Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • 7
    The legal definition of rape means it involves a penis. (...) . People who don't have penises can be convicted of rape as accessories or aiders and abbeters. Does this mean that a woman forcing a man to have penetrative intercourse is not guilty of rape under UK law?
    – WoJ
    Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 21:23
  • 10
    @WoJ Correct. She would be guilty of sexual assault instead. Possibly assault by penetration if toys were involved. Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 21:39
  • 9
    @Woj yes in this case of 'rape' the woman was charged with (but acquitted of) 'causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent' when she was accused of forcing a man to have sex with her, i.e. rape in plain language dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11262139/… It's not uncommon for people to make misleading statements such as 'women are not capable of raping men' when instead what they mean is 'the legal definition of rape requires a penis'; that doesn't mean it's wrong to refer to it as rape in non-legal contexts
    – thelawnet
    Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 12:02
  • 6
    @thelawnet: yes, I understand that - what surprises me is that a woman forcing a man to have intercourse is charged with 'sexual assault' which seems of a lower weight than 'rape' (though maybe in legal terms this is the same thing and carries the same consequences - I am not a lawyer and not in the UK so rather curious about how this is defined. In France it is quite ambiguous because the sex is never explicitly stated, but the pronoun 'he' is used which indicates a man (and again, not a 100% assurance because we do not have engendered pronouns and the masculine takes precedence))
    – WoJ
    Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 12:36
  • 3
    Sometimes Britain's laws are quite surprising. In the US, for instance, 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120 does not limit rape to penises by any means—nor indeed to penetrative intercourse—nor to any particular sex, and most state laws do not either. Similarly, in France, the law against rape in Section 222-23 of the criminal code includes various types of sexual contact in the definition of rape, and Mexico's Article 265 defines rape as penetrative, but not only with penises. Just to give a few examples. Britain is fairly unusual here—one might even say "behind the times."
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 23:43