New definition of rape to include men and objects

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
question - a woman consents to sex and to being tied up and the guy is wearing a condom. guy takes condom off and does her and she changes her mind seeing him take the rubber off. is that now rape? i'd say yes.

reverse the scenario. guy is with a girl, tied to a bed with a rubber on. girl takes it off him and rides him to get herself pregnant while he also changed his mind seeing the condom taken off. that's also rape

yes.

penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim\

sounds like that should be the law on rape to me.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I think rape should include vaginal and anal, both genders as victims, and anything being used. You can create a special category of 'penile rape' if you want to distinguish it.

On the other hand, I'll take this thread as a good chance to remind people of a good cause, a group fighting to prevent the real problem of prisoner rape.

www.justdetention.org.

It's a modern horror going on in our prisons not getting enough effort to prevent it.

Craig234 is 100% right here. It's an abomination for this countries justice system to permit, if not encourage retaliatory rapes to occur to prisoners in custody. It does this country no service to let this continue and steps should be taken to stop it.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
250px-DataTNG.jpg

"Captain. I have been violated as a man and as an object by Lt. Yar.... and I liked it!"​
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
question - a woman consents to sex and to being tied up and the guy is wearing a condom. guy takes condom off and does her and she changes her mind seeing him take the rubber off. is that now rape? i'd say yes.

reverse the scenario. guy is with a girl, tied to a bed with a rubber on. girl takes it off him and rides him to get herself pregnant while he also changed his mind seeing the condom taken off. that's also rape

not sure if its rape or not but I guarantee that the guy is still responsible for child support in the 2nd scenario
 

Whiskey16

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2011
1,338
5
76
i think rape should just be forcible PENILE penetration against the victims conscent.
You in the USA are so quaint in being so socially and legally out of date. It's in you societal nature to be hypocritical upon your founding words, embarrassingly conservative and thereby tardy upon fundamental issues of gender, sexual, and racial equality.

It's of little surprise that upon issues of sexual assault that when your laws finally evolve close on par with others, you will again prove to be nearly half a century or more behind the social and legal progression of more civil states:

Sexual Assault Defined



In 1983, Canada passed Bill C-127, which made changes to the laws of rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault. The new legislation defined sexual assault according to three levels that include acts such as unwanted sexual touching to violent physical harm to the victim. The following (Statistics Canada, 1999: 3) are the Criminal Code offences that will be included in this paper's definition of sexual assault:
  1. Sexual assault (level 1) ? involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

  2. Sexual assault (level 2) ? involves sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm. It carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

  3. Aggravated sexual assault (level 3) ? results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.
History and Recent Changes to Sexual Assault Laws in Canada

From a historical perspective, rape laws were created to ensure the protection of a woman as property of one owner- the husband. The original meaning of the word rape was 'to steal' (Kinnon, 1981: 36). In early Canadian society women were submissive, second rate citizens who did not have the same rights and freedoms as men. This view of women as property formed the basis of Canadian rape legislation.

Prior to 1983, rape was considered to be "sexual penetration of a woman's vagina with a man's penis without the woman's consent, outside of marriage. Without penetration, a forced sexual act is not rape" (Schissel, 1996: 137). This legislation meant that a man could not be raped, and a husband could not rape his wife. The stereotypes associated with women at the time (many may still exist) helped to allow the laws to remain unchanged for so long. Some typical stereotypes included the following: a man has "rights" to sex from a woman in certain situations, also, rape victims were "asking for it". Women who "led" a man on, or dressed provocatively deserved what they got (Ministry of Attorney General, 1993: 3).

Changes to the legislation resulted in large part from lobbying efforts by women's groups to improve the status of women in areas such as labour, law and politics. These groups influenced other legislative changes around the same time as Bill C-127 such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guaranteed, among other things, gender equality. These other changes may have created the momentum for change to rape laws (Schissel, 1996: 124).

Bill C-127 was meant to remove the gender-biased conditions in the existing legislation, and to improve conditions for the victims of sexual assault. According to Schissel (1996: 123), under the new law victims no longer had to defend their reputation in court (the rape-shield provision). Furthermore, spousal assault is now included in the laws. There is no reference to gender anymore, meaning that a man can now be, in the eyes of the law, sexually assaulted.

There you folks go, some historical social and legal perspective of but one of many states where you have plenty to learn from.
 
Last edited:

epidemis

Senior member
Jun 6, 2007
796
0
0
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/justice/rape-definition-revised/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The old definition of rape was established in 1927. It defined rape as a man forcibly penetrating a woman through her vagina.
It is revised to include anal penetration with any body part or object.

i disagree that rape should include object or even 'ANY' body part (ie: finger, toungue).
i think rape should just be forcible PENILE penetration against the victims conscent.

any other kind of unwanted penetration should be defined as something else.

DISCUSS!

Now TSA workers abuse can legally be classified as a sexual assault.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You in the USA are so quaint in being so socially and legally out of date. .................

We're quaint? Dude you're from Canada! You should tell your Mom you're sorry for embarrassing your country with your posts.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,910
0
0
Rape is not committed where a woman consents to an act of sexual intercourse with a man; the essence of the crime is thus that the complainant had not consented to the sexual intercourse which took place. Physical resistance on the part of the woman very obviously indicates an absence of consent on her part. However, the essence of the offence is that sexual intercourse should have occurred without consent, whether the lack of consent as due to ‘fear, force or fraud’ or incapacity to consent.

The inclusion of an ‘absence of consent’ in the definition of rape stands in
marked contrast to the common law position relating to assault, where proof of non-consent is not required before the accused can be held criminally liable.

All though consent is a ground of justification that proves unlawfullness which means theres criminal liability. But consent is not one of the essential elements that the prosecution have to prove beyond doubt.

So really what you are saying

think rape should just be forcible PENILE penetration against the victims conscent

With the conscent part included you put a difficult burden of proving a negative proposition which is that the complainant had not consented to sexual intercourse

It looks plain and simple but you shift the enquiry from the behaviour of the accused to that of the victim basically. That means you open up a whole new set of loopholes defense attorneys can use. Her nonconsent,
not his compulsion is in issue now. Secondly, the issue of consent open up new questions about the victims sexual history or allegations of promiscuity. It is this emphasis on the victim actions which puts the complainant ‘on trial’ as well as the accused.

For me this definition will do better in court

If a man so intimidates a woman as to induce her to abandon resistance and submit to intercourse to which she is unwilling, he commits the crime of rape.

The definition might be simple but theres about 200 things that spin off it. Like age, mental illness, intoxication etc etc which influence consent.

I think law makers should ask the following

What constitutes sexual intercourse?
Should rape be gender neutral (in other words should non-consensual homosexual intercourse be regarded as rape)?
Is there a need for the presumption that a girl under the age of 12 years is incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse?
Should the presumption be extended to boys under the age of 12 years ?
Should the insertion of objects other than a penis into the vagina of another person be included in the definition of rape?

Do not forget that Indecent assault is when a man get sexually assaulted. In my country at least.
I think there should be a destinction between penetrative and non penetrative offences/crimes.

Reason for that is for example. penetration of the penis into the mouth of the victim must not be seen as rape as this will diminish the present public and legal opinion on rape which is seen as an act of violence and deserves a higher sentence. So whats going to happen is that all these objects and methods that is included in rape will bring down the sentence for rape. So your basically degrading the seriousness of a offense.

In my country we have crimes devided into Schedules which basically helps state the seriousness of a crime.

Theft, Housebreaking, assault are schedule 3 crimes. Armed robbery with 1 assailant is schedule 5. Attempted murder as well. Armed robbery more than 1 person commiting the act, rape and murder are schedule 6 crimes.

Now Schedule 5 crimes state that the accused can be given bail unless the State got a good reason to keep him in like other oustanding cases he's currently involved in where voilence is involve or there warrants out etc etc.

Schedule 6 states that bail will be denied unless the accused can give a reason why he must be outside. Those reason include serious illness, his dying of HIV etc etc.

Now indecent assault charges are schedule 4 and 5. Now they are dragging the schedule 6 crime down to 4 or 5. So serious rape cases bail will be granted which should not have happened.

So using a single offence to cover all types of sexual assault would simplify the law but there are two problems that will pop up .

1.The issue of penalty is a very important aspect of criminal law. A single, all-embracing offence would reduce legislative guidance for presiding officers in relation to sentencing.
2. It would be wrong in principle for the legislature not to distinguish one type of sexual interference from another.

Remember rape is a Common law. We know without reading anywhere that its wrong. Its common knowledge. Throwing in other aspects methods objects gender etc you are turning it into a Statutory Crime.

Then sexual inter course. What do we define as sexual intercourse? The slightest penetration will do and that ‘blood and semen’ are not necessary to prove rape.

I think the common law definition of rape should be retained. Other sexual crimes like sodomy and indecent assault are all well defined crimes. Accordingly if these crimes are called another name it will create confusion.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim
This sounds about as accurate as can be to me.

A few years ago, there was a series of crimes by a man whose MO was to break into the apartment of an elderly women and then forcibly copulate with the woman's nose. Sounds like he must have been a pencil-dick, but to refer to his crimes as something other than rape is just stupid.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,910
0
0
A few years ago, there was a series of crimes by a man whose MO was to break into the apartment of an elderly women and then forcibly copulate with the woman's nose. Sounds like he must have been a pencil-dick, but to refer to his crimes as something other than rape is just stupid.

That is indecent assault. What happens when 5 or 6 guys rape a woman for hours. That is a cruel and serious offence that equals the punishment of murder. But because you changed it to a statuory law and combined all the other sexual crimes into one thing the sentence in the end will be lower than deserve for the crime because of mr Pencil dick. Plus there are laws that protects elderly people. Example like here assaulting a elderly lady is automatically assault gbh and not common. People think if it will be combined and its rape then all the sexual crimes will receive sentences like it was with rape cases but infact it will be the other way around. Turning a grievous gang rape into a schedule 5 offense where they will get bail.

Then what about bestiality?
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
If they were going to make the definition this broad they should just have called it sexual assault.