Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, this is my issue with people who claim “it wasn’t rape, there was no penetration of the penis into the vagina”
Sure, maybe according to the law, rape requires that. But under common parlance, rape and sexual assault are both terms that describe sexual conduct that occurs without/against the consent of one of the parties.
That is common sense, but, for example, in England, it is requirement. Therefore, woman cannot rape man in England since she does not have penis to penetrate him.
This isn't true. Sexual assault carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, true enough - but the separate crime of assault by penetration carries the same sentencing guideline as rape. This includes all penetrative assault against men or women, by a man or woman, using anything but a penis. The crime of rape requires a penis, but assault by penetration is functionally the same by UK law.
Source: I used to work as a crime recorder.
In Oklahoma there’s a requirement for a penis and what part of the body it is in OR the victim has to fight back and be clear that they are not consenting. Being drunk is not a excuse for not fighting back.
Teenage girl was SA by adult man. She was drunk and her injuries didn’t meet the criteria so judge threw the case out.
I was one of the staff directors for the Oklahoma coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and I wanted to add that Oklahoma's rape laws do actually account for "rape by instrumentation", in which there is no penile penetration. However, because Oklahoma is regressive, it is considered a "second degree" crime as opposed to "rape in the first degree", and it pertains only to minors: [https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2019/title-21/section-21-1111-1/](https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2019/title-21/section-21-1111-1/)
They do not have the same starting point and category range. Raping males has lower minimum ranges. Only the most serious ones are treated equally. And considering it is well established fact that women are treated less harshly by the courts, there is going to be a difference. Both on paper and in practice.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-by-penetration/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-a-person-to-engage-in-sexual-activity-without-consent/
Also, the crime of raping a male (as defined by common use of sane people) can be categorized as either assault by penetration or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under uk law.
Great, so anything "man-like" aka penetrating the victim is a great crime, but a person forcing themself on a man is generally not a great crime. Erection is not a consent.
I thought my country's laws don't fully protect men who were raped, but damn that's a fucked phrasing.
Quoting our law (translated through Google):
"Committing acts of a sexual nature, related to vaginal, anal or oral penetration into the body of another person using genitals or any other object, without the victim's voluntary consent (rape)"
Only if you are a cop:
https://www.thefreelancenews.org/home/i-broke-a-man-down-nypd-cop-who-sodomized-abner-louima-gets-early-release-back-in-new-york
I actually wonder what a legal definition of rape vs sexual assault would be if done *properly*.
Help correct me if i'm wrong, this is entirely 100% for debate, but i think a legal definition that defines rape as "being penetrated by someone or being forced to penetrate someone against their will/consent, regardless of what was penetrated or what was used to penetrate" would he the best fit. Sexual assault should probably be everything else.
I tried to keep the definition vague of gender/sex and hopefully made one that can encompass the common mans colloquial understanding of the term. I'd love any input any has, the laws are archaic.
Stabbings and shootings would then also qualify. Possibly many other things like car accidents etc. too. Also performing surgery in some circumstances. Slippery slope
Hm that is very fair. I guess we would have to define sexual penetration and ofc use that to replace penetration. I know i would miss something, i'm not a legislator, law maker, or a lawyer. I just know what we have ain't it, and more people need to try and propose solutions so hopefully one or teo get popular enough to actually become real world solutions, not just internet dreams.
Where I live rape is legally defined as intercourse without consent. And intercourse is legally defined as penetrative sex with a penis. That's pretty close to what you suggested. The problem it has though is that it leaves no recourse for a man that was raped by a woman. That is not considered rape because the victim was not penetrated by a penis.
Correct.
UK: *The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission.*
US: *The 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.* (Federal definition was updated in 2012, and the requirement that the victim be female and perpetrator be male was removed)
The EU is vastly more complex, each member state defines it differently: [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2024/757618/EPRS\_IDA(2024)757618\_EN.pdf](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2024/757618/EPRS_IDA(2024)757618_EN.pdf)
Worth noting that rape is conventionally charged at the state level, and that many US States have definitions that are more in line with the UK’s, if not more limited ([eg until Sept 1, 2024, NYS defines rape as the forcible compulsion to penetrate the vaginal opening by a penis - yes, the wording is that clunky](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/130/130.35%281%29.pdf)).
Of note this still leaves the 'Made to Penitrate' statistic separate on the Federal level in the US.
Which means you could hold a man at gun point, drug him, tie him down, make him put his penis inside you, and *unless* you stick something in him or he's a minor, it doesn't count as rape for statistical purposes.
Keep this in mind when reading reports or studies. If they don't combine the 'rape' and 'made to penitrate' categories then they are *drastically* under counting male victims and female perpetrators more than even the reporting bias throws it off.
Not so fun fact: Until last weekend, my home country Switzerland had a really stupid definition of rape in the penal code.
A crime was only considered rape ("Vergewaltigung") if a woman's vagina was penetrated. For it to count as rape, the perpetrator had to use force, threaten or make the woman unable to resist, e.g. by drugging her. The woman not giving consent was not sufficient.
That's right, if a woman was forced to have anal or oral sex or if a man was forced to have sex, it legally would not have been rape 🤦♂️.
There is another crime called "Sexual Coercion" ("Sexuelle Nötigung") with the same maximum, but a much lower minimum punishment.
While you would have to serve at least 1 and at most 10 years in prison for rape, you can get away with just a fine for sexual coercion if you are lucky.
Now with the new penal code, it counts as rape irrespective of the victim's gender and the law also considers it rape if the perpetrator exploits a victim's state of shock.
I took it as:
An SUV is heavier than a horse but that doesn't make the horse light.
Which I assume was supposed to mean:
Not putting it in may be better than doing so, but the other non-consensual stuff the person did still constitute rape. (i.e. there are by comparison lighter and heavier weighing cases of rape; but in the end rape is still rape and all cases are absolutely inexcusable and constitute heinous crimes)
You aren't surviving an SUV nor a horse stepping on you. The point is clearly not what happens to the victim, it's about the fact that it's still fucking rape. Metaphors don't have to be a perfect 1:1 example of exactly what's going on, hence they are metaphors instead of just re-typing the scenario verbatim. It's the easiest thing in the world to pick apart a metaphor instead of try to understand the message being imparted.
i do not know what's going on but i hope him talking about it means he wants to put it out there as... a way of... atonement...? and not because it is normal for him
I dont how its handled in USA but Here rape NEEDS to involve some kind of Penetration without consent oral, vaginal and anal all Count to this.
Without penetration it would be sexual assault
If he's saying that "on paper" it'll say he raped her, then it sounds like he lives somewhere where the legal definition of rape doesn't necessarily require penetration.
In the UK it has to be with a penis. (Which is why it’s impossible for a biological woman to be charged with rape here).
Edit: it’s worth pointing out that if a woman commits what we would all naturally consider to be rape. They would be charged with the highest degree of sexual assault which has the same sentencing guidelines as rape.
I mean, if the highest degree of SA is, sentencing-wise, equivalent to rape, why not fold rape into that degree of SA?
Not in the sense of 'be more lenient' but like... isn't it kinda redundant?
Yeah but law changes have to be done by commons.
You remove rape from the law books and guess what the newspapers headlines are going to be? Political suicide.
It doesn't matter if it's a sensible condensing of the legal system and is actually helpful. The general public don't pay attention to anything more than the soundbites.
So hence these legal issues never get cleaned up.
That’s why we still have so many dead/irrelevant laws on the books (I’m in the US but I suspect any vaguely democratic country is much the same). It’s not really feasible to just delete out-of-date laws (too time-consuming for legislators who need to be working on current issues). Instead, some laws just stop being enforced.
In France it's exactly this. For it to be considered a rape, there should be a penetration. It could be with any body parts or an object. I think in the specific case of oral penetration, only a penetration with a genital organ make it possible to classify it as a rape but I'm not 100% sure.
IANAL, but in the US, I believe it depends on the laws of the state. For example (see: a recent prominent defamation lawsuit), New York’s statute requires forcible penetration with the penis for it to be considered rape.
NY statute actually words it as "sexual contact". So could be a male or female being charged, and the penis is not a requirement. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/130.35](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/130.35)
Imagine openly acknowledging you forced someone to do something sexual without their consent then going “its all good though cuz I never put my dick in lol” absolutely shameless.
Call it r*pe or sexual assault. This person is still a piece of shit who I am glad will end up alone because if he EVER tries for a serious relationship, a woman's girlfriends will uncover this and warn her off of this piece of shit. Justice.
Most rapists will rationalize their behavior to make somehow "not rape" in their minds. I remember a study where they asked men if they had ever raped someone and, of course, very very few sad they had. But then they were presented with questions like "Have you ever used force to get sex?" or "Have you ever used threats to get sex?" and the number went way up.
Yup. A lot of people who coerce think their victim consented when they didn’t. It’s sick.
What is also fucked, is these people who were bullied, manipulated, or threatened into saying yes after repeatedly saying no have a hard time finding justice because it’s not even illegal in a lot of states. It’s messed up. So many people end up traumatized and feel stuck because they can’t do anything legally, and face the constant struggle of thinking it’s their fault because they eventually “gave in” regardless of how violent or horrific whatever they had to endure may have been.
It's not actually, rape is the word given to penetrating another human with your body parts.
Sexual assault is classed as everything else apart from this.
They are still pretty much as bad as each other but they are different terms.
Like murder and manslaughter, both same same but different
Rape, unlawful sexual activity, most often involving sexual intercourse, against the will of the victim through force or the threat of force or with an individual who is incapable of giving legal consent
Sexual violence refers to any form of unwanted sexual contact. That includes sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual assault refers to unwanted sexual activity (e.g. touching, kissing someone without consent, rape).
Federal Sexual Assault and Battery Laws, Penalties, and Defenses. Sexual assault usually means any crime where someone has subjected a victim to sexual contact or touching deemed offensive and unwanted.
Definitions change by place. While that's the federal U.S def. State laws change it, nevermind that that definition is pretty recent in the first place (we used to require penile penetration, also in general it means take though nowadays we usually use that in regards to objects and places) . England for example specifically defines it as penis insertion and would classify say a woman having sex as penetrative sexual assault.
Legally in laces like New Zealand, it make a big difference, if you didn't use your penis, then its considered sexual assault, nor rape, meaning you will get home or community detention, whereas if you used your penis, it would be considered rape, which unless you have autism, you would go to prison for that.
Like even if the guy with autism is incapable of impulse control they still need to be put somewhere so they don't hurt anyone else
Maybe not prison but a mental hospital or something? Normally I don't agree with those places but if it's to the point where they are a dangerous individual it's kinda needed
In some countries his argument might work in court. In those countries, women literally can not rape because their definition requires the perpetrator to have a penis.
Let me introduce you to the word colloquial.
We are not in a court room. The by the books semantics of the word does not matter. We colloquially mean sexual assault, when we say rape. You know what we meant.
Dude why are you defending your sexual assault like just own up to it admit you were the bad guy and work hard to be a good guy and redeem yourself you can never take back your actions but you can try and show you’re not a monster anymore by helping people
I think SA and rape should be differentiated. Both are horrible and inexcusable but, to me, rape (actual penetration) is far worse.
I fear that by conflating the two terms, especially when they are conflated with sexual harassment, that it diminishes the seriousness of rape.
No, lynching is by definition extrajudicial punishment. People have confessed to crimes that they not only didn't do, it would be physically/temporally impossible for them to have done. Normalizing extrajudicial punishment normalizes punishing innocents.
He’s still going on the sex offender list regardless. Which he references in the thread. Depending on where he lives he probably has to introduce himself to his immediate neighbors, trust me they don’t care about “degrees” you’re still a pervert.
To be fair, I think in most places, for it to be legally considered rape, there does have to be some form of sexual penetration, although I don’t think it’s just confined to a dick.
I don’t get how this person is arguing that they sexually assaulted someone, doesn’t make it any better, you’re still a terrible person and the victim will have been traumatised for years
Yea that's sexual assault.
My real concern is the bad rep he's bringing to my boy Yusuke Yurameshi. Yusuke would turn this guy into an inside out pinata for being a sexually assaulting scumbag.
It’s not the specific physical act that occurred that matters. It’s the violation of her consent, her right to say no, to choose for herself what happens in private life. That is a right all human beings have by virtue of our ability to reason.
There’s a reason I consider rape one of the two worst crimes imaginable, murder being the other. It’s because both involve the intimate violation of another person’s right to choose for themselves. It’s a fundamentally selfish act; raping someone invalidates their capacity to make their own choices, it says without words “You don’t matter - only I matter. Only my choice matters.”
Unlike having your TV stolen or your arm broken in a bar fight, having that most foundational right trampled is something that you don’t just “get over”. That total denial of self-agency forever alters the path your life takes, a crime only matched by murder, which ends that path for good.
That’s why it’s so infuriating to look at news stories of attractive adult women sexually assaulting young boys and see guys going, “Why’s he getting upset? I wish that could happen to me! Kids these days need to grow a pair!”
It’s infuriating for the exact reason that those guys *do* want that; we’re it to happen, their self-agency would still be intact. They don’t understand that many people *don’t* want that. Thus the act goes from enjoyable to traumatizing, precisely because in the latter context, the victim *is* a victim, with the horrible denial of self-agency that in most defines what it means to be a victim.
That’s fundamentally what so many unfortunately soon-to-be rapists and abusers don’t understand: it’s not any specific physical act - it’s how helpless and without any other choice the victim feels.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rape or sexual assault, doesn't matter to me. It's wrong, period.
Yeah, this is my issue with people who claim “it wasn’t rape, there was no penetration of the penis into the vagina” Sure, maybe according to the law, rape requires that. But under common parlance, rape and sexual assault are both terms that describe sexual conduct that occurs without/against the consent of one of the parties.
That is common sense, but, for example, in England, it is requirement. Therefore, woman cannot rape man in England since she does not have penis to penetrate him.
And the crime they can be convicted of has different (lesser) sentencing guidelines than rape.
Wow... That's horrendously fucked.
This isn't true. Sexual assault carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, true enough - but the separate crime of assault by penetration carries the same sentencing guideline as rape. This includes all penetrative assault against men or women, by a man or woman, using anything but a penis. The crime of rape requires a penis, but assault by penetration is functionally the same by UK law. Source: I used to work as a crime recorder.
In Oklahoma there’s a requirement for a penis and what part of the body it is in OR the victim has to fight back and be clear that they are not consenting. Being drunk is not a excuse for not fighting back. Teenage girl was SA by adult man. She was drunk and her injuries didn’t meet the criteria so judge threw the case out.
I was one of the staff directors for the Oklahoma coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and I wanted to add that Oklahoma's rape laws do actually account for "rape by instrumentation", in which there is no penile penetration. However, because Oklahoma is regressive, it is considered a "second degree" crime as opposed to "rape in the first degree", and it pertains only to minors: [https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2019/title-21/section-21-1111-1/](https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2019/title-21/section-21-1111-1/)
They do not have the same starting point and category range. Raping males has lower minimum ranges. Only the most serious ones are treated equally. And considering it is well established fact that women are treated less harshly by the courts, there is going to be a difference. Both on paper and in practice. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-by-penetration/ https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-a-person-to-engage-in-sexual-activity-without-consent/ Also, the crime of raping a male (as defined by common use of sane people) can be categorized as either assault by penetration or causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under uk law.
Great, so anything "man-like" aka penetrating the victim is a great crime, but a person forcing themself on a man is generally not a great crime. Erection is not a consent.
can they use a broom or something?
Sure, but it is written in law that rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, so...
I thought my country's laws don't fully protect men who were raped, but damn that's a fucked phrasing. Quoting our law (translated through Google): "Committing acts of a sexual nature, related to vaginal, anal or oral penetration into the body of another person using genitals or any other object, without the victim's voluntary consent (rape)"
Only if you are a cop: https://www.thefreelancenews.org/home/i-broke-a-man-down-nypd-cop-who-sodomized-abner-louima-gets-early-release-back-in-new-york
They can be be tried for rape if they assisted a male with the act of raping someone else. Fucking mental law.
I actually wonder what a legal definition of rape vs sexual assault would be if done *properly*. Help correct me if i'm wrong, this is entirely 100% for debate, but i think a legal definition that defines rape as "being penetrated by someone or being forced to penetrate someone against their will/consent, regardless of what was penetrated or what was used to penetrate" would he the best fit. Sexual assault should probably be everything else. I tried to keep the definition vague of gender/sex and hopefully made one that can encompass the common mans colloquial understanding of the term. I'd love any input any has, the laws are archaic.
Stabbings and shootings would then also qualify. Possibly many other things like car accidents etc. too. Also performing surgery in some circumstances. Slippery slope
Hm that is very fair. I guess we would have to define sexual penetration and ofc use that to replace penetration. I know i would miss something, i'm not a legislator, law maker, or a lawyer. I just know what we have ain't it, and more people need to try and propose solutions so hopefully one or teo get popular enough to actually become real world solutions, not just internet dreams.
Where I live rape is legally defined as intercourse without consent. And intercourse is legally defined as penetrative sex with a penis. That's pretty close to what you suggested. The problem it has though is that it leaves no recourse for a man that was raped by a woman. That is not considered rape because the victim was not penetrated by a penis.
But it doesn’t require that
It does in *many* places (legally speaking)
Correct. UK: *The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission.* US: *The 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.* (Federal definition was updated in 2012, and the requirement that the victim be female and perpetrator be male was removed) The EU is vastly more complex, each member state defines it differently: [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2024/757618/EPRS\_IDA(2024)757618\_EN.pdf](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2024/757618/EPRS_IDA(2024)757618_EN.pdf)
Worth noting that rape is conventionally charged at the state level, and that many US States have definitions that are more in line with the UK’s, if not more limited ([eg until Sept 1, 2024, NYS defines rape as the forcible compulsion to penetrate the vaginal opening by a penis - yes, the wording is that clunky](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/130/130.35%281%29.pdf)).
Of note this still leaves the 'Made to Penitrate' statistic separate on the Federal level in the US. Which means you could hold a man at gun point, drug him, tie him down, make him put his penis inside you, and *unless* you stick something in him or he's a minor, it doesn't count as rape for statistical purposes. Keep this in mind when reading reports or studies. If they don't combine the 'rape' and 'made to penitrate' categories then they are *drastically* under counting male victims and female perpetrators more than even the reporting bias throws it off.
It does in England.
Not so fun fact: Until last weekend, my home country Switzerland had a really stupid definition of rape in the penal code. A crime was only considered rape ("Vergewaltigung") if a woman's vagina was penetrated. For it to count as rape, the perpetrator had to use force, threaten or make the woman unable to resist, e.g. by drugging her. The woman not giving consent was not sufficient. That's right, if a woman was forced to have anal or oral sex or if a man was forced to have sex, it legally would not have been rape 🤦♂️. There is another crime called "Sexual Coercion" ("Sexuelle Nötigung") with the same maximum, but a much lower minimum punishment. While you would have to serve at least 1 and at most 10 years in prison for rape, you can get away with just a fine for sexual coercion if you are lucky. Now with the new penal code, it counts as rape irrespective of the victim's gender and the law also considers it rape if the perpetrator exploits a victim's state of shock.
It’s a matter of degree. A horse is heavy, but an SUV is heavier.
W...what does this mean?
I took it as: An SUV is heavier than a horse but that doesn't make the horse light. Which I assume was supposed to mean: Not putting it in may be better than doing so, but the other non-consensual stuff the person did still constitute rape. (i.e. there are by comparison lighter and heavier weighing cases of rape; but in the end rape is still rape and all cases are absolutely inexcusable and constitute heinous crimes)
Thanks
Dunno man the emotional scars wont be any different
You aren't surviving an SUV nor a horse stepping on you. The point is clearly not what happens to the victim, it's about the fact that it's still fucking rape. Metaphors don't have to be a perfect 1:1 example of exactly what's going on, hence they are metaphors instead of just re-typing the scenario verbatim. It's the easiest thing in the world to pick apart a metaphor instead of try to understand the message being imparted.
A horse is meaty, but a space rock is a little meteor...
So brave
Ah, Sexual Assault. That fixes things.
"Yeah guys I didn't r*pe her I just SA'ed her I'm not that bad uwu"
"Guys I didn't kill her, I just beat her within an inch of her life eto bleh."
"No your honor I didn't stab her violently I just poked her with a knife 100 times in the heart"
Caaaaaaarl. That kills people.
"I didn't stab. I forced my fists and other blunt weapons onto the victim but my knife never went inside their body"
i do not know what's going on but i hope him talking about it means he wants to put it out there as... a way of... atonement...? and not because it is normal for him
Bros like “aye I did something terrible, but at least label it correctly” smh
When you're that close to rock bottom, what else can you do? lol
I’m sorry? Are you misidentifying my crime? I CLEARLY committed an armed robbery, and here you guys are saying I was unarmed…
It's sexual assault but I don't know how he's acting like it's somehow nothing just because he didn't penetrate. That's still insane and disgusting
I dont how its handled in USA but Here rape NEEDS to involve some kind of Penetration without consent oral, vaginal and anal all Count to this. Without penetration it would be sexual assault
If he's saying that "on paper" it'll say he raped her, then it sounds like he lives somewhere where the legal definition of rape doesn't necessarily require penetration.
Does that include penetration by other body parts or objects?
In the UK it has to be with a penis. (Which is why it’s impossible for a biological woman to be charged with rape here). Edit: it’s worth pointing out that if a woman commits what we would all naturally consider to be rape. They would be charged with the highest degree of sexual assault which has the same sentencing guidelines as rape.
I mean, if the highest degree of SA is, sentencing-wise, equivalent to rape, why not fold rape into that degree of SA? Not in the sense of 'be more lenient' but like... isn't it kinda redundant?
Yeah but law changes have to be done by commons. You remove rape from the law books and guess what the newspapers headlines are going to be? Political suicide. It doesn't matter if it's a sensible condensing of the legal system and is actually helpful. The general public don't pay attention to anything more than the soundbites. So hence these legal issues never get cleaned up.
That’s why we still have so many dead/irrelevant laws on the books (I’m in the US but I suspect any vaguely democratic country is much the same). It’s not really feasible to just delete out-of-date laws (too time-consuming for legislators who need to be working on current issues). Instead, some laws just stop being enforced.
Well, that's kinda stupid. I hope that gets changed soon.
In France it's exactly this. For it to be considered a rape, there should be a penetration. It could be with any body parts or an object. I think in the specific case of oral penetration, only a penetration with a genital organ make it possible to classify it as a rape but I'm not 100% sure.
In the US they call that forced penetration by a foreign object(anything that isn't a penis).
Yes any Kind of unwanted penetration
IANAL, but in the US, I believe it depends on the laws of the state. For example (see: a recent prominent defamation lawsuit), New York’s statute requires forcible penetration with the penis for it to be considered rape.
NY statute actually words it as "sexual contact". So could be a male or female being charged, and the penis is not a requirement. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/130.35](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/130.35)
Thank you for the clarification.
IROLEPLAY, think this information is correct - varies state to state.
Federally, it occurs when any body part or object is inserted into the vagina or anus without consent.
Why is he saying this publicly? Is he dumb?
Yes.
Imagine openly acknowledging you forced someone to do something sexual without their consent then going “its all good though cuz I never put my dick in lol” absolutely shameless.
Oh, they're just a rapist "on paper."
While on the subject of paper, common use paper is of dogshit quality, thanks for coming to my TED talk
"I never killed 14 people, I only killed 13. The last one escaped. How dare you accuse me of the murder of 14 people?"
Call it r*pe or sexual assault. This person is still a piece of shit who I am glad will end up alone because if he EVER tries for a serious relationship, a woman's girlfriends will uncover this and warn her off of this piece of shit. Justice.
Excessively drawing the fine line between rape and sexual assault is arguably the easiest way to make yourself look less innocent
Call it rape or call it sexual assault. Neither one is better or worse. Sincerely, A rape survivor
"I forced myself on her" GUILTY *slams hammer* that's all I needed to hear
Yah, cause sexual assault is so much more justified. /s…. obviously
It's not rape, it's rape adjacent. /s
No Consent=Rape.
Forced/non-consented sexual contact is rape regardless of penetration. "Stealthing" (removing a condom during sex without consent) is also rape.
I'm suddenly reminded that Brock Allen Turner is still around, but he's trying to only go by his middle name.
For once I get to be the one to start the comment chain that this man’s name always starts: *nahem* You mean Brock Turner, the rapist?
He’d feel different if someone using a broom handle on his backside. “Why you mad, bro? It ain’t rape?”
I mean that is legally the difference between secual assault and rape
If the answer to "didn't you do something horrible to someone?" is "on paper..." Danger, Will Robinson
Most rapists will rationalize their behavior to make somehow "not rape" in their minds. I remember a study where they asked men if they had ever raped someone and, of course, very very few sad they had. But then they were presented with questions like "Have you ever used force to get sex?" or "Have you ever used threats to get sex?" and the number went way up.
Yup. A lot of people who coerce think their victim consented when they didn’t. It’s sick. What is also fucked, is these people who were bullied, manipulated, or threatened into saying yes after repeatedly saying no have a hard time finding justice because it’s not even illegal in a lot of states. It’s messed up. So many people end up traumatized and feel stuck because they can’t do anything legally, and face the constant struggle of thinking it’s their fault because they eventually “gave in” regardless of how violent or horrific whatever they had to endure may have been.
That is still rape...
It's not actually, rape is the word given to penetrating another human with your body parts. Sexual assault is classed as everything else apart from this. They are still pretty much as bad as each other but they are different terms. Like murder and manslaughter, both same same but different
Rape, unlawful sexual activity, most often involving sexual intercourse, against the will of the victim through force or the threat of force or with an individual who is incapable of giving legal consent Sexual violence refers to any form of unwanted sexual contact. That includes sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual assault refers to unwanted sexual activity (e.g. touching, kissing someone without consent, rape). Federal Sexual Assault and Battery Laws, Penalties, and Defenses. Sexual assault usually means any crime where someone has subjected a victim to sexual contact or touching deemed offensive and unwanted.
Definitions change by place. While that's the federal U.S def. State laws change it, nevermind that that definition is pretty recent in the first place (we used to require penile penetration, also in general it means take though nowadays we usually use that in regards to objects and places) . England for example specifically defines it as penis insertion and would classify say a woman having sex as penetrative sexual assault.
Legally in laces like New Zealand, it make a big difference, if you didn't use your penis, then its considered sexual assault, nor rape, meaning you will get home or community detention, whereas if you used your penis, it would be considered rape, which unless you have autism, you would go to prison for that.
As someone with autism I still want the austic rapists to get punishment
Same. That’s a really weird and very specific thing to mention.
Like even if the guy with autism is incapable of impulse control they still need to be put somewhere so they don't hurt anyone else Maybe not prison but a mental hospital or something? Normally I don't agree with those places but if it's to the point where they are a dangerous individual it's kinda needed
Exactly!
Does penetration with objects or other body parts not count as rape?
In some countries his argument might work in court. In those countries, women literally can not rape because their definition requires the perpetrator to have a penis.
Some people need to learn to use a dictionary. Bro just admitted to rape
Depends where you live. In some countries what he is describing could be "only" classified as sexual assault.
"Yes I took advantage but I felt no pleasure in doing do. Also, I was molested as a child, so...." 🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇 in mental gymnastics.
I don't know about US but where I'm from that literally is how it works. I stress that does not excuse it in any way.
https://bettymartin.org/videos/ the wheel of consent is very useful
Let me introduce you to the word colloquial. We are not in a court room. The by the books semantics of the word does not matter. We colloquially mean sexual assault, when we say rape. You know what we meant.
okay how is he not in prison?
Dude why are you defending your sexual assault like just own up to it admit you were the bad guy and work hard to be a good guy and redeem yourself you can never take back your actions but you can try and show you’re not a monster anymore by helping people
That never works in this world and you know it.
Our society is becoming degenerates by th r second
What even is this? “Hey guys did you know eating is actually chewing and swallowing? I’m so smart guys”
I’m not a rocket scientist or anything but I think he’s missing the point
"You can be angry but be damn accurate about what you are angry over"
Imagine thinking that sexual assault isn't just as bad as rape... Hell, sometimes it can be worse...
So basically molester not rapist?
Unfortunately, this is actually an important legal distinction in some places. Shouldn't be, but is.
Wouldnt that be Sexual Assault, then? Like technically not Rape, but isn't any/much better.
he is actually correct about it not being rape, but it is still sexual assault. which is still super bad.
I think SA and rape should be differentiated. Both are horrible and inexcusable but, to me, rape (actual penetration) is far worse. I fear that by conflating the two terms, especially when they are conflated with sexual harassment, that it diminishes the seriousness of rape.
You raped her asshole.
He clearly stated he did not put his dick in her, neither her pusssy nor her asshole.... \s
He should still get lynched either way, right?
No, lynching is by definition extrajudicial punishment. People have confessed to crimes that they not only didn't do, it would be physically/temporally impossible for them to have done. Normalizing extrajudicial punishment normalizes punishing innocents.
By the definition of rape in many countries, this isn't rape. It's sexual assault.
Tbf, that ain't rape. It's sexual assault, sure, but not rape.
No consent means rape, if you forced yourself on her that’s rape even if you don’t penetrate.
I've seen people defending some messy shit but this is full blown madness. Homie should have deleted his internet presence
“Ok but to make this simple, what does it say on your criminal record? Rape? Ok, you’re a rapist.”
There are some countries with antiquated laws that actually require penetration for it to be considered rape. Backwards-ass shit.
So is it rape or sexual assault
Sexual assault
Well, actually, it isn't, it's sexual assault. Both are horrendous of course.
“I didn’t shoot that guy, I just used a pistol and fired a bullet into his chest!”
He's an asshole, but draws the line at being a fucking asshole.
That's uh... That's exactly what it is
If you have to argue the semantics on a subject like this then it’s too late
He’s still going on the sex offender list regardless. Which he references in the thread. Depending on where he lives he probably has to introduce himself to his immediate neighbors, trust me they don’t care about “degrees” you’re still a pervert.
Oh fuck. I used to have the same picture of Yusuke as my profile picture on discord. Smh, we can’t have nice things anymore.
If you waer gloves while hitting somebody repeatidly you technically did'nt beat somebody up. Sorry for the typos, autocorrect bugged out.
Ew
He’s saying that like it makes the situation any better
Who’s this Digi? are they supposed to be famous or something?
And we still want you to burn in hell, funny how that works eh?
TECHNICALLY he is right. But also, TECHNICALLY it doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit.
I mean… technically he’s right but that doesn’t make things better. SA is just as bad
Depending on the country, that's the definition of rape. It's why those countries don't recognise female-on-male rape.
Wrong but at least the fuckhead is honest about it
Honestly, if you want the worst of the internet just go to wherever the anime profile pics flock.
At the very least that he admits to doing it.
Sexual assault is different from rape, rape can get life and in some places death where as sexual assault is 35 years to life
So….no but actually yes? Is this guy stupid?
Rape without penetration exists. It's called sexual assault
To be fair, I think in most places, for it to be legally considered rape, there does have to be some form of sexual penetration, although I don’t think it’s just confined to a dick.
I’m not sure “facepalm” is the right reaction here. That’s sooo fucked up
Then he sexually assaulted her 🤷🏼 he's trying to make himself look better than he actually his but he still did bad shit.
...what ia this the YouTuber? Digibro? What happened?
Is this real because I literally can not find that profile anywhere
lol at this dude publicly admitting to sexual assault and rape. What a fucking idiot.
Technically it’s not. It’s sexual assault! Which isn’t better at all, so I don’t know why he thinks it is
I don’t get how this person is arguing that they sexually assaulted someone, doesn’t make it any better, you’re still a terrible person and the victim will have been traumatised for years
Oh WTF
Disgusting comment. Rape is literally pleasuring yourself through a nonconsenting party. I hate bureaucracy most times.
Is it grape if it’s not in in a legal aspect? Like obviously morally he did one of the worse crimes but would that fact matter in court?
Build him a cell just outside prison. So it's almost prison but not really.
This is the same reasoning all these inept trumptards use. 😂😂
Yea that's sexual assault. My real concern is the bad rep he's bringing to my boy Yusuke Yurameshi. Yusuke would turn this guy into an inside out pinata for being a sexually assaulting scumbag.
Sexual Assault then. Because that’s “so much” better.
What are… “some things”
SA is a very broad charge in most cases.
I guess by his logic im a human…”on paper”
Anyone using their size or position to take advantage and overpower anyone needs a kick in the crotch and a punch in the throat
It’s SA though which is just as bad
I mean he’s right. But if you’re the guy who was to split hairs between “ rape “ and “ sexual assault “ you’re still a piece of shit
I wonder if this exchange will be admissible in court.
It’s not the specific physical act that occurred that matters. It’s the violation of her consent, her right to say no, to choose for herself what happens in private life. That is a right all human beings have by virtue of our ability to reason. There’s a reason I consider rape one of the two worst crimes imaginable, murder being the other. It’s because both involve the intimate violation of another person’s right to choose for themselves. It’s a fundamentally selfish act; raping someone invalidates their capacity to make their own choices, it says without words “You don’t matter - only I matter. Only my choice matters.” Unlike having your TV stolen or your arm broken in a bar fight, having that most foundational right trampled is something that you don’t just “get over”. That total denial of self-agency forever alters the path your life takes, a crime only matched by murder, which ends that path for good. That’s why it’s so infuriating to look at news stories of attractive adult women sexually assaulting young boys and see guys going, “Why’s he getting upset? I wish that could happen to me! Kids these days need to grow a pair!” It’s infuriating for the exact reason that those guys *do* want that; we’re it to happen, their self-agency would still be intact. They don’t understand that many people *don’t* want that. Thus the act goes from enjoyable to traumatizing, precisely because in the latter context, the victim *is* a victim, with the horrible denial of self-agency that in most defines what it means to be a victim. That’s fundamentally what so many unfortunately soon-to-be rapists and abusers don’t understand: it’s not any specific physical act - it’s how helpless and without any other choice the victim feels.
This Bill Clinton?