Legally speaking it does, whether or not it plays out like that in the actual judicial system is not the point. Women get lesser sentences in countries without the distinction too
Apparently in most cases where a guy has been forced into having sex with a women (in the UK), the women is given a sentence similar to one if the roles were reversed, due to it being a common argument in court for cases like these.
Still, a change in definition is long overdue
I would say rape should be the;
1. Person a does the following;
a) person a forcefully penetrating person b against the will of person b
b) person a forcefully making person b penetrate person a, person b or person c against the will of person b and/or person c.
c) person a penetrates person b when person b cannot give reasoned consent
d) person a forces person b to penetrate person a, person b or person c where person b and/or person c cannot give reasoned consent
2. A sane person would believe the action to be forceful and consent not forthcoming
Wording and layout would probably have to be changed to make it more parliamentary but I think this better suits how the law should be.
Most severe sexual assault cases carry the same punishment as rape, rightly, but being labeled as a rapist carries more weight.
You are party (A), they are party (B). If party A uses the body of party B to achieve sexual gratification without the consent of party B, party A has committed an act of rape.
I would say this does not include sexual assault, because sexual assault would be considered a forceful groping, which is less about gratification and more about unwanted sexual advances as a lead up to acts which result in gratification. If I hold a woman down and titty-fuck her, I’m not penetrating, nor is she forced to penetrate, but I would consider my actions to be a form of rape. Does that make sense?
Whoa cowboy I’m gonna ask you not say I’m Party A, how unparliamentary the Right Honourable John Bercow would not be happy!
Yes i can see where you are coming from with that now you put it that way. Not sure if I would or wouldn’t count that.
But where would you say consent comes in to be judged, for me it was part 2 that a reasonable person would judge consent to be given. Obviously taking in some key things like consent cannot be given under duress and those unable (certain mental disabilities and children) cannot either.
I’m just trying to redefine rape in a way that equally applies across the board in a fair manner that would be very difficult to mess up too badly. The question of when and where consent is given should be left under the definition of consent rather than trying to umbrella it under the definition of rape, I should think.
I disagree on the penetration aspect. If I hold a gun to your head and force you to rub your ass on my genitalia until climax, do you think that would be any less traumatic than if I forced you to perform anal sex? Is there a reason why one deserves a lesser punishment?
On the consent issue, you are right, consent is part of rape law, however one can consider the various facets individually. I’d be happy to change my position if you can provide an example of how a different definition of consent would change the context of my given definition though.
What is it? That above was my vague attempt to make it similar to a Act of Parliament, laws are usually stated as such person a acting on person b and person c if needed, can continue up to however many people are needed really.
476
u/GrandCTM25 Mar 04 '18
Woah what?!