Female on male sexual assault

letsbehonest

I was reading something on some website that said that 1 in 6 men had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 16. I also read some where else that about 10% of men had an unwanted sexual experience at some point in there lives. So do ye actually think there's figures are true?
I know for me I sort of believe them and I all so feel that it is hard for a man to over come an unwanted sexual experience than a woman. Any thought on this?

jonnyfingers

There's definitely a double standard. Not meaning to lower the tone but the first thing that pops to my mind is the Southpark episode where the kids are treated inappropriately by a female teacher, or something similare, and the cops reaction is this.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoXUzIwXk0

But my point is that if a woman is a victim of an unwanted sexual advance it's seen as inappropriate. If a man is the victim, especially if it's by a woman, it's not seen the same way. Which is wrong in my opinion.

Also I think it's expected of a male not to admit to being a victim as that can be seen as a sign of weakness. You see the same thing where men are victims of domestic abuse, it can be perceived as weakness to admit they were abused by a woman especially.

Uriel.

letsbehonest wrote: »

I was reading something on some website that said that 1 in 6 men had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 16. I also read some where else that about 10% of men had an unwanted sexual experience at some point in there lives. So do ye actually think there's figures are true?
I know for me I sort of believe them and I all so feel that it is hard for a man to over come an unwanted sexual experience than a woman. Any thought on this?

You may have missed this, but in recent years there's been a shocking (albeit slowly) realisation in Ireland (and globally) that many many many young boys suffered years of sexual abuse at the hands of religious orders over a period of 5 or more decades.

The group "one in four" along with other research has shown that 1 in 4 Children will experience some form of sexual abuse. If you said that children are split close to 50/50 in terms of being girl or boy, that tells its own story.

Count Duckula

I actually had this discussion with my girlfriend, started because (in UK law at least) a man cannot technically be "raped" by a woman. He can be raped by another man, but a woman sexually assaulting another woman or man cannot be accused of rape. Of course, it's a bit of a misnomer, because the crime she can be accused of carries the exact same punishments; it just is not termed "rape".

This got us onto talking about the larger topic of women sexually assaulting men, and it led to a difference in opinion in comparison to the much more widely publicised crime of women being raped by men.

Personally, and my girlfriend disagreed with me, I do not think that a woman assaulting a man is generally so horrific. Let me explain myself first before you jump down my throat. One reason sexual assault is so awful is because you are taking from someone something that is so intimately private that you are likely to emotionally cripple them for the rest of their lives. This is true of both sexes; it may be a lot harder for a woman to "rape" a man in the sense of traditional sex, but it can be done with the right combination of drugs. And if drunken sex without explicit consent can be considered rape when one gender is concerned, then it is with the other, too.

However, the other facet of rape that tends to scar the victims is the feeling of utter helplessness. It's not just that you are being sexually assaulted; it's that you have no power whatsoever during the ordeal. When a woman assaults a man, this is not the case. A woman would have to drug or otherwise incapacitate a man in order to assault him in that way, and though that is still an awful crime, because it does not also carry with it the feeling of helplessness and violation, it cannot be seen as equal.

I'm not saying sexual assault against men by women is trivial, far from it, but it is of a less serious nature than sexual assault against a woman by a man because the act itself.

What an offensive thread title

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

However, the other facet of rape that tends to scar the victims is the feeling of utter helplessness. It's not just that you are being sexually assaulted; it's that you have no power whatsoever during the ordeal. When a woman assaults a man, this is not the case. A woman would have to drug or other incapacitate a man in order to assault him in that way, and though that is still an awful crime, because it does not also carry with it the feeling of helplessness and violation, it cannot be seen as equal.
I'm not saying sexual assault against men by women is trivial, far from it, but it is of a less serious nature than sexual assault against a woman by a man because the act itself.

I don't agree with this. By incapacitate I assume you mean using superior physical strength.

First it is possible a woman could have superior physical strength than a man

Secondly, where that is not the case many men will not hit a girl, even in self defence. Whereas most women would have no hesitation(and rightly so) using any means neccesary to defend herself.

Rape is often done without physical violence but psychological control and still carries all the mental scarring and violation it would if physical power were to be used.

I accept you do have a bit of a point in that I believe I would much rather be raped by a woman than a man. Perhaps this is the perceived shame or subconscious homophobia on my part though

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think you should change the thread title to indicate you mean rape/sexual abuse by a woman. Its clear you accept men can be raped by other men

Morgase

Count Duckula wrote: »

Of course, it's a bit of a misnomer, because the crime she can be accused of carries the exact same punishments; it just is not termed "rape".

I don't think that's true under Irish law. I'm open to correction, but from what I remember of the Roscommon case the mother simply couldn't be given more than seven years in jail as she couldn't be accused of rape under the existing law.

Count Duckula wrote: »

However, the other facet of rape that tends to scar the victims is the feeling of utter helplessness. It's not just that you are being sexually assaulted; it's that you have no power whatsoever during the ordeal. When a woman assaults a man, this is not the case. A woman would have to drug or otherwise incapacitate a man in order to assault him in that way, and though that is still an awful crime, because it does not also carry with it the feeling of helplessness and violation, it cannot be seen as equal.

I'm not saying sexual assault against men by women is trivial, far from it, but it is of a less serious nature than sexual assault against a woman by a man because the act itself.

Have to disagree with you here - are you basing this on the average man being stronger than the average woman?

Count Duckula

Morgase wrote: »

Have to disagree with you here - are you basing this on the average man being stronger than the average woman?

Well, yes, obviously. It would be very difficult for most women to overpower a man for suitably long enough to rape him in the sense of imposing traditional sex upon him. Not to mention, I don't believe a man being physically attacked and overpowered would become aroused enough for that intercourse to take place.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that in most cases sexual assault is an awful crime no matter what the gender, but the heights of sexual assault against a woman are worse than the heights of sexual assault against a man owing to the level of violence involved in that scenario.

Count Duckula

Count Duckula wrote: »

Well, yes, obviously. It would be very difficult for most women to overpower a man for suitably long enough to rape him in the sense of imposing traditional sex upon him. Not to mention, I don't believe a man being physically attacked and overpowered would become aroused enough for that intercourse to take place.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that in most cases sexual assault is an awful crime no matter what the gender, but the heights of sexual assault against a woman are worse than the heights of sexual assault against a man owing to the level of violence involved in that scenario.

/headdesk

seamus

Morgase wrote: »

I don't think that's true under Irish law. I'm open to correction, but from what I remember of the Roscommon case the mother simply couldn't be given more than seven years in jail as she couldn't be accused of rape under the existing law.

I imagine it's something which is yet to be tested.

The Irish legal definition of rape is:

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

Since gender is not mentioned, it's (IMO) implied that a rape has occured in either of the two scenarios above, even if a woman is the attacker. If it's a sexual assault that includes penetration, then it's legally rape, even if the man is the victim of the assault.

Until this act was brought in, it was expressly impossible for a woman to be able to commit rape, as rape was only defined as a crime committed by a man.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Well, yes, obviously. It would be very difficult for most women to overpower a man for suitably long enough to rape him in the sense of imposing traditional sex upon him.

You'd be surprised. There are plenty of small men and plenty of large women out there. Regardless of the fact that most men are stronger than most women, that still leaves a lot of people outside of this "most".

Bottle of Smoke also raises a good point - many men will not hit a woman, even to defend themselves in such cases. Rapists have attempted to use in their defence that women did not make much noise when being raped, this implying that they were not struggling. In reality, the women were either disconnecting themselves emotionally from the situation or were just letting it happen to get it out of the way.

It's likely that the same phenomenon would be observed with some men and rather than risk injuring the woman or "attacking" her, he might just let it happen and be over with.

There is also a psychological edge that women may have. Since society is biased so heavily against men in sexual assault, the attacker could threaten to claim sexual assault against him if he doesn't comply, or could threatening to start kicking and screaming. As a man, I can tell you that I would prefer to be sexually assaulted by a woman than to have a woman claim that she was sexually assaulted by me. I could deal with the personal emotional trauma of the former, I couldn't handle the social stigma of the latter.

Not to mention, I don't believe a man being physically attacked and overpowered would become aroused enough for that intercourse to take place.

This is a common enough misconception and has also attempted to be used as a defence in rape cases - that it wasn't rape because the woman became aroused.

Arousal is not something which the individual can switch on and off at will. It is very much possible to gain an erection even when highly upset. [link]

the heights of sexual assault against a woman are worse than the heights of sexual assault against a man owing to the level of violence involved in that scenario.

Depends on the individual surely? Scars and wounds heal. The worst part of sexual assault is the emotional damage done to the victim, not the physical. I don't think you can say that women are more emotionally damaged than men when sexually assaulted.
If anything men may have more difficulty with it because society offers little or no support because many people don't believe that a man can be raped.

Otis Driftwood

Thread title amended.

metrovelvet

Otis- that changes the whole conversation. I thought this was about male victimhood [lets say from the age of 14 up] rather than female criminality which is now what it is about.

syklops

jonnyfingers wrote: »

There's definitely a double standard. Not meaning to lower the tone but the first thing that pops to my mind is the Southpark episode where the kids are treated inappropriately by a female teacher, or something similare, and the cops reaction is this.........

There is an enormous difference between being treated inappropriately, and an unwanted sexual encounter.

metrovelvet

You just need to fudge around with the term 'consent' and anything goes, men, siblings, offspring, kids.

Count Duckula

seamus wrote: »

There is also a psychological edge that women may have. Since society is biased so heavily against men in sexual assault, the attacker could threaten to claim sexual assault against him if he doesn't comply, or could threatening to start kicking and screaming. As a man, I can tell you that I would prefer to be sexually assaulted by a woman than to have a woman claim that she was sexually assaulted by me. I could deal with the personal emotional trauma of the former, I couldn't handle the social stigma of the latter.

That's a good point; I must admit I hadn't considered that angle. I suppose the only reason that argument works is because of people like me who assume that a woman can be easily raped whilst a man cannot - ie, in a situation where both people were claiming it (one lying to cover up what they've done) the layperson will assume 99% of the time that man is the criminal.

seamus wrote: »

This is a common enough misconception and has also attempted to be used as a defence in rape cases - that it wasn't rape because the woman became aroused.

Arousal is not something which the individual can switch on and off at will. It is very much possible to gain an erection even when highly upset. [link]

Ok, that I genuinely did not know. The perils of belief without evidence, eh? Changes things in my mind a great deal.

That article is incredibly eye-opening. I suppose I fell into the trap of thinking that a man erect equated to a man consenting and aroused. I guess it's that exact mindset which would lead someone assaulting a man to deliberately cause him to become erect, thus meaning that potentially he was both more ashamed of what happened because he fears that his body almost "implied consent", and that others on hearing the details in court might more easily disregard the true enormity of the crime.

Thank you for opening my mind, seamus.

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

That's a good point; I must admit I hadn't considered that angle. I suppose the only reason that argument works is because of people like me who assume that a woman can be easily raped whilst a man cannot - ie, in a situation where both people were claiming it (one lying to cover up what they've done) the layperson will assume 99% of the time that man is the criminal.



Ok, that I genuinely did not know. The perils of belief without evidence, eh? Changes things in my mind a great deal.

That article is incredibly eye-opening. I suppose I fell into the trap of thinking that a man erect equated to a man consenting and aroused. I guess it's that exact mindset which would lead someone assaulting a man to deliberately cause him to become erect, thus meaning that potentially he was both more ashamed of what happened because he fears that his body almost "implied consent", and that others on hearing the details in court might more easily disregard the true enormity of the crime.

Thank you for opening my mind, seamus.

I think a lot of people mistakingly believe that the physiological response indicates consent for both men and women, that is why 'body language' is so dodgy a concept in a dating context or really in any context. And anyone who has raised little boys knows that erections do not equate consent or even arousal. Baby boys get them ffs.

parker kent

Count Duckula wrote: »

Well, yes, obviously. It would be very difficult for most women to overpower a man for suitably long enough to rape him in the sense of imposing traditional sex upon him. Not to mention, I don't believe a man being physically attacked and overpowered would become aroused enough for that intercourse to take place.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that in most cases sexual assault is an awful crime no matter what the gender, but the heights of sexual assault against a woman are worse than the heights of sexual assault against a man owing to the level of violence involved in that scenario.

Most women is the key phrase, however it is not all women. For example, I'm sure Katie Taylor could handle herself against many men. An extreme example, but true nonetheless.

Your arousal comment is not true either. Many male sufferers of abuse recount guilt at getting aroused during the assault. It is a natural bodily reaction, particularly when the abused is a young male.

Edit: Missed the post above saying largely the same as mine.

Malari

Count Duckula wrote: »

That's a good point; I must admit I hadn't considered that angle. I suppose the only reason that argument works is because of people like me who assume that a woman can be easily raped whilst a man cannot - ie, in a situation where both people were claiming it (one lying to cover up what they've done) the layperson will assume 99% of the time that man is the criminal.



Ok, that I genuinely did not know. The perils of belief without evidence, eh? Changes things in my mind a great deal.

That article is incredibly eye-opening. I suppose I fell into the trap of thinking that a man erect equated to a man consenting and aroused. I guess it's that exact mindset which would lead someone assaulting a man to deliberately cause him to become erect, thus meaning that potentially he was both more ashamed of what happened because he fears that his body almost "implied consent", and that others on hearing the details in court might more easily disregard the true enormity of the crime.

Thank you for opening my mind, seamus.

I hadn't thought about it too much before, and kind of assumed that female on male assault was of course just as bad as the other way around. However, your post made sense to me in terms of the "mechanics" of it, for want of a better phrasing, and I did wonder if it wasn't much harder for a woman to force a man to have sex because it would require arousal.

Seamus's reponse was very interesting and it would change my viewpoint too (within a few posts! ). It's good that someone was able to explain in a clear and calm way, rather than a "facepalm" type response, because then you never learn the flaws in your thinking.

Kudos for admitting your change of mind too, you don't see much of that on these pages.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I dunno about them figures but I know a lad that was full on raped by a girl, he didn't report it (highly unlikely she'd be convicted in fairness) but he did tell a lot of people and she received a lot of abuse for it (was only 15/16 at the time). I've also heard of a few occasions of, well, let's just say if it was the other way around it would definitely be classed as some sort of rape/sexual assault.
But I doubt if the figures are as high as 10%, unless some percentage is attributed to male on male rape?

Malari

Malari wrote: »

I hadn't thought about it too much before, and kind of assumed that female on male assault was of course just as bad as the other way around. However, your post made sense to me in terms of the "mechanics" of it, for want of a better phrasing, and I did wonder if it wasn't much harder for a woman to force a man to have sex because it would require arousal.

Seamus's reponse was very interesting and it would change my viewpoint too (within a few posts! ). It's good that someone was able to explain in a clear and calm way, rather than a "facepalm" type response, because then you never learn the flaws in your thinking.

Kudos for admitting your change of mind too, you don't see much of that on these pages.

Sorry, I'm regretting my response already - too lacking in energy to explain it properly.
I did think it was common knowledge though

metrovelvet

THFC wrote: »

I dunno about them figures but I know a lad that was full on raped by a girl, he didn't report it (highly unlikely she'd be convicted in fairness) but he did tell a lot of people and she received a lot of abuse for it (was only 15/16 at the time). I've also heard of a few occasions of, well, let's just say if it was the other way around it would definitely be classed as some sort of rape/sexual assault.
But I doubt if the figures are as high as 10%, unless some percentage is attributed to male on male rape?

When I read the OP and the stats included in them, I had assumed it covered all versions of male victimhood, including students and teachers, family members etc, but was not a reflection of the gender of the perpetrators, in that the OP was talking about both men and women raping men.

deandean

Well, I suppose a man, if he had really huge beer goggles, could be picked up at a nightclub by a woman such as this who could overpower him:


(and it is, I read, really a woman)

...but later I'd see one's manhood running for cover...not a hope in hell of ever performing coitus:eek:

Malari

bluewolf wrote: »

Sorry, I'm regretting my response already - too lacking in energy to explain it properly.
I did think it was common knowledge though

Wasn't really getting at you specifically, It's just not a topic you really hear discussed that often - either on the radio or among friends. I've never seen it as a topic of any tv crime show. I know among most of my male friends they would probably think the same way as Count Duckula did. Or an even more crude "what are you complaining about?"

Actually I do remember being outraged (to the point of shouting at the radio) about a recent case in the UK where a woman was slapping the bottom of a male co-worker and it was laughed off by management when he complained. He took it to the employment tribunal and lost the case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8312521/John-Lewis-bottom-slapper-ruled-to-be-a-motherly-tactile-Italian-lady.html

strobe

letsbehonest wrote: »

I was reading something on some website that said that 1 in 6 men had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 16. I also read some where else that about 10% of men had an unwanted sexual experience at some point in there lives. So do ye actually think there's figures are true?
I know for me I sort of believe them and I all so feel that it is hard for a man to over come an unwanted sexual experience than a woman. Any thought on this?

Hmmm....what constitutes an 'unwanted sexual experience'? It's a very vague phrase. Depending on what they mean by it I may have had over 10 such experiences or 0.

minidazzler

seamus wrote: »

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

Since gender is not mentioned, it's (IMO) implied that a rape has occured in either of the two scenarios above, even if a woman is the attacker. If it's a sexual assault that includes penetration, then it's legally rape, even if the man is the victim of the assault.

Until this act was brought in, it was expressly impossible for a woman to be able to commit rape, as rape was only defined as a crime committed by a man.

As a layman, that law if taken in a literal sense for me means women still can't be defined as commiting rape on a man.

"Penetration of the anus or mouth by a penis" is a man commiting rape.

"Penetration of the vagina by an object held or manipulated" by another person means a woman or man can rape a woman?

I am obviously not well versed in the law, but would either of these mean a woman can rape a man? Under our legal definiton of rape?

seamus

minidazzler wrote: »

I am obviously not well versed in the law, but would either of these mean a woman can rape a man? Under our legal definiton of rape?

Why wouldn't they?

If a woman for example, has penetrative vaginal sex with a man against his will, then that is a sexual assault that includes penetration of the vagina. Right?

The law doesn't state that the victim must be penetrated, simply that the assault includes penetration.

As I say, I don't think it's actually been tested. To the best of my knowledge a woman has never been convicted of rape in Ireland.

source

seamus wrote: »

Why wouldn't they?

If a woman for example, has penetrative vaginal sex with a man against his will, then that is a sexual assault that includes penetration of the vagina. Right?

The law doesn't state that the victim must be penetrated, simply that the assault includes penetration.

As I say, I don't think it's actually been tested. To the best of my knowledge a woman has never been convicted of rape in Ireland.

Not under Section 4 rape,

4(a) states that penetration of the mouth or anus by a penis. constitutes rape.

and 4(b) says penetration of a vagina by a handheld object.

Thereby, unless the female perpetrator has forced anal sex with the man, or forces him to penetrate her vagina with a handheld object a woman cannot commit rape under section 4. This section was brought in to include forced oral and anal sex along with forced sex by a foreign object as rape.

It does not say rape is penetration of vagina by penis. that is covered under section 2 Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981:

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.

Which clearly states at the start, that "a man commits rape if"......So a woman cannot commit "standard" rape against a man. Section 4 rape is not instead of Section 2, it's there to bolster the laws and include other forms of sexual assault as rape.

Up-n-atom!

Since gender is not mentioned, it's (IMO) implied that a rape has occured in either of the two scenarios above, even if a woman is the attacker. If it's a sexual assault that includes penetration, then it's legally rape, even if the man is the victim of the assault.

Until this act was brought in, it was expressly impossible for a woman to be able to commit rape, as rape was only defined as a crime committed by a man.

I read this in the same way as Minidazzler - there's an implication that the mouth/anus/vagina belongs to the victim rather than the perpetrator of the rape, rather than the instigator. Other possible kinds of rape don't seem to have been considered, regardless of whether these incidents exist or not.

Galvasean

By my reading, say if a woman were to attack and penetrate a man in the anus with an object this would not count as rape. Is this correct?

Logical Fallacy

Galvasean wrote: »

By my reading, say if a woman were to attack and penetrate a man in the anus with an object this would not count as rape. Is this correct?

Pretty much...remember if you are a male you are guilty of stuff, not a victim of it.

Macha

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Pretty much...remember if you are a male you are guilty of stuff, not a victim of it.

No, in our society women are not seen as being capable of being sexual predators. Therefore we don't see them as being rapists.

Sexual stereotypes of either gender don't help anyone.

Dudess

Isn't rape defined in this country as forced sexual intercourse? So therefore, the perpetrator doesn't have to be capable of penetration?

letsbehonest wrote: »

I was reading something on some website that said that 1 in 6 men had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 16. I also read some where else that about 10% of men had an unwanted sexual experience at some point in there lives. So do ye actually think there's figures are true?

Gosh no, that can't be true - a teenage boy is "ghey" if he doesn't enjoy a woman having sex with him. And he's a legend. And giggidy, nnnnnnnice etc.

Once she's hot of course...

Man having sex with a teenage girl though? Slice his balls off! :mad:

source

Dudess wrote: »

Isn't rape defined in this country as forced sexual intercourse? So therefore, the perpetrator doesn't have to be capable of penetration?

Gosh no, that can't be true - a teenage boy is "ghey" if he doesn't enjoy a woman having sex with him. And he's a legend. And giggidy, nnnnnnnice etc.

Once she's hot of course...

Man having sex with a teenage girl though? Slice his balls off! :mad:

Read my post on the previous page, It defines rape. read the quote of Section 2.

donutheadhomer

seamus wrote: »

I imagine it's something which is yet to be tested.

The Irish legal definition of rape is:Since gender is not mentioned, it's (IMO) implied that a rape has occured in either of the two scenarios above, even if a woman is the attacker. If it's a sexual assault that includes penetration, then it's legally rape, even if the man is the victim of the assault.

Until this act was brought in, it was expressly impossible for a woman to be able to commit rape, as rape was only defined as a crime committed by a man.
You'd be surprised. There are plenty of small men and plenty of large women out there. Regardless of the fact that most men are stronger than most women, that still leaves a lot of people outside of this "most".

Bottle of Smoke also raises a good point - many men will not hit a woman, even to defend themselves in such cases. Rapists have attempted to use in their defence that women did not make much noise when being raped, this implying that they were not struggling. In reality, the women were either disconnecting themselves emotionally from the situation or were just letting it happen to get it out of the way.

It's likely that the same phenomenon would be observed with some men and rather than risk injuring the woman or "attacking" her, he might just let it happen and be over with.

There is also a psychological edge that women may have. Since society is biased so heavily against men in sexual assault, the attacker could threaten to claim sexual assault against him if he doesn't comply, or could threatening to start kicking and screaming. As a man, I can tell you that I would prefer to be sexually assaulted by a woman than to have a woman claim that she was sexually assaulted by me. I could deal with the personal emotional trauma of the former, I couldn't handle the social stigma of the latter.
This is a common enough misconception and has also attempted to be used as a defence in rape cases - that it wasn't rape because the woman became aroused.

Arousal is not something which the individual can switch on and off at will. It is very much possible to gain an erection even when highly upset. [link]

Depends on the individual surely? Scars and wounds heal. The worst part of sexual assault is the emotional damage done to the victim, not the physical. I don't think you can say that women are more emotionally damaged than men when sexually assaulted.
If anything men may have more difficulty with it because society offers little or no support because many people don't believe that a man can be raped.

if a man is penetrated anally by an object then that is not rape under this law?