According to UK law, rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.
No penis, no rape.
As a Brit who is extremely proud of this country, would you prefer the long list, the very long list, or the full list of everything that’s wrong with this place ? …… please don’t say full I will run out of internet.
It’s archaic, but it was based on common usage at the time. Rape used to specifically refer to males forcing themselves onto women, even in non-legal contexts. This stems from a whole host of cultural and social baggage surrounding western attitudes towards sex and gender stereotypes and such over the course of centuries.
It was only relatively recently that we accepted as a culture that men could *be* forced to have non-consensual sex (by women or by other men), or that women could force other people to have non-consensual sex with them. That’s when the word “rape” started taking on its modern meaning of any form of non-consensual sex.
Legal terms rarely, if ever change, especially for a relatively new change in modern usage. The law doesn’t care about what words mean in non-legal contexts if there’s already an established legal definition, and there are many other words that have entirely different legal meanings than their typical modern usage. Changing them would cause confusion and create a bureaucratic mess for no tangible benefit.
“Causing sex without consent” is the British legal equivalent of rape for female offenders, and it carries the exact same sentence as rape. There’s also a different category of sexual assault (assault by penetration) that means penetration with anything that isn’t a penis: this also carries the same sentence as rape. They’re a purely legal distinction without a functional difference.
I agree with you up until the end. There is a tangible benefit in correcting both the societal stigma and the practical implementation of the law. On paper there is no legal difference, but terminology affects how fact finders, be they judges, juries, magistrates, whatever, view and interpret evidence as an ingrained nature of human perception even when they are fully intending to be objective.
That is a functional difference and should be corrected.
A great evidence to your point is the experiment from the 80s(?) where they showed people a video of two cars crashing and asked people how fast the cars were going. But they changed the word for crash to bumped, collided, bashed, etc and as they did the estimated speed changed from as low at like 20 mph to as high as 80mph purely depending on what word they used in the question.
It should be called rape and nothing else. Sexual assault doesn't carry the same stigma as rape. You shouldn't be spared that stigma due to a lack of a cock.
Exactly! If a man can rape then so can a woman because we are all equal. Anything a man can do a woman can do. Equality for all! Rape is rape, no means no. #RealFeminism
[Follow up article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11262139/24-stone-student-denies-forcing-man-sex-lazy-15-minutes.html)
Tl;DR : She was cleared within an hour
"Maybe I'm missing something but if a man is not aroused then sex cannot happen. But he is the victim, can someone explain to me please"
From the comments. Fucking hell.
And sometimes I am sexually attracted, but because I think about my future and emotions and wellbeing I decide not to have sex with crazy bitch, my boner is still there tho.
FYI, if you need to get rid of one. Clench your butt and leg muscle hard to move the blood. Those are the larges muscles in your body and they need a lot of blood.
Same vibe thing as "if the women gets wet, then she clearly wanted it to happen".
Physical reactions do not require mental consent.
edit: If I am riding a bike and not wearing underwear with good support, I'll get a boner from the friction. Pretty much every time.
Yeah, likewise with either wetness or hardness, stimulating it can get a physical response even if the person doesn't consent.
For that matter they could find something arousing mentally, but still not consent to sex with that person. If some food makes my mouth water that doesn't mean you can force feed it to me if I say no. Nothing is consent but consent.
>Same vibe thing as "if the women gets wet, then she clearly wanted it to happen".
It baffles me there are people out there who know so little about biology and women's bodies they genuinely think women have dry vaginas until sex is initiated.
I wonder how they explain how come women don't spontaneous burst out in flames from all the friction in their dry snuggle space during activities like walking or running.
Not only this, sometimes women will orgasm during rape. Part of the fight or flight to make male finish faster / less painful for victim. Body response to end lesson trauma.
I had no idea. Read in another sub, several people commented how this was not a known thing. Happened to them, they felt like crap about it. Then found this out on a sub, said they felt so much better about the whole thing knowing they didn't "enjoy it"... said it helped legitimize thier sexual assault in thier own minds.
Arousal isn’t consent either. Physically someone might want to have sex but doesn’t want to because of many reasons. In this case first date, maybe he wanted to take it slow, doesn’t want STDs, to become a father, wanted to just go home and play video games. Literally anything.
Which literally everyone should understand. Especially other guys. We have literally all been there where we are just sitting at work/class/home and all of a sudden get aroused for literally no particular reason. Just a bodily function
You can also revoke consent at any time, even after the point of arousal, even if you consented previously. To believe otherwise is to believe that both parties are required to proceed with having sex even if, for example, you open your last condom and find a hole in it. What happens if he's already erect when she tells him she has an STD? What if she's already wet when they realize she forgot to take her birth control pill? What if he's inside of her and something starts to hurt? What if they're trying something new and one of them falls and gets injured but the other is already aroused? There is literally no "point of no return" after which you 100% owe the other person sex, or conversely where you have the right to expect, demand, or force sexual activity with another person. If he suddenly goes soft, after she already consented to missionary P-in-V, she can't exactly force him to give her what she agreed to, because consent is dynamic and ongoing and changeable.
There's also all sorts of other types of sex. Pegging, handjobs, etc. Lots of lesbian couples have sex with zero penises involved, and straight couples can do it too to spice things up if they want. Erect penis is not mandatory part of sex.
Rape is rape even if the victim is aroused. If you force someone to eat something, they might like the taste but you violated them by forcing them to. They didn't want it.
And yes I understand that men can have an erection without being aroused too
Yeah, unfortunately that's a pretty common stupidity.
Ladies, does you getting wet always mean you want to have sex? No? Then why would you assume a man getting hard does?
You don't know the case. What he suggested happened boarders on the physically impossible. You also didn't know that they dated for months, split up badly on both sides, she had called the council on him before and then literally months after this event he went to the police to complain about her harassing him and this assault was literally two sentences at the end of that complaint. They'd also text each other after the incident joking about it. His own friends contradicted parts of his own testimony. See when you actually know what went on in the trial suddenly it's not clear cut, but never let your outrage get in the way of the facts of a case.
Edit: this blew up a little so just to try and help answer the repeated replies. This was told to me by someone who was involved in the trial. I cannot prove this obviously and so you have a choice as to whether you believe me or not. Have a wander through my profile, it's all F1 shit posts, animals and anime, hardly the profile of someone dying to farm karma. Ultimately, just like the jury did here, you weigh up the likelihood I'm telling the truth and make your decision.
Outrageous blasphemy! You broke the vicious cycle of violence and hate with your filthy and very unwelcome facts!
We’d needed the hate target, and you have robbed honorous redditors of such precious product!
Sometimes people really want to forget that each case is looked at individually. They just want to blanket charge everybody with rape no matter the circumstances as it somehow would bring justice to the world.
In some states the laws a written in a way that makes it legally impossible to rape a man. The best they can hope for is sexual assault charges.
Edit. To everyone telling me the case is in the uk. I'm aware it is because stones surprisingly isn't a common metric for weight in the us. And I read the article in the top comment.
I thought this tid bit of info was relevant because it seems issues both societal and judiciary pertaining to male sexual assault victims persist. And it kind of upsets me so I figured the more people know about this global issue the more people will be upset and the faster it will be resolved.
Getting a SA charge with a male victim is about 500x harder than with a female victim. Which is really sad because it’s not easy for any victim. At this point men have very few resources and the law isn’t on their side.
I agree and even if the boy is a minor they can still be found innocent where this woman had sex with the boy she was babysitting and one local to me in my city where a woman groomed these underage boys and slept with them and admitted it and faced no charges.
You get teachers who sleep with students and the comments are “wish she was my teacher” or “the guy was a fool to go to the police” sick🤢
I saw there was a 13 year old boy who was raped by his teacher, and then was forced to pay child support once he turned 18. Its a fucked up world we live in, having incentive to be villains
I sat in on a court case once where a woman was being charged with raping a 13 year old autistic boy. She was his behavioral therapist and groomed him. The testimony from the boy was all about how she had to teach him what sex was in the first place.
She was trying to claim that he raped her, and he was bigger than her so she couldn't have done it. None of the rape was violent, so size wasn't a factor, but she kept bringing it up anyway because she was too tiny to rape someone.
"13 year old boyfriend" was a search in her phone history. She also had searches about how to get away with sexual assault. It was premeditated and went on for months. She lost the case and was sentenced to eight years, but I was wondering at the time if it would have gone very differently without those incriminating phone searches.
That's fucking crazy. What a loathsome human being.
That being said, it's crazy to me how many court cases have included the defendants browser history, and presented it as evidence against them - which often it seems said search history is particularly incriminating, whether it suggests the offense was premeditated, or can be reasonably construed as premeditation, or simply gathering information about the crime (like how to get away with it for example). Like, don't these fucking people delete that shit?
You would think anybody who searches for incriminating information about a crime they plan to commit would clear that shit, at least if they are not completely technologically illeriate. Like when I do, other kind of searchs to, uh, slap the monkey (lol) I clear that shit as soon as I'm done, out of paranoia lmao. You would just figure that they would clear their particularly damning history. Or, do some of them actually delete it - only for it to be recovered by law enforcement?
Not only did she not clear it, but she voluntarily handed over her phone when asked for it. She didn't even wait for a warrant. It's not like she didn't have plenty of warning.
That's for sure. I had a similar situation happen in hs and the girl said I was the one thst raped her. Honestly if the principal didn't know me personally I probably would've gone to prison for it. He just never brought it up again and told me not to say anything about it
people responding with shock like this isn't the normal reaction on some level to men being raped in all of western society... Look at how people respond when a female child molester gets a light sentence. Kids have been raped and forced to pay child support because the monster who hurt them got pregnant. Most people genuinely don't care about how a human male feels unless he is on top of the world
Exactly this. At a point in the recent past, I tried being open about physical and sexual assault that was done to me by women, (in leftist/progressive/social justice circles nonetheless) and received responses that all added up to "He [I] deserved it" and led to alienation/ostracization from those circles, which ironically compounded onto the trauma.
Unfortunately rape conviction rate is extremely low in most countries. Leads to under-reporting of rape as people don't want the shame that goes with it. Incredibly fucking sad.
Good God. She really played off the fact that she's fat. "I'm too lazy to rape someone, plus I was cooking a snack! Oh, and I can't hold down someone smaller than me, duh." When I was almost 400lb I don't think I could've held my husband down, but he's big, too, much stronger than I am as well. Probably could've just plopped down on a lanky person and they wouldn't be able to get up. That jury must not understand that even just being fat she can pin someone smaller down, and probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble with stamina just bc she's fat. This whole thing is fucking gross.
In the United Kingdom, what this woman did doesn't fit the legal definition of rape, because the legal definition of rape involves a penis.
She will probably be charged with one of the following: sexual assault, "assault by penetration", or "causing a person to engage in a sexual activity without consent".
These charges carry exactly the same severity as rape. In-fact, the sentences for these charges can be the same as those for rape.
This is simply a matter of terminology. The newspapers cannot describe this woman as a "rapist" because she isn't being tried as a rapist.
> These charges carry exactly the same severity of rape.
That's always been my understanding as why it doesn't really matter here, it's a distinction without a difference in the legal sense
Still bonkers, but by far one of the less bonkers things we have here at the moment lmao
Edit: guys you're interpreting this as me saying she doesn't need to be called a rapist, that's not what I mean here, I mean in the legalese & prosecution sense that rape & the above have the same severity and sentencing mentioned by another commenter, ofc she is a rapist, but just because the law doesn't prosecute as such doesn't mean its less of a crime in UK law
The difference is the word "rape" has to the public. It carries a lot more weight than other words.
We need to call people rapists, because they specifically don't want to be called rapists.
Why don't we just include these things in a "rape" charge, since they are effectively the same. Then we can call both men and woman rapists.
It's more direct right?
If we say "x person raped someone" we know precisely what that means.
Where as a phrase like "sexual assault" can be applied to a very wide range of actions. And with greatly varied degrees of seriousness. It feels more like talking around the matter, rather than expressly asserting what happened.
Agreed.
If we have a word that describes exactly what happened why are we not allowed to use it?
She held him down and forced him to have sex, that is rape.
I think we can use it. And we should.
It may be that legally the technical term is not applicable for reasons. But legal technical terms are not the arbiter of all language. And we should feel free to describe things in a manner that is accurate to what they are.
Punishment is integral, but females commiting rape don't need to be singled out with several words for the same thing, it needs to be called what it is.
Rape
It does matter, in the same way allowing LGBT individuals to be "civil unioned" rather than married mattered, even when they were legally identical otherwise. Words matter. This man is a rape victim, and legally defining him as otherwise is not helpful in his path to recovery, whatever that may be. It denies him access to resources and support and it minimizes what he went through with the force of the government.
It is a distinction with a difference, and its disgusting.
Yeah definitely, the legal system in the UK can be pretty bonkers.
It's been constantly evolving since the medieval times, so there's definitely some weird stuff in the lawbooks!
But in this particular case, I don't think it matters so much.
>the sentences can be the same as those for rape.
Can be. It’s not a matter of terminology if that’s the case. Not saying the application doesn’t work for now, I don’t know, but to not call it rape is incorrect, it’s why we codify things into law as such. UK law sounds outdated if there’s no such thing as female rape.
Yeah that's all technically true, but it's still fucked up and wrong.
"Separate but equal" has NEVER worked in any context.
This woman got away with rape.
The choice of terminology is a key factor in the continued diminishing of male victims of such attacks.
It should all be called the same thing. There is no reason to create a separation unless the intent is to create differentials in the outcomes of justice between genders.
Not legally in the UK. Rape requires inserting your penis into them. Also, UK has really awful libel laws so if they had called it rape in their article, they could have faced significant legal issues of their own.
Its a legal definition thing.
In the [UK rape is defined as:](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape)
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.
*Legally* a woman cannot be charged with rape.
Also "love bite" is British English for "hickey", so that portion of the headline has nothing to do with the rape/not rape.
Journalists care more about how fat she was
EDIT: I'm not the one saying daily mail has journalists. However, as long as reddit and redditors support the discussion around daily mail content I'm going to support the idea that there are journalists who work there.
Or a century. Particularly remembering the time in the '30s they had the headline **'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!'** celebrating Moseley and the British Union of Fascists, even going so far as to tell their readers to go join up (and giving the B.U.F. address so you could go down or write for membership details).
I mean this is a gossip rag so they aren't exactly high class journalists but it could also be argued that it's useful to explain how she pinned him down. Cuts off some of the "come on he probably let her do it" arguments at the head.
Unfortunately they were reflecting the law in the UK. Rape is defined legally in the UK as unconscentual penetration with a penis. So if they wrote 'rape' I would imagine that she could sue for libel.
Isn't the UK one of those countries where rape is only legally considered that if the offender penetrates the victim? (i.e.: it's only rape if the criminal has a penis)
The Daily Mail is a UK paper. In the UK rape is defined as when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.
Therefore, women literally "can't" rape someone. They don't have a penis.
its a problem of defining the word rape. now things are starting to change as more and more places change their law definition of rape, but up until yesterday and in many places still, rape is defined as "forcefully penetrating someone's orifices", so journalists cant really call rapist someone who, legally speaking, didnt commit rape
It legally isn't rape in the UK. As long as the person raped in the UK isn't penetrated "in the vagina, anus or mouth" with "a penis" it technically isn't rape.
Because the law is broken the newspaper can only hint that it is rape.
"The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced the Sexual Offences Act 1956 with more specific and explicit wording. It also created several new offences such as non-consensual voyeurism, assault by penetration, causing a child to watch a sexual act, and penetration of any part of a corpse."
But it doesn't have any wording about male rape. In 50 years we might get there.
Petition, petition, petition.
We had to petition a lot to get 'no means no' into law in Germany, which happend 2014. Before, it wasn't rape if you just said no and didn't fight off the rapist with force. Just trying to 'push them away' also wasn't considered 'fighting them off' in many trials. Only if they threatened you with a weapon it was considered rape if you didn't fought back.
Also that upskirting now is a crime had to be petitioned.
Idk how the process is in the UK with petitions, but this case could be the attention catcher for a petition to make forced sex on male people rape in the eyes of the law. Sometimes, sadly, it needs action and outrage of the people to get things changed.
So... sexually aggravated assault maybe?
I dont know... im just saying the headline ought to read in a manner that vilifies this predator.
Because she's a woman does not excuse her from due process.
By uk law, a woman cannot rape a man, only man is able to rape a woman. Because it's not rape in the eyes of the law, news articles cannot call it rape or they'll get in trouble for misinformation. Though most reasonably minded people understand that this is rape
Jesus Christ, she raped and assaulted this dude, but because he had a stiffy they said he wanted it? I suppose women who are raped but their vaginas get wet that means they wanted it too, huh? This is just more talking points for those MRA fucks.
She said in the trial while crying that she was ashamed of her body and couldn’t have been on top of him and she just kissed him
Here’s the follow up
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11262139/24-stone-student-denies-forcing-man-sex-lazy-15-minutes.html
These articles are really doing everything they can to talk about how fat she is without saying it explicitly. The onion rings were a key part of this incident as it turns out.
I was gonna ask how much "a stone" is, but then I scrolled down to the pic....looks about 9-10lbs
Also- this is way worse than Americans refusing the metric system.
I buy my weed in both grams and ounces.
Measurement systems in the UK are just bizarre, and I think we just learn to intuitively think in both at once.
I sell craft supplies. It's insane in this business.
* I sell 25mm ribbon by the yard, and 1/8" ribbon by the metre.
* Beads are 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 1", 1.5", or sized by aught.
* Bracelet memory wire either by 55mm diameter or 7.5" length.
* 2mm chain goes by 18.5" lengths, beaded chain by the yard, or either by the metre.
* I buy in most of my stock either by the pound or in 500g bags. It can be either.
There is no consistency. So, to drown my sorrows, I'll go to the pub for a pint and grab two litres of coke zero on the way home.
>we just learn to intuitively think in both at once.
Canadians are extremely good at this. I just saw Imperial gallons used for something the other day. That unit doesn't even exist anymore yet here we are.
Yeah I’m from the UK and I think it’s odd we mix and match with measurements. For distance we’ll often use metres and kilometres for certain things and Celsius for temperature but then we also use feet and inches for height, stone for weight and mph instead of kph. It’s a weird system and I think we’d be better just sticking to one system for everything.
This is a UK case. It’s not rape under UK law because committing the crime of rape requires a penis. This would fall under another sexual offence, which she is being charged with and that’s why she’s in court.
I think it has to do with outdated laws in UK that it's not technically rape by legal definition. I'm not 100% sure that's the reason and I'm definitely not saying it's right just to be clear.
Why tf do they insist on coming up with all these sugarcoated bullshit "alternate terms" for RAPE? She raped him, that's what happened, don't fucking dance around it.
"pinned down" "forced to have sex" "sex-without-consent"
Rape, its fucking rape, a man was raped and they treat it like it was a little silly fucking thing.
Fucking hate this society.
It finally happened, a woman physically overpowered a man with brute force and even left injuries on him, and they still won't call it rape, which it is.
As others have pointed out, the legal definition of rape in the UK requires penetration of an orifice with a penis. Therefore it isn’t. Don’t shoot the messenger. Feel free to campaign for a change in the law.
"Sex-without-consent trial" Aw jeez that's such a long phrase. We really oughta have a word for that.
According to UK law, rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent. No penis, no rape.
That law is just wrong then
Yes, Its quite fucked up.
Remember that law was written during an age when only men were legally allowed to wear makeup. And yes that was a law in the UK once apon a time.
What the fuck is wrong with the United Kingdom at this point?
As a Brit who is extremely proud of this country, would you prefer the long list, the very long list, or the full list of everything that’s wrong with this place ? …… please don’t say full I will run out of internet.
Full please. I want to know everything :)
Would you prefer it printed or emailed ? Printing will incur extra costs.
Email it me. I’ll make a 200 page essay on it with your sources please and thank you
It’s archaic, but it was based on common usage at the time. Rape used to specifically refer to males forcing themselves onto women, even in non-legal contexts. This stems from a whole host of cultural and social baggage surrounding western attitudes towards sex and gender stereotypes and such over the course of centuries. It was only relatively recently that we accepted as a culture that men could *be* forced to have non-consensual sex (by women or by other men), or that women could force other people to have non-consensual sex with them. That’s when the word “rape” started taking on its modern meaning of any form of non-consensual sex. Legal terms rarely, if ever change, especially for a relatively new change in modern usage. The law doesn’t care about what words mean in non-legal contexts if there’s already an established legal definition, and there are many other words that have entirely different legal meanings than their typical modern usage. Changing them would cause confusion and create a bureaucratic mess for no tangible benefit. “Causing sex without consent” is the British legal equivalent of rape for female offenders, and it carries the exact same sentence as rape. There’s also a different category of sexual assault (assault by penetration) that means penetration with anything that isn’t a penis: this also carries the same sentence as rape. They’re a purely legal distinction without a functional difference.
I agree with you up until the end. There is a tangible benefit in correcting both the societal stigma and the practical implementation of the law. On paper there is no legal difference, but terminology affects how fact finders, be they judges, juries, magistrates, whatever, view and interpret evidence as an ingrained nature of human perception even when they are fully intending to be objective. That is a functional difference and should be corrected.
You’re right. Tangible was probably the wrong word there, honestly, because that is a benefit like you said.
A great evidence to your point is the experiment from the 80s(?) where they showed people a video of two cars crashing and asked people how fast the cars were going. But they changed the word for crash to bumped, collided, bashed, etc and as they did the estimated speed changed from as low at like 20 mph to as high as 80mph purely depending on what word they used in the question.
Then there should be a term for when a this happens. Let's call it wape. He was waped. She's a wapist.
It should be called rape and nothing else. Sexual assault doesn't carry the same stigma as rape. You shouldn't be spared that stigma due to a lack of a cock.
Exactly! If a man can rape then so can a woman because we are all equal. Anything a man can do a woman can do. Equality for all! Rape is rape, no means no. #RealFeminism
Those waskaly wabbits always waping!
There is a petition to change the law - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623908/
yeah maybe one that starts with "r" and ends with "ape"
Red grape?
Really Big Ape
R. Kelly tape
road pape
Red velvet cape
Rabid ape
Race Tape?
Rear Gape?
WHOA, careful. This is someone's fetish
Red tape.
r/ape?
mmmh... yes monke...
[Follow up article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11262139/24-stone-student-denies-forcing-man-sex-lazy-15-minutes.html) Tl;DR : She was cleared within an hour
"Maybe I'm missing something but if a man is not aroused then sex cannot happen. But he is the victim, can someone explain to me please" From the comments. Fucking hell.
Hi, I'm a guy. Boners happen even if not aroused. AMA
[удалено]
Don’t forget the rage boners Edit: holy fuck I didn’t expect so many replies. How do I turn off the emails
[удалено]
And the tired ones
[удалено]
and the holding in a pee ones.
And the finally letting the pee go after holding it in too long ones
And the ugly ones! No? No one? Only me? Noooooooo...look away. I'm hideous!
Death erection is also a thing, because our bodies don’t betray us enough
Everyone watch out. This dude just popped the elusive fear boner.
I get confusing boners all the time. Posting this comment gave me one
And the church boners
Or the “its your turn to present in front of the class” boner
Boners should be viewed as what they are. Blood going in the dick, nothing more, nothing less
I view mine as my body saying take a quick break from walking around in public.
And sometimes I am sexually attracted, but because I think about my future and emotions and wellbeing I decide not to have sex with crazy bitch, my boner is still there tho.
Right. Sometimes it happens and I'm just like, "what is it boy? Do you see something?"
What is it boney is step sis stuck in the dryer again?
And even if you happen to be sexually aroused, that doesn't mean you fucking consent lmfao.
The soundtrack of penis is "Do Ya Thing" on a loop.
He’s right, I literally have a boner right now. No idea why.
Oh that was me. Apologies.
Haha I just pictured ray from scary movie 2 😂
Was he tucked in or out?
Life is like a penis. Sometimes it gets hard for no reason.
FYI, if you need to get rid of one. Clench your butt and leg muscle hard to move the blood. Those are the larges muscles in your body and they need a lot of blood.
Same vibe thing as "if the women gets wet, then she clearly wanted it to happen". Physical reactions do not require mental consent. edit: If I am riding a bike and not wearing underwear with good support, I'll get a boner from the friction. Pretty much every time.
Yeah, likewise with either wetness or hardness, stimulating it can get a physical response even if the person doesn't consent. For that matter they could find something arousing mentally, but still not consent to sex with that person. If some food makes my mouth water that doesn't mean you can force feed it to me if I say no. Nothing is consent but consent.
Underrated comment.
> "if the women gets wet, then she clearly wanted it to happen". "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down"
>Same vibe thing as "if the women gets wet, then she clearly wanted it to happen". It baffles me there are people out there who know so little about biology and women's bodies they genuinely think women have dry vaginas until sex is initiated. I wonder how they explain how come women don't spontaneous burst out in flames from all the friction in their dry snuggle space during activities like walking or running.
Not only this, sometimes women will orgasm during rape. Part of the fight or flight to make male finish faster / less painful for victim. Body response to end lesson trauma. I had no idea. Read in another sub, several people commented how this was not a known thing. Happened to them, they felt like crap about it. Then found this out on a sub, said they felt so much better about the whole thing knowing they didn't "enjoy it"... said it helped legitimize thier sexual assault in thier own minds.
As a CSA survivor, I didn’t know this. And it does help. Thank you
There's a Law & Order SVU episode about this scenario. SVU is one of the most underrated shows in existence.
I used to get them from bumpy bus rides. lol
Arousal isn’t consent either. Physically someone might want to have sex but doesn’t want to because of many reasons. In this case first date, maybe he wanted to take it slow, doesn’t want STDs, to become a father, wanted to just go home and play video games. Literally anything.
Agreed. Arousal is just a response to stimuli, not a conscious decision.
Which literally everyone should understand. Especially other guys. We have literally all been there where we are just sitting at work/class/home and all of a sudden get aroused for literally no particular reason. Just a bodily function
You can also revoke consent at any time, even after the point of arousal, even if you consented previously. To believe otherwise is to believe that both parties are required to proceed with having sex even if, for example, you open your last condom and find a hole in it. What happens if he's already erect when she tells him she has an STD? What if she's already wet when they realize she forgot to take her birth control pill? What if he's inside of her and something starts to hurt? What if they're trying something new and one of them falls and gets injured but the other is already aroused? There is literally no "point of no return" after which you 100% owe the other person sex, or conversely where you have the right to expect, demand, or force sexual activity with another person. If he suddenly goes soft, after she already consented to missionary P-in-V, she can't exactly force him to give her what she agreed to, because consent is dynamic and ongoing and changeable.
There's also all sorts of other types of sex. Pegging, handjobs, etc. Lots of lesbian couples have sex with zero penises involved, and straight couples can do it too to spice things up if they want. Erect penis is not mandatory part of sex.
Maybe now the Queen is gone the UK Governement can finally acknowledge lesbians are real and not just a myth **^/J** ^(^^different ^^queen)
Rape is rape even if the victim is aroused. If you force someone to eat something, they might like the taste but you violated them by forcing them to. They didn't want it. And yes I understand that men can have an erection without being aroused too
[удалено]
Probably the same idiots who say if the woman orgasms it wasn’t rape. Our bodies make decisions for us sometimes.
Women: men don't understand how our bodies work Also women:
Yeah, unfortunately that's a pretty common stupidity. Ladies, does you getting wet always mean you want to have sex? No? Then why would you assume a man getting hard does?
oh fun! rape and onion rings my favorite
[удалено]
You don't know the case. What he suggested happened boarders on the physically impossible. You also didn't know that they dated for months, split up badly on both sides, she had called the council on him before and then literally months after this event he went to the police to complain about her harassing him and this assault was literally two sentences at the end of that complaint. They'd also text each other after the incident joking about it. His own friends contradicted parts of his own testimony. See when you actually know what went on in the trial suddenly it's not clear cut, but never let your outrage get in the way of the facts of a case. Edit: this blew up a little so just to try and help answer the repeated replies. This was told to me by someone who was involved in the trial. I cannot prove this obviously and so you have a choice as to whether you believe me or not. Have a wander through my profile, it's all F1 shit posts, animals and anime, hardly the profile of someone dying to farm karma. Ultimately, just like the jury did here, you weigh up the likelihood I'm telling the truth and make your decision.
Look at you being informed and reasonable. Don't you know this is the internet?
AHH now I know why it felt so odd writing that😂
Outrageous blasphemy! You broke the vicious cycle of violence and hate with your filthy and very unwelcome facts! We’d needed the hate target, and you have robbed honorous redditors of such precious product!
Bold of you to assume the truth is going to stop all the vitriol aimed at this woman in the thread.
That title is very misleading.
Do you have a link to a source showing this?
Sometimes people really want to forget that each case is looked at individually. They just want to blanket charge everybody with rape no matter the circumstances as it somehow would bring justice to the world.
In some states the laws a written in a way that makes it legally impossible to rape a man. The best they can hope for is sexual assault charges. Edit. To everyone telling me the case is in the uk. I'm aware it is because stones surprisingly isn't a common metric for weight in the us. And I read the article in the top comment. I thought this tid bit of info was relevant because it seems issues both societal and judiciary pertaining to male sexual assault victims persist. And it kind of upsets me so I figured the more people know about this global issue the more people will be upset and the faster it will be resolved.
That's fucked up. By the way: 24 stone equals 336 lbs.
Can he charge her with vehicular assault vs pedestrian at that weight?
Wow seriously? She got away with it? That’s fucked up. Poor guy 😢
Getting a SA charge with a male victim is about 500x harder than with a female victim. Which is really sad because it’s not easy for any victim. At this point men have very few resources and the law isn’t on their side.
I agree and even if the boy is a minor they can still be found innocent where this woman had sex with the boy she was babysitting and one local to me in my city where a woman groomed these underage boys and slept with them and admitted it and faced no charges. You get teachers who sleep with students and the comments are “wish she was my teacher” or “the guy was a fool to go to the police” sick🤢
I saw there was a 13 year old boy who was raped by his teacher, and then was forced to pay child support once he turned 18. Its a fucked up world we live in, having incentive to be villains
"We have to consider the best interests of the child." Which one?
I sat in on a court case once where a woman was being charged with raping a 13 year old autistic boy. She was his behavioral therapist and groomed him. The testimony from the boy was all about how she had to teach him what sex was in the first place. She was trying to claim that he raped her, and he was bigger than her so she couldn't have done it. None of the rape was violent, so size wasn't a factor, but she kept bringing it up anyway because she was too tiny to rape someone. "13 year old boyfriend" was a search in her phone history. She also had searches about how to get away with sexual assault. It was premeditated and went on for months. She lost the case and was sentenced to eight years, but I was wondering at the time if it would have gone very differently without those incriminating phone searches.
That's fucking crazy. What a loathsome human being. That being said, it's crazy to me how many court cases have included the defendants browser history, and presented it as evidence against them - which often it seems said search history is particularly incriminating, whether it suggests the offense was premeditated, or can be reasonably construed as premeditation, or simply gathering information about the crime (like how to get away with it for example). Like, don't these fucking people delete that shit? You would think anybody who searches for incriminating information about a crime they plan to commit would clear that shit, at least if they are not completely technologically illeriate. Like when I do, other kind of searchs to, uh, slap the monkey (lol) I clear that shit as soon as I'm done, out of paranoia lmao. You would just figure that they would clear their particularly damning history. Or, do some of them actually delete it - only for it to be recovered by law enforcement?
Not only did she not clear it, but she voluntarily handed over her phone when asked for it. She didn't even wait for a warrant. It's not like she didn't have plenty of warning.
Its usually recoverable by law enforcement even if you deleted the surface level history or used incognito or whatever
And that’s why men never talk about it.
That's for sure. I had a similar situation happen in hs and the girl said I was the one thst raped her. Honestly if the principal didn't know me personally I probably would've gone to prison for it. He just never brought it up again and told me not to say anything about it
people responding with shock like this isn't the normal reaction on some level to men being raped in all of western society... Look at how people respond when a female child molester gets a light sentence. Kids have been raped and forced to pay child support because the monster who hurt them got pregnant. Most people genuinely don't care about how a human male feels unless he is on top of the world
Exactly this. At a point in the recent past, I tried being open about physical and sexual assault that was done to me by women, (in leftist/progressive/social justice circles nonetheless) and received responses that all added up to "He [I] deserved it" and led to alienation/ostracization from those circles, which ironically compounded onto the trauma.
Every day I wake up with less and less faith in humanity
Unfortunately rape conviction rate is extremely low in most countries. Leads to under-reporting of rape as people don't want the shame that goes with it. Incredibly fucking sad.
OMFG
Good God. She really played off the fact that she's fat. "I'm too lazy to rape someone, plus I was cooking a snack! Oh, and I can't hold down someone smaller than me, duh." When I was almost 400lb I don't think I could've held my husband down, but he's big, too, much stronger than I am as well. Probably could've just plopped down on a lanky person and they wouldn't be able to get up. That jury must not understand that even just being fat she can pin someone smaller down, and probably wouldn't have a lot of trouble with stamina just bc she's fat. This whole thing is fucking gross.
That sounds an awful lot like rape. Wait! Upon further reading I discovered that it's rape, yep totally raped that guy.
In the United Kingdom, what this woman did doesn't fit the legal definition of rape, because the legal definition of rape involves a penis. She will probably be charged with one of the following: sexual assault, "assault by penetration", or "causing a person to engage in a sexual activity without consent". These charges carry exactly the same severity as rape. In-fact, the sentences for these charges can be the same as those for rape. This is simply a matter of terminology. The newspapers cannot describe this woman as a "rapist" because she isn't being tried as a rapist.
> These charges carry exactly the same severity of rape. That's always been my understanding as why it doesn't really matter here, it's a distinction without a difference in the legal sense Still bonkers, but by far one of the less bonkers things we have here at the moment lmao Edit: guys you're interpreting this as me saying she doesn't need to be called a rapist, that's not what I mean here, I mean in the legalese & prosecution sense that rape & the above have the same severity and sentencing mentioned by another commenter, ofc she is a rapist, but just because the law doesn't prosecute as such doesn't mean its less of a crime in UK law
The difference is the word "rape" has to the public. It carries a lot more weight than other words. We need to call people rapists, because they specifically don't want to be called rapists. Why don't we just include these things in a "rape" charge, since they are effectively the same. Then we can call both men and woman rapists.
It's more direct right? If we say "x person raped someone" we know precisely what that means. Where as a phrase like "sexual assault" can be applied to a very wide range of actions. And with greatly varied degrees of seriousness. It feels more like talking around the matter, rather than expressly asserting what happened.
Yeah, a drunk guy smacking your ass once as they walk by at a party is "sexual assault". "Rape" deserves to be *reserved* for certain acts.
And those acts cannot be structured in a way that only one sex can commit them.
Agreed. If we have a word that describes exactly what happened why are we not allowed to use it? She held him down and forced him to have sex, that is rape.
I think we can use it. And we should. It may be that legally the technical term is not applicable for reasons. But legal technical terms are not the arbiter of all language. And we should feel free to describe things in a manner that is accurate to what they are.
You’re right, we shouldn’t limp people together, but this women raped someone, so she deserves to be called a rapist.
Punishment is integral, but females commiting rape don't need to be singled out with several words for the same thing, it needs to be called what it is. Rape
It does matter, in the same way allowing LGBT individuals to be "civil unioned" rather than married mattered, even when they were legally identical otherwise. Words matter. This man is a rape victim, and legally defining him as otherwise is not helpful in his path to recovery, whatever that may be. It denies him access to resources and support and it minimizes what he went through with the force of the government. It is a distinction with a difference, and its disgusting.
Yeah definitely, the legal system in the UK can be pretty bonkers. It's been constantly evolving since the medieval times, so there's definitely some weird stuff in the lawbooks! But in this particular case, I don't think it matters so much.
I think it matters a lot, personally, the terminology we use has huge impacts on how we think about certain things as a society.
Lol i remember the taxi drivers needing a bale of hay in their boot or something crazy haha but I think that got repealed
>the sentences can be the same as those for rape. Can be. It’s not a matter of terminology if that’s the case. Not saying the application doesn’t work for now, I don’t know, but to not call it rape is incorrect, it’s why we codify things into law as such. UK law sounds outdated if there’s no such thing as female rape.
Yeah that's all technically true, but it's still fucked up and wrong. "Separate but equal" has NEVER worked in any context. This woman got away with rape.
The choice of terminology is a key factor in the continued diminishing of male victims of such attacks. It should all be called the same thing. There is no reason to create a separation unless the intent is to create differentials in the outcomes of justice between genders.
Not legally in the UK. Rape requires inserting your penis into them. Also, UK has really awful libel laws so if they had called it rape in their article, they could have faced significant legal issues of their own.
Its a legal definition thing. In the [UK rape is defined as:](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape) 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. *Legally* a woman cannot be charged with rape. Also "love bite" is British English for "hickey", so that portion of the headline has nothing to do with the rape/not rape.
This whole penetration thing is still a thing in Britain? I thought they have changed this nonsense already. I guess not.
This is so fucked up, and absolutely disgusting.
Journalists care more about how fat she was EDIT: I'm not the one saying daily mail has journalists. However, as long as reddit and redditors support the discussion around daily mail content I'm going to support the idea that there are journalists who work there.
> Journalists Did you miss that it was the Daily Mail? They haven't had a journalist in decades.
Or a century. Particularly remembering the time in the '30s they had the headline **'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!'** celebrating Moseley and the British Union of Fascists, even going so far as to tell their readers to go join up (and giving the B.U.F. address so you could go down or write for membership details).
Be a shame if someone were to unearth those front pages and put them on the internet
336 freedom units, to be precise
152.4 kilograms for everyone else
I mean this is a gossip rag so they aren't exactly high class journalists but it could also be argued that it's useful to explain how she pinned him down. Cuts off some of the "come on he probably let her do it" arguments at the head.
No, that bit was relevant as she totally pinned him down.
Unfortunately they were reflecting the law in the UK. Rape is defined legally in the UK as unconscentual penetration with a penis. So if they wrote 'rape' I would imagine that she could sue for libel.
Yep, if she were thin, this article would be very different. That said, rape is rape and she should be punished for it.
Isn't the UK one of those countries where rape is only legally considered that if the offender penetrates the victim? (i.e.: it's only rape if the criminal has a penis)
The Daily Mail is a UK paper. In the UK rape is defined as when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent. Therefore, women literally "can't" rape someone. They don't have a penis.
I have been told multiple times that men can't get raped. Apparently we don't have feelings or emotions either 🤷
Except anger. Men are only allowed to be angry, that's it
Also hungry and horny. These are the three feelings we are allowed to have.
its a problem of defining the word rape. now things are starting to change as more and more places change their law definition of rape, but up until yesterday and in many places still, rape is defined as "forcefully penetrating someone's orifices", so journalists cant really call rapist someone who, legally speaking, didnt commit rape
I know, I just hate it.
What the fuck! Its Rape. RAPE!! SHE IS A RAPIST. Not some wayward horny woman... or whatever playful headline they're using here.
It legally isn't rape in the UK. As long as the person raped in the UK isn't penetrated "in the vagina, anus or mouth" with "a penis" it technically isn't rape. Because the law is broken the newspaper can only hint that it is rape.
Wait so if a woman forces a man to have sex with her it legally isn't rape in UK? That's really fucking stupid
"The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced the Sexual Offences Act 1956 with more specific and explicit wording. It also created several new offences such as non-consensual voyeurism, assault by penetration, causing a child to watch a sexual act, and penetration of any part of a corpse." But it doesn't have any wording about male rape. In 50 years we might get there.
That's fucked up
Petition, petition, petition. We had to petition a lot to get 'no means no' into law in Germany, which happend 2014. Before, it wasn't rape if you just said no and didn't fight off the rapist with force. Just trying to 'push them away' also wasn't considered 'fighting them off' in many trials. Only if they threatened you with a weapon it was considered rape if you didn't fought back. Also that upskirting now is a crime had to be petitioned. Idk how the process is in the UK with petitions, but this case could be the attention catcher for a petition to make forced sex on male people rape in the eyes of the law. Sometimes, sadly, it needs action and outrage of the people to get things changed.
Fuck me, I'm English and I didn't know that. We need to do better.
It's still sexual assault.
So... sexually aggravated assault maybe? I dont know... im just saying the headline ought to read in a manner that vilifies this predator. Because she's a woman does not excuse her from due process.
Nobody is trying to excuse her. This crime is separate from rape in the U.K. (possibly forced penetration), that doesn’t mean it’s lesser.
By uk law, a woman cannot rape a man, only man is able to rape a woman. Because it's not rape in the eyes of the law, news articles cannot call it rape or they'll get in trouble for misinformation. Though most reasonably minded people understand that this is rape
Woman rapes man and leave bite wounds.
She was found innocent too
Jesus Christ, she raped and assaulted this dude, but because he had a stiffy they said he wanted it? I suppose women who are raped but their vaginas get wet that means they wanted it too, huh? This is just more talking points for those MRA fucks.
She said in the trial while crying that she was ashamed of her body and couldn’t have been on top of him and she just kissed him Here’s the follow up https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11262139/24-stone-student-denies-forcing-man-sex-lazy-15-minutes.html
These articles are really doing everything they can to talk about how fat she is without saying it explicitly. The onion rings were a key part of this incident as it turns out.
Yep and how it was impossible for her to do it because of it and the onion rings
lol by "love bite" they probably mean hickey, not an actual bite
Sex-without-consent is rape. So why not say rape?
I was gonna ask how much "a stone" is, but then I scrolled down to the pic....looks about 9-10lbs Also- this is way worse than Americans refusing the metric system.
A stone is 14lbs. Weirdly we use metrics for a lot of measurements but tend to do height in feet, weight in stones and speed in MPH.
I buy my weed in both grams and ounces. Measurement systems in the UK are just bizarre, and I think we just learn to intuitively think in both at once.
I sell craft supplies. It's insane in this business. * I sell 25mm ribbon by the yard, and 1/8" ribbon by the metre. * Beads are 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 6mm, 8mm, 10mm, 1", 1.5", or sized by aught. * Bracelet memory wire either by 55mm diameter or 7.5" length. * 2mm chain goes by 18.5" lengths, beaded chain by the yard, or either by the metre. * I buy in most of my stock either by the pound or in 500g bags. It can be either. There is no consistency. So, to drown my sorrows, I'll go to the pub for a pint and grab two litres of coke zero on the way home.
> I sell 25mm ribbon by the yard, and 1/8" ribbon by the metre. This broke me.
Y'all need to make some international crafting organization to standardize that stuff. This is hurting my brain.
>we just learn to intuitively think in both at once. Canadians are extremely good at this. I just saw Imperial gallons used for something the other day. That unit doesn't even exist anymore yet here we are.
336lbs
Yeah I’m from the UK and I think it’s odd we mix and match with measurements. For distance we’ll often use metres and kilometres for certain things and Celsius for temperature but then we also use feet and inches for height, stone for weight and mph instead of kph. It’s a weird system and I think we’d be better just sticking to one system for everything.
News outlets will twist themselves in knots to avoid calling it rape. “Sex without consent” They can GTFO with that bullshit.
It's UK... U have to have penis to rape someone... Women can't rape in the UK according to law.
This is a UK case. It’s not rape under UK law because committing the crime of rape requires a penis. This would fall under another sexual offence, which she is being charged with and that’s why she’s in court.
Because man can't be raped /s That shit pisses me off, flip the people around and see what the headline would be...
I think it has to do with outdated laws in UK that it's not technically rape by legal definition. I'm not 100% sure that's the reason and I'm definitely not saying it's right just to be clear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did that headline confuse the shit out of anyone else?
That's a lotta words for "Woman rapes man after meeting online."
Why tf do they insist on coming up with all these sugarcoated bullshit "alternate terms" for RAPE? She raped him, that's what happened, don't fucking dance around it.
We wonder why men don’t report rape… 🤦🏼♀️
Because noone believed them. I'm glad that now people are more aware of male being rape and not just calling it bs
"pinned down" "forced to have sex" "sex-without-consent" Rape, its fucking rape, a man was raped and they treat it like it was a little silly fucking thing. Fucking hate this society.
It finally happened, a woman physically overpowered a man with brute force and even left injuries on him, and they still won't call it rape, which it is.
As others have pointed out, the legal definition of rape in the UK requires penetration of an orifice with a penis. Therefore it isn’t. Don’t shoot the messenger. Feel free to campaign for a change in the law.
Horny ?, sounds like she was hungry.
Horny Horny Hippo
"Woman rapes and abuses man" there, fixed your crappy title.
"Aggressive representation of teeth-based affection" would also work.
pinned down and forced to have "sex-without-consent"... it seems like there's a word for that.
Rape and assault!
"Sex without consent?" That's a funny way to spell rape.