If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It's possible for a man to get raped by a woman. Men can get erections by the stimulation of their penis'. They neither have to be sober or find the girl attractive for this to happen.
What about it?
I'm questioning the law here.
what if she did consent though, and cannot remember and soberly wouldnt go near him with a bargepole
we're asking about the law which cannot be discretionary when it come to guilty or non guilty verdicts
and on moonrats post, it comes across as saying "we should ignore all crimes against the people who rarely get it because they're worth it less"
Unless the judge has had a few at lunchtime, the defendant has a great suit of a clever man comes up with a new argument or any one of the other reasons that make the law a big pile of shite.
Why?
Which can mean absolutely anything, depending on who reads it.
So rape is only rape when penetration is involved?
If that is the case then the law needs some serious review. And I'm not only talking about men here, what about people who suffer sexual humiliation...verbal and physical but without penetration involved. Are they not raped?
rape = unconsented sex, imo
why can't it be like that?
and i was just making the point previously because despite my point of there being no evidence agaisnt the defence, a trial cannot proceed - if theres any eivdence to the former then sure let a trial proceed im happy to see rapists convicted and sent down, however it has to be done with correct procedure
you didn't, should the person be tried for rape becuase someone had a change of heart when sobering up? ie they cant remember consenting?
what if both were drunk, and both wakes up to not remember, therefore they should both be tried for rape also under that argument
i hate answering like this i.e provoking however many of the posters here are using such subjective terms when such a thing cannot be done in regards to the law
the problem with this thing about making sure guys get consent, is that assumes men are always in the position of power, which is what rape is about most times, and it assumes women cant consent without being asked and it being recorded which is equally sexist against women - it's just another stupid thing of trying to put common sense (of making sure someone wants to) into law which is utterly unworkable
im gonna start selling sex contracts in clubs i think
1. The Aberystwyth case. The judge decided to throw the case out, with the agreement of an incompetent CPS barrister, after the woman had said she passed out. At no stage was the defendant put to proof.
2. Rape is the act of forcing a person to submit to penetration by a penis. Other crimes, such as penetrating a person with another implement, is not rape, but have equal stature. A man cannot be raped by a woman, and does not attract the same penalty for the rather obvious reason that it is not as invasive.
3. Finally, one question, particularly directed at placebo:
If you have passed out and are unconscious, can you consent to sexual intercourse?
hmm if that was the case and the prosecution had no other evidence then id agree with you
i have friends who have been very inappropiately groped in odd scenarios as well, and well they'd behave the same as if they were raped, so it's the mental intrusion more than anything that would strike me personally, the 'invasion' aspect of rape is more sheer violence/power like kidnap, torture or mugging - but thats my opinion
of course that isnt consent!
have i been wasted and done things ive realised are stupid only afterwards? of course
however i make the assumption i consented as it was my choice to get wasted and forget everything about the night, waking up on a bus in trafalger square **cough cough**
consenting to something whilst drunk imo has to be carefully thought about when you realise what you have done, i know people who have woken up next to a girl/guy they would never have done stuff with normally, you know what they think? that it must have been a bad decision when drunk, nothing more nothing less, and they quickly leave
someone getting someone intoxicated to make them consent however is utterly wrong
taking advantage of someone when your sober and their judgement is impaired - it's a very very jammy situation, unethical? yes! immoral? definetly! criminally wrong? it depends very much on the situation
if you can suggest a way of phrasing the law which isnt too subjective/emotive which normally leads to stupid prosecutions whilst letting guilty people off then id suggest you do it
if it was me, i wouldn't be
Thank you.
Unless you/they have been raped, its impossible to say.
I'm not denigrating sexual abuse and assault, but there are varying degrees of it. Being raped is not the same as, say, having someone force their mouths onto your genitals without consent.
It's still shit, but not as shit.
We're not talking about mistaken sex, we're not talking about regretting having such powerful beer goggles. We're talking about women who have testified that they have passed out, and been told that because they don't remember saying no then it should be assumed they consented.
The false reporting of rape is at about 2% of all claims, according to the Home Office. That's in line with other crimes. So talk of "revenge" rape claims, or rape claims to hide regretted sex, is a non-argument. Most people who consented to sex drunkenly know they did, and just lie low.
But if a woman says she woke up with a man inside her, with no memory of what happened before, then she should at least get to put the defendant to proof.
The rape law is quite clear, it doesn't need reforming. It simply needs to be applied properly. The best way to do that would be to get professional expert rape prosecutors installed, as they have done in New York.
Yes.
But it wouldn't be an issue. If you feel you were raped then you would complain- if you consented, you wouldn't.
How?
So if your feelings about the same issue change, it becomes a different set of actions from the other party?
What on earth are you wittering about?
The key issue is consent. You either consent or you don't. If you don't consent, its rape. If you do consent, it isn't.
opinions are opinions on this, so anyway...
im not talking about 'revenge rape' either....
as sick as it may sound, if there is no evidence for the prosecution, can you try someone?
that sounds reasonable, cant comment too mcuh as i dont know too much about their practices, having people who know how to deal with rape victims would be the best thing though and allowing them to give their evidence away from the accused would help a lot also
I thought it was pretty simple.
Person "a" has given consent to sex. Person "b" gets it on. Person "a" passes out.
How does person "b" know that consent has been withdrawn?
How can you consent or not consent afterwards?
as you before? 'going in'? during? the finale? the next day?
What are you on about?
Perhaps the fact A is passed out might be something of a tiny little clue?
I'm not sure of the rape figures, but I would presume the vast majority are women raped by men, a small minority are men raped by men and so small as to be insignificant is some woman forcing a man into sex (though as has been mentioned that's not technically rape). Funnily enough when putting resources into media campaigns its the more common form they concentrate on