~ archived since 2018 ~

The Oxford Dictionary definition for "rape" targets men: "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will."

Said2U

March 28, 2016

33 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape?q=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

Post Information

Title	The Oxford Dictionary definition for "rape" targets men: "The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will."
Author	Said2U
Upvotes	33
Comments	23
Date	March 28, 2016 8:33 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4c9dpy/the_oxford_dictionary_definition_for_rape_targets/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-oxford-dictionary-definition-for-rape-targets.953137 https://theredarchive.com/post/953137

Comments

[–]Mildly_Sociopathic 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think legally a woman is considered a "rapist" if they are aiding and abetting other to commit it. From what I can see, as far as what you're charged with I'm pretty sure it's a separate charge, like "You are charged with aiding and abetting rape of xxxx" rather than just "you are charged with rape of xxx". I could be wrong but everything I read doesn't make that seem likely. It would also mean that all the official CPS statistics for convicted rapists in the Uk would include a breakdown for gender, but while I might have missed it when I briefly checked, I don't see anything like that. This would have to mean either there are no women convicted at all, or women aren't considered rapists.

I know this isn't a .gov source but if you go to the actual CPS on the legal definition it just leaves us with the same interpretational disagreement we have now. It seems more likely that what they say here is a more accurate understanding of rape as used in UK law, in that "aiding and abetting rape" and "rape" are different offences.

Here's a quote:

Rape is a very serious offence, which can only be dealt with in the crown court (known as indictable). The offence can only be committed by a man on a woman or another man.
[...]
So, rape is restricted to penile penetration of the mouth, vagina (including the vulva) or anus and remains one of the few crimes that only a male can commit. That said both men and women can face proceedings for: -Aiding and abetting the offence of rape.

I also just found this which again makes the distinction between charges of "aiding and abetting rape" and "rape". The woman is not charged with the offence but aiding and abetting the offence. Aiding and abetting an offence is an offence but not the same offence, otherwise why wouldn't they just charge them all with "rape"? This is on the official South Yorkshire Police website:.

Christopher Whiteley, 22, formerly of Sheffield, is charged with 12 counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault, two counts of conspiracy to rape, conspiracy to arrange or facilitate child prostitution, conspiracy to cause or incite child prostitution, and one count of theft.

Amanda Spencer, 24, formerly of Rotherham, is charged with eight counts of aiding and abetting rape, eight counts of arranging or facilitating child prostitution, and four counts of causing or inciting child prostitution.

Just to repeat myself to be clear, the Oxford definition of rape is that which is something "usually" committed by a man. So the Oxford definition technically allows the possibility for women to commit rape, while the UK legal definition does not. The Oxford definition also doesn't account for aiding and abetting under it's definition either, but obviously there's no consequences for Oxfords definition. Obviously a woman can aid and abet any crime, even if that crime itself is something only a man can commit.

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

thats true, but lets get really technical shall we, ima quote my law text book here "it had been suggested a women can be guilty of rape as the principal if she uses an innocent agent to have sexual intercourse with a woman." that said it is something thats contested as the case its reliant on is criticized (though nothing suggests this idea was).

Doesn't this just back up exactly what I'm saying? I don't understand why you wrote this.

as far as aiding and abetting goes whilst it is true it isnt "straight rape" the sentences as far as i know are exactly the same

What technically someone could be sentenced to often doesn't necessarily translate into reality. But you do know this has nothing to do with the topic we're talking about right? This is about the definition of rape in the Oxford dictionary vs the Uk Legal definition.

it carries the exact same social stigma.

I don't agree but it's irrelevant so I don't want to muddy the point here.

im not here to say that they are "exactly the same"

Yes you did, you were arguing that aiding and abetting someone to rape is covered in the UK legal definition of rape which means that legally women can be "rapists" and the official CPS rape conviction statistics will reflect this. I don't know if you only looked at your legal text book just now but you seem to have been wrong on all counts. What you're talking about here now is an entirely different point.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually there's a fallacy in your logic. You are assuming that a higher sex drive means more likely to rape. One could argue you need to demonstrate men have that much of a higher sex drive in the first place, but that would be a red herring as it just doesn't matter.

Rape and sexual assault can just be a selfish behaviour using someone else for your sexual pleasure, and feeling so entitled that you don't care what they want. That's still got nothing to do with a high sex drive. However we also know that the desire to control is the reason rapists themselves say they do it. They get off on rape because they enjoy that sense of power and the thrill that they know it's considered wrong. While feminists tend to falsely present all rape as having nothing to do with sexual desire, it is true that the sex drive in those who rape isn't the same as a mentally healthy individual. It also requires a certain level of sociopathy and to derive a sadistic sense of pleasure from hurting people. Many factors are required in order to have the mindset of a rapist.

The point is, having a high sex drive doesn't mean you are more likely to rape someone. If you can show men in general have a higher sex drive than women it simply doesn't follow at all that this necessarily would lead to men raping more than women.

In regards to your last point, if the legal definition of rape makes it impossible for women to be rapists then by definition women can't rape men. People don't take the idea of women raping men seriously for many more reasons than just legal defintions and dictionaries like this one, but it can't help contribute to the general perception either

[–]Azothlike -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are assuming that a higher sex drive means more likely to rape. One could argue you need to demonstrate men have that much of a higher sex drive in the first place, but that would be a ~~red herring as it just doesn't matter~~ really dumb idea, because dozens of readily google-able studies and authoritative opinions verify it.

FTFY.

Rape and sexual assault can just be a selfish behaviour using someone else for your sexual pleasure, and feeling so entitled that you don't care what they want. That's still got nothing to do with a high sex drive.

Are you denying that some rapists do it because they're horny?

Or are you trying to say that women are more prone to selfish behavior?

If neither of those statements are true, your "other possible motivations" are irrelevant. If sex drive is a possible motivation, and men have a study-proven higher sex drive, and no other possible motivations are proven to be gendered, the perpetrators will be slanted towards Men.

However we also know that the desire to control is the reason rapists themselves say they do it. They get off on rape because they enjoy that sense of power and the thrill that they know it's considered wrong.

Here.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/pizza-boy-rapist-said-i-did-it-because-i-was-horny-prosecutors-1.4058360

The point is, having a high sex drive doesn't mean you are more likely to rape someone.

Statistically, yes, it does. I'm sorry that you don't understand how sex drive and sex crime are correlated

Again, being angry at statistics and biology, or loudly proclaiming statistics and biology to be prejudiced/false/etc, is just dumb.

Be mad at people applying statistics to individuals. That's what prejudice is.

In regards to your last point, if the legal definition of rape makes it impossible for women to be rapists then by definition women can't rape men.

1.) The legal definition of rape does not make it impossible for a woman to rape a man; just extremely unlikely, as she would have to penetrate him.

2.) The dictionary is not using the legal definition.

3.) Perhaps the dictionary does not help the overall perception, no. But claiming that definition is due to social perception, and not statistical truths about gendered crime data, is absurd.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I already acknowledged that rapists can do it because they are horny not because they enjoy the power. Feminists tend to want to claim sexual desire has nothing to do with rape, I already showed you I'm in opposition to this. I'm not sure how you managed to read the opposite into what I wrote. What I said is that it doesn't just take someone to be really horny to rape, it takes a certain level of sociopathic lack of concern for others to use them this way. We also have to look at why they are horny, if you get sexual pleasure from hurting people that's not the same thing as just having a high libido. Simply being horny doesn't mean you're more likely to rape.
The statistics you are refering to are based on studies with methodology that make it either impossible for women to be perpetrators, degrees of very unlikely, or that aren't set up to capture that data. It's only recently that we have a study like the CDC's Intimate Partner Violence Survey that asked men the question about being "made to penetrate" at all. Of course true to form they intentionally separated those figures from the rape statistics so if one were to only look at the rape figures you'd miss all the data for men. Those researchers that conduct these sexual assault and rape studies don't even do this by accident, we can see them defend this by arguing we shoudn't ever define a man being forced to penetrate a woman as rape even if there's legal basis to do so, because they argue no matter how extreme or damaging it can't ever be as bad as the least severe case they'll define as rape for women.
I suggest you take a look at the UK's definition of rape again. In the UK to perpetrate the crime of rape you require a penis to penetrate. Fingers or objects don't count, so women can't be perpetrators of rape even against other women. It also means of course that women certainly can't be legally considered to have committed rape if they force a man to penetrate them, no matter how severe the assault.
A dictionary is intended to describe the way the words are used in society. That is why you will have words with several different defintions, where a word is used in various different ways. Even if the statistical basis you claim were accurate, this is irrelevant to the point of a dictionary definition. If the truth is one thing and society believes the opposite the dictionary is meant to define the word the way society uses it. So a valid definition should include various uses of the word, one of which should be any forced sexual intercourse, whereas another might refer to it as a male-only crime (as in the British legal definition). The justification of what those defintions it gives are can only be based on how the words are used not on the dictionary authors opinions on the subject, even if those opinions are correct.

[–]Azothlike -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Half your post is an exercise in terrible logic and cognitive dissonance. Like your continued failure to connect Sex Drive Inspires Sex Crime + Men Have Higher Sex Drive = Sex Crime Offenders Are Statistically, Majority-Male. Again, other requirements(like sociopathy) or motivations are 100% irrelevant, unless you can prove those are female-favored. Pro tip: The APA also says that, statistically, men are 3x as likely to be sociopaths. But I guess that medical information is also unsavory and soon to be discarded by you.

The rest is just trying to twist the argument to support poor points. Like using UK law to substantiate your point, when it applies to 20% of the people that US Law does, which I was obviously referencing.

Very simple logical exercise for you. This will determine if you are capable of logical discourse and conclusions, or just as debilitated by cognitive dissonance as the feminist thought bubble.

Yes or no:

1.) Do you agree that men have more testosterone than women on average.
2.) Do you agree that higher testosterone is proven to result in higher risk behavior?
3.) Do you agree that crime is a high risk behavior?
4.) Do you agree that, even if laws, law enforcement, and courts were 100% gender-equal, more men would commit crime than women, and more men would be arrested and convicted of crime?

It's possible to advocate for equal rights and unprejudiced laws/treatment without being delusional and ignoring biological realities.

[–]jakelove12 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeForeverBleeds 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except that it's not biological that men are sexually abusive and women aren't,

Which part are you having trouble understanding?

That sex drive affects sex crime, or that sex drive is biologically influenced?

statistics that only consider a man forcing his penis into a woman or the rapist forcibly penetrating the victim--which are most statistics on "rape"--are bound to underrepresent female sexual abusers who force men into sexual intercourse

Every single statistic on sex crime, even statistics that don't involve penetrating at all, display a statistically massive preference to male offenders. Again, you're getting mad at statistics and biology because they make you feel bad. Grow up.

And besides, how would men generally having a higher sex drive justify an individual woman forcing an individual man into unwanted intercourse not being legally considered rape?

Who said it would?

Nobody. Applying statistics to individuals is bigotry and prejudice. But when you are referring to statistics and averages, understanding why those differences exist in an averaged and aggregate scale is not bigotry.

And if you think the disparity in sex crime is not in part due to a clearly higher sex drive in men, you're being willfully obtuse. And I don't care how noble your cause is if you're willing to be an idiot to fly a banner.

[–]Pugs_of_war 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pugs_of_war 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link