Bassman62 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 So yes, there are degrees of rape. One of the big degrees is male on male rape. But it's OK, cos you can either ignore it or just laugh about it.I don't think that anyone in their right mind would laugh at rape. I just agree with the majority in the poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 It tends to be quite uncommon, for a myriad of factors, but it would still be rape. Yeah I would class it as rape, but I think someone posted a link a few pages back which stated that rape is defined as someone inserting their penis into another human without consent, or something along them lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 but I think someone posted a link a few pages back which stated that rape is defined as someone inserting their penis into another human without consent, or something along them lines. I see your point. The law says: 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 © A does not reasonably believe that B consents. It would be difficult for a court to judge, I'll give you that. A Female-male rape is still possible though, theoretically. The more common situation would be statutory rape, with an adult woman and a boy under 16. He'd be willing (one would presume) but it would still be wrong on her part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Stop acting as if you're in the majority when you're just the as per usual noisy, mouthy, we the noisy minority are the only ones in step rabble. Who says I have to agree with you or the majority? Stop being so infantile by thinking it's a win/lose game. It's a case of law not who wins 'Dusty bin'. I win, you lose:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 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 © A does not reasonably believe that B consents. That's pretty terrible, it means that females can not literally be convicted of rape. It also means that a female > male post op transgender person can have sex with a woman and not be convicted as a rapist, because they are not a 'he', even though they have a penis. I'm sure or I would hope, that the sentences will still be similar to males, but they wont get the title of rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 male post op transgender person can have sex with a woman and not be convicted as a rapist, because they are not a 'he', even though they have a penis. Very specific cases, these? They'd need a very specialised lawyer. To be a pedant; post-op transsexual has had an operation, and thus has no penis. Pre-op is before operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Ahhh that's because you cut off the 'female' part of my quote. 'female > male' means 'female to male'. ie a female that has had the op to become a male. But aye, I wasnt sure if transgender was the correct word, but you get my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Who says I have to agree with you or the majority? Stop being so infantile by thinking it's a win/lose game. It's a case of law not who wins 'Dusty bin'. I win, you lose:P The thread is a poll, you're in a minority yet you act as if you carry the views of the majority. Rape is rape just like robbery is robbery but as most in the poll agree that like robbery there are varying degrees of rape wheras your view is that a petty thief is just as bad as for example the 'Great Train Robbers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 That's pretty terrible, it means that females can not literally be convicted of rape. It also means that a female > male post op transgender person can have sex with a woman and not be convicted as a rapist, because they are not a 'he', even though they have a penis. I'm sure or I would hope, that the sentences will still be similar to males, but they wont get the title of rapist. Doesn't the statute go on to also define the use of an object instead of the penis as rape... So a woman can rape a man, just not in the sense of forced intercourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Doesn't the statute go on to also define the use of an object instead of the penis as rape... So a woman can rape a man, just not in the sense of forced intercourse. That's a sexual offence, but not rape. It is 'assault by penetration'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.