I was just reading in another thread where a 19 year old boy has claimed that he was raped by his 40 year old female teacher.
Rape, as I understand, can only be committed by a man on a woman and not the other way round because it involves, AFAIK, both penetration and emission. How is erection possible, let alone penetration and emission, for a man who is not willing to have sex.
Any ideas, or am I missing something?
Without even getting into the biological matters, there’s an easy one straight off the bat: if a female penetrates a male with a foreign object against his will. I understand you’re probably asking how can ordinary penile-vaginal intercourse occur without the man’s consent, but that isn’t the only way a man can be raped.
Erection isn’t entirely voluntary, and ejaculation is a reflex action. A male doesn’t even have to be concious to achieve erection and ejaculate under sufficient stimulation.
After reading the California Penal Code’s definitions of rape, most of them are devoid of gender specific terms.
If a woman holds a gun to a man’s head and orders him to have sex with her, that’s rape.
Definitions of rape vary greatly by state and country, so whereas in some states penetration is required for a charge of rape, others are more liberal in their definitions. Some differentiate between “rape”, “unlawful intercourse” and/or “sexual assault”, all of which may indicate different things.
Some people might claim that if the male has an erection and ejaculates, then he must have been a willing partner, and thus it isn’t rape. This ignores the fact that, as Q.E.D. mentioned, erection and ejaculation aren’t always voluntary. You also see a counterpart, in that females sometimes achieve orgasm when being raped. That in no way makes the act non-rape, and so the same logic must apply when the genders of the aggressor and victim are reversed.
Rape is sexual contact without the concent of the victim. Though often violent, it is not necessarily so. If a person gets another so drunk that they are no longer capable of giving consent, and then has sex with them, that would be rape. Sinilarly if an adult has sexual contact with a minor that is also statutory rape.
This brings to mind Denzel Washington’s movie “Ricochet” (1991).
In the movie, John Lithgow’s character is trying to frame Denzel Washington for a series of events. Lithgow drugs and kidnaps Washington. Washington is then tied to a bed, while a hooker gets on top of him and proceeds to have sex with him. All the whille Washington is saying “Please don’t do this”. The hooker replies, “You say no, but your little friend says yes”. They end up having sex, against Washington’s character’s will.
I once saw a made for TV movie where a woman raped another woman with a foreign object. I believe it was a glass bottle. The problem was that the penal code was written gender specific, with “man” raping “woman”, and not any other way. I apologize as I do not remember the name of this TV movie, but I do believe it was based on a true story.
I apologize for bring Hollywood into this, but as other’s have mentioned, I do believe most current, up to date penal codes try and leave gender out of it whenever they can.
[Butthead]huh huh…PENAL code…[/Butthead]
I once read an account of a man (no, not in Hustler) who was overpowered by two women while he was jogging in the park. Once they explained the deal and had him on his back, one held a knife to his throat while the other went to work on his nethers, got him erect, and straddled him with her back to him–no face to face for this poor guy. All he got was an association of sex with a hatefule gaze of someone slicing into his neck.
Stitches were in order for his throat, but I can’t imagine how he could ever have sex again without thinking of this event. Without the violent aspect, I reckon a large number of guys would view this story as a sexual fantasy. But given the real danger–the imminent threat of death while something intensely personal is going on with your genitals–involved for the victim, I think it’s a great story for guys who don’t understand why rape can be so crippling to women. It’s more than just a bad dating choice, and I don’t think most guys understand how much fear can be involved.
There were similar scenes in The Rookie (1990) where Clint Eastwood’s character was forced to have sex by Sonia Braga’s character and in Thursday (1998) where Thomas Jane’s character was forced to have sex by Paulina Porizkova’s character. In all three cases you have the lead actor tied up and raped by an attractive woman. Obviously there’s some pandering to the audience; offhand I can’t think of any action movie where the hero was tied up and molested by a male villain.
Or perhaps in the case of a female teacher and male student “please me sexually or I’ll fail you”
Female boss/male underling - “You will wine, dine and fuck me or I’ll fire you”
Rape isn’t always violent. Just like male rapers, it’s about power more then the sex.
Are there any actual rape convictions of women for raping men? That would settle the question.
Well, one of the heroes in Pulp Fiction (played by Bruce Willis) is nearly raped by a man.
“Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.”
I wouldn’t call either of the above rape. Sexual harrassment, certainly, but not rape. The victim has ample opportunity to decline.
A woman that has a gun to her head and a man’s penis in front of her face has an opportunity to decline as well but likely doesn’t want to die nor would the men in the quoted example want to fail their class or lose their job.
All three situations are rape if sex occurs.
That’s a tricky area. Yes, in the case of a gun to a woman’s head it is cleary rape, but the other two start off as being just sexual harrasement. The person can decline, possibly at the risk of losing their job/failing, but that hardly qualifies as being under duress. If they do end up going along and having sex for the sake of their job/class, I still don’t see it as rape, because there was so much opportunity to decline it with (relatively) very little repurcussions. And besides, in today’s society, all you have to do is yell ‘sexual harrasement’ and your boss/teacher is out on their ass before they know it.
So it’s only rape if Man A is living paycheck to paycheck and one missed payment away from debtor’s prison? Or if Man B’s entire collegiate career rides on his passing his class? If that’s the case, any woman that’s threatened anything less than death can’t be said to have been raped either.
I’m not buying it.
Then a question for you: What is the cutoff for rape vs. sexual harassment vs. asshole significant other?
I mean, what if boyfreind y said to girlfriend x, “You better have sex with me or I’ll break up with you!”
I mean, that’s pressuring for sex, but would you call it rape?
I would say that, to be defined as rape, the act has to involve physical harm or the threat of direct physical harm (not second hand physical harm like debtor’s prison).
Rape is assault with sexual content.
My band has played a few gigs at a womens’ prison. At this particular prison there is a 19 year old girl who is in for raping an under-age boy.
Looking at the definitions at dictionary.com, physical harm is mentioned only two or three times and it is generally defined as simply forcing someone to have sex [against their will], which I agree with.
Rape is about dominance, not violence.