Yet another rape question.

A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can have an abortion, while a man on whom a woman has "done the dirty" can't force her to abort.

To "do the dirty" IS dirty but it's not equivalent to rape.

that is a good point - then it would not be consenting.

I would think it is rape - if he is clear he is not consenting without birth control - isn't that the whole idea that it is whether you are consenting or not?

It would be harder to prove though in a court of law - as you would need proof that you said that - one person's word against another --- maybe we need to have something signed every time we have sex.

I believe the reason that it is considered rape with a youngster is that they are not capable of giving consent (I could be wrong her - but I thought that was the reason). Also you are describing a different type of rape == statutory which I would assume has a different legal definition.

This is a poor argument - an abortion is still physically impacting the woman and puts her in a position of risk to her body --- both the pregnancy until it is ended even via an abortion and the abortion itself is causing her to go through a medical procedure - and the monetary cost associated with it.

Not to mention what about a woman that has either an ethical or religious belief against abortion then this would not be a choice for her.

I feel very strongly that when a male is physically forced (through violence or threats) to have vaginal intercourse it should be considered rape.

I am aghast that in the UK (or in any modern western society) it still isn't.

Of course it should be.

Point well taken. Still, i don't see it as rape. A new crime would need to be defined, like "forced fecondation".

I wonder if there is such a law - I would think though it tends to be more on male side - I mean it would be harder to hide not using a condom than a woman saying she is on birth control pills but is not.

There's a simple trick to make a condom fail. It can be pulled by either (male or female) partner. Been pulled on me once. I should probably not disclose it as it's really nasty, and involves STD risk on top of unwanted pregnancy...

There's also the morning after pill, by the way.

"What about an older physically abusive female inserting toys into the anus of a pre-adolescent male cousin?"



I repeat, I was merely trying to answer Chai's question, and used the legal definition of rape to do so.

If you wish to discuss all and every avenue that leads off from this subject, then maybe start another thread, as digression on this thread, in my opinion, would probably make it end up like most such threads, where the original point gets completely lost and the members end up slinging mud at one another.

I'd go with no.

It might be an offence in some jurisdictions if there is exposure to sexually transmitted disease/s as a result. People have been charged , and convicted, in that regard in Canada.

But rape? no.

A fancy kinda lawyer might be able to convince someone but I'm not feeling it.

Geez Lordy,

A discussion on the legal definition of rape that turns into a discussion on the legal definition of rape doesn't seem too far afield to me.

I wasn't disagreeing with you about the legal definition. I was expressing my opinion that the legal definition of rape in the UK is outdated and offensive. This is a relevant opinion on a thread discussing rape.

In Massachusetts I know for a fact that the current legal of definition rape includes the cases I brought up.

Chai's question has been answered by a few people. And, I am not the only one who brought up the gender neutral case. And she left in a tiff anyway.

I don't see what is wrong with this discussion. Is the point that no one should question the original poster? That probably wouldn't lead to a very good discussion.