this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
101 points (86.9% liked)
Paragons of Virtue Arrested
674 readers
1 users here now
It's time to name and shame the self-proclaimed paragons of virtue. Keep it civil, though.
Stories are about those who have been placed in positions of trust, and then abused that trust.
Feel free to add stories of the self-righteous from other walks of life.
New rule: With regard to stories of particularly, but not only, female teachers sexually assaulting students. Any comments similar to "where were they when I was in school" will earn you the right to find another forum.
#notadragqueen
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Get with the fuckin times then, UK. Your legal definition of rape sucks shit.
👆 Imagine being this uneducated 😭
There's a moral and common meaning, in addition to the legal one. Rape has existed longer than those laws.
and there’s a legal definition of libel. i guarantee the publisher cares a lot more about that definition.
Goddamn that was a hell of a retort. Well played
That's wrong though. A child of 14 can't consent. If you don't consent, it's rape.
No, it doesn’t matter in the UK.
The legal definition of rape there requires penetration with a penis. Period.
Government source that says otherwise
No it doesn’t. It says that masculine gendered language applies to both. So a law that says “he” doesn’t only mean a man.
However the law in the UK about rape specifically says penis.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Now, the gendered “he/his” in there doesn’t mean that only an identified man can rape. A trans woman that has not undergone bottom surgery can still commit rape, even though she would be penetrating another person with her penis.
A female without a penis cannot, because the law literally requires penetration with a penis.
What's the law define as a penis?
Is there another definition of penis?
It does clarify that
So a trans man with a surgically crafted penis would count as rape.
Anything else would be assault by penetration which is
(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.
A woman can commit assault by penetration if she were to digitally penetrate someone else, but not rape. Only penetration with a penis.
There’s also sexual assault which is
1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
In all of these “he” no longer means male only though. So you can replace “he” with “they”.
Rape still requires a penis, meaning only a male, trans woman prior to bottom surgery, and trans man after bottom surgery to create a penis can commit rape under UK law. Or some edge case that I’m sure exists in single digit numbers, where a woman that identifies as a female gets bottom surgery to get a penis.
Any gender can commit sexual assault or assault by penetration though, which carry the same penalty as rape.
That's pretty fucked up. Good thing that I don't let one island tell me what rape is.
I mean that’s fine. I morally agree with you.
But the Sun is a UK paper/tabloid, reporting on a UK case. It would be libel if they called it rape when it legally isn’t there.
I'm the UK you have to penetrate someone with a (your?) penis for it to be rape.
No. Laws were just written with male pronouns. It's just a misconception.
Nope. The law specifically says penis.
I read the Wikipedia article, and it says it's not enforced like that. I linked a government source to that effect. I just don't care enough to argue about English rape laws.
Because there are other laws that have the same penalties and cover the other situations. It’s just one that gets called “rape”.
Assault by penetration covers what would be “rape by instrumentation” in the US. Forcibly inserting any object other than a penis into someone else.
Then there’s Sexual Assault which would be this, and that one would be an excellent example of your source, because it is masculinely gendered as well, but applies to female offenders as well.
All three carry the same penalties so it just becomes a legal semantic argument rather than a practical argument.
If it walks like a duck and rapes like a duck...
Then in pretty much other country it’s a raping duck.
Except in the uk unless that duck has a penis.
It's curious though how it's only the cases of rape that the media collectively forgets their favourite word "allegedly"
Someone can always allegedly kill, allegedly assault, allegedly steal, but never allegedly rape. Even in the US or other cases where it meets the uk definition.
They used the word in the second paragraph.
It should be in the headline though.
I understand this, but can't they say she "abused", "committed a crime against", "manipulated", etc.? Those seem factual enough for journalism.
All that aside for a second..... arguing about the technical definition of "rape" and how it applies in different contexts and jurisdictions is like explaining the difference between a pedophile, hebophile and ephebophile.
Outside of academic settings, it's near impossible to have this argument without sounding like an apologist.
It's applicable here because people are upset with the wording in the article. The article is written to reflect the facts of what the teacher is accused of Based on where they are, the teacher isn't accused of rape, but something else. Journalists are required to use the proper terms for things like criminal charges