# Rape Laws and how they have changed **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 5, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122 "2013-09-05T22:31:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/21 "2013-09-07T06:05:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I can’t help but wonder if other laws were on the books that covered the things we don’t like. For example, surely, surely (I hope) you couldn’t hold your wife down and force intercourse on her. Wasn’t that at least an aggravated felony battery? > > Maybe the whole thing was that they didn’t want to use the term “rape” with a married couple? I dunno. I might be giving too much credit. The idea was that when you said “I do”, that was consent to all following sexual acts. It was not consent to physical acts of violence, however. Marital rape was not outlawed in Britain until the nineties, which didn’t mean you could rape your wife and not fear prison, as you could be prosecuted for other crimes. A woman raping her husband, or any other man, would still not be called rape under the law. Panorama covered a case a few years ago where a 19-year old woman had raped a 12-year old boy, forcibly raped him in a field, then thrown him off a railway bridge. She was charged with indecent assault and given a 18-month suspended sentence. Which goes to show that just because it’s not “rape” doesn’t mean it can’t be punished, and also goes to show that it’s better for it to be “rape”. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/22 "2013-09-07T09:52:33Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Panorama covered a case a few years ago where a 19-year old woman had raped a 12-year old boy, forcibly raped him in a field, then thrown him off a railway bridge. _She was charged with indecent assault and given a 18-month suspended sentence._ (emphasis added to quote) I’d have liked to say “unbelievable”, but sadly I find this entirely believable. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![sleepy67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@sleepy67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleepy67)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/23 "2013-09-07T10:59:00Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Panorama covered a case a few years ago where a 19-year old woman had raped a 12-year old boy, forcibly raped him in a field, then thrown him off a railway bridge. She was charged with indecent assault and given a 18-month suspended sentence. Which goes to show that just because it’s not “rape” doesn’t mean it can’t be punished, and also goes to show that it’s better for it to be “rape”. > [@](#): > > [Sexual Offences Act 2003 S2](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/2)Assault by penetration > > (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— > > (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else, > > (b)the penetration is sexual, > > (c)B does not consent to the penetration, and > > (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. > > (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. > > (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. > > (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. and S6 of the same act: > [@](#): > > Assault of a child under 13 by penetration > (1)A person commits an offence if— > > (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person with a part of his body or anything else, > > (b)the penetration is sexual, and > > (c)the other person is under 13. > > (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life So either your recollections are wrong or the TV show got the details wrong cos there are perfectly adequate laws covering that attack, no matter the age of the victim. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/24 "2013-09-07T11:40:04Z")
That’s a law from 2003. “A few years ago” could well be what caused that law to be updated. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/25 "2013-09-07T14:50:06Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > No, and no. Wives did not have the legal right to refuse to have sex with their husbands. Even if another pregnancy was dangerous or fatal to her (and remember, until very recently birth control wasn’t that effective, and require the co-operation of the man), she could not refuse under any circumstances. She could whine and cry and beg, and sometimes that worked. And sometimes it didn’t. I don’t necessarily disbelieve you, but can I say “cite?” You can’t hold a gun on anyone unless you fear death or serious bodily injury. I would be stunned if there was an exception in ye olden days for when the wife wasn’t putting out. (I also realize the difference between de jure and de facto, so a cite for a policy that didn’t prosecute a husband because wifey should have been putting out would suffice as well) I also take issue with the “did not have the legal right to refuse to have sex.” We talked about in a different thread how physical violence against a spouse has never been legal in any jurisdiction of the United States. In 1820, I couldn’t grab my wife and smack her and make her cook dinner, for example. But if I grabbed her and threw her on the floor to have sex with her, then that would be excusable? Like I said in the OP, I agree with the horrible insufficiency of the old law, but I still don’t believe that forcibly raping your wife in ye olden days of 1970 would have gone unpunished had she pursued the matter, and the authorities followed the law. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/26 "2013-09-07T16:49:41Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t necessarily disbelieve you, but can I say “cite?” > > You can’t hold a gun on anyone unless you fear death or serious bodily injury. I would be stunned if there was an exception in ye olden days for when the wife wasn’t putting out. (I also realize the difference between de jure and de facto, so a cite for a policy that didn’t prosecute a husband because wifey should have been putting out would suffice as well) Since it’s hard for anyone else to show what prosecutors or the police might have refused to follow up on, how about YOU find where a man raped his wife and was charged and convicted of a lesser offense? ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/27 "2013-09-07T17:50:04Z")
I know that when my grandfather slapped my grandmother around, and the cops came by, one cop would take Grandpa out for a walk around the block to cool him down, while the other cop would tell Grandma to be more sensitive to Grandpa’s needs, and be more careful not to provoke him. This wasn’t an isolated incidence, it’s how domestic abuse was handled back then. Maybe there were laws on the books that said that spouses shouldn’t hit each other. If there were, the cops never seemed to use those laws to take an abuser in. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/28 "2013-09-07T23:51:30Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You can’t hold a gun on anyone unless you fear death or serious bodily injury. I would be stunned if there was an exception in ye olden days for when the wife wasn’t putting out. (I also realize the difference between de jure and de facto, so a cite for a policy that didn’t prosecute a husband because wifey should have been putting out would suffice as well) Nobody’s saying there was an exception for when your wife wasn’t putting out . There was an exception ( whether by law, by policy or by an informal practice of cops “walking him around the block” doesn’t really matter) when the victim was your _wife_ - whether because she wasn’t putting out or whether it was because dinner wasn’t on the table at precisely 6:15. And it wasn’t only in “ye olden days” unless “ye olden days” continued until at least until the early 80s ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/29 "2013-09-08T00:42:08Z")
[Oregon v. Rideout](http://law.jrank.org/pages/24505/Oregon-v-Rideout-Spousal-Rape.html) was the first major legal case regarding marital rape. It created quite a sensation at the time; an amazing number of my own relatives found the idea ridiculous. A [TV movie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081402/) of the story was made two years later. Check out who played the happy couple. (IIRC, John and Greta Rideout later reconciled.) ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/30 "2013-09-08T08:18:20Z")
I think I see the problem jtgain is seeing, even if a husband would never be charged with rape that still seems a bit off from has a right to have sex with his wife. Sex between a married couple may have never been rape, but I don’t think a man had a RIGHT to have sex with his wife either. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/31 "2013-09-08T11:01:40Z")
> [@sleepy67](#): > > and S6 of the same act:So either your recollections are wrong or the TV show got the details wrong cos there are perfectly adequate laws covering that attack, no matter the age of the victim. That specifically states that the rapist must penetrate the victim. Obviously a woman raping a man, or a young boy, doesn’t have to penetrate him. The documentary was on youtube, but seems to have been deleted. I did find [this transcript](http://www.australianmensrights.com/abuse26b.htm) of it, though. According to that account, she forced him to the ground, then raped him while he cried and shouted for his mother until a passerby interrupted them. Then she threw him off the bridge. She describes it as sexual intercourse, therefore apparently his penis doing the penetrating, and the law specifically specifies that the victim must be pentrated. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/32 "2013-09-08T11:07:57Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Sex between a married couple may have never been rape, but I don’t think a man had a RIGHT to have sex with his wife either. What do you call it, if she was supposed to have sex with him any time _he_ wanted? ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/33 "2013-09-08T11:57:33Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > What do you call it, if she was supposed to have sex with him any time _he_ wanted? Supposed to is a societal standard, not a legal one. It makes it sound like a husband could have called up the cops and said he is horny and they would come restrain the wife so he could rape her or something. What if his wife left him, until the divorce was finalized would the cops go kidnap her and bring her back to be raped whenever he wanted? ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/34 "2013-09-08T11:57:42Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Sex between a married couple may have never been rape, but I don’t think a man had a RIGHT to have sex with his wife either. If he was supposed to have the freedom to do so whenever he wanted, what else was it but a right? ---
**Author:** ![Gullible\_s\_Travels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@Gullible\_s\_Travels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gullible_s_Travels)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/35 "2013-09-08T12:27:15Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I think I see the problem jtgain is seeing, even if a husband would never be charged with rape that still seems a bit off from has a right to have sex with his wife. > > Sex between a married couple may have never been rape, but I don’t think a man had a RIGHT to have sex with his wife either. Not sure what you’re saying here. The husband absolutely had the right to have sex with his wife, whenever he wanted. She was considered to have consented to this when she married. A husband could not be charged with raping his wife, no crime had been committed. Laws had to be changed before a man could be charged with raping his wife. It’s not that long ago that this is the way it was. ---
**Author:** ![sleepy67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@sleepy67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleepy67)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/36 "2013-09-08T12:32:36Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > That specifically states that the rapist must penetrate the victim. Obviously a woman raping a man, or a young boy, doesn’t have to penetrate him. > > The documentary was on youtube, but seems to have been deleted. I did find [this transcript](http://www.australianmensrights.com/abuse26b.htm) of it, though. > > According to that account, she forced him to the ground, then raped him while he cried and shouted for his mother until a passerby interrupted them. Then she threw him off the bridge. She describes it as sexual intercourse, therefore apparently his penis doing the penetrating, and the law specifically specifies that the victim must be pentrated. In this case then s8 of the [2003 act](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8) applies > [@](#): > > Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity > > (1)A person commits an offence if— > > (a)he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity, > > (b)the activity is sexual, and > > (c)B is under 13. > > (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused or incited involved— > > (a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina, > > (b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis, > > (c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or > > (d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis, > > is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. Maximum sentence for the sexual acts alone is life. It doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine that throwing someone, especially a child, off a bridge could incur a charge of attempted murder. Which also has a maximum sentence of life. The sentence reported does seem light to me, given the facts we have at hand. [The act states “he” but it applies to women to] ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/37 "2013-09-08T14:13:11Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I think I see the problem jtgain is seeing, even if a husband would never be charged with rape that still seems a bit off from has a right to have sex with his wife. > > Sex between a married couple may have never been rape, but I don’t think a man had a RIGHT to have sex with his wife either. From the wiki article on [Marital Rape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#Common_law_and_the_United_Kingdom): > [@](#): > > Historically, **many cultures have had a concept of spouses’ conjugal rights[18] to sexual intercourse with each other**. This can be seen in Common law, in force in North America and the British Commonwealth, where the very concept of marital rape was treated as an impossibility. This was illustrated most vividly by Sir Matthew Hale, in his 1736 legal treatise _Historia Placitorum Coronæ or History of the Pleas of the Crown_, where he wrote that such a rape could not be recognized since the wife “ **hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.** ” > > … > > Hale’s statement in _History of the Pleas of the Crown_ was not supported by any judicial authority but was believed to be a logical consequence of the laws of marriage and rape as understood at the time. **Marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse** , and marriage could not be revoked except by private Act of Parliament—it therefore seemed to follow that\*\* a spouse could not legally revoke consent to sexual intercourse\*\*, and if there was consent there was no rape. (My bolding) The common law view was that each spouse, by saying “I do” had given the other the right to “conjugal relations” for the course of the marriage. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/38 "2013-09-08T14:23:59Z")
> [@sleepy67](#): > > In this case then s8 of the [2003 act](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/8) appliesMaximum sentence for the sexual acts alone is life. It doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine that throwing someone, especially a child, off a bridge could incur a charge of attempted murder. Which also has a maximum sentence of life. > > The sentence reported does seem light to me, given the facts we have at hand. > > [The act states “he” but it applies to women to] Except it still requires penetration of the victim. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/39 "2013-09-08T14:26:22Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > My guess is that it was there for the 13 and 14 year olds who go pregnant to “do the right thing.” The insert of “not his wife” language as it pertained to under 10 year olds was probably keeping with the common law definition of rape. Yeah, I read it the same way – a general old-school “forcible rape” definition for over-16; a “statutory” definition for early adolescents conditioned on that daddy’s shotgun says she had been a good girl(\*) and someone better be marryin’ her soon or else pray the sherriff gets him first; and a cut-and paste of the stock-phrase “statutory” definition for actual children because _we haven’t invented the phrase “child sexual abuse” yet but ya gotta lock up someone who’d nail a 9 year old for **something** and this is the closest we got_. (\*Because I get the feeling that part of the “previous chaste character” provision, under the social mores of the time, involved an expectation that at _every_ instance where there was evidence of that activity, the girl, Dad, and/or the community would demand that honor be redressed; and that if nobody complains the first time [or the first five times :p] then the presumption was she’s waiting until it’s someone worth catching.) ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122/40 "2013-09-08T14:40:02Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > They finally changed it to > > > [@](#): > > > > Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. > > After a bunch of protests it was revised last year and became effective this year. It’s still not perfect (it doesn’t include envelopment), but it’s a lot better. It doesn’t specifically include envelopment, but it can be read to include envelopment. I do recall arguing with someone – earlier than this past January – who insisted that the new language counts consensual sex as rape, because the phrase “against her will” was removed. (This was not the brightest bulb) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rape-laws-and-how-they-have-changed/668122.md?page=3)