Retroactive Rape

[Qanchia]

In the UK it is legally impossible for a man to be raped.

You should tell that to Andrew Richards:

1995: First man jailed for male rape
A man with a history of sex offences has been jailed for life for the attempted rape of another man, in the first case of its kind.

In sentencing 26-year-old Andrew Richards, Judge Richard Lowry said he was using new powers provided by last year's Criminal Justice Act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/9/newsid_2500000/2500803.stm

i.e. you're mistaken.

I don't think he was considering male-on-male rape. The UK does not recognise female-on-male (edit: or female-on-female) rape (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php):

The person who commits the offence of rape must be a man

[Gravlen]

You should tell that to Andrew Richards:

1995: First man jailed for male rape
A man with a history of sex offences has been jailed for life for the attempted rape of another man, in the first case of its kind.

In sentencing 26-year-old Andrew Richards, Judge Richard Lowry said he was using new powers provided by last year's Criminal Justice Act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/9/newsid_2500000/2500803.stm

i.e. you're mistaken.

I don't think he was considering male-on-male rape. The UK does not recognise female-on-male (edit: or female-on-female) rape (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php):

The person who commits the offence of rape must be a man

Perhaps he wasn't. And while the UK might require the assailant to be male for it to count as rape, they don't have the same requirement where other sexual offences are concerned.

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, 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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/2

Surely a female can be convicted for such offences? And for sexual assault?

Edit: To clarify, I still believe that his original statement, which was an absolute statement, was wrong, but given the benefit of the doubt it remains somewhat misleading because females can be convicted of sexual offences which are close to rape (and also acts which I would define as "rape", even if it doesn't fall under the definition of rape under the sexual offences act).

[Ryadn]

Since I don't have time to read 36 pages, I'm going to assume that someone with a functioning brain actually read the link and informed the OP of how wrong their summation was, and rebuked them for the over-the-top beating they gave that strawman. I hope a number of people, in fact. Instead of writing a detailed reply, please just add my 'shame on you' to the pile.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Plus what is to stop a male from complaining rape over the same circumstances? If the law can not go both ways it is sexist and I am against it on that principle alone.

THAT'S IT! EUREKA!

If the sort of thing the OP describes comes into being (assumed guilt until proven innocence in cases where a party is accused of rape) all the accused would have to do is say that they're the one who was raped! Then the law assumes that this new accusation is also true and an infinite loop of back-and-forth guilt is created! Shortly afterward judges and lawyers would see the impracticality of assumed guilt and the law would quickly fall out of use even if it remained on the books! I've done it! I've killed "guilty until proven innocent" using its own tools against it! Længe leve "innocent until proven guilty"!

Now, there is the small matter of "guilty until proven innocent" not even being on the books...but at least I beat the concept in a hypothetical debate.

[Qanchia]

Perhaps he wasn't. And while the UK might require the assailant to be male for it to count as rape, they don't have the same requirement where other sexual offences are concerned.

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, 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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/2

Surely a female can be convicted for such offences? And for sexual assault?

Edit: To clarify, I still believe that his original statement, which was an absolute statement, was wrong, but given the benefit of the doubt it remains somewhat misleading because females can be convicted of sexual offences which are close to rape (and also acts which I would define as "rape", even if it doesn't fall under the definition of rape under the sexual offences act).

The definition of sexual assault is gender neutral. But "assault by penetration" (section 2) does not cover the case where a person (A) might intentionally penetrate the vagina or anus of himself with a part of another person (B)'s body.

An example of this case is where a woman rapes a man by inducing an erection, and then having 'conventional' sex with him against his will. Section 2 would not apply in this case, so the sentence can be a maximum of 10 years (14, if the victim is a child) for sexual assault under section 3. If the genders were reversed, the rapist would face a life sentence, as sections 1 (rape) and 2 (assault by penetration) would apply.

[Gravlen]

Perhaps he wasn't. And while the UK might require the assailant to be male for it to count as rape, they don't have the same requirement where other sexual offences are concerned.

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the penetration, 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 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/2

Surely a female can be convicted for such offences? And for sexual assault?

Edit: To clarify, I still believe that his original statement, which was an absolute statement, was wrong, but given the benefit of the doubt it remains somewhat misleading because females can be convicted of sexual offences which are close to rape (and also acts which I would define as "rape", even if it doesn't fall under the definition of rape under the sexual offences act).

The definition of sexual assault is gender neutral. But "assault by penetration" (section 2) does not cover the case where a person (A) might intentionally penetrate the vagina or anus of himself with a part of another person (B)'s body.

An example of this case is where a woman rapes a man by inducing an erection, and then having 'conventional' sex with him against his will. Section 2 would not apply in this case, so the sentence can be a maximum of 10 years (14, if the victim is a child) for sexual assault under section 3. If the genders were reversed, the rapist would face a life sentence, as sections 1 (rape) and 2 (assault by penetration) would apply.

Indeed, and I don't like the gender differences that's built into UK law.

However, a woman that penetrates the anus of a man by, say, a finger or a sex toy, face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Even if that isn't counted as "rape", I still think it would be misleading to say that it's "legally impossible for a man to be raped" in the UK (especially considering that, as pointed out before, male-male rape is counted as "rape" in the UK).

[Aorum]

You should tell that to Andrew Richards:

1995: First man jailed for male rape
A man with a history of sex offences has been jailed for life for the attempted rape of another man, in the first case of its kind.

In sentencing 26-year-old Andrew Richards, Judge Richard Lowry said he was using new powers provided by last year's Criminal Justice Act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/9/newsid_2500000/2500803.stm

i.e. you're mistaken.

I don't think he was considering male-on-male rape. The UK does not recognise female-on-male (edit: or female-on-female) rape (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php):

The person who commits the offence of rape must be a man

You're right; I completely forgot about homosexual rape. It was shoddy on my part, but the law is still sexist against men.

[Raeyh]

Plus what is to stop a male from complaining rape over the same circumstances? If the law can not go both ways it is sexist and I am against it on that principle alone.

THAT'S IT! EUREKA!

If the sort of thing the OP describes comes into being (assumed guilt until proven innocence in cases where a party is accused of rape) all the accused would have to do is say that they're the one who was raped! Then the law assumes that this new accusation is also true and an infinite loop of back-and-forth guilt is created!

They would just say that whoever was the oldest should have known better. Since in most relationships, the male is older, it wouldn't have much affect.

[Alsatian Knights]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/16/the-new-page-of-consent/

This article proposes a different system to deal with rape than the current one. Rather than focusing on issues of consent, it presumes that the legal default of all women be "no." In other words, the law assumes that a woman did not want sex unless it can be proven otherwise. This would essentially be a reversal of the burden of proof.

Under this system, all accusations of rape would automatically be considered correct. Every woman who says she was raped was, by definition, raped.

Proponents of the system say that it would definitely cut down of the amount of rapes out there. They also allege that it would not be abused, or if it were abused, the abuse would be so absolutely minor as to be negligible. They also state that it doesn't hurt men at all, since a man is perfectly free to refrain from ever having sex at all if he wants to avoid any risk of being accused of rape.

Opponents allege that it would, in fact, be abused far more than the proponents seem to think. They also assert that it is not only counter to the fundamental notion of innocent until proven guilty, but it also technically criminalizes all heterosexual intercourse.

What does NSG think? Would this legal idea of rape be abused harshly, or is that simply conspiratorial thinking? It seems to be quite obvious that this would lower the overall amount of rape in the world, so the only questions are whether it's just and whether or not the potential for abuse outweighs the benefit.

I'm actually not sure myself. It would certainly lower the amount of rape out there, and the whole notion of constant false rape accusations as revenge from bitter women is pretty much a myth. On the other hand, the potential for abuse does exist. Of course, the potential can be completely avoided if a man simply elects to never have sex. I'm ambivalent here.

I don't like it. Lets say that a neighbor hears me and my other having a wonderfully splendid time and calls the police, who then arrest me and charge me with rape cause the automatic assumption is that my partner does not want to be having sex based on her sounds (we are rather kinky). Not only that, but it gets into messy (but efficient) no tolerance policies (amazingly the Nazi's had them too) in which regardless of conniving, backstabbing, I didn't get my way, and what not female (yes there are some out there) will be protected under the law. Rapist and False Rape Claimers hold the same spot in my heart.

[Hallistar]

Innocent until proven guilty has been our official policy for a very good reason. Preventatively sending men to jail by charging them with default rape since they can't prove their innocence, in order to lower rape rates, is the same as preventatively sending people for any other reason so that they don't potentially do it. Itd be like a black person being sent to jail and charged with homicide because they can't prove their innocence if they are automatically suspected of it.

[The Grand World Order]

@GWO I must say I'm shocked you wouldn't back such a dimwitted tyrannical idea given other things you've come out in support of up to and including fascism itself. I did almost enjoy the cute fantasy about the teachers daughter though it was a good chuckle late at night.

yes this is like 13 pages later dwi

A random attack on my character?

Molto nemici, molto onore, as Uncle Ben said. Regardless, you seem rather misguided as to who I am, and to be frank I don't even have a clue who you are. But let's get down to it.

You've claimed that you're "shocked" that I wouldn't back something stupid and dimwitted, simply because it's tyrannical. I do not support stupidity, so I fail to see where you've logically come up with this. I do not support tyranny- merely autocracy. Therefore, the entire first half of your oh so valuable contribution is nothing but namecalling, once you remove the fluff.

You appear to believe I support things for the sake of being an oppressive twat- thus, I must assume your ability to assume the role of others, which is something you should've started doing during your concrete operational stage, is seriously flawed.

To be honest, it seems to me like you have some personal problems with Fascism that transcend intellectual reasoning. To put it in simple terms, some Fascist at some time or another must've trolled you either on purpose or inadvertently, and now you're butthurt, thus you feel the impulse to make dreg statements about me, because your mind's conditioning makes us Fascists a negative stimulus for you.

While my feelings are not hurt (for I fully understand the situation you're in- Hitler pissed on your lawn and now u mad bro), I would rather prevent the whole foot-in-the-door phenomenon that people may get from reading the character attack you've fabricated, so I took the time to sit here and address it.

Have a nice day.

As for Addy, I'm glad you enjoyed her story, though I don't see what's "cute" about it. Promiscuity aside, she has a bit of manface going on, tbh.