The creepy double standards of Female rape.

[Page]

Or we can get people who have these kinds of opinions to pay for the children instead. Just these people.

People here don't seem to understand that the government can't pay to support everyone's children without an unacceptably high tax burden that'd damage the entire economy. If we don't tie paternity and maternity to sex or genetics, people will just cry rape to get out of paying for having children out of wedlock.

I wonder if I added up the cost of America's regime change wars and corporate welfare and the cost of supporting every child in America, which would cost more.

[Samadhi]

How did this thread get worse.
Why did this thread get worse.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Rape is rape and rapists are shitty human beings, no matter what’s between their legs.

[US-SSR]

The reason double standards for male victims of statutory rape seem creepy is exactly misogyny. Once you put away the chauvanistic idea that men are exclusively the initiators/perpetrators and women exclusively the receivers/victims of sex and assault the double standard vanishes. That being said, statistically speaking women are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault than men -- regardless of the gender of the perp.

This is the equivalent of a man telling a female rape victim that men are raped as well. It has no bearing at all on the discussion and is a disgusting attempt to diminish the importance of the problem.

Stating that it is as the result of misogyny is also pointless, similar to when a socialist says that LGBTQIA+ issues will just automatically be fixed when capitalism falls. "Well if you guys just didn't hate women maybe you wouldn't be raped!"

In any case, it's always confused me how gender norms, which assume something harmful about both men and women, are specifically against women. I mean we could look at it the opposite way and say all gender based problems are caused by misandry because people believe that all men are little more than sex seeking beasts.

Correct insofar as misogynous attitudes are indeed harmful to men as well as women. Missing the point insofar as using sterotypical beliefs such as "all men are little more than sex seeking beasts" to excuse sexual assault is much more harmful to assult victims than it is offensive to perps.

[Rojava Free State]

Men raped by women are forced to be a legal father to the child that results from that rape.

It is a more fair and just state of affairs that the biological parents be financially responsible for their child than to expect the government to pick up the tab. He should cover 50%, no more and no less. Just because one or either got raped, doesn't mean the resulting child stops needing support if one exists. People ought to quit boo hooing that life isn't dealing them a fair hand and perhaps instead, embrace the challenge and tackle everything head on in their own way.

The rapist should have to pay 100% of expenses

[Rojava Free State]

This is the equivalent of a man telling a female rape victim that men are raped as well. It has no bearing at all on the discussion and is a disgusting attempt to diminish the importance of the problem.

Stating that it is as the result of misogyny is also pointless, similar to when a socialist says that LGBTQIA+ issues will just automatically be fixed when capitalism falls. "Well if you guys just didn't hate women maybe you wouldn't be raped!"

In any case, it's always confused me how gender norms, which assume something harmful about both men and women, are specifically against women. I mean we could look at it the opposite way and say all gender based problems are caused by misandry because people believe that all men are little more than sex seeking beasts.

Correct insofar as misogynous attitudes are indeed harmful to men as well as women. Missing the point insofar as using sterotypical beliefs such as "all men are little more than sex seeking beasts" to excuse sexual assault is much more harmful to assult victims than it is offensive to perps.

Is it really misogny though? You would think that in a society that truly favors men over women the rape of a man would provoke more outrage and yet male rape victims get laughed at by society

[Cantelo]

How did this thread get worse.
Why did this thread get worse.

The thread was bad since the moment certain people started inadvertently (or intentionally) defending pedophilia and child rape. It’s a dumpster fire.

[Rojava Free State]

How did this thread get worse.
Why did this thread get worse.

The thread was bad since the moment certain people started inadvertently (or intentionally) defending pedophilia and child rape. It’s a dumpster fire.

When did Tucker Carlson join the chat?

[The Republic of Fore]

Honestly, law or not I find it extremely unlikely that a male rapist would get custody of a child from the act. Judges already rule in favor of women the vast majority of times. Can't imagine being a rapist would improve that fact. Laws preventing such just seem like a cheap excuse to score brownie points.

I kept looking but I did not find anything about men getting sole custody, joint custody however did occur.

I'm sure it did, those few extremely rare times. But in the other 99.5% of cases it wouldn't.

[Arkhane]

I kept looking but I did not find anything about men getting sole custody, joint custody however did occur.

I'm sure it did, those few extremely rare times. But in the other 99.5% of cases it wouldn't.

Even if it did, I seriously doubt that today's court of public opinion would let that fly. The rapist who got sole custody of the child will be lynched.

[Neutraligon]

I kept looking but I did not find anything about men getting sole custody, joint custody however did occur.

I'm sure it did, those few extremely rare times. But in the other 99.5% of cases it wouldn't.

Until recently states did not have laws against it (some still do not). By recently I mean in the past decade.

[Gravlen]

My country dosen't even recognise female rape. The section of our penal code covering it states

"(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."

Seriously fucked up shit imo

The UK?

It's just called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" instead of "Rape".

(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.

A may cause B to engage in sexual activity with A (for example, a woman who compels a man to penetrate her), and that would fall under subsection 4 c) and could lead to a maximum sentence of life. (Actual sentences usually lower, of course.)

[The Republic of Fore]

I'm sure it did, those few extremely rare times. But in the other 99.5% of cases it wouldn't.

Until recently states did not have laws against it (some still do not). By recently I mean in the past decade.

Whether or not they have laws against it is utterly meaningless. If tomorrow, every state allowed rapists to seek custody, it would still be extremely rare for them to get it. If it happened at all, because as another poster mentioned the backlash would be huge. Like I said, laws about this are just a cheap way to score brownie points. Do you know why all of those blue laws that people love to talk about are still on the books? Because everyone knows that none of them would actually be enforced. So there's no reason to get rid of them. Do you really think any judge in Idaho would let someone shoot a native American because they were in a covered wagon? Hell no. Same concept. There's no reason to make a law on something that basically never happens.

[Arkhane]

Until recently states did not have laws against it (some still do not). By recently I mean in the past decade.

Whether or not they have laws against it is utterly meaningless. If tomorrow, every state allowed rapists to seek custody, it would still be extremely rare for them to get it. If it happened at all, because as another poster mentioned the backlash would be huge. Like I said, laws about this are just a cheap way to score brownie points. Do you know why all of those blue laws that people love to talk about are still on the books? Because everyone knows that none of them would actually be enforced. So there's no reason to get rid of them. Do you really think any judge in Idaho would let someone shoot a native American because they were in a covered wagon? Hell no. Same concept. There's no reason to make a law on something that basically never happens.

Bear in mind that I am only referring to cases of male rapists getting sole custody. Female rapists getting sole custody on the other hand, might be more frequent and even acceptable.

[Neutraligon]

Until recently states did not have laws against it (some still do not). By recently I mean in the past decade.

Whether or not they have laws against it is utterly meaningless. If tomorrow, every state allowed rapists to seek custody, it would still be extremely rare for them to get it. If it happened at all, because as another poster mentioned the backlash would be huge. Like I said, laws about this are just a cheap way to score brownie points. Do you know why all of those blue laws that people love to talk about are still on the books? Because everyone knows that none of them would actually be enforced. So there's no reason to get rid of them. Do you really think any judge in Idaho would let someone shoot a native American because they were in a covered wagon? Hell no. Same concept. There's no reason to make a law on something that basically never happens.

Except...the law was made because it did happen. Men attempted to sue for joint custody of their children, and succeeded.

[The Republic of Fore]

Whether or not they have laws against it is utterly meaningless. If tomorrow, every state allowed rapists to seek custody, it would still be extremely rare for them to get it. If it happened at all, because as another poster mentioned the backlash would be huge. Like I said, laws about this are just a cheap way to score brownie points. Do you know why all of those blue laws that people love to talk about are still on the books? Because everyone knows that none of them would actually be enforced. So there's no reason to get rid of them. Do you really think any judge in Idaho would let someone shoot a native American because they were in a covered wagon? Hell no. Same concept. There's no reason to make a law on something that basically never happens.

Except...the law was made because it did happen. Men attempted to sue for joint custody of their children, and succeeded.

Except..... It's extremely rare. One case of something doesn't justify making a law about it. Just because a law was made doesn't mean it should be. Politicians like doing useless things to make themselves feel good.

[Neutraligon]

Except...the law was made because it did happen. Men attempted to sue for joint custody of their children, and succeeded.

Except..... It's extremely rare. One case of something doesn't justify making a law about it. Just because a law was made doesn't mean it should be. Politicians like doing useless things to make themselves feel good.

It wasn't 1 case, that is what I am saying.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm certain this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I am of the position that any crime done to a woman, rape or not, is worse than a crime done to a man.

I fail to see how one's genitals makes one less of a victim.

[Diopolis]

People here don't seem to understand that the government can't pay to support everyone's children without an unacceptably high tax burden that'd damage the entire economy. If we don't tie paternity and maternity to sex or genetics, people will just cry rape to get out of paying for having children out of wedlock.

I wonder if I added up the cost of America's regime change wars and corporate welfare and the cost of supporting every child in America, which would cost more.

A quick back of the envelope suggests the DOD costs slightly more than Americans spend on their children. This is an imperfect measurement, but it gives us some idea- namely that total defense spending is slightly more than the cost of the government assuming all childcare in the country, assuming no unexpected cost increases(this seems unlikely). I'm unclear as to how much of the DOD budget goes to regime change wars, and don't know how to begin to calculate corporate welfare.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm certain this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I am of the position that any crime done to a woman, rape or not, is worse than a crime done to a man.

I fail to see how one's genitals makes one less of a victim.

This person probably believes that since women are stupidly seen as “the fairer” or “weaker” sex, everything that happens to us is worse than if it happens to a man. As if somehow to be a “legitimate victim” were tied to genitalia.

The Crow said it best: “Victims are we all.” Rape is rape is rape, whether it happens to a man or a woman or agender person. And if you rape someone, you’re a criminal, be you man, woman or agender person.

Edit: it’s actually “Victims, aren’t we all.” Sorry.

[Albrenia]

The Crow said it best: “Victims are we all.” Rape is rape is rape, whether it happens to a man or a woman or agender person. And if you rape someone, you’re a criminal, be you man, woman or agender person.

I agree with this.

[Jebslund]

Except...the law was made because it did happen. Men attempted to sue for joint custody of their children, and succeeded.

Except..... It's extremely rare. One case of something doesn't justify making a law about it. Just because a law was made doesn't mean it should be. Politicians like doing useless things to make themselves feel good.

Rare is not the same as nonexistent. Have you considered that the law may have been made because people thought that extremely rare was too often?

[Forsher]

To the wider topic... I believe there is a double standard. I'm not entirely sure it's entrenched in legislation but you do see signs of it in how people think.

The UK?

It's just called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" instead of "Rape".

As I said many years ago, rape is a magic word. If some crimes in the UK are officially/legally called "rape" then this is not good enough... if rape is merely a word used by lay folk, then no worries. If I'm being perfectly honest, reading laws does my head in even when I don't have a headache hence asking you this instead of looking it up myself.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This person probably believes that since women are stupidly seen as “the fairer” or “weaker” sex, everything that happens to us is worse than if it happens to a man.

I don't think it's just that. That one is no doubt a factor in double standards in other forms of abuse, yes, (though frankly the myth that women are gentle makes people assume the male provoked it) but what stands out about rape is that it's believed to be less likely to happen because males are less likely to be unwilling in the first place. It stands to reason that those who believe that will believe men who were unwilling weren't as unwilling, and by extension, that reverse rape isn't as heinous.

And there's a kernel of truth to it, by the fact that even those who supposedly disagree with the "most males are horndogs and aren't picky about with who" narrative usually respond to it by implying the male expressing it is. Thing is, for most of evolution there wasn't child support law or as much awareness of actual STDs, so it's only the extent of that difference that's been reduced.

The opening to Bludgeoning Angel Dokura-Chan lumps "be a cocktease" in with actual forms of abuse, as if they expected their viewers to find an abusive woman who was also a cocktease either more believable; or make the victim more sympathizeable; than an abusive woman who was a rapist. (Guess they figured viewers would consider rape the one form of abuse that counts as a compliment or something?)

[Gravlen]

To the wider topic... I believe there is a double standard. I'm not entirely sure it's entrenched in legislation but you do see signs of it in how people think.

The UK?

It's just called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" instead of "Rape".

As I said many years ago, rape is a magic word. If some crimes in the UK are officially/legally called "rape" then this is not good enough... if rape is merely a word used by lay folk, then no worries. If I'm being perfectly honest, reading laws does my head in even when I don't have a headache hence asking you this instead of looking it up myself.

Yes, there is a category called "Rape" in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It requires the involvement of a penis belonging to the perpetrator, so it limits who it can apply to.

I'm of two minds when it comes to what you're saying. I agree that it is a 'magic word', and that it should be called rape when women sexually assault a man in a similar manner. On the other hand, as long as the act itself is punishable and can be punished equally to a "rape", I don't care as much about what you call it.

My solution is to do away with the term "rape" because it is too loaded and 'mythical' and because it's not sufficiently descriptive. Call it Sexual Assault or something like that. It's better all around.