Is it possible for a woman to rape a man?

dok_golf

Apologies if I have put this in the wrong thread ( mods please move if necessary). Just wondered if it is ( possible probably the wrong word) believable by society that a woman can rape a man. (Not talking from a legal point of view). I've never heard of such a thing. If it has happened, would society just think " he just scored"??? And , if indeed, society does go along these lines, do the revelations about sexual harassment in college ( 70% of women ) mean that man are just perverts? ( because it's beginning to feel that way imo)

baby and crumble

Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?

dok_golf

My post explains it a bit better

endacl

baby and crumble wrote: »

Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?

I was about to post that. Verbatim.

Odd question...

endacl

dok_golf wrote: »

My post explains it a bit better

No it doesn’t.

dok_golf

Right, I'll try again. I've never heard of a woman raping a man, though I'm sure it has happened. Does society in general think that if something like this happened, then , it's " the guy has scored" attitude that prevails?

endacl

What do you mean by ‘rape’?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

If a woman inserted a sex toy into a sleeping guys anus, would you not class that as a rape, OP?

tedpan

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote:

If a woman inserted a sex toy into a sleeping guys anus, would you not class that as a rape, OP?

I'm sure anyone would..!

Blazedup

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If a woman inserted a sex toy into a sleeping guys anus, would you not class that as a rape, OP?

No, sexual assault.
If a man shoved a toy into a girls anus, it would also be a sexual assault.

Hitman3000

Under law it's not possible for a woman to rape a man in Ireland. In some jurisdictions rape is described as sex under duress. So in that defination rape by a female is possible.

Spook80

But if woman gets man drunk or spiked for sole purpose of intercourse?

Twenty Grand

According to some of the posters here, when my gf wakes me up by initiating sex, she is in fact a rapist and should be reported.

Pauliedragon

In some states in the U.S. female teachers caught having sex with male underage students have been charged and convicted of rape.

deco nate

Google it, plenty of cases of rape by females on men. So yes, in Irish law?
I think a case has yet to be brought to court.

Hitman3000

deco nate wrote:

Google it, plenty of cases of rape by females on men. So yes, in Irish law? I think a case has yet to be brought to court.

The offence of rape by a female against a male under Irish law does not exist. Rape is described as forced penetration of the vagina/anus/mouth by a penis.

Geuze

baby and crumble wrote: »

Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?

It's not, as a woman doesn't have a penis.


Section 4 of the 1990 Act provides that ‘‘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.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/SexualOffencesLawPaper.pdf/Files/SexualOffencesLawPaper.pdf

Peregrinus

The OP explicitly says that he's not asking about the legal definition or concept of rape.

If we avoid legalities, and suggest that rape is coerced sex, then we can ask "can a woman coerce a man into having sex?" Yes, of course. Maybe she has a gun. Maybe she threatens harm to someone he loves. Maybe she blackmails him. You can think of lots of variations on this.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Although rape laws have traditionally presumed male perpetrators, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US recently expanded its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey to ask men about their experiences of sexual violence. Almost 7 percent of male respondents reported that, at some point in their lives, they had been forced to penetrate someone sexually. The vast majority of these forced-penetration cases occurred when a man was compelled to vaginally penetrate or perform oral sex on a woman against his will. Strategies used to compel penetration included threats, blackmail, coercion, taking advantage of intoxication, and using or threatening violence.

There is a clear need to modernize our legal definitions to recognize that women can commit offenses that would clearly be recognized as rape if the genders were reversed.

realitykeeper

Asia Argento, the woman who accused Harvey Weinstein of raping her has apparently paid $300.000 hush money to an actor who accused her of sexually assaulting her before he reached the age of consent. She denied the allegation but if it were true, wouldn`t that make her a liar and a sexual predator? Also, if it were true, wouldn`t that cast doubt on her allegations against Harvey Weinstein? One wonders why she would pay $300,000 hush money if there was nothing to hush. If it did turn out that she was both a liar and a sexual predator, one wonders how many more of these me too people would also be liars and sexual predators. It may be none, but when one casts aspersions, one really ought to check ones closet for skeletons beforehand.

raah!

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we avoid legalities, and suggest that rape is coerced sex, then we can ask "can a woman coerce a man into having sex?" Yes, of course. Maybe she has a gun. Maybe she threatens harm to someone he loves. Maybe she blackmails him. You can think of lots of variations on this.

In both your examples above the person could be argued to be "coerced into giving consent".


I don't think people would consider somebody who is blackmailed into sex as someone who is raped. I think it would be better defined as "physically coerced sex" or "forcefully coerced sex" or even "non-consensual sex" then we can keep some of the specificity of the term.


I think another version of the OP's argument that you might commonly encounter is:
If rape is non consensual sex, and arousal is a kind of consent, then it's not possible to rape a man because you can't have sex with them w hen they are not aroused.

I don't think this is a good argument however, because arousal and consent are not the same, and if you stick a stick up a man's ass he might get an erection involuntarily.

But to go back to the OP, women can and have had non-consensual or forcefully coerced sex with men, and whatever the law I would say that those women are raping men.

Peregrinus

raah! wrote: »

In both your examples above the person could be argued to be "coerced into giving consent".

Well, it could be argued, but it’s not an argument anyone’s likely to win, I think.

If I threaten you with a gun and demand that you hand over your wallet, or threaten your child with a gun and demand that you hand over your wallet, my defence to a theft charge which rests on the fact that your consent was given, even if admittedly coerced, will fail.

And the same goes for rape. Consent extorted by unlawful coercion is not consent at all.

raah! wrote: »

I don't think people would consider somebody who is blackmailed into sex as someone who is raped. I think it would be better defined as "physically coerced sex" or "forcefully coerced sex" or even "non-consensual sex" then we can keep some of the specificity of the term.

I disagree; I think people would consider what you rightly term to be “non-consensual sex” to be rape.

raah! wrote: »

I think another version of the OP's argument that you might commonly encounter is:
If rape is non consensual sex, and arousal is a kind of consent, then it's not possible to rape a man because you can't have sex with them w hen they are not aroused.

I don't think this is a good argument however, because arousal and consent are not the same, and if you stick a stick up a man's ass he might get an erection involuntarily.

I agree. Sexual arousal is an instinctive physical response. It’s not consent. Completely different thing.

wonski

Amira Repulsive Place wrote: »

Although rape laws have traditionally presumed male perpetrators, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US recently expanded its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey to ask men about their experiences of sexual violence. Almost 7 percent of male respondents reported that, at some point in their lives, they had been forced to penetrate someone sexually. The vast majority of these forced-penetration cases occurred when a man was compelled to vaginally penetrate or perform oral sex on a woman against his will. Strategies used to compel penetration included threats, blackmail, coercion, taking advantage of intoxication, and using or threatening violence.

There is a clear need to modernize our legal definitions to recognize that women can commit offenses that would clearly be recognized as rape if the genders were reversed.

7%.Of all men in US???


That is a lot. Unless the respondents listed being forced to have a sex while Champions League final was on. Or other major sport event equivalent to CL in the US.

Or I am completely wrong, but 7% of men sounds like a lot

raah!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it could be argued, but it’s not an argument anyone’s likely to win, I think.

If I threaten you with a gun and demand that you hand over your wallet, or threaten your child with a gun and demand that you hand over your wallet, my defence to a theft charge which rests on the fact that your consent was given, even if admittedly coerced, will fail.

And the same goes for rape. Consent extorted by unlawful coercion is not consent at all.

Well I suppose what I was getting at there was, is that there seems to me to be a significant difference between coercing consent and forcing sex. And this would be similar to the difference between extorting or blackmailing money from someone and mugging them. And if we go away from legal definitions which don't differentiate between saying "I consent" under duress, and never saying "I consent" (and indeed, eschewing legal definitions was the context in which both our posts were made) , I think we can indeed point out a useful distinction, both epistemologically, and ethically.


From an ethical perspective I think that "forced nonconsensual sex" is worse than forcing someone to consent to the sex and then having it. This is mainly because, all things being equal, I consider violence to be worse than blackmail or trickery, as indeed many people do.

From an epistemological perspective, "forced nonconsensual sex" is much more straight forward and definite than "forced consent". Take the example of tricking someone into having sex with you by pretending to be a movie star. Is that rape? What if you pretend to be their husband/wife? Or what about convincing someone that if they don't have sex with you the world will end? What if you say to a prostitute "if you don't have sex with me I won't pay you for the sex". Now, granted, these are all different from saying "if you don't have sex from me I'll kill you" , or "if you don't have sex with me I'll take your money or reveal your secrets".

So, outside of the legal context with consent under duress (or trickery) is not consent, there are I think important distinctions between ever saying, however fraudulently, that you consent to the sex, and not consenting but then being physically forced.

I disagree; I think people would consider what you rightly term to be “non-consensual sex” to be rape.

Yes, this was what I was offering as a new definition of rape, contrary to your examples, in which consent given under duress or via trickery, I still considered consent.

arybvtcw0eolkf

If a woman says "NO" just before penetration because a guy (for example) doesn't have a condom on his erect penis, but he penetrates her anyway ~ rape.

If a guy says "no, not without a condom" and a girl sits on and inserts his erect penis anyway ~ ?

IMO he's been raped.

aluminium

Google the following:

Joyce McKinney Mormon Sex Slave Case

I remember reading about this story as a child. It stuck with me ever since.