MC Spyda 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. No idea, but I would be glad to be educated on this. If that is the case, then would that mean it could be classed as rape if I inserted an object into someones mouth too? Hmmm this is all getting a bit graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 That's a sexual offence, but not rape. It is 'assault by penetration'. Ahh I didn't see this reply. That makes some sense if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 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'. I carry the view of law. You're right, rape is rape but no alternative of varying degrees. You've been asked to provide legal brief on what these 'degrees' are. I'm not interested if you think you're right because 100 others didn't read any legal brief before voting. There aren't any separate offence for rape let alone degrees. You CANNOT rape a person by degrees. Why do you think Ken Clark got the flack he did? Because he unwittingly or more likely arrogantly thought everyone thinks like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No idea, but I would be glad to be educated on this. If that is the case, then would that mean it could be classed as rape if I inserted an object into someones mouth too? Hmmm this is all getting a bit graphic. This may help: "The new offence of rape in section 1(1) SOA 2003 includes oral and anal penetration with a penis. This is a change from the previous law which was only concerned with vaginal penetration and used other offences to criminalise these forms of sexual violence (such as indecent assault). The person who commits the offence of rape must be a man (as the penetration has to be with a penis). However, both women and men may experience rape. If the penetration is with something other than a penis then the offence is assault by penetration". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Which does still seem somewhat man focussed. It might be an unlikely scenario, but what about a man tied to a bed and forced to take viagra. It's as much rape as the other way around, but would probably just be sexual assault or some other lesser offence if a woman were prosecuted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Which does still seem somewhat man focussed. It might be an unlikely scenario, but what about a man tied to a bed and forced to take viagra. It's as much rape as the other way around, but would probably just be sexual assault or some other lesser offence if a woman were prosecuted for it. Although man focused, the definition is more likely because of that. The history of rape has been such that your "unlikely scenario" probably hasn't been encountered to warrant an addition to the definition, or some other offence is in existence to cover it. Laws are usually created to counter a specific crime. As viagra is relatively new and the combination of the drug and the sexual act have probably never been encountered, it's more than likely not to change, although that's not to say it won't if your scenario becomes a problem. For it to have the required effect it would have to be encompassed within rape law rather than reinvent some new law. Rape is not only an offence it's also a stigma, it even goes beyond murder as a hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Which does still seem somewhat man focussed. It might be an unlikely scenario, but what about a man tied to a bed and forced to take viagra. It's as much rape as the other way around It could be argued to be so, but for the sake of law we have kidnap and sexual assault laws that could deal with it. It isn't like it would go unpunished. The sexual assault laws are quite adequate without the need of adding in "forced sexual relations between a man who is tied down and unwillingly erect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 It could be argued to be so, but for the sake of law we have kidnap and sexual assault laws that could deal with it. It isn't like it would go unpunished. The sexual assault laws are quite adequate without the need of adding in "forced sexual relations between a man who is tied down and unwillingly erect". lol. It's a bit wordy when you define it like that. Anyway, I voted that there are not differing degree's. To which I would add the caveat of statutory rape potentially being different (but then it has it's own definition, so it is obviously different). I don't see why a date rape, a rape within a marriage, or a stranger rape are any less horrific than each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 lol. It's a bit wordy when you define it like that. Anyway, I voted that there are not differing degree's. To which I would add the caveat of statutory rape potentially being different (but then it has it's own definition, so it is obviously different). I don't see why a date rape, a rape within a marriage, or a stranger rape are any less horrific than each other. thats because unlike the kneejerk vote you are a learned individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I voted yes and still stand by yes. No kneejerk from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.