Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?

[Josh Schlacter]

Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?

Hypothetically speaking, if a 15 year old boy had sex with two 13 year old girls and only the boy was charged. Do you think this is an example of discrimination again boys.

Since all parties were under the age of consent, prosecuting only the boy is sexual discrimination.

[Stryker125]

Kind of depends on where they live. 16 is the legal age of consent in some places, so it'd make sense to charge him since he's the only one that's legal.

[pollier92]

16 is the age of consent but if its say the girl 13 and the boy 15 i think it is especialy if both are under the age of consent and one gets charged

[Josh Schlacter]

Kind of depends on where they live. 16 is the legal age of consent in some places, so it'd make sense to charge him since he's the only one that's legal.

16 is the age of consent but if its say the girl 13 and the boy 15 i think it is especialy if both are under the age of consent and one gets charged

Yeah, makes sense

[Buck]

i believe so

[Wanderer_]

Just better hope those 2 girls don't dob on you mate

[anyone50]

There's one little detail you left out of your post and this would be whose idea was it to have sex in the first place. I think how you answer this makes all the difference. and in many states if the guy is 16 he is at or above the age of consent so you can't really say both are under. just as an example of two cases

Case in point if it was the two 13 year old girls that started the sex or came up with the idea to do this and the 16 year old boy just went along and then for somereason one or both of them changed their mind after having sex and cried rape then you have a valid point. in this case I would say they discriminate against boys.

If on the other hand the sex wasn't consensual or after things started the girls changed their mind and withdrew consent but he just continued he left himself open to the charge of rape. I do belive that the law has flaws in it the way girls aren't held accountable for thier actions and innocent people are hurt.

[Josh Schlacter]

Just better hope those 2 girls don't dob on you mate

Um... I've never had sex before, that's why i said hypothetically.

I'm christian.

There's one little detail you left out of your post and this would be whose idea was it to have sex in the first place. I think how you answer this makes all the difference. and in many states if the guy is 16 he is at or above the age of consent so you can't really say both are under. just as an example of two cases

Case in point if it was the two 13 year old girls that started the sex or came up with the idea to do this and the 16 year old boy just went along and then for somereason one or both of them changed their mind after having sex and cried rape then you have a valid point. in this case I would say they discriminate against boys.

If on the other hand the sex wasn't consensual or after things started the girls changed their mind and withdrew consent but he just continued he left himself open to the charge of rape. I do belive that the law has flaws in it the way girls aren't held accountable for thier actions and innocent people are hurt.

Very well thought, and detailed answer. Just what i was looking for.

I'll ad some rep for you.


Please don't double post. -StoppingTime.

[Wanderer_]

Um... I've never had sex before, that's why i said hypothetically.

I'm christian.

Christians make mistakes too, glad you didn't

[SammieRose]

As i said on the other post where you accused me of calling it a free pass for girls, In the eyes of the law, the older party is the guilty party.

If it was a 15yrs old girl having sex with two 13yrs old guys, she will be guilty of statutory rape, in legal terms.

If both parties know that what they are doing is illegal, yes, they are both at fault and technically both guilty, but the law states that the elder should had known better, thus making him/her the guilty party.

We had a case about 8 years ago of a 16yrs old girl charged with statutory rape of two kids she was babysitting. The kids were not charged because they actually thought it was normal, but the 16yrs old knew better.

[Rainbowfairy]

As i said on the other post where you accused me of calling it a free pass for girls, In the eyes of the law, the older party is the guilty party.

If it was a 15yrs old girl having sex with two 13yrs old guys, she will be guilty of statutory rape, in legal terms.

If both parties know that what they are doing is illegal, yes, they are both at fault and technically both guilty, but the law states that the elder should had known better, thus making him/her the guilty party.

We had a case about 8 years ago of a 16yrs old girl charged with statutory rape of two kids she was babysitting. The kids were not charged because they actually thought it was normal, but the 16yrs old knew better.

This post got it spot on it falls on the older of the two

[karl]

Thank goodness the age of consent in Spain is 13 then!

[StoppingTime]

Puberty 101 :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise.

[Prodigy17]

This post got it spot on it falls on the older of the two

Not a good idea to have incorrect information floating around the forum for something as important as this. If people started believing that a 13 year old guy would think it's OK to have sex with a 14 year old girl because she's older so she'll get in trouble not him.

Totally incorrect - if both are under 16 it doesn't matter who is older.

[CharlieFinley]

Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?

Hypothetically speaking, if a 15 year old boy had sex with two 13 year old girls and only the boy was charged. Do you think this is an example of discrimination again boys.

Since all parties were under the age of consent, prosecuting only the boy is sexual discrimination.

Unless you actually provide evidence of this happening, this is a pointless thread.

[Jean Poutine]

Nobody is going to charge two kids under the age of consent.

[Korashk]

Nobody is going to charge two kids under the age of consent.
Except the government, because it happens all the time.

But yeah, enforcement on laws governing sexual conduct are highly biased against males.

[SammieRose]

Except the government, because it happens all the time.

But yeah, enforcement on laws governing sexual conduct are highly biased against males.

Completely agree with that statement in that enforcing agencies are more inclined to prosecute male offenders. But also we should take into account that for many guys "nailing" an older girl is an achievement, thus not seeing it as rape or reporting it, while girls are more likely to be ashamed of what they did and report it. So we got more reported cases of male statutory rape than we have of female.

[Prodigy17]

Completely agree with that statement in that enforcing agencies are more inclined to prosecute male offenders. But also we should take into account that for many guys "nailing" an older girl is an achievement, thus not seeing it as rape or reporting it, while girls are more likely to be ashamed of what they did and report it. So we got more reported cases of male statutory rape than we have of female.

You seem to have a very mixed up understanding of this issue. The reason we have many fewer cases of females is nothing to do with girls being ashamed. In 90% of the world it is not a crime for a girl to have sex under age but technically it is a crime for the guy.

There are a few states in the USA (California is the obvious one) where a girl commits a crime by having sex under age but in most of the USA and other countries it's always the guy who does the crime.

Presumably a guy wanting to have sex under 16 would be smart enough to check the law where he lives before doing anything ;) In the UK for example policy is guys are never prosecuted so it's a safe thing to do.

[Prodigy17]

But yeah, enforcement on laws governing sexual conduct are highly biased against males.

Of course. The law assumes a guy wants sex and a girl lets it happen - obviously a girl cannot rape a guy.

Take a scenario - guy goes out, meets a girl and has a one night stand. Girl has a boyfriend who finds out. The girl can say oh he raped me, I wasn't willing. Boyfriend understands that and doesn't dump her for cheating.

Guy cannot say he didn't consent so his girlfriend dumps him for cheating. Unfair that girls can change their mind after the event.

Or 14 year old girl has sex with her 13 year old boyfriend, she's totally happy to have sex at the time. Then the guy dumps her for another girl. Girl can report the guy and maybe get him in a lot of trouble. Guy cannot report the girl.

[Harry Smith]

Of course. The law assumes a guy wants sex and a girl lets it happen - obviously a girl cannot rape a guy.

Take a scenario - guy goes out, meets a girl and has a one night stand. Girl has a boyfriend who finds out. The girl can say oh he raped me, I wasn't willing. Boyfriend understands that and doesn't dump her for cheating.

Guy cannot say he didn't consent so his girlfriend dumps him for cheating. Unfair that girls can change their mind after the event.

Or 14 year old girl has sex with her 13 year old boyfriend, she's totally happy to have sex at the time. Then the guy dumps her for another girl. Girl can report the guy and maybe get him in a lot of trouble. Guy cannot report the girl.

You sound like something out of a Met police handbook. Rape is the most unreported crime in the world. 60,000 cases of rape happened in the UK, only 1,070 people were charged and prosecuted for rape last year. This is a very big difference. You say that it's easier because the girl can claim the guy raped her, unless she had a medical check after sexual intercourse she would have a near impossible task of even getting him to court, her evidence would not stand up in court. In Britain it only counts as Statutory rape if the girl is under 13.

Also a girl can rape a man, its actually more common than people think. Domestic abuse and rape is a two way street

[canadaski]

Nobody is going to charge two kids under the age of consent.

This is true. If you're around 13 or under you can get away with doing nearly anything because the law sees you as unfit to make rational decisions. What a load of horseshit. Most idiots today (nearly everybody) believe it's immoral or disgusting that an 18 year old would have sex with a 15, 16, or 17 year old just because they passed the magic age marker that somebody happened pulled out of their ass. I'd say the law discriminates against adults but definitely males more so than females.

If you're 18 or over and a 15 year old accuses you of rape even though you've never seen them before then yeah, good fucking luck with that. I've seen two young girls accuse a teacher of molesting them, while destroying his career and his life. A year later, the truth came through that they were merely a couple of sadistic, lying bitches.

[Harry Smith]

It is extremely hard to prove unless the victim has a witness or credible evidence apart from his semen. This means the police will not even look at the case half of the time. However if it happens with an over 18 especially in a school environmental the police would have to invest fully into it.

[Prodigy17]

Also a girl can rape a man, its actually more common than people think.

How exactly would a girl rape a man?

In the UK the crime of rape is committed when a penis is put in a girls vag, mouth or bum against her will. How many women do you know that have penises?

[Harry Smith]

A women can rape a man, it's extremely unheard of but it can still happen. In a broader sense rape is the unwanted act of sexual intercourse, if the man dosen't give consent then it is rape. While the 2003 sexual assault act states it is with a penis a court of law could still prosecute you for sodomy or sexual assault

A man can be raped if he is:

1) impaired by drugs or alcohol
2) under the age of consent (16-18 in most states)
3) physically handicapped or limited
4) physically forced or coerced by a woman

[Prodigy17]

A women can rape a man, it's extremely unheard of but it can still happen. In a broader sense rape is the unwanted act of sexual intercourse, if the man dosen't give consent then it is rape. While the 2003 sexual assault act states it is with a penis a court of law could still prosecute you for sodomy or sexual assault

A man can be raped if he is:

1) impaired by drugs or alcohol
2) under the age of consent (16-18 in most states)
3) physically handicapped or limited
4) physically forced or coerced by a woman

Total nonsense :) To be guilty of rape you have to have a penis - rape is a very specific crime that involves penetration. Women cannot rape.

As far as the law's concerned if sex (ie penetration) happens the man consents, doesn't matter if he's drunk/drugged/forced/handicapped - hopefully I don't need to spell out why that is :)

[Majin Vegeta]

I think those double standard rules are there cause they don't think girls can make their own decisions or have hormones lol

Total nonsense :) To be guilty of rape you have to have a penis - rape is a very specific crime that involves penetration. Women cannot rape.

As far as the law's concerned if sex (ie penetration) happens the man consents, doesn't matter if he's drunk/drugged/forced/handicapped - hopefully I don't need to spell out why that is :)

it's not nonsense those were 4 very logical answers. also a woman could drug a man and have him "rape" her so she could get him in jail for whatever reason she wants

Merged double post. -Gigablue

[Human]

I'm not sure on the whole law but I think it can be bias as it is thought that males can't be raped. They can be of course.

How exactly would a girl rape a man?

In the UK the crime of rape is committed when a penis is put in a girls vag, mouth or bum against her will. How many women do you know that have penises?

There can be a broader definition of sexual assault
The female could obviously touch the man, place objects in certain orifices etc.

Merged double post. -Gigablue

[Prodigy17]

There can be a broader definition of sexual assault
The female could obviously touch the man, place objects in certain orifices etc.

Absolutely. Thing is rape is a very serious crime which will involve jail time - a girl cannot be guilty of rape.

A girl can commit sexual assault (unwanted groping, touching etc) but the punishment is nowhere as severe as it is for rape, very unlikely to involve jail. Still very unlikely to happen - if a girl touches you and you dont want her to you just tell her no, push her away etc.

A guy would look very silly indeed reporting he'd been sexually assaulted by a girl :)

[JoeHillsTSD]

I'm in middle school we were taught that underaged sex was not illegal as long as there was an age difference smaller than 3 years. I'm not completely sure if that is true, but I do know of friends who have gotten out of stat. rape cases because they were only 2 years older than the female.

There is definitely some biased ideas about rape leaning towards females. I think it is simple because male-on-female rape is much more heard of than female-on-male. It also has to do with the fact that not many men who are raped report.

[Korashk]

In the UK the crime of rape is committed when a penis is put in a girls vag, mouth or bum against her will. How many women do you know that have penises?
1.) I don't think that's true anymore, although it is true that in a lot of European countries women couldn't be legally charged with rape because of weird wording that made it so it wasn't rape without penetration.

2.) It doesn't matter how rape is legally defined. There's a difference between the crime of rape and the act of rape. You're batshit if you actually think that men can't be raped.

[Harry Smith]

Absolutely. Thing is rape is a very serious crime which will involve jail time - a girl cannot be guilty of rape.

A girl can commit sexual assault (unwanted groping, touching etc) but the punishment is nowhere as severe as it is for rape, very unlikely to involve jail. Still very unlikely to happen - if a girl touches you and you don't want her to you just tell her no, push her away etc.

A guy would look very silly indeed reporting he'd been sexually assaulted by a girl :)

People like you are the reason that so many men are afraid to report any form of domestic abuse to the police, you may look silly but the girl has still committed a crime and the CPS wouldn't throw the case away they would throw the book at the girl due to the serious nature of sexual crimes.

[Jean Poutine]

Girls raping guys happen more often than one thinks.

Sex while inebriated is rape because neither party can legally consent. So if two drunks have consensual sex they are still raping each other.

[Prodigy17]

1.) I don't think that's true anymore, although it is true that in a lot of European countries women couldn't be legally charged with rape because of weird wording that made it so it wasn't rape without penetration.

2.) It doesn't matter how rape is legally defined. There's a difference between the crime of rape and the act of rape. You're batshit if you actually think that men can't be raped.

1/ it is true in the UK - that's why I wrote it. Obviously I can't speak for every other country in the world but it would take 2 seconds on Google to find out the law where you live.

2/ Obviously a man can be raped by a man my point is a man cannot be raped by a woman. If you don't accept this can you explain exactly how you think a woman would rape a man?

[Harry Smith]

1/ it is true in the UK - that's why I wrote it. Obviously I can't speak for every other country in the world but it would take 2 seconds on Google to find out the law where you live.

2/ Obviously a man can be raped by a man my point is a man cannot be raped by a woman. If you don't accept this can you explain exactly how you think a woman would rape a man?

you are referring to the specific UK Law which is worded very badly, just because the law states than penetration needs to be done with the penis doesn't mean that the crime of Rape hasn't occurred. The broad definition of rape is UNWANTED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, if a man doesn't give consent to a women having sex with him then it is rape. You would described at how judges can get past the wording in law. So a man can be raped by a women, you can't still say that a men cannot get raped by a women because you are morally wrong. Your the only person on this thread who is still trying to argue the sexist view that rape is a one way street

[Prodigy17]

Girls raping guys happen more often than one thinks.

Sex while inebriated is rape because neither party can legally consent. So if two drunks have consensual sex they are still raping each other.

This thread is getting more and more ridiculous :)

You're right that a drunk woman legally cannot consent to sex. In fact several guys have been jailed for rape when the woman was so drunk she didn't remember whether she consented or not. One very good reason not to have sex with a drunk girl, especially if you don't know/trust her.

If a drunk girl and a drunk guy have sex (meaning guy penetrates girl) the guy could find himself in court for rape. The girl would NEVER be charged with rape. Do you understand why this is? I can explain if need be but hopefully it's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining.

[Prodigy17]

you are referring to the specific UK Law which is worded very badly, just because the law states than penetration needs to be done with the penis doesn't mean that the crime of Rape hasn't occurred.

That's ridiculous. Rape is a crime - like every crime it has a very specific definition. If you do X you're guilty if you didn't do X you're not guilty.

Whatever your personal opnion we are discussing the law which is not based on opinion. Rape is very clearly worded - guy sticks his penis in one of 3 places on a woman against her will. If that happens the crime of rape has occurred - if it doesn't happen rape has not occurred.

The broad definition of rape is UNWANTED SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, if a man doesn't give consent to a women having sex with him then it is rape.

How do you think a man could have sex (ie penetrate) a woman if he didn't want to? I don't know if you've had sex before - or even read about sex - but surely you know how sex works physically?

[Harry Smith]

I'm not referring to the fucking law here, this was originally started on statutory rape, this differs from country to country so it is hard to have a debate with people from a wide range of countries if the law's differ. You are correct with the wording of the UK, however there have many women who have been convincted of sexual assault, sodomy etc. The law requires changing because it is sexist and wholly wrong

The women could quite easily, either with a foreign object or by inserting the man's penis into her.

[Jean Poutine]

You're right that a drunk woman legally cannot consent to sex. In fact several guys have been jailed for rape when the woman was so drunk she didn't remember whether she consented or not. One very good reason not to have sex with a drunk girl, especially if you don't know/trust her.

If a drunk girl and a drunk guy have sex (meaning guy penetrates girl) the guy could find himself in court for rape. The girl would NEVER be charged with rape. Do you understand why this is? I can explain if need be but hopefully it's so obvious that it doesn't need explaining.

No shit I'm right, dude. Even blasted I remember criminal law.

I also remember something else about criminal law. Intoxication is a defense.

The real answer there is that nobody would be charged as long as consent was thought to be given by both, at least by a sensible crown attorney of which there are a lot. It is still technically rape, however.

[Prodigy17]

The women could quite easily, either with a foreign object or by inserting the man's penis into her.

Without getting too nasty a woman certainly could stick "something" into a man against his will - that would be a sexual assault but it would not be a rape. Also the man would be perfectly entitled to defend himself to prevent that from happening.

If the man didn't want sex he would not be hard so the woman could not forcibly stick his penis inside her - it's physically impossible to get a soft penis into a girls vagina. It is possible for a hard penis to forcibly enter an unwilling girl's vagina. That's why rape laws are worded as they are.

Saying that is not sexist it's just a recognition of the differences between men and women.

[anyone50]

Nobody is going to charge two kids under the age of consent.

Not sure where you get your information from but I assure you that if a 15 yr old boy has sex with a couple 13 yr olds the parents can press charges against him.

[Prodigy17]

The real answer there is that nobody would be charged as long as consent was thought to be given by both, at least by a sensible crown attorney of which there are a lot. It is still technically rape, however.

This is where you're wrong. A guy does not need to consent to sex - if sex happens the law assumes the guy consented so the girl is never guilty. Again very obvious reasons for this.

The only question is
1/ whether the girl consented
2/ whether the girl was in a fit state (not drunk) to consent.
3/ whether the guy thought the girl consented. A defence to rape is the guy genuinelly believed the girl was willing - ie she didn't say no, shout, scream, struggle etc.

Key point that nobody else in this thread seems to have grapsed: A guy does not consent to sex - he either does it or he doesn't.

[Harry Smith]

Key point that nobody else in this thread seems to have grapsed: A guy does not consent to sex - he either does it or he doesn't.

Your fundamentally wrong, it's a two way street. I'm sure the reason why no-one has grasped it is because your idea is incorrect

[Prodigy17]

Your fundamentally wrong, it's a two way street. I'm sure the reason why no-one has grasped it is because your idea is incorrect

Let's make this really simple. Do you kow what happens to a man (physically) when he wants to have sex with a girl?

Assuming you do - what would be the key difference in the man if he didn't want to have sex?

Now do you understand why a man cannot have sex against his will?

[Harry Smith]

Let's make this really simple. Do you kow what happens to a man (physically) when he wants to have sex with a girl?

Assuming you do - what would be the key difference in the man if he didn't want to have sex?

Now do you understand why a man cannot have sex against his will?

Ejaculation is a spinal level reflex; it can happen. It has seen to happen in people having seizures or during hanging too. It's even a question asked on med boards often enough whether a tetraplegic can ejaculate. It's the general understanding that as long as the sympathetic nervous arc is intact, one can come and one can still maintain an erection

[Prodigy17]

Ejaculation is a spinal level reflex; it can happen. It has seen to happen in people having seizures or during hanging too. It's even a question asked on med boards often enough whether a tetraplegic can ejaculate. It's the general understanding that as long as the sympathetic nervous arc is intact, one can come and one can still maintain an erection

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't meaning ejaculation I was talking about the guy getting hard in the first place.

If the guy is not hard his penis will not go into a girl's vagina. The guy has to be hard to have sex. If the guy is hard he wanted to have sex, if he's not hard sex cannot take place.

Women cannot force guys to get hard :)

[Harry Smith]

From a completely hypothetical view, there is an adult who is mentally disabled, a women could give him a Viagra pill, causing said adult to get an erection. She could then force him into having sex

[Prodigy17]

From a completely hypothetical view, there is an adult who is mentally disabled, a women could give him a Viagra pill, causing said adult to get an erection. She could then force him into having sex

Nonsense. Viagra does not force a guy to get an erection. Viagra only works if the guy is aroused in the first place - ie he wanted to get an erection but couldn't.

If a guy took Viagra but was not aroused mentally he would not get an erection. You're obviously not very knowledgable about sexual matters - that's fair enough but it's usually a good idea to have some idea what you're talking about before entering a debate.

Woman cannot force man to have an erection. If the man doesn't have an erection sex cannot happen.

[Harry Smith]

ahh welcome to the good old game of slander. There are very high doses of Viagra and other non-prescription drugs that can maintain an erection for up to 48 hours.Sometimes a man can get an erection subconsciously, so the women could touch his area causing an erection. Just like how a man can be raped anally and still get a hard on, this is due to the prostate gland receiving simulation/ But please going away from the logistics- rape is still a two way street. You seem to be rather stuck in your ways. Many men are raped every year, women are convicted of it a number of countries. Showing that it is possible, just not under the current wording of the UK law

[Prodigy17]

OK this is getting ridiculous
1/ Slander is spoken not written. Nobody can slander you on the internet - look up the word.
2/ Viagra is a prescription drug not a non-prescription drug. Again look it up
3/ Of course a woman could touch a man thus making him hard but if the man wasn't willing what do you think he would be doing while she was touching him? Perhaps she'd have to bash him over the head and tie him up first :)

Can you name a country where a woman has been convicted of raping a man and provide brief details/link to the case? If you can do that I might understand your point. So far it just sounds as though you do not understand the "logistics" of sex.

[Harry Smith]

1) it is purely an expression calm down, good to see you moving to ad homnen, the hallmark of a weak argument.
2) I know it is, and I will accept that was a grammar error on my part. I was saying how Viagra and drugs which require a prescription can maintain an erection, also some legal highs have that side effect.
3) Yes I suppose she would, he could be mentally incapacitated.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-5040-Women%20rape%20man%20at%20knife%20point/news.aspx
I know zimbawbe isn't really that stable but it shows that it is possible.


http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/pictures/bold-powerful-chengdu-woman-rapes-passing-man-on-street.html


Two cases of rape by a women towards a man

[Gigablue]

If the man didn't want sex he would not be hard so the woman could not forcibly stick his penis inside her - it's physically impossible to get a soft penis into a girls vagina. It is possible for a hard penis to forcibly enter an unwilling girl's vagina. That's why rape laws are worded as they are.

Men can still get an erection, even of they don't want to have sex. Manual stimulation is usually sufficient to cause one. Erection can be caused by either the brain, usually in response to mental stimulus, or the spinal cord, in response to physical stimulus. The fact that a man has an erection does not mean he consents.

[Prodigy17]

Two cases of rape by a women towards a man

I did specifically ask for a case "where a woman has been convicted of raping a man"

In the China case the guy obviously didn't complain and from the comments sounds like some guys would have swapped places with him :)

In the Zimbabwe case there was no conviction, only the guys word that sex happened somehow.

To restate the question - can you name a country where a woman has been convicted of raping a man and provide brief details/link to the case?

[Harry Smith]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html

Can we agree that it is possible for a woman for commit the act of rape then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118300/Rebecca-Helen-Elder-accused-raping-man-breaking-house-stand-trial.html

I'm sure if she was convicted, but the fact that CPS charged her rape shows that it was possible for her to be convicted because the Courts only allow a case to get to trial if a prosecution is possible.

http://weirdnews.about.com/od/weirdphotos/ig/Weird-Crime-Mug-Shots/Woman-Charged-With-Raping-Man.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080402083752AA4RTCP
The answer gives a source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/2

That last one has it in stone. So in light of this evidence will you back down from your original argument

[Jean Poutine]

This is where you're wrong. A guy does not need to consent to sex - if sex happens the law assumes the guy consented so the girl is never guilty. Again very obvious reasons for this.

The only question is
1/ whether the girl consented
2/ whether the girl was in a fit state (not drunk) to consent.
3/ whether the guy thought the girl consented. A defence to rape is the guy genuinelly believed the girl was willing - ie she didn't say no, shout, scream, struggle etc.

Key point that nobody else in this thread seems to have grapsed: A guy does not consent to sex - he either does it or he doesn't.

Nobody grasped it because it is incorrect.

There is no such presumption in law, at least in Canada. The rules for consent are the same for women and men and men can get an erection even if they are not particularly aroused. Not that men are very hard to arouse in the first place. It's a biological imperative to stick our penis in as many girls as possible. We do not need to be "in the mood" to get hard, at least nowhere near as much as a woman. The fact that female cosplayers still get laid is a good example.

Also if you seriously think these are the only 3 questions to ask regarding consent, you are yet again wrong. It's much more complicated than that. For example, your third point has been invalidated by Ewanchuk (http://canlii.ca/t/1fqpl). Implied consent is not a defense in Canada and this is why we are a much more civilized, progressive and better place to live than the US. Among other reasons.

A woman raping a man because both were intoxicated and neither could give consent is just an example. There are many other examples. Abuse of a position of authority is one, or future threats against the person.

These cases are extremely under-reported for a reason.

After the age of 18, one out of every four women and one out of ten men will be sexually assaulted.

Or if you want to shoot from another angle, little known fact : sexual assault laws applies to any sexual contact. Even kissing. One forced kiss and it's sexual assault. So yes, women can and do rape men.

Not sure where you get your information from but I assure you that if a 15 yr old boy has sex with a couple 13 yr olds the parents can press charges against him.

You're wrong.

There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.

These exceptions exist in most countries, and even if they didn't, no crown attorney would ruin the future of a kid because he was being a boy, especially given how precocious teens are now. The parents could try to press charges but I would laugh them out of my office.

[Prodigy17]

Implied consent is not a defense in Canada and this is why we are a much more civilized, progressive and better place to live than the US. Among other reasons.

A woman raping a man because both were intoxicated and neither could give consent is just an example. There are many other examples. Abuse of a position of authority is one, or future threats against the person.

OK but to be fair to me I live in the UK, I can't know the specific laws in Canada. Basic principle of British law is to be convicted of a crime - any crime - you have to know you've committed a crime. Lawyers call this "mens rea" which literraly means guilty mind. In the case of rape if the guy genuinelly believed the girl consented (and she wasn't drunk) he is not guilty of rape because he didn't know he raped her. Are you saying that is not a defence in Canada? If so Canada would be a very dangerous place to live for guys - any girl could potentially accuse any guy of rape for any reason just by saying she didn't consent. If true that would be scarey.

Same principle as if a 20 year old sleeps with a 15 year old but she tells him she's 16 and shows him her ID to "prove" her age he is not guilty. Obviously he would have to be convincing but it would be a valid defence.

[Prodigy17]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html

Can we agree that it is possible for a woman for commit the act of rape then?



Well obviously not. The girl did not rape the woman - she assisted the men. Granted she's still guilty but she didn't sexually connect with the woman.

Are you seriously now saying that the "act of rape" doesn't even have to involve sexual contact of any kind?

Just to make sure we're on the same page what do you think my argument is?

[Harry Smith]

Look at the last one from noway, you asked for 4 cases. I gave you 4 cases from different countries. You can't keep moving the goalposts, I gave you the examples- face it in regards to the international community you are wrong. A very large majority of people have stated you are wrong, so please cease in your baseless argument.
You asked me for cases, I gave them to you. In case you didn't see it I'll post it again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/2

[Prodigy17]

A very large majority of people have stated you are wrong,

Sorry for slow replies by the way - was out much of yesterday.

Wrong about what -exactly?

My point is that rape gives a woman a potentially dangerous weapon to use against men. The fact youve found 4 cases does not change the central fact.

If you're a man the rape laws as they stand could be used against you by a bitter/vengeful woman. Do you agree?

If you're woman the rape laws could not be used against you by a bitter/vengeful man. Agreed?

[Harry Smith]

Oh woah, I find the cases YOU ask for and then you dismiss them purely because they do not fit in line with your argument. I assume now you're backing away from the idea that no women has ever been convicted of rape because I proved your theory incorrect using source material.
1) you really sound like a met police handbook, yes rape is a dangerous weapon but the thing is that it is very hard for the CPS to get a conviction for rape unless there is overwhelming evidence such as previous abuse, large amounts of bruising or a witness.
2) correct, but that is just the same with many other laws. I could put 1 kg of cannabis in your car and then call the police, just because you can get framed for a crime dosen't mean that it should be reformed. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that it's unfair because women can accuse men of it. Okay they accuse you but unless they have a good amount of evidence then the CPS probaly won't even take it to court.
3) As said above your argument is appalling, what changes do you propose to stop this 'injustice you some how see'. The fundamental fact is that rape is a terrible crime which is largely unreported because of people like you. You asked for cases, I showed you. You can't keep moving the goal posts.

[Prodigy17]

You did provide the cases I asked for - if they had negated my argument I would have said so. The point is they did not negate my argument.

I could point you to numerous newspaper articles where women have falsely accused men of rape - would that change your argument?

The point you're missing is just being accused of rape - being arrested, questioned held in custody etc is disastrous for a man. When/if he's released his friends/family/work colleagues may think well there's no smoke without fire.

I'll try and illustrate my point with a real scenario that happened to me a few weeks ago. Mate of mine's dad keeps a pub with bedrooms and I went to stay for the weekend.

On the Saturday night alcohol was consumed etc and I got very "friendly" with a girl I'd never met before - she told me she had a boyfriend but he was away working on the oil rigs so she missed him terribly. By and by people started going home and she invited me to her bedroom without going into details once inside she made it very clear she wanted sex. She was a very attactive girl and we'd had a good night thus far so her's was a very tempting offer.

Do you think I accepted her offer? If not why not?

[Harry Smith]

What point are YOU trying to make? That we should make rape legal to stop the false accusations? That is morally and socially wrong? Ask the million's of women who have been to scared to report rape out of fear of getting judged or be branded a liar. The real victim is women. You offer no alternative to just criticizing the law on the grounds that men can be falsely accused.

You can be falsely accused of any any crime.
- I could plant drugs in your car.
- I could plant firearms in your car.
- I could attack you and then say your self defence was really assault.
- I could plant stolen goods in your house
Just because there are false accusations dosen't mean that it's sexist. What is wrong is the amount of men who get away with sexual assault and rape.
Your argument started with the fact it was impossible for women to rape someone, I proved otherwise, you backed away. You know move to the sexist and out of date idea that it's a girl thought if they get raped. Please talk to the victims of rape and have some common sense

[Prodigy17]

What point are YOU trying to make?
If you'd read the question at the end of my last post I think you would have understood my point.

Your name and profile suggests you're male so assuming you are did you honestly not understand what I was saying?

That we should make rape legal to stop the false accusations? That is morally and socially wrong?

Of course not. Simple answer - give men anonymity until they're found guilty of rape. Then when a man is accused of rape nobody will know unless/until he's convicted. Totally unfair that rape accusers are anonymous - this might be UK specific.

Your argument started with the fact it was impossible for women to rape someone, I proved otherwise, you backed away.

My point was sex (ie penetration) could not occur if the man was not willing. None of your references disproved that.

If you can cite a case where a man and woman have sex but the woman is found guilty of rape I will happilly back away.

You know move to the sexist and out of date idea that it's a girl thought if they get raped. Please talk to the victims of rape and have some common sense

It is a girl's thought. A girl can walk into a police station and say John Doe raped me, in the UK at least John Doe will be arrested and questioned. A guy cannot do the same.

[Harry Smith]

Under UK Law a guy can walk into a police station and say that a girl sexually assaulted him. Yes I admit this is unfair because rape should be a two way street. I'm fucking sick of you changing the goal posts- you asked for a case of a man getting convicted of rape, I gave you one in norway. Now your asking for another case. You can't keep changing your mind. Why do you also seem to have a mentally that it is the girl fault, you even said in your last line it was the girl fault if they get raped. Your trying to blame girls for getting raped- are you serious. We established that it was possible for a guy to maintain an erection if he was willing did we not?

Men can still get an erection, even of they don't want to have sex. Manual stimulation is usually sufficient to cause one. Erection can be caused by either the brain, usually in response to mental stimulus, or the spinal cord, in response to physical stimulus. The fact that a man has an erection does not mean he consents.

Another member of the forum has answered that along with me, so will you know back down with that idea. Also anonymity is a ridiculous idea, as I said before rape isn't the only crime with false accusations. Do you want all criminals to be anonymous. Look at Michael Le Vell the actor, would you want him to be given anonymity meaning that he would have to say to his director I need to miss filming because I've been charged with child rape. There is no anonymity for a reason- to protect the victims. Anonymity for rapists help one group- rapists.

False accusations of rape make up about 3% of reported rapes. This is lower than other serous crimes, where is your moral compass- you seem to be defending rapists on the basis that there are a couple of false accusations.

Also When a prolific rapist is named, like John Worboys, it helps women who have been attacked by him feel confident to come forward. Once his identity was known, around 70 women came forward reporting attacks – reports that helped convict him.

Also have you never heard of witness protection mate, the whole idea where you help support the victim of the crime. The victim should always come first

I put to you that your argument is based on a vendetta against women. Your proposing a nice little fantasy with massive immoral justice reforms which have echo's of being soft on crime.

Also for the last time, the Women in this case was convicted of RAPE. The women is guilty of the crime of rape under Norwegian law.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/28/2

[Jean Poutine]

OK but to be fair to me I live in the UK, I can't know the specific laws in Canada. Basic principle of British law is to be convicted of a crime - any crime - you have to know you've committed a crime. Lawyers call this "mens rea" which literraly means guilty mind. In the case of rape if the guy genuinelly believed the girl consented (and she wasn't drunk) he is not guilty of rape because he didn't know he raped her. Are you saying that is not a defence in Canada? If so Canada would be a very dangerous place to live for guys - any girl could potentially accuse any guy of rape for any reason just by saying she didn't consent. If true that would be scarey.

Same principle as if a 20 year old sleeps with a 15 year old but she tells him she's 16 and shows him her ID to "prove" her age he is not guilty. Obviously he would have to be convincing but it would be a valid defence.

Well, first of all your definition of mens rea is very oversimplified and you don't need to explain this shit to me. I know it.

In the case I linked you, the girl said "no" at first, and it stopped, and when the accused tried again, this time the girl froze because she was scared and didn't want to escalate it. Accused pleaded both implied consent and that the mens rea simply didn't exist. You described ambiguous conduct. That is an actus reus defense known as implied consent. If you wanted to talk about the mens rea one then you shouldn't have mentioned the girl's actions, as even in the absence of "leading" the mens rea defense is valid, just really hard to prove.

The mens rea defense exists but has been seriously limited by Ewanchuk. Implied consent was thrown out of the window in one paragraph.

Having that defense or not is no big deal. It is terribly hard to prove in a bedroom context and degenerates in a "my word against hers" situation.

[Prodigy17]

Well, first of all your definition of mens rea is very oversimplified and you don't need to explain this shit to me. I know it.

OK but on a forum there is no possible way I can know what you know - you might be a moron that doesn't even know the basics or you might be a practicing lawyer that knows a lot more than me. It's probably safe to assume that on this forum only a minority of posters know what mens rea means. Apologies for under-estimating your knowledge.

Man meets woman for the first time, they get on well and sex is on the cards. Which is right
1/ man assumes if the woman isn't saying no she's saying yes - implied consent
or
2/ Unless the man says to the woman would you like to have sex and she says yes he should not have sex with her. Actual consent

To be totally safe under 2/ the man would need to record her giving consent on his phone camera so she couldn't claim later she didn't consent.

In that case very little sex would ever take place :)

[Harry Smith]

OK but on a forum there is no possible way I can know what you know - you might be a moron that doesn't even know the basics or you might be a practicing lawyer that knows a lot more than me. It's probably safe to assume that on this forum only a minority of posters know what mens rea means. Apologies for under-estimating your knowledge.

Man meets woman for the first time, they get on well and sex is on the cards. Which is right
1/ man assumes if the woman isn't saying no she's saying yes - implied consent
or
2/ Unless the man says to the woman would you like to have sex and she says yes he should not have sex with her. Actual consent

To be totally safe under 2/ the man would need to record her giving consent on his phone camera so she couldn't claim later she didn't consent.

In that case very little sex would ever take place :)

I see you avoided my paragraph highlighting the several mistakes in your sexist arguments. You really a moron, why are you so strongly against women having any rights in a rape case?

[Prodigy17]

I'm fucking sick of you changing the goal posts- you asked for a case of a man getting convicted of rape, I gave you one in norway.

Which of us lives in Norway? If you're a man in the UK, the USA or Canada one obscure case in Norway is not really relevant is it?

you even said in your last line it was the girl fault if they get raped.

Where exactly did I say that?

Just so we're clear what we're talking about can I ask you a yes/no question. Are you a straight male who is sexually active?

[Harry Smith]

You asked me for a fucking case you moron, I gave it to you. Just because it doesn't suit your flawed argument doesn't mean you can just dismiss it. I've proved several of your points to be fundamentally wrong but instead you just keep backtracking.
1)first you say a man can't physically get a erection under stress- I and other proved you wrong.
2) You said no women has ever been convicted, you asked me to find a case from any country- I found a case for you.
You keep changing your mind about your ideas, I've proved your argument is both fact less and weak.
3) I managed to disprove your argument about anonymity by showing how it dosen't at all work and it would lower the amount of rightful convictions

It is a girl's thought. A girl can walk into a police station and say John Doe raped me, in the UK at least John Doe will be arrested and questioned. A guy cannot do the same.

You seem to want to stop women reporting cases about rape, the police have to question John doe, do you want the police to tell the women to get stuffed. Your out of touch mate, really I expect this sort of views from someone from the 30's. I don't want to make this personal but someone in my family was raped, and they didn't report it. They were ashamed by it and it's pricks like you encourage the low rate of reports.

And no I'm not straight, that dosen't make a fucking difference to my skills or to my idea's. I understand the male mind, I understand rape cases and unlike you I understand how rape affects the victims

[Prodigy17]

I see you avoided my paragraph highlighting the several mistakes in your sexist arguments.

I was replying to a different guy making different points so clearly I did not address your points in that post. Normal practice in forums is to address one person in one post.

If you as a man wanted to blacken my character you could plant drugs on me etc but you would have to go to the trouble of procuring the drugs, paying for them etc which would be a crime in itself. When you reported the "crime" I as a law abiding person would find it very easy to show I wasn't a drug dealer. You would end up worse off me.

If you as a woman wanted to blacken my character you could accuse me of rape. Even though your accusation was false I would have a heck of a time proving myself innocent. The damage to my character would be long lasting.

Do you really not understand that?

[Korashk]

My point was sex (ie penetration) could not occur if the man was not willing.
This is getting ridiculous man. Erections are an INVOLUNTARY response to stimuli.

All you've been doing the last two or three pages is talk nonsense, but you just can't seem to realize that.

[Prodigy17]

And no I'm not straight, that dosen't make a fucking difference to my skills or to my idea's.

It makes a huge difference to your ability to understand my points. I suspected you were either
very young
not male
not straight
which is why I asked you several times to confirm your "status" - if that's the right word.

As a non-straight male you never
1/ want to sleep with a woman and thus do not realise the way sex sometimes happens
2/ run the risk of a woman accusing you of rape.

I realise you have very high ideals but discussing sexual matters with you is like discussing driving with somebody who can't drive. You might say the Highway Code says x - but if you could drive you'd understand the grey areas.

[Prodigy17]

This is getting ridiculous man. Erections are an INVOLUNTARY response to stimuli.

True. But allowing the stimuli to happen is voluntary.

Doubling up in pain is an involuntary reaction to being hit in the stomach. Would you stay still while I hit you in the stomach?

[Nellerin]

It makes a huge difference to your ability to understand my points. I suspected you were either
very young
not male
not straight
which is why I asked you several times to confirm your "status" - if that's the right word.

As a non-straight male you never
1/ want to sleep with a woman and thus do not realise the way sex sometimes happens
2/ run the risk of a woman accusing you of rape.

I realise you have very high ideals but discussing sexual matters with you is like discussing driving with somebody who can't drive. You might say the Highway Code says x - but if you could drive you'd understand the grey areas.

Sorry to intrude on your little conversation here. But how ignorant is it to say that someone who is Gay cannot have an understanding and opinion about this situation.

You do not have to have something personally happen to you, for you to understand the issue. Plus, the discussion would still apply to him because being Gay doesn't make you somehow void of your sexual nature, those feelings are just pointed elsewhere.

[Harry Smith]

It makes a huge difference to your ability to understand my points. I suspected you were either
very young
not male
not straight
which is why I asked you several times to confirm your "status" - if that's the right word.

As a non-straight male you never
1/ want to sleep with a woman and thus do not realise the way sex sometimes happens
2/ run the risk of a woman accusing you of rape.

I realise you have very high ideals but discussing sexual matters with you is like discussing driving with somebody who can't drive. You might say the Highway Code says x - but if you could drive you'd understand the grey areas.

You fucking homophobic bastard, how does the fact that I'm gay have anything to do with my views or opinions. I wish to study law when I'm older and I hope some bigot like you dosen't dismiss my advice purely on the fact that I like meen. I could quite easily have a man accuse me of rape, it's absolutely no different.

I understand that your stupid and sexist. You sound like a rapist to me, trying to defend people who commit a terrible act. My sexuality does not make a difference to my argument. You just can't accept that your wrong. Look above I showed you where you were wrong, I've provided case studies, and evidence. You just back away.

Your argument is out of date, out of evidence and out of steam. You've been wrong about every single thing you have said.

From the bottom of my heart I hope that one day you will understand that the fact that I like men makes absolutely no difference to my ability to understand your argument

[Nellerin]

True. But allowing the stimuli to happen is voluntary.

Losing your breath is an involuntary reaction to being hit in the stomach. Would you stay still while I hit you in the stomach?

Are you insane. Do you think this guy wanted to be raped, and do you think he allowed himself to become stimulated?

No, he was TIED UP. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013870/Robber-broke-hair-salon-beaten-black-belt-owner-kept-sex-slave-days--fed-Viagra.html

[Prodigy17]

You fucking homophobic bastard, how does the fact that I'm gay have anything to do with my views or opinions. I wish to study law when I'm older and I hope some bigot like you dosen't dismiss my advice purely on the fact that I like meen.

If you give good advice you will be listened to - a client wouldn't care who you sleep with. But if you want to study law I would suggest you learn to make a point without swearing or name calling - courts don't tend to like that sort of thing :)

Besides which if you're so right where are all the females on this forum backing you up?

[Prodigy17]

Are you insane. Do you think this guy wanted to be raped, and do you think he allowed himself to become stimulated?

No, he was TIED UP. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013870/Robber-broke-hair-salon-beaten-black-belt-owner-kept-sex-slave-days--fed-Viagra.html

Not exactly a common occurence is it?

[Nellerin]

Not exactly a common occurence is it?

In the UK 3% (or there about) of male adults have reported being raped and most of those were by females attacking them.

[Harry Smith]

If you give good advice you will be listened to - a client wouldn't care who you sleep with. But if you want to study law I would suggest you learn to make a point without swearing or name calling - courts don't tend to like that sort of thing :)

Besides which if you're so right where are all the females on this forum backing you up?

You attacked my sexuality, I never brought up personal elements of your life. I've given you 4 valid points about your argument, I destroyed your argument about a man never maintaining an erection. There was a new story for it. You just skip out large parts of my argument.

Mass support doesn't mean an idea is right, But I've had at least 5 other people agree with me on the issue and I'm sure if you ask girls about it they would agree. I doubt you're going to get much support with your homophobic and sexist views.

Look at my previous arguments, every point you made has been countered. I've proved your ideas wrong

[Prodigy17]

In the UK 3% (or there about) of male adults have reported being raped and most of those were by females attacking them.

Where did you get that figure from?

If men get raped in the UK it's by other men. Remember in the UK a woman cannot rape a man.

[Harry Smith]

Where did you get that figure from?

If men get raped in the UK it's by other men. Remember in the UK a woman cannot rape a man.

Once again you fail to reply to my post, you skip over the facts. Your argument is a patch work of sexist views and stupid responses.

[Prodigy17]

You attacked my sexuality, I never brought up personal elements of your life.

Other than saying I was stupid and homophobic and a moron. If that's not personal what is?

I didn't attack your sexuality, I just pointed out your lack of experience/interest in male/female sex might affect your understanding of the issues we were discussing. I illustrated that point by comparing somebody who could drive with somebody who couldn't.

At no stage did I insult you or attack you.

[Harry Smith]

Other than saying I was stupid and homophobic and a moron. If that's not personal what is?

I didn't attack your sexuality, I just pointed out your lack of experience/interest in male/female sex might affect your understanding of the issues we were discussing. I illustrated that point by comparing somebody who could drive with somebody who couldn't.

At no stage did I insult you or attack you.

I called you homophobic after your comments. I never made a reference to your sexuality or any of your personal aspects. I stated that your views were stupid and moronic, not your character.

It dosen't affect my understanding at all, sex is sex either way. We have established it before. Rape is a two way street. I'm very tempted to call in a MOD just to shut this down becuase I'm pretty sure your doing this to get a sick kick.

Can you accept you were wrong about the Erection? No you have repeatly came back to that topic despite scientific and journalistic evidence.

Can you accept women can be charged with rape around the world?

Can you accept that you said I was unable to understand due to the fact that I like Blokes?

My sexuality doesn't limit me, in fact it allows me to look at this from an unbiased prospective

[Nellerin]

Where did you get that figure from?

If men get raped in the UK it's by other men. Remember in the UK a woman cannot rape a man.

Nevermind, here is a better stat. 25% of men surveyed reported at least one incident of non-consensual sexual acts with a woman. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022456626538

Not all were rape, but rape was second most common type of non-consensual act in the study.

[Prodigy17]

Nevermind, here is a better stat. 25% of men surveyed reported at least one incident of non-consensual sexual acts with a woman. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022456626538

OK that's a good one :) Out of 247 aged around 22 30% said they had been sexually assualted.

The most common "assault" was an unwanted kiss. I wonder why they don't give the % of men that had been "assaulted" by a kiss. Maybe because it's very high and would make the survey look ridiculous?

Honestly if a guy thinks a kiss is a sexual assault we're living in a very sad world :)

[Prodigy17]

I called you homophobic after your comments. I never made a reference to your sexuality or any of your personal aspects. I stated that your views were stupid and moronic, not your character.

But if I have stupid moronic views then aren't I stupid and moronic? I believe you also said I "sounded like a rapist" - is that a comment on my character?

It dosen't affect my understanding at all, sex is sex either way. We have established it before. Rape is a two way street.

You actually accepted my point earlier in the thread by saying rape SHOULD be a 2 way street. I can dig out the post if you like.

Can you accept you were wrong about the Erection? No you have repeatly came back to that topic despite scientific and journalistic evidence.

Yes I can accept if some totally obscure scenario a man can be forced to get an erection against his will.

Can you accept women can be charged with rape around the world?
I never doubted that. Point is as a man in the UK the rape laws in Norway (or elsewhere) don't really effect me do they?

Can you accept that you said I was unable to understand due to the fact that I like Blokes?

Yes I said that. I think the fact that you've never had sex with a girl would limit your understanding of girl/guy sex. In the same way as me being straight would limit my understanding of man/man sex

Where is your problem with that viewpoint?

[Harry Smith]

I've got many a friends who are straight, I know and understand how girl guy sex works. I merely stated before that you seem to be strongly defending the rights of a rapist, saying that they should anonymity, saying how they could use it as a weapon yet you offer no alternative. You keep flip flopping on your views, when some-one offers a counter argument you return to your last train of though. Your argument is based on out of date ideas which stop women from reporting crimes.
Can you accept that women are the victims and that victims should come first

[Prodigy17]

I've got many a friends who are straight, I know and understand how girl guy sex works.

I have a few (actually only 2) friends who are gay but know and understand how man/man sex works.

I can never imagine wanting to do that with another man. Do you think my opinion on any issues regarding man/man sex is worth listening to - simple yes or no?

[Harry Smith]

This isn't about sex, this is about rape. Rape is a crime, I've dealt with rape within my family. I've seen the damage that it can. I understand and know about rape. Don't think just because I'm gay that I don't understand how terrible a crime it is. It breaks a person apart, it causes so much pain and damage for so long. I hope you never have to experience the feeling of knowing someone you care about was sexually abused, it's one of the worse thoughts in the world. But I promise you that if it does happen you will change your views about rape

[Jean Poutine]

OK but on a forum there is no possible way I can know what you know - you might be a moron that doesn't even know the basics or you might be a practicing lawyer that knows a lot more than me. It's probably safe to assume that on this forum only a minority of posters know what mens rea means. Apologies for under-estimating your knowledge.

Man meets woman for the first time, they get on well and sex is on the cards. Which is right
1/ man assumes if the woman isn't saying no she's saying yes - implied consent
or
2/ Unless the man says to the woman would you like to have sex and she says yes he should not have sex with her. Actual consent

To be totally safe under 2/ the man would need to record her giving consent on his phone camera so she couldn't claim later she didn't consent.

In that case very little sex would ever take place :)

Well I've been here for a long time and never made a secret that I was in law school. So I guess the false assumption went both ways.

Nonono implied consent is actus reus. When the man assumes that the woman is consenting that is the mens rea defense. When the woman's consent is ambiguous (as per her actions, for example), that is the implied consent defense, because one of the conditions of the actus reus has not been fulfilled. The thoughts of the victim are unimportant when it comes to the mens rea of a crime. It's a pretty hard distinction to make.

It might look like this on paper but in real life nobody bothers to go that far to secure consent because if the girl's actions are unambiguous (she puts it in her pooper herself) then consent has obviously been acquired. This is not implied consent. And yes to be on the safe side you should ask, but there are plenty of things that we should do to avoid trouble and don't because the risk of being stuck in an unpleasant situation is so low nobody bothers.

In L&O:SVU, the SVU squad is often called the "he-said, she-said" squad because that is basically what a sexual assault case is.

[Prodigy17]

OK so rape isn't about sex. Presumably in the same way as driving isn't about cars, flying isn't about aeroplanes and so on.

My condolences for your situation. No doubt if my sister was raped I'd be saying hang all rapists. Fortunately she hasn't been so i can be more dispassionate.

Thing is Harry law should not be made by victims - if you hope to study law you should try to understand that ASAP.

[Harry Smith]

OK so rape isn't about sex. Presumably in the same way as driving isn't about cars, flying isn't about aeroplanes and so on.

My condolences for your situation. No doubt if my sister was raped I'd be saying hang all rapists. Fortunately she hasn't been so i can be more dispassionate.

Thing is Harry law should not be made by victims - if you hope to study law you should try to understand that ASAP.

Sex is two people enjoying the act of sexual intercourse, either due to there love of each other or purely to get there weekly fill.

Laws are introduced to protect the victims of the crime, hence why we have a witness protection system in this country. But I accept that the other purpose of them is to prosecute the accused. However I don't believe that the point you made before about applying for anonymity is politically or socially correct.

[Prodigy17]

Laws are introduced to protect the victims of the crime, hence why we have a witness protection system in this country.

You're wrong. Laws are not there to protect the victim - they're there to ensure that the majority don't become victims. Witness protection is only a factor in a small proportion of crimes.

If law was there to protect the victims we would have hanging, stoning, public flogging and so on. No doubt the victims would like this but the (non victim) majority does not think it's acceptable.

The fact you have a family member who was raped totally disqualifies you from framing laws regarding rape because you are biased to the victim. Very early on in your law studies you will come to understand this.

[Harry Smith]

You're wrong. Laws are not there to protect the victim - they're there to ensure that the majority don't become victims. Witness protection is only a factor in a small proportion of crimes.

If law was there to protect the victims we would have hanging, stoning, public flogging and so on. No doubt the victims would like this but the (non victim) majority does not think it's acceptable.

The fact you have a family member who was raped totally disqualifies you from framing laws regarding rape because you are biased to the victim. Very early on in your law studies you will come to understand this.

I admit to you there that my legal knowledge is not very good due to the lack of experience and education towards it. However I still don't see how anonymity for rape victims is at all good

[Prodigy17]

I admit to you there that my legal knowledge is not very good due to the lack of experience and education towards it. However I still don't see how anonymity for rape victims is at all good

OK but you've engaged in a lengthy debate when
1/ you have no understanding of guy/girl sex
2/ you don't understand the law

Then you've resorted to fairly strong name calling because by your own admission your lack of experience means you don't fully understand the issues. It's fine to disagree - that's the point of debate - but somebody disagreeing with you does not make them stupid/sexist/homophobic/a moron/a rapist etc.

Anonymity for people accused of rape would be good because until a guy is convicted of rape he is not guilty. This is a basic premise of law - innocent until proven guilty.

The fact of a rape accusation against a man will destroy his character, even if he's totally innocent. If the guy is later found guilty in court then his reputation will of course (rightly) be destroyed plus he'l get whatever punishment.

It would be interesting if a female participated in this thread - but I can't see that happening :)

Bottom line: Why do you think it's right to ruin a man's life with a rape accusation until he's proven to be guilty?

[Harry Smith]

OK but you've engaged in a lengthy debate when
1/ you have no understanding of guy/girl sex
2/ you don't understand the law

Then you've resorted to fairly strong name calling because by your own admission your lack of experience means you don't fully understand the issues. It's fine to disagree - that's the point of debate - but somebody disagreeing with you does not make them stupid/sexist/homophobic/a moron/a rapist etc.

Anonymity for people accused of rape would be good because until a guy is convicted of rape he is not guilty. This is a basic premise of law - innocent until proven guilty.

The fact of a rape accusation against a man will destroy his character, even if he's totally innocent. If the guy is later found guilty in court then his reputation will of course (rightly) be destroyed plus he'l get whatever punishment.

It would be interesting if a female participated in this thread - but I can't see that happening :)

Bottom line: Why do you think it's right to ruin a man's life with a rape accusation until he's proven to be guilty?

1) Just as we were getting on a civil note you decide to pour petrol onto the flames, saying I have no understanding of how guy/girl sex works is an overstatement. I understand that in a very large majority of the time a guy wants to have sex no-matter what, whereas it is more common more females to be selective. I know about the power that sex creates, and I know in turn that power is the most defining aspect of our life.
2) Your remark was bordering on homophobia, you said that since I was gay I was unable to make a valid judgement. Your alluding to the car driving scenario made me feel that you were stating that I was at a disadvantage for being gay, that I was UNABLE to do something purely based on my sexuality.

3) It is proven that if you give rapists anonymity then convictions rates would decrease. Once again- The evidence is there to prove that naming rape defendants is a sensible policy that encourages reporting and that leads to convictions. When a prolific rapist is named, like John Worboys, it helps women who have been attacked by him feel confident to come forward. Once his identity was known, around 70 women came forward reporting attacks – reports that helped convict him. Only 3% of rape accusations were false- 3%. Also I assume if you wanted this as a policy then you would also have to give anonymity for other accusations which tarnish character such as terrorism, murder or drug dealing.

Bottom line- Why are you against Victims having any rights? What have the victims of rape done to annoy you?

[Human]

i think the discussion is maybe going to steer away from the original statement/question...
try to get back on track cos you guys are just arguing >.< thanks

[Prodigy17]

Your alluding to the car driving scenario made me feel that you were stating that I was at a disadvantage for being gay, that I was UNABLE to do something purely based on my sexuality.

It's just a simple fact that if you've never driven a car your ability to discuss driving would be limited. Agreed?

I have never engaged in male/male sex - it would be totally fair for you to say that this limits my ability to understand it. I would not take offence at that, neither should you.

Don't be so sensitive basically - if I wanted to offend you I would so very directly :)

It is proven that if you give rapists anonymity then convictions rates would decrease.

No doubt true. If you ever study (UK) police procedure you will know that when the police were obliged to tape record interviews conviction rates seriously decreased.

Does that mean taping interviews is a bad idea?

Bottom line- Why are you against Victims having any rights? What have the victims of rape done to annoy you?

Nothing. I am concious - as every straight single man would be - of the harm that would be caused to me by a false rape accusation.

By the by - is it you that has negatively repped 2 of my posts because you don't like my views?

If not apologies for the suggestion.

[Prodigy17]

i think the discussion is maybe going to steer away from the original statement/question...
try to get back on track cos you guys are just arguing >.< thanks

OK.
Question: Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?
Answer: Yes

End of discussion.

[Harry Smith]

OK.
Question: Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?
Answer: Yes

End of discussion.

I disagree but that the joy of life eh. Think we should just end this here. And it wasn't me how neged rep you for disliking your views, I prefer to be broader in neg reping

[Jean Poutine]

OK.
Question: Does statutory rape discriminate against boys?
Answer: Yes

End of discussion.

It doesn't though.

Discrimination : 1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc.; action based on prejudice

Statutory rape by itself is completely gender-neutral. Men can do it, women can do it. It is based on sexual activity before a certain number. This cannot discriminate. There are less female sexual offenders because of their nature and biology.

Now is there discrimination within the judicial system when it comes to rape accusations? You bet. The victim has the right to anonymity but the perpetrator doesn't. The identity of someone accused of rape (or any other crime for that matter) should be protected until he is found guilty, at which time the protection is lifted. The jury system means that a woman testifying incurs much more sympathy than a male. Many legal systems still see rape as a male-only crime. In some countries, the protection for alleged victims is so great that the accused cannot even face his accuser in court, which is a direct violation of one of the most important legal principles in the West.

I agree that victims should not write the law. Law is impartial - victims aren't. In some cases, the accused have too much protection, sometimes too little, and in my view, a male accused of rape has the least protection of all, especially given how crazy our society is about it. Even in Canada, journalists and random crackpots build maps where one can find convicted sex offenders because all that data is publicly available at any court, it's just a matter of collating it. Any such thing for thieves, murderers, wife beaters? Nope.

But that's not the question that was asked is it? The question was whether the crime of statutory rape is inherently discriminatory against men, which is not the case. The discrimination happens on another level. Maybe the crown attorney, maybe the court system, maybe the jury, the judge, our society. But the crime of statutory rape by itself is not discriminatory.

[Prodigy17]

I wont try and re-ignite discussion because I think we've been told to abandon this thread.

Agree with your points though.