the same situation when a woman finds a man attractive is not rape but sex: the act is the same only her attitude is different.

[–]NebulousASK -1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Attitude is the only difference between a gift and larceny as well.

[–]ChilOfAnIdleBrain 2 points3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You’re arguing against your own point here. You say there is something “uniquely violative” about a man raping a woman, but not about a woman raping a man, with the same breath you make a logical connection between the indifference in giving and taking as some kind of truth. Historical acts should not be ignored, but they cannot be the only measure of how we operate moving forward. That is a wonderful way to divide, instill resentment, and destroy progress. By denying men who are raped by women the same justice based on historical events-which is clearly is trying to justify a current injustice by connecting it to a past one-in no way helps anyone involved. It’s the same today with race issues. By subjecting people to the same injustice today based on race because of historical injustices committed against others, you do not make progress, you do the opposite. This is how history repeats itself.

[–]NebulousASK 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I think you're reading a lot into my comments that I didn't say.

[–]taoofmojo 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

but if you have a female paedophile she can molest a male as soon as he is 16 year old I guess he can no longer be molested. Welcome to clown world.

[–]porkopolis 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And then when researchers compile stats on rape we’re told women don’t rape. The data doesn’t lie. Yeah right.

[–]Massive-Strawberry32 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This so sexist and illogical at the same point!!

[–]Fast-Comfortable-745 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait doesn’t the woman penetrate the man’s penis with her vagina if she rapes him ?

[–]ExMuzzy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, the definition of penetration is as follows:

go into or through (something), especially with force or effort.

You could call it envelopment though

[–]NebulousASK 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sexual assault includes a broader range of conduct than rape. However, when the sexual assault is actually rape, the sentencing guidelines are the same. Look at the basis for categorizing the sexual assault - a rape will automatically be a category 1.

[–]ExMuzzy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I've learnt from this comment that there is a separate offence for female on male rape: "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent".

Whilst the very maximum is the same, the range for sentencing guidelines are not. Not only that, but there is a major discrepancy:

Where there is a sufficient prospect of rehabilitation, a community order with a sex offender treatment programme requirement under part 3 of Schedule 9 of the Sentencing Code can be a proper alternative to a short or moderate length custodial sentence.

Community order is recommended as an alternative with no custodial (prison) sentence at all, this not an option for a rape charge.

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

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter