Lesbians

124

Comments

  • EKE_38BPM
    EKE_38BPM Posts: 5,821
    Maybe there is just no legal definition of a virgin and therefore no criteria by which to judge whether a woman actually is or isn't.

    If that is the case, then this thread is completely pointless and Rolf and HeadHuunter are not allowed to look at the picture I posted when they get home.

    Their own, respective homes. Or maybe not. Rolf, is it you that HH is in a relationship with and, if so, what are you getting him for your 15th anniversary?
    FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
    FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
    FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees

    I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Edit: Ms DDD says I'm wrong, the person committing rape has to be a man as penile penetration has to take place.

    I'm pretty sure any man who has been raped (although in a minority compared to the number of female rape victims) would disagree, as would the law. I may, however, be wrong.
  • Twostage
    Twostage Posts: 987
    I found an American legal site that tried to define sexual intercourse. It referred to the two parties involved as the actor and the complainant. If they had consulted my Missus she would probably have argued that actor and complainant are both her and therefore only cover one party.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    More on this:

    There is no definition of sex in law as such. Sex is explained as penetration* for the purposes of law and rape and the law relating to getting your marriage annuled and consummation.

    *And penetration is viewed as the penis penetrating the mouth, anus or vagina.

    So, in law, two lesbian couldn't have had sex.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Edit: Ms DDD says I'm wrong, the person committing rape has to be a man as penile penetration has to take place.

    I'm pretty sure any man who has been raped (although in a minority compared to the number of female rape victims) would disagree, as would the law. I may, however, be wrong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

    The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
    “ 1-(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.

    You can disagree all you want.

    In law rape can only be committed by a man as penile penetration of either the vagina, anus or mouth has to take place. If it's a woman having sex without consent with another person then it is sexual assualt.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    Specialized Needs wrote:
    EKE_38BPM wrote:
    There again, with the right amount of alcohol, men will do just about anything (bad memories, shudder).
    Quite.
    EKE_38BPM wrote:
    So, could one woman rape another?
    Hmmm, I was wary of bringing rape into this as it is an (understandably) highly emotive subject. :?

    In UK law, rape requires penile penetration of one of the mentioned orficies by the perpetrator. Not much of that around in that scenario.

    Although I would guess that it would be classed as a sexual assault. The law obviously has to be quite prescriptive about definitions, but morally, I don't think there's much difference. EKE, there are some gaps in your logic. The legal definition of rape doesn't try to (or indeed need to) define what sex is, so you can't determine a legal definition of 'virgin' from it. I'm not sure criminal law would have a need for a definition of 'virgin' in the UK, although it might have come up in a civil case.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    More on this:

    There is no definition of sex in law as such. Sex is explained as penetration* for the purposes of law and rape and the law relating to getting your marriage annuled and consummation.

    *And penetration is viewed as the penis penetrating the mouth, anus or vagina.

    So, in law, two lesbian couldn't have had sex.
    Interesting, hadn't thought of the definitions for annulment. So, is there an equivalent of annulment for civil partnerships, or is it purely a non-secular thing? If so, that sort of puts a female civil parnership in a different position (IYSWIM :shock: ) than a male one.

    EKE - it's these ideas at the edge of understanding that help people to reflect upon whether their conceptual framework is sufficient - getting away from the monochrome "either/or" and into the more challenging "it depends".
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Specialized Needs wrote:
    Interesting, hadn't thought of the definitions for annulment. So, is there an equivalent of annulment for civil partnerships, or is it purely a non-secular thing? If so, that sort of puts a female civil parnership in a different position (IYSWIM Shocked ) than a male one.

    Civil Law says that sex has to be "ordinary and complete".

    But in a Civil Partnership between Lesbians sex isn't considered "ordinary and complete" so the question is what is the definition around consumation.

    Also, you don't get divorced in a civil partnership you get a dissolution. A civil partnership cannot be annulled.

    It's not necessary to consumate a civil partnership as it is with marriage. This is largely due to the fact that poltician didn't want to tackle disscussions about defining sex where it concerns lesbians and gay man.
    http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/info ... lution.htm
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    rjsterry wrote:
    Although I would guess that it would be classed as a sexual assault. The law obviously has to be quite prescriptive about definitions, but morally, I don't think there's much difference.
    Completely agree
    rjsterry wrote:
    EKE, there are some gaps in your logic. The legal definition of rape doesn't try to (or indeed need to) define what sex is, so you can't determine a legal definition of 'virgin' from it
    mea culpa, rather than EKE. Although, in my defence (m'lud), I was searching for the closest I could find to a situation where sexual intercourse might be defined in law. Here sex isn't defined, only a very specific sexual act. But, as I said 'if that is it' - but it wasn't. DDD came up with a better (and less emotive) example of an area where a definition of sexual intercourse might be more important.
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not sure criminal law would have a need for a definition of 'virgin' in the UK
    Agree again. Hence my original comment asking why UK law would take a view on virginity.
    rjsterry wrote:
    although it might have come up in a civil case.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    Presumably prostitution laws have some sort of definition.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Presumably all laws relating to intercourse extend the from the notion that sex is anal, oral or vaginal penetration with a penis.

    Prostitution would reside heavily on consent. Consent being that the both parties agree to have sex. I'm not sure how the money aspect ties in and whether consent in this instance is dependant that the person is paid.

    Outside of that Prostitution has some bizzare laws, it's not illegal to sell sex, but it is illegal to solicit sex (the stops prostitutes being on street corners). Then there is the whole quagmire about brothels and operating from a flat I think it has to do with the number of working girls.

    I think we'd need to ask a Banker about that one....
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    Why does having a definition of sex help here? The question is about virginity. It could be possible to lose one's virginity without having engaged in the legal definition of sex.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited June 2011
    Sewinman wrote:
    Why does having a definition of sex help here? The question is about virginity. It could be possible to lose one's virginity without having engaged in the legal definition of sex.

    You must be off your game today...

    The original question asks:
    Would a practicing lesbian who has never had sex with a man be legally classed as a virgin?

    While we acknowledge there may not be a legal definition of 'virgin'. We can attempt to answe the question by determining what is 'sex' in the legal sense, as, after all, sex (consenting or otherwise) is how you lose your virginity.

    To answer EKE's question:

    It would seem that while there is no clear legal definition we can interpret the law as suggesting that two practicing lesbians who have never been penetrated (mouth, oral, anal) are in fact virgins.

    In Civil Law sex has to be "ordinary and complete". Rightly or wrongly this doesn't encompass "two lesbians"

    A woman cannot legally be tried for raping a man, it would be sexual assualt as penile penetration needs to be involved for it to be rape. So one could argue that in regards to two women "sex" never took place.

    Lastly it's not necessary to consumate a Civil Partnership - therefore you cannot have a dissolution of said Civil Partnership on the grounds of 'sex'.

    It seems that while there is a legal definition of sex, in terms of same sex sex even the politicians didn't want to tackle the OP's question... It seems that the law is clearly consistent about what is sex and that doesn't extend to lesbians so they're (legally - though there is, I think, no such thing) virgins if they haven't been penetrated by a man.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Edit: Ms DDD says I'm wrong, the person committing rape has to be a man as penile penetration has to take place.

    I'm pretty sure any man who has been raped (although in a minority compared to the number of female rape victims) would disagree, as would the law. I may, however, be wrong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

    The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
    “ 1-(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.

    You can disagree all you want.

    In law rape can only be committed by a man as penile penetration of either the vagina, anus or mouth has to take place. If it's a woman having sex without consent with another person then it is sexual assualt.

    A small point, DDD, but it’s not ME that’s disagreeing. I merely point out that there have been cases where men have claimed to be raped.

    If those claims are true, but the law disallowed such claims due to the legal definition of rape and reduced the charge to sexual assault, then the law may well be considered an ass.

    So (as mentioned) I MAY be wrong, but I’m fairly confident that there are few cases out there were females have been found guilty of raping males. I just haven’t got time to research the cases.
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    I think its you that is barking up the wrong tree DDD. The question asks if a lesbian can be legally classed as a virgin. In my view the key to answering that question is to know the legal definition of what is classed a virgin. The legal definition of a virgin (if it existed) may not include the word sex, but might say 'intercourse' or 'sexual relations between adults', or 'the hymen is/is no longer intact'.' Therefore, in my view, the legal definition of sex is of interest, but does not help answer the question.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Edit: Ms DDD says I'm wrong, the person committing rape has to be a man as penile penetration has to take place.

    I'm pretty sure any man who has been raped (although in a minority compared to the number of female rape victims) would disagree, as would the law. I may, however, be wrong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

    The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
    “ 1-(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.

    You can disagree all you want.

    In law rape can only be committed by a man as penile penetration of either the vagina, anus or mouth has to take place. If it's a woman having sex without consent with another person then it is sexual assualt.

    A small point, DDD, but it’s not ME that’s disagreeing. I merely point out that there have been cases where men have claimed to be raped.

    If those claims are true, but the law disallowed such claims due to the legal definition of rape and reduced the charge to sexual assault, then the law may well be considered an ass.

    So (as mentioned) I MAY be wrong, but I’m fairly confident that there are few cases out there were females have been found guilty of raping males. I just haven’t got time to research the cases.

    Whether you think the law is an ass is subjective.

    The definition is clearly there for you to see.

    If I'm wrong I'd just admit to it and not try to defend my position with anecdotal claims.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Sewinman wrote:
    I think its you that is barking up the wrong tree DDD. The question asks if a lesbian can be legally classed as a virgin. In my view the key to answering that question is to know the legal definition of what is classed a virgin. The legal definition of a virgin (if it existed) may not include the word sex, but might say 'intercourse' or 'sexual relations between adults', or 'the hymen is/is no longer intact'.' Therefore, in my view, the legal definition of sex is of interest, but does not help answer the question.

    You need to have sex to have lost your virginity. That is accepted.

    The question states "legally a virgin".

    There is no legal definition of a 'virgin' that we have idntified. So that's a dead end and there is no point trying to make a legal definition up.

    The only way to answer the question is to find out what the legal definition of sex is as that is how virginity is lost/taken.

    In the legal sense sex does not extend to lesbians. Therefore lesbians could 'legally' be considered virgins.

    Legal definition of sex and rape also came up in the process of the conversation.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    While we acknowledge there may not be a legal definition of 'virgin'. We can attempt to answe the question by determining what is 'sex' in the legal sense, as, after all, sex (consenting or otherwise) is how you lose your virginity.

    Well, no. That's the point: we can't even agree on that. There is no legal definition of a virgin, therefore, the answer to the OP is no. All the rest of it is just a red herring. If you want to widen the discussion to 'legal definitions of sex', then I think you'll be disappointed there too. Rape and sexual assault laws are only dealing with very specific circumstances, as is marital law. They are not meant to be all-encompassing legal definitions of sex, nor should they be taken as such.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • CyclingBantam
    CyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    We are not seeing the wood for the tree's here (snigger... "wood"... ahem)

    It is quite simple, but also rather dull.

    She would still hold her virginity relating to men, but not to women.

    Are you a virgin?

    I have had sex with women but not with men.

    There is nothing to say that you can 'only' have one virginity. Who here has said "I lost my **Insert mundane activity here** virginity today"
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    edited June 2011
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Sewinman wrote:
    I think its you that is barking up the wrong tree DDD. The question asks if a lesbian can be legally classed as a virgin. In my view the key to answering that question is to know the legal definition of what is classed a virgin. The legal definition of a virgin (if it existed) may not include the word sex, but might say 'intercourse' or 'sexual relations between adults', or 'the hymen is/is no longer intact'.' Therefore, in my view, the legal definition of sex is of interest, but does not help answer the question.

    You need to have sex to have lost your virginity. That is accepted.

    The question states "legally a virgin".

    There is no legal definition of a 'virgin' that we have idntified. So that's a dead end and there is no point trying to make a legal definition up.

    The only way to answer the question is to find out what the legal definition of sex is as that is how virginity is lost/taken.

    In the legal sense sex does not extend to lesbians. Therefore lesbians could 'legally' be considered virgins.

    Legal definition of sex and rape also came up in the process of the conversation.

    You may not have had to have the legal definition of sex to have lost the legal definition of virginity. The question specified 'legally classed'. Without a legal definition of a virgin the question is unanswerable (other than 'No, it is not defined') and all this talk of the legal definition of sex is mildly interesting, but ultimately an irrelevance to the question put by the OP.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited June 2011
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    While we acknowledge there may not be a legal definition of 'virgin'. We can attempt to answe the question by determining what is 'sex' in the legal sense, as, after all, sex (consenting or otherwise) is how you lose your virginity.

    Well, no. That's the point: we can't even agree on that. There is no legal definition of a virgin, therefore, the answer to the OP is no. All the rest of it is just a red herring. If you want to widen the discussion to 'legal definitions of sex', then I think you'll be disappointed there too. Rape and sexual assault laws are only dealing with very specific circumstances, as is marital law. They are not meant to be all-encompassing legal definitions of sex, nor should they be taken as such.

    Sigh...

    And
    You may not have had to have the legal definition of sex to have lost the legal definition of virginity. The question specified 'legally classed'. Without a legal definition of a virgin the question is unanswerable and all this talk of the legal definition of sex is mildly interesting, but ultimately an irrelevance to the question put by the OP.

    Sigh...

    Well it gave 6 pages of interesting coversation until the fun sponges killed it.

    However, I don't think the question is clearly unanswerable. Despite the answer being no. If we expand on the question:

    Two practicing lesbians in a Civil Partnership but haven't had sex want to have a dissolution.

    Well we now know that you don't need to consummate a Civil Partnership as the law doesn't recognise sex (be it rape, Civil Partnership or otherwise) as extending to two women.

    But people are starting to get narky, so, as I said...

    Sigh...
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    rjsterry wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    While we acknowledge there may not be a legal definition of 'virgin'. We can attempt to answe the question by determining what is 'sex' in the legal sense, as, after all, sex (consenting or otherwise) is how you lose your virginity.

    Well, no. That's the point: we can't even agree on that. There is no legal definition of a virgin, therefore, the answer to the OP is no. All the rest of it is just a red herring. If you want to widen the discussion to 'legal definitions of sex', then I think you'll be disappointed there too. Rape and sexual assault laws are only dealing with very specific circumstances, as is marital law. They are not meant to be all-encompassing legal definitions of sex, nor should they be taken as such.

    +1
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Edit: Ms DDD says I'm wrong, the person committing rape has to be a man as penile penetration has to take place.

    I'm pretty sure any man who has been raped (although in a minority compared to the number of female rape victims) would disagree, as would the law. I may, however, be wrong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

    The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
    “ 1-(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.

    You can disagree all you want.

    In law rape can only be committed by a man as penile penetration of either the vagina, anus or mouth has to take place. If it's a woman having sex without consent with another person then it is sexual assualt.

    A small point, DDD, but it’s not ME that’s disagreeing. I merely point out that there have been cases where men have claimed to be raped.

    If those claims are true, but the law disallowed such claims due to the legal definition of rape and reduced the charge to sexual assault, then the law may well be considered an ass.

    So (as mentioned) I MAY be wrong, but I’m fairly confident that there are few cases out there were females have been found guilty of raping males. I just haven’t got time to research the cases.

    Whether you think the law is an ass is subjective.

    The definition is clearly there for you to see.

    If I'm wrong I'd just admit to it and not try to defend my position with anecdotal claims.

    Jeez, you’re hard work... but hey, that’s why any thread with a DDD appearance runs to so many pages.

    Please re-read my post. I’m just fairly confident that there have been exceptions to the law you quote (from Wikipedia, I note). I think part of the challenge was getting the court to accept that an exception to the current definition is even possible.

    What I am certain of is that there are guys out there who would say they have been raped by women – try having this conversation with one of them and your outlook might change.

    I’d also say a fairly high percentage of your arguments on here rely on anecdotal information, so let’s not get holier-than-thou...
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Monkeypump wrote:

    Jeez, you’re hard work... but hey, that’s why any thread with a DDD appearance runs to so many pages.

    Please re-read my post. I’m just fairly confident that there have been exceptions to the law you quote (from Wikipedia, I note).
    Well actually I asked my solicitor but cited wiki-pedia for ease.

    Look if you can post details of an actual case that demonstrates an exception to what I'm saying then do so I'll hold my hands up and say "Fair enough, I'll have learned something".

    But continually saying "Your wrong, I'm sure there are cases... blah" Doesn't really carry much weight beyond your opinion, which may or may not be supported by anything that carries any weight be it professional knowledge or experience.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,387
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    fun sponges
    :lol:

    Sounds so much ruder when you take it out of context too.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    Monkeypump wrote:
    <snip> (from Wikipedia, I note). <snip>
    The sufficiently authoritative, non-Wiki linkis in my original post.
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:

    Jeez, you’re hard work... but hey, that’s why any thread with a DDD appearance runs to so many pages.

    Please re-read my post. I’m just fairly confident that there have been exceptions to the law you quote (from Wikipedia, I note).
    Well actually I asked my solicitor but cited wiki-pedia for ease.

    Look if you can post details of an actual case that demonstrates an exception to what I'm saying then do so I'll hold my hands up and say "Fair enough, I'll have learned something".

    But continually saying "Your wrong, I'm sure there are cases... blah" Doesn't really carry much weight beyond your opinion, which may or may not be supported by anything that carries any weight be it professional knowledge or experience.

    I'm not certain we had anywhere near 6 pages of interesting discussion.

    A brief Google seems to show that a female may rape a male in the US, but in the UK they may not. Sexual assault or molestation are entirely possible of course and I imagine the differences in law between countries and that certain sexual assault may be indistinguishable from rape for all purposes other than reading from a legal textbook then claims of males raped by women will exist despite them being technically not rape.

    Way to ruin a thread about lesbians :roll:
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    Monkeypump wrote:
    Jeez, you’re hard work... but hey, that’s why any thread with a DDD appearance runs to so many pages.

    Please re-read my post. I’m just fairly confident that there have been exceptions to the law you quote (from Wikipedia, I note). I think part of the challenge was getting the court to accept that an exception to the current definition is even possible.

    What I am certain of is that there are guys out there who would say they have been raped by women – try having this conversation with one of them and your outlook might change.

    I’d also say a fairly high percentage of your arguments on here rely on anecdotal information, so let’s not get holier-than-thou...

    But isn't the point that rape has a specific legal definition which is tighter than "being forced to have sex" by a woman. The man may have been violated, no doubt, and may feel all the bad things that raped women feel, but as a matter of law surely he was sexually assaulted, not raped?

    ETA I'm pretty sure that CPS wouldn't prosecute a case as such, and risk that the judge just said - no penile penetration, no rape. They'd go with sexual assault. When I was on jury duty, a case was prosecuted as blackmail, even though there were no letters made from cut out newspaper words, or photographs. It just happened that the strict legal definition of blackmail is what fit the case best.
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    dhope wrote:
    Way to ruin a thread about lesbians :roll:
    Sorry. :oops:

    I suspected at the time that I shouldn't have taken it off the direction I did.
  • Monkeypump
    Monkeypump Posts: 1,528
    PBo wrote:
    Monkeypump wrote:
    Jeez, you’re hard work... but hey, that’s why any thread with a DDD appearance runs to so many pages.

    Please re-read my post. I’m just fairly confident that there have been exceptions to the law you quote (from Wikipedia, I note). I think part of the challenge was getting the court to accept that an exception to the current definition is even possible.

    What I am certain of is that there are guys out there who would say they have been raped by women – try having this conversation with one of them and your outlook might change.

    I’d also say a fairly high percentage of your arguments on here rely on anecdotal information, so let’s not get holier-than-thou...

    But isn't the point that rape has a specific legal definition which is tighter than "being forced to have sex" by a woman. The man may have been violated, no doubt, and may feel all the bad things that raped women feel, but as a matter of law surely he was sexually assaulted, not raped?

    ETA I'm pretty sure that CPS wouldn't prosecute a case as such, and risk that the judge just said - no penile penetration, no rape. They'd go with sexual assault. When I was on jury duty, a case was prosecuted as blackmail, even though there were no letters made from cut out newspaper words, or photographs. It just happened that the strict legal definition of blackmail is what fit the case best.

    Okay, it seems I'm wrong and perhaps the case buried in my mind was from the US. I did start to Google this, but work got in the way (!!) – sorry.

    Hypothetically, what if penile penetration DID occur, but it was forced by the woman? Intercourse is not questioned, just who is the “instigator”. That’s a very different concept to the “perpetrator”, as in penile penetrative intercourse it’s always going to be male doing the penetrating.

    In such a case, would a male victim feel legally “short-changed” because they couldn’t pursue a rape charge? I would.

    And yes, dhope is right – this is the least exciting lesbian thread ever. I’m off to check out Girls In Lycra Shorts for a pick-me-up...

Categories