The NS Mens Rights Thread

[The Huskar Social Union]

On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.

I highly doubt the difference is as big as you say. Besides, why are we even separating the rape issue into genders? It's one problem, and it's a large one for both.

Yup, lets focus on the entire problem and not favour one aspect of it over the other. At the end of the day, it is still a massively terrible thing for something to go through, regardless of their gender, that is what matters.

[Galloism]

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

[Valystria]

I said less important, and I'm asking you, not Jess Phillips. Unless you are just spitting up all her words in here for her, I'm not asking her to explain it. I'm asking you.

Plus, being "afraid" is not the same as taking action against it.

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

Wow.

In the same post you manage to contradict yourself on rape.

And here we go again with how you keep using feminist rape statistics to make it appear as if "far fewer men are raped" when the numbers are roughly equal.

The egalitarians rightfully blame feminism for having contorted rape into being a gendered issue like how you're doing right now.

[Ostroeuropa]

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Small correction.
A woman can rape a man if she penetrates him. But if she forces him to penetrate her it doesn't count. The majority of men who are raped by women are forced to penetrate.

I'm not going to bother with chessmistresses nonsense.

[Alyakia]

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Small correction.
A woman can rape a man if she penetrates him. But if she forces him to penetrate her it doesn't count. The majority of men who are raped by women are forced to penetrate.

I'm not going to bother with chessmistresses nonsense.

and how do we get this changed

[Natapoc]

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Under UK law, what crimes would she have committed in that example you give?

[Galloism]

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Small correction.
A woman can rape a man if she penetrates him. But if she forces him to penetrate her it doesn't count. The majority of men who are raped by women are forced to penetrate.

I'm not going to bother with chessmistresses nonsense.

No, no she can't. Not in England.

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

Rape can ONLY be committed with a penis.

[Galloism]

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Under UK law, what crimes would she have committed in that example you give?

Kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, at least.

Could be some others. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but I *did* know it was impossible for a woman to commit rape in the UK, by definition - no matter what she does.

[Fartsniffage]

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

Under UK law, what crimes would she have committed in that example you give?

The pertinent ones would be sexual assault and assault by penetration.

[Ostroeuropa]

Small correction.
A woman can rape a man if she penetrates him. But if she forces him to penetrate her it doesn't count. The majority of men who are raped by women are forced to penetrate.

I'm not going to bother with chessmistresses nonsense.

No, no she can't. Not in England.

1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

Rape can ONLY be committed with a penis.

Jesus. It's worse than I thought.

[Natapoc]

Under UK law, what crimes would she have committed in that example you give?

Kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, at least.

Could be some others. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but I *did* know it was impossible for a woman to commit rape in the UK, by definition - no matter what she does.

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

[Italios]

No, no she can't. Not in England.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

Rape can ONLY be committed with a penis.

Jesus. It's worse than I thought.

And I thought England was a very developed and sane country. Apparently not in male rape.

[Ostroeuropa]

Small correction.
A woman can rape a man if she penetrates him. But if she forces him to penetrate her it doesn't count. The majority of men who are raped by women are forced to penetrate.

I'm not going to bother with chessmistresses nonsense.

and how do we get this changed

I already told my MP that the rape law was sexist and I expect her to bring it up next time there is an update to the bill or to bring it up herself.
I'll pester her again. Other than that, by denying feminists the opportunity to use this misinformation to their advantage. Every time they bring it up, point out they are using prejudicial stats to pretend this is a womens issue and it's symptomatic of their movements utter uselessness at mens issues.
Spread the word and such.

[Ostroeuropa]

Kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, at least.

Could be some others. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but I *did* know it was impossible for a woman to commit rape in the UK, by definition - no matter what she does.

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

It's not misleading. It's pointing out that feminists are being misleading when they say rape is a womens issue then use those statistics.
They're lying and using misleading information.
And no, she likely wouldn't spend a sizable portion of her life in jail. Prison gap.

[Fartsniffage]

Kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, at least.

Could be some others. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but I *did* know it was impossible for a woman to commit rape in the UK, by definition - no matter what she does.

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

Ummm, she'd be looking at 11 years maximum. She'd be released after 2/3 of that.

[Ostroeuropa]

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

Ummm, she'd be looking at 11 years maximum. She'd be released after 2/3 of that.

Haha.
Women rape kids and get less than a year. You think they'd go for 11? I think you're sorely underestimating the extent of societal misandry.

[Galloism]

Kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated assault, at least.

Could be some others. I'm not overly familiar with UK law, but I *did* know it was impossible for a woman to commit rape in the UK, by definition - no matter what she does.

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

[Valystria]

A single rape of a man isn't less important than a single rape of a woman. Rape is rape, regardless the involved genders.
On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.
Note: for Galloism - Jess Phillips is a UK MP. So USA's stats are unworthy about the issue of male rape in UK:

Fair, but it's also fair to point out that, as a matter of law in the UK, it impossible for a woman to rape a man, no matter what she does. She could ride in against his will, chain him up and torture him for years, repeatedly penetrating his ass with a dildo, film it in an 87 volume DVD set and release it to the public and it's still not rape.

Women are incapable of committing rape under UK law, lacking a penis.

The United states typically has laws that are more equal de jure, although not executed such de facto. England has de jure discrimination against male victims written into law.

Some of us would prefer equality. It's crazy I know.

To add to that;

On the other hand, on the whole, male rape is a less important issue, I think, just only because far fewer men are raped, when compared to raped women.

No wonder when we have people like Chessmistress creating the legal definitions of rape.

Jesus. It's worse than I thought.

And I thought England was a very developed and sane country. Apparently not in male rape.

England is too busy making sure 50% of its Members of Parliament are women. That's a far more pressing issue than changing the rape laws to be gender neutral.

In case people are shocked at England's rape laws, feminists in India are opposed to gender neutral rape laws.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-oppose-making-rape-gender-neutral/articleshow/15049606.cms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males#India

These Chessmistress feminists really aren't the minority. If you care about equality stop endorsing a movement that promotes a gendered view of rape.

[Fartsniffage]

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

Eh, not really.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... l/s1_rape/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... netration/

[Natapoc]

Suffice to say, she would have a massive list of crimes for which she'd be prosecuted for in your example. You are correct that in the UK she would not likely have been charged with rape, but you misleadingly omit the fact that she WOULD be charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and likely many more serious crimes.

I'm unsure why the UK has decided on this definition of rape, but the real situation is not nearly as misandrist as is implied in your post. The woman in your example would likely spend a sizable portion of her life in jail.

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

[Galloism]

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

Eh, not really.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... l/s1_rape/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... netration/

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here.

[Ostroeuropa]

These Chessmistress feminists really aren't the minority. If you care about equality stop endorsing a movement that promotes a gendered view of rape.

Even if they were a minority it's irrelevant, they're still a problem.
"Oh only a minority of cops are racist, it's not like we have to DO anything about it, just brush them off as a minority, despite them causing widespread discrimination and oppression."

England is too busy making sure 50% of its Members of Parliament are women. That's a far more pressing issue than changing the rape laws to be gender neutral.

This is true. In fact, the Labour Party is so desperate for it they repealed an equality law in order to allow them to discriminate based on gender in their all women shortlists.
Not only are they too busy making 50% of parliament women, they're too busy doing it in explicitly discriminatory and sexist ways.

[Ostroeuropa]

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

is this where feminists campaign for the actual biggest rape issue and most pressing rape apology in the UK and demonstrate they really do care about mens issues?

No?

Oh. Well fuck, it's almost like they're utter liars when they say that shit about caring about men just as much.

[Valystria]

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Sure. The ones you know.

Meanwhile the ones in England are too busy focusing on making 50% of their parliament members women while they continue to ignore how unequal the rape laws are.
And then you have Indian feminists protesting against gender neutral rape laws.

You can keep repeating you people are a minority but it's so obvious you're not.
At most you'll say "well, no, this isn't okay" and you'll proceed to bury your head in the sand and do nothing about it, because women's issues.

[Galloism]

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Well, the famous feminists (those influence policy) are generally either overwhelmingly silent on the issue, or actually work against recognizing the second (women raping a man) as rape. These are the ones controlling definitions for studies and influencing law.

I already posted this before, but here you go:

Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

Emphasis is mine.