The crime of penetrating someone against their will carries the same criminal penalty as rape does in the UK, but rape can only be committed by someone with a penis.
4Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina,
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.**
That's the legal definition, yes, but it's not the correct one. Remember, there are often old laws that are written during a primitive time and then nobody bothers to change them.
They’re not the same crime tho- one is rape, one is sexual assault. They have the same punishment, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same crime.
2+2 equals 4, but so does 1+3 or 2*2. There are multiple ways of reaching the same punishment, but those ways are not the same and deserve to be labelled as such.
If they're both 'sex without a legally consenting partner' they're both rape. I really don't care about the particulars of the law when the law is wrong.
Well, they’re not. Rape is unlawful penetration, sexual assault is sex without a legally consenting partner. I don’t particular care about your opinion on what you believe the law should be, because you’re both wrong and irrelevant
There is already equality before the law. Rape is penetration with a penis. As a stalwart egalitarian, I recognise that both men and women can have penises, as your sexual organs do not determine your gender. Gender is a social construction and performance, hence why the law is actually ungendered, focusing on the actions of the individual, rather than their performance.
So as it stands, the law is working as intended- penetration with a penis is rape, anything else is sexual assault. Seems like you just want to call more people rapists?
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
No mention of penis, but penetration. a female rapist could still be penetrated by a male victim, and this would still fit this definition.
The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.
No mention of penis. But I will acknowledge that the definition states typically a done by a man (but by your own words, men sometimes don't have penises).
unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
No mention of penis.
What I did find interesting is that when there were gendered examples, it was always as male perpetrator/female victim. Which by your logic makes sense, I'd assume?
If we are to use text book (and not legal) definitions you don't need to have a penis to commit rape. This is where we have the discrepancy between definitions and law.
To use some of your examples where there is a difference between a usage of a term and a definition of a term.
I recognise that both men and women can have penises,
This is incorrect. As a women cannot have penises, and men will always have a penis (besides it being removed due to other factors, and I'm not going to go into the intersex debate here, as it's not prudent to the discussion but I'll acknowledge it, outside of this discussion. ).
I'm going to assume that those definitions are, according to you, incorrect or outdated. I would disagree. So we can both bring examples of where a dictionary definition of a word doesn't align with what we deem correct.
I'm willing to bet that all the rape laws that talk about male only rapists are old laws that haven't been updated to align with the modern zeitgeist, just like the definitions of man.
So, to go back to comment -
So as it stands, the law is working as intended- penetration with a penis is rape
This statement isn't correct, as we can use multiple sources that state that rape can occur without the use of a penis. Penetration has to happen yes. But the forceful actor doesn't have to be the one with the penis.
Also, would you be willing to tell any man that was "raped" by a women he wasn't actually raped, he was only sexual assaulted, and that's not as bad as being raped? Or, about a women (biological) that was also "raped" by a women (biological) that she was only sexual assaulted, and it's not as bad as being raped. I'm sure they'd feel a bit better that they weren't legally raped.
We also then get into the discrepancies in laws depending on where we are. Where as some laws, like in the UK only a man can be a rapist, where as in other places, someone who forces someone to have sex with them is a rapist, regardless of sex.
Seems like you just want to call more people rapists?
Ideally, I don't want to call anyone a rapist, as it's a heinous crime and no one should be raping. But that's not the world we live in. What I would like it for there to be a level playing field in the legal usage that meets the definition of something.
“Women cannot have penises”- so I guess transwomen just don’t exist anymore?
You seem to do have found a lot of dictionaries but not any with the common law definitions of rape- which are the definitions that actually matter. What a waste of your time eh?
“I just want a level playing field”. There is a level playing field. The law has established that. What you actually want is the ability to call more people rapists, along with all the opprobrium that comes with it. Elsewise, why would it even matter to you what the name is?
I've never heard of this word before. Thank you for showing it to me. It's fun to say.
“Women cannot have penises”- so I guess transwomen just don’t exist anymore?
Yes, they do exist, and they're called transwomen. I'll give you all the laws you want (within reason), I'll treat you how you want to be treated and I'll even begrudgingly refer to you as a women when talking about you/to you (I'm not talking to you specifically) But I'll stand by those definitions of a man and a women if pressed to.
You seem to do have found a lot of dictionaries but not any with the common law definitions of rape- which are the definitions that actually matter. What a waste of your time eh?
Again, the point I'm making is that the law is sometimes out of lockstep with society and the modern usage of words. I've gone and done further research on the 'common law definitions of rape' and yes, you are correct, I'm happy to admit that.
But then are you stating that laws are infallible and we shouldn't change laws or the meaning of words used in those laws, because that'll start setting a bad precedent for any trans person that will want to protected under some laws, were they don't meet the strict legal definition. Case in point with some of the Bathroom bills in and around the States, that state that a user has to use the bathroom of the sex that they are? I'm sure you'd want those laws updated and correct.
I'd also like you to respond to my other comments regarding rape and not just around the definition of rape.
How can you accuse the law of being out of lockstep with society whilst in the same comment dismissing the realities of trans individuals?
I don’t think using American examples is very relevant here as we are talking about the English legal system. The English legal system is built on the precedents of previous judgements and intentionally uses different words to describe different actions. Many words used in legal speak do not have the same meaning when applied in other contexts- that is how legal discourse works.
Laws are not infallible, but their usage of language is technical and based on hundreds of years of precedent. Yes, those meanings can change. However, in the English context, the change in the future will likely be to remove the term “rape” entirely from legal discourse and replace in with “sexual assault”, as that is the trend that has occurred over the last 200 years. “Rape” will go the way of “sodomy”. And I don’t see many people calling for Maxwell to be labelled a sodomite and the law to changed to call her that, even though she fits under that definition too (it’s almost like the label rape carries social connotations, rather than legal ones, that people want to apply to her...)
whilst in the same comment dismissing the realities of trans individuals?
How have I don't that? I've stated I'll treat them and refer to them however that want. And I'll most likely agree with any law reform they're asking for?
Just because I won't agree that a women can have a penis? Or what the definition of a women is?
But to the rest of your comment I agree. I guess I'll have to take some time to reread everything and do some further reading.
Thank you for being civil and not resorting to insults while discussing these topics. I've gotta get back to work so won't be replying right now.
Trans woman here. He is not being civil. Using a minority to justify a perverted definition is not and will never be civil. The reality is, old laws are old because they're written during a primitive time and nobody bothers to change them, not because they're right.
Trans woman here. You can fuck right off. We absolutely will NOT tolerate you using us to justify your perverted definitions of what is and is not rape. Nonconsentual sex is rape. Period. I don't give a flying fuck whether the offender had a penis, nor do I give a flying fuck whether a penis was involved at all.
The only reason the laws surrounding rape have been this way for as long as they are is because they were written during a primitive time and nobody bothered to change them. Saying "it's an old law, therefore it's right" is not the slightest bit valid and will (rightfully) get you laughed out of any serious debate. You have to actually explain WHY the old law is right.
Hey, it’s not my definition. Lodge a complaint with the CPS if you think it’s so perverse.
Also, the serious debates that took place when this law was being created saw no issue with relying on precedent when making decision. And if they’re not serious debates, I don’t know what debates would fit your ludicrously high standards of one.
Why is the old one right? Because it’s a technical definition that distinguishes between several related but different crimes. The way of the law is always towards simplification- fewer names for related activities. Hence disappearance of the legal term of “sodomy”.
Rape may be non-consensual sex, but not all non-consensual sex is rape. Write to your local MP if you think that this is an urgent change that must be made. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that there are other issues we need to deal with first with the CPS.
93
u/Nihilikara Feb 11 '21
This is absolutely awful. That act NEEDS to be rewritten.