Chestaan wrote:Gravlen wrote:I agree they should be called the same. I reject they aren't because of oppression, or that it's a facet of oppression that women can only be convicted of sexual assault.
Then again, I don't really care what they're called, I care what actual consequences they face. The problem isn't that it's legally impossible for a woman to rape a man. (That could be fixed by simply calling sexual assault "rape", but that doesn't actually change anything substantial). The problem is that if they do, they face a lower maximum penalty. That should be changed, but I guess that's a sexist notion on my part.
Actually BOTH need to be changed. Imagine you are a victim of rape and then you are told "nah that's not REAL rape" how do you think that would make them feel?
That happens all the time, and will continue to happen. People will consider themselves raped even if the action doesn't fit the legal definition of rape.
Imagine you are a victim of robbery and then you are told "nah that's not REAL robbery" - because it was actually burglary, how do you think that would make you feel? The words aren't as loaded as rape, are they? But it makes no difference - or it shouldn't - whether you've been sexually assaulted or raped. You are the victim of a crime. If you go around telling victims of sexual assault that they haven't suffered real rape you're a dick. However, I don't think we need to start calling everything rape (or robbery) because there are dicks in the world.
Chestaan wrote:To an extent such idiotic laws are a reflection of society's backwards views on men and women's gender roles but they also play a part in reinforcing those roles.
The easy solution is, of course, to do away with "rape" as a crime. Use the more accurat term "sexual assault" and its variations, and stop playing politics with a legal term.
Chestaan wrote:How is it not oppression? Like you have conceded that there is a variation in sentencing and I would say that legally treating one victim as lesser than another victim purely because of their gender is by definition oppression. Combine that with the aspects not related to punishment such as the dehumanising of male victims of rape and you have a very oppressive law.
Words mean something. "Oppression" doesn't mean "possibly slightly unequal treatment, based on biological differences we may or may not agree with".
British law makers think that being penetrated by a penis is the worst type of sexual crime. I disagree, but there you are. The fact that they think that isn't oppression, however. If women could not be prosecuted for sexual crimes, it could be oppression (depending on the larger picture). That, however, is not the case.
Chestaan wrote:But another thing I'm wondering is that if you agree that it should be called rape and should have an equal sentence then why was your first reaction to attack someone who points out that there's a problem?
Because you're not pointing out the problem, you're creating a distraction when you claim that men are victims of "oppression". They're not. You were wrong, and that was worth pointing out.
Chestaan wrote:The sexist notion on your part was refusing to recognise that male rape victims are also victims of oppression, as the crimes against them is in effect only partially recognised.
How are crimes against them only partially recognized when people who transgress against them are punished for their transgressions?
In case A, a person is raped, and the perpetrator is convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
In case B, a person is sexually assaulted, and the perpetrator is convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
How is the crime in case B only partially recognized?