Male rape (by a woman or women of course), is it an actual crime?

Thats a pretty blurry line right there. A man could claim that a woman raped him and the woman could claim that she seduced him because she THOUGHT he wanted her to. In a trial witnesses on the woman's side could claim that they had all heard, at some point or another, the male talking about how much he wanted to have sex with the woman. This would put most in doubt as to whether or not he was actually FORCED to do anything, the definition of rape being the act of someone FORCING another into an unwanted form of sexual contact.

This gets even more screwed when we start talking about two people in a relationship. Can you call it rape? Like Dinah said about bondage, technically that is unforced rape, which itself is paradoxical, but it is still technically what is occurring in that instance. A man or woman in a married couple can be raped, gay couples too.

Ahh now there's an interesting topic; can a lesbian actually rape another woman, excluding sodomy and molestation. Rape in a traditional sense (As horrible as there being a traditional sense is)

 

in a lesbian rape is possible if there is an agreesive and passive party. but on the other hand where both are agreesive or passive, then i wouldn't know.

agressive in a homosexual reference is where the person takes the role of the dominant role, the so called male role [a lesbian who dresses like a man or tomboy].

passive is the one who takes the weaker role, the one who is feminine.

you see these roles in both a gay and lesbian relationship, though not all of them follow this model.

 

I do remember an article about a homosexual taxi driver who got raped by three women who were on a hen night.
That would probably count as rape however in cases of a heterosexual man being forced upon it would be classed as seduction unless there was more than one woman

 

Well I didnt know how it went but I too at that time (me and my friends were arguing with our teacher) that a man can be raped. Dunno what she said but somehow she won and we agreed that a man cant be raped but molested. But whatever. And to get on with the topic, of course it is a crime though unless it is obvious or done by more than 1 woman, people actually find it hard to believe that a man can somehow be raped. People always see the female as the weaker sex. So yeah, what with corruption and all etc.

 

Yes, back on topic... (My apologies)

I would definately have to agree that it is a crime. Of course one must have proof of the rape, no matter who did the raping or was raped. In an ideal world unfortunately...

 

The seduction clause seems to have a flaw with it though. Say there is a woman out there who is as voracious as a male serial rapist could be. And let's say that woman also has the desire to really rape men. And say she can be strong enough to overpower a guy. Could she have seduced a man if she has the strength to actually man handle & pin a man down & have her way with him?

Also seduction itself has holes in it. It says that a person who was seduced by someone must have seen something that enticed him or her to give in to what the assailant wanted to do, have sex. So how can you be seduced by someone if they just picked you out at random & had their way with you, viewing this on a rapist's point of view.

Also, there is marital rape, where the husband, or wife have their way with their partner without consent.

@CJ: What's with the fat chick bit? that's kinda insensitive.

 

People get it together, rape is rape. Seduction is not rape because seduction is convincing someone to sleep with you. Which means, that person has already approved of the situation. Rape, however, means to have sexual relations against someone's will or approval. The gender does not matter. She does not need to use a strap-on to be considered rape.

 

This Would Be The Funnnnnnyist thing on the earth, also, at of 100 men aprox 5 of them would have a problem of getting raped by a women (Unless shes ugly therfore it would be 100 men). so it doesnt realy count as rape. but still, ye it is still a crime in my eyes anyway

 

Don't get me started on strap ons...

That would be sodomy anyway

 

Sorry for the late reply but if I found a woman attractive then I would let her "rape me" but if they were unnatractive or had STI's then I would fight as hard as I could to keep her away

 

In that case, that is an example of seduction.

 

Yes Cahos, not really seduction but i'd let the girl think she is raping if she was attractive ;D

 

Why would an attractive girl want to rape you or anybody else if there wasn't something wrong with her? If we are stating that she is indeed attractive and there is nothing wrong with her, then she won't rape anyone because she does not have to. She will probably have a line of guys already willing to sleep (buy her dinner, presents, etc) with her at the drop of a hat.

 

Here's one reason, Hypersexuality, and it goes for men too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymphomania

Forgive me for the rough word which may not be PG-13, but maybe she's just a slut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut

Or is a sex addict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_addiction

And people suffering from these may not be ugly at that too, they may even be attractive & you wouldn't know it.

 

That is true. However, they would still not need to rape. They can just ask and any guy would do them the favor.

 

But then that would make them both "Sluts" Or "Hoes" Or "Gigolos"

 

But if neither of them starts complaining then it doesn't matter. They both get off and nobody gets raped: win/win.

Does anyone know, or have access to, the actual wording of the 'seduction' clause in the sexual crimes laws? That might help the debate really get stuck into the idea much easier.

 

Yeah that was the point. If you read the post I quoted, it mentions that also.

 

Some girls like the kinky stuff

 

*Disclaimer* This is according to Maryland State law and may differ from state to state but from what I understand it is fairly universal.

According to the Digest of Criminal Laws a man is incapable of being raped. I will give the book text after I explain how the law is interpreted. In order to be a victim of rape you must have a vagina. Being a victim of rape requires the victims vagina be penetrated "No matter how slight". A man can however be a victim of a sexual assault but not rape. Legal wording follows.

Rape in the First Degree
(a) A person may not:
(1) engage in vaginal intercourse with another by force, or threat of force without the consent of the other; and
(2)(1) employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon.....
Ect...

{Vaginal intercourse} includes penetration, however slight of the vagina.

What defines rape is vaginal intercourse not to be confused with sexual contact
Sexual Contact:
-In which a part of an individuals body , EXCEPT THE PENIS, mouth, or tongue, penetrates, however slightly, into another individuals genital opening or anus.
- Sexual contact does not include "Vaginal intercourse"

Its a little difficult to understand but it has basically been interpreted as the only way you can be raped is if you have a vagina. I would go on but it is really too much to post here. If you would like to see the exact criminal statutes I got this information from the following:

Criminal Digest of Laws
Criminal Law article 3-301
Criminal Law article 3-303