Questions with factual answers belong in General Questions. I’ll move this for you.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
My wife was able to have sex with me while I slept one night, I was told this was technically rape (since I didn’t consent), but I don’t think it could apply to a spouse and wouldn’t want it to, and would really like her to do it again.
So, to summarize, a woman could potentially rape a man by:
Forcing an object into him.
Conspiring with another man to force his penis into him.
(*)Stimulating him to arousal (and taking his penis into her?) without his consent. NB: this can be possible.
Having sex with him when he is incapable of consent (asleep, drugged, drunk) (or underage?, well stat. rape anyway.)
(+) Doing something the law defines as rape.
Starguard: did you mean (+) or (*) or something else?
How about a woman forcing a man to perform oral sex on her? Granted this is not penetration but would certainly be considered nonconsensual for the man who was unwilling to perform cunnilingus.
(Hmm that sounds as if there is just one man unwilling to perform cunnilingus. I bet he spends a lot of time alone on Saturday nights.)
Sorry for the humor about a serious topic but the first part of my posting is serious.
In South Africa, reportedly, women rape men at gunpoint to infect them with HIV.
How about performing oral sex on him without his permission?
There is actually a blink-and-you-miss it scene in “Midnight Cowboy” where Joe Buck gets gang-banged.
I’m gonna print this out and show this to a few collegues of mines. No one is gonna believe this :eek:
Me: No, I absolutely do not want you to do that…
Her: Mumph…nrph…rumphermen…
Me: Seuiosly, you better stop that this instant…
Her: Ermphenumphermumph…
Me: All right, that’s it. You’ve been warned. I will be filing a complaint forthwith!
Am I the only person who has thought of a woman using Viagra? A man wouldn’t even be able to prevent himself from being “used” as it were.
According to the legal definition you gave Tabby_Cat then a woman could never be charged, ever: (bolding mine)
Such a definition just goes to prove how male-dominated rape is believed to be.
Eh, nitpick: his can refer to females as well, in the law. However, the crux of the issue of why women cannot rape is
and yes, rape is still a very male based thing. But “Assault by penetration” (Section 2), which does not need to involve a penis, may be used to charge a female, and also has the maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the UK.
[/nitpick]
I don’t know about other places, but in California, rape is defined simply as forced sexual intercourse and the code goes on to say:
“the essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape.”
At the very least I believe it would be sexual battery:
“Any person touches an intimate part of another person, when the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse…As used in this subdivision, “touches” means physical contact with another person, whether accomplished directly, through the clothing of the person committing the offense, or through the clothing of the victim.”
About a year or two ago I read about an incident in Thailand, where four women repeatedly forced a man to have sex with them about 50 times over the course of a 2 day period. They did this after he had boasted of his sexual prowess. The four women ranged in age from 19 to 55, IIRC. They had tied him up and forced him to drink and maybe also take drugs. Afterwards he claimed he was no longer able to perform sexually and the courts awarded damages against the women. I suppose this would have to be considered rape although I don’t recall any criminal charges just the civil.
Hmm… I fully authorize these guys to slap those bitches.
Viagra, or the other two male erectile dysfunction medications, Levitra and Cialis, are not wonder drugs that cause an instant erection. Viagra can take up to two hours to do it’s thing. The other two have brought the time constraint to thirty minutes or an hour. That said, remember that the brain is the biggest sex organ. If the woman waited the required amount of time for the medication to kick in, the mans brain also has to cooperate. If he doesn’t WANT an erection, that alone will overcome the pill. No amount of stimulation is going to make this pill work like alcohol, for example.
I would like some clarification on this one. If a man takes viagra right before being audited by the IRS it is unlikely he is going to get a hard-on, but if stimulated (i.e. tied up and forced to have sex) he may be unable to prevent an errection, just like a woman getting raped can’t help becomming wet.
What I was trying to do with my response to NOCTURNAL-TICK was to clarify the believe that these pills have some magical property that allows them to cause instant erections. They do not.
As to the OP, and I quote: “Tell me , is it possible for a women to rape a man?”
The majority of rapes against women are not about sex. They are about violence, they are about degradation, they are about dominance. Not too many women come away from a rape…if they come away from it at all…with their makeup still intact. It is a horrific act. So, let’s turn the table around and subject the man to my understanding of rape. We are going to have to talk about a little more trauma than an IRS audit. If we take your statement about being tied up and forced to have sex, that’s just kinky, that’s not rape. Lets break the mans nose and punch out a few of his teeth. Slap him around the room till he damn near looses consciousness. Then, lets take your scenario and tie him down. I say NO amount of Viagra is going to cause an erection no matter WHAT the female does. This guy is violated, degraded and beaten. His brain will not be sending signals that he is enjoying this treatment, thus, no erection.
Trivia: the latter of whom was found to have a near-“perfect” face (for feminine beauty), at least according to an interesting program I watched but a couple of nights ago.
I’m very skeptical of this, not because of the idea of women raping men, but because if woman has a man at gunpoint, there’s much easier and more effective ways of infecting them with AIDS than fucking them. Via blood, for example.
I am in no way an expert but I’d have to say that it depends on your definition of rape. From what I’ve seen in this thread, legally, it depends on the location and the act.
If you define rape as unwanted sexual intercourse, yes, it’s possible. Men get unwanted erections all the time (no cite, I’m just speaking about myself and friends who have talked about this).
While I’ve never been in a life threatening situation, I have been in a situation where a woman who I didn’t want to have sex with took advantage of an unwanted erection and I couldn’t refuse without getting physically violent, which wouldn’t have (IMHO at the time) been a legit excuse if she had called the cops for me “beating her up.” In my case, it wasn’t fear of physical violence if I didn’t, it was fear of arrest if I did what I had to to get away. Legally, probably not rape but is was no less of a violation then if the situation had been reversed.
Peace - DESK