Raping

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
1) if the guy is a MINOR ..it is AUTOMATIC rape !!

2) if the girl threatens life and then has sex with a guy..i think that should be CLASSIFIED as rape.

But I can guarentee you ...no girl :sexywink: tried rape on me...

I could have pretended to be non-consenting..
 
I wouldn't be aroused by a girl who wanted to rape me, but like A_W said, she could always drug you, or to be explicit and graphic, she could pop out a whip force a sex toy on you.
 
All of the above and probably much more would qualify as woman-on-man rape.

Rape is rape, no matter who the perpetrator is. :down:

Incidentally, I have no problem with this thread's existence, but I would ask that we be careful in our descriptions. Just be aware of the young folk here and be as factual and clean as a thread about rape can be, I guess.
 
It is no longer possible in the eyes of the British law, a fact that makes me somewhat angry. Due to a rewording in 2003 (?) it is now only possible for a man to commit rape. I've forgotten exactly how, if I find the details I'll post them later.
 
Wow RA-D, that is nuts. I'm interested in their pathetic explanation, perhaps they need to read this thread.
 
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that rape is defined as: "intentional penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with a penis, in which the other person does not consent to the penetration, and that the accused does not reasonably believe that B consents".
 
I'd like to keep this thread fairly clean, but I figure if we can use the word"penis" we can use the word "dildo." I figure this place is not the place to discuss a serious matter - http://forum.interference.com/f244.html.

But seriously. Penetration with a dildo doesn't qualify? I'm sure they're widely available in Britain. :eyebrow: Just like a sword is to a gun, the toy is to male genitalia.
 
Pero said:
How does a boy/guy/man get raped by a female????


Most likely they don't



They can be sexually assaulted.






4 Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent

(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.

(5) Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-



(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;



(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.



Sexual Offences Act 2003


Seems like they covered the bases.
 
deep said:
planning your week end?

Ohhh!!! You are very bad.

Probably too late to (re)introduce a serious note here, but...

Regarding the rape-vs.-sexual assault distinction: I remember a case in (I think?) Ohio a few years back where a couple women were convicted of sexually assaulting a man at a highway rest stop. One held him at gunpoint while the other 'abused him rectally until he fainted' (I remember THAT phrase vividly!) with some kind of inserted object. He actually had to have reconstructive surgery afterwards. Anyhow, the women were eventually caught and convicted of sexual assault--I don't remember anything about the sentencing.

IMO, the phrase 'sexual assault' indeed aptly describes the nature of this attack. It does, though, seem a bit arbitrary to distinguish it from 'rape' based merely on the fact that the penetrating object wasn't a penis. Then again, at least he didn't have to worry about complications like HIV or pregnancy. But, I doubt those are part of the reasoning behind the distinction...?
 
I always thought of "rape" as forcible penetration, whether it be with an actual penis or some other object. Therefore, a woman CAN rape a man.
 
Back
Top Bottom