Under-age Sex in The UK (Looking for open discussion).

[Draxz]

Men who report they are raped are treated like sissy babies by friends, family, the police, etc. There is as much incentive now for men to hide being rape as there was for women to hide it back in the 50s.

You have no idea how many men are raped because of that.

I actually quite like that way of thinking... Are there any sources/ articles you could show me? (Curious)

That depends where you live.

For most of my life the age of consent to sex was 14, with the exception of anal sex, which was 18. While anal sex isn't exclusively "male gay sex", it clearly targets that population more.

In other countries homosexuality is outright banned, so it isn't the same.

We're talking about the UK laws... Though, I have considered in my own time the laws in the US, as in certain states, homosexuality is illegal.

Though, 'sex' in the UK can mean anything from: vaginal, anal, oral or even masturbating together. Might I ask where you live? Those are rather specific laws~

I know in France the legal age to consent is 13 you can only have sex with people generally the same age until 16 (I think?).

 

[Shockolate]

Why do I get the feeling that we already have a thread for stuff like this?

I think I saw that thread. Didn't it get locked?

The OP was kind of a douchebag.

 

[ramboondiea]

the research your friend did was just superficial, because the legal age of sex in Ireland is a real legal grey area, i believe (but don't quote me on it it, as my focus is UK law and Irish law as a a lot of strange anomalies) that has it stands, two fifteen years olds can have sex if both consent but they have to go through with the act, if they dont it becomes sexual assault, however a person is unlikely to be prosecuted unless you were caught by an overzealous and apparently voyeuristic police officer.

women raping men is still legally a new concept as originally like you mentioned it would at worst be considered sexual assault, or perhaps sexual assault with a weapon, (remember a few very unsettling cases about that.....) its just not a crime likely to be reported, largely due to social norms and expectation as well as social and gender bias. i mean how many men do you honestly believe would go to the police and say "yeah a women got me drunk and had her way with me"? it just doesn't happen, and thats why statistically men are not often raped by women.

an example that is clearly gender biased is the case of Renata juras where a middle age women had a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy she was coaching..the verdict, her licence was revoked and she received a 22 month suspended sentence, i could now list about 10 cases where the roles were reversed and the man received significantly harsher sentences

 

[chadachada123]

Well here's at least ONE thing that the majority of the US beats the UK in. In most states, the legal age for both genders are equivalent, as it should be.

Discriminating based on gender is, frankly, wrong.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Kids should not be having sex, period. Kids should enjoy the time they have as kids and worry about sex after they turn 18. Then, they are free to explore their sexuality, experiment, have an active sex life, if they choose to, etc. etc.

I know that that's wishful thinking, but a lot of kids try to act like adults minus any responsibility or accountability and what will result from that is adults with no responsibility or accountability for their actions.

I would just like to point out, particularly in regards to the bolded bit, that 16 is the legal age of consent in the UK, not 18, and it's lower still in many other European countries (and possibly some non-European countries, but European countries are the ones I know). Just thought it might be relevant to your opinion, considering the area this thread is focusing on.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The difference in the statutory laws basically say that girls have less of an ability to consent than boys and that because of that they need to be protected by the law more through harsher fines to those who take advantage of their...girly ignorance/gullibility or something.



It's definitely a sexist law...and in the traditional sense, not in the anti-man one.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Yes, that's what I did mean?..

Well, the reason for that is that according to British law "rape" has to be committed with a penis. Otherwise it's sexual assault, penetration with an object etc.

There is a lot of scope for judges to use their "judgement" on sentences, which is why you might get one case in which the defendant gets probation or a suspended sentence and a case with virtually identical details and they go down for 5 years.

But yes, the laws governing this kind of thing are pretty old and need reviewing IMO. The fact that the CPS are very unlikely to prosecute an under 18 for statutory rape doesn't mean we should just let it lie. Hell, even the russkies have a better take on it, AoC is 16 but no one under 18 can be charged with statutory rape.

As for the difference in charges between men and women...probably should have a blanket charge that either could be charged with..."engaging in sexual activity with a minor*" (which probably actually exists) or other such long winded name.

*in this case someone under 16, I think that legally a minor is anyone under 18.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Well here's at least ONE thing that the majority of the US beats the UK in. In most states, the legal age for both genders are equivalent, as it should be.

Discriminating based on gender is, frankly, wrong.

The age of consent in the UK is the same for both genders, the charges brought for breaking the law regarding age of consent are different.

Also apologies for double post.

 

[chadachada123]

Well here's at least ONE thing that the majority of the US beats the UK in. In most states, the legal age for both genders are equivalent, as it should be.

Discriminating based on gender is, frankly, wrong.

The age of consent in the UK is the same for both genders, the charges brought for breaking the law regarding age of consent are different.

Also apologies for double post.

That's a pretty minor point, since it's still a huge discrimination based on gender.

But thanks for the correction.

 

[ElPatron]

My thoughts were that, I know it's not a wide chance that a male will get raped by a female.

How could we know? I'm not even sure if I would ever report that I had been a rape victim to a woman. The police probably wouldn't take me seriously.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

Well here's at least ONE thing that the majority of the US beats the UK in. In most states, the legal age for both genders are equivalent, as it should be.

Discriminating based on gender is, frankly, wrong.

The age of consent in the UK is the same for both genders, the charges brought for breaking the law regarding age of consent are different.

Also apologies for double post.

That's a pretty minor point, since it's still a huge discrimination based on gender.

But thanks for the correction.

*snip*

Sexual activity with a child:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9

The full 2003 sexual offences act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents#pt1-pb5-l1g9

oops...scratch what I just said, yeah it doesn't really apply to women (at least as far as having vaginal sex with a man/boy goes, could still apply to women under other circumstances). Sexual assault still carries a maximum term of 10 years (or as I look below me, "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" carries the same term). While the law should apply equally, the disparity in sentencing is mainly down to judges rather than the different offences carrying different terms. The dude below me does give some interesting reasons as to why there is a difference though although I'm not sure those apply so much when dealing with sex that was consensual in all aspects except under law.

EDIT again...hang on, no, I'm talking crap again, I was right the 1st time. Sexual activity with a child includes sexual touching and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, there's a separate section for penetrative sex but the maximum sentence is the same. So basically yes, men and women are treated equally at least under the letter of the law, if not the application, until you drop below 13.

Also, the correction was the point, didn't say gender discrimination wasn't wrong.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

Everything you've said is technically true, but you're looking at it in completely the wrong way.

First things first. Under UK law, in order to be raped:

A) A person has to have been penetrated by a penis.

B) The accused must have reasonable belief that the person in question did not consent.

It is impossible, under this definition, for a female-bodied person to commit rape. They can commit a functionally identical crime called "assault by penetration", but only if they insert an object into someone's body.

That said, men and boys can be raped under UK law. There's a very sad case right now in Manchester of a boy who suffered just that. It is exactly the same offence regardless of the sex of the victim. If a man over 16 has sex with a boy under 13, he is as guilty of "raping a minor" as the man who has sex with a girl under 13 (and assuming, quite arbitrarily, that both definitions of "having sex" involve the man in question penetrating the child's body with his penis). Again, it's the same crime because it's the same act.

If a woman forcibly envelops a man's penis with her vagina, the crime is called "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which is a much broader crime and while still a serious crime with a heavy maximum prison sentence, is not the same thing as an attack which penetrates someone's body.

Now, it's easy, if you're used to imagining that rape is somehow based on a nebulous category of "sexual intercourse", to decry this as sexist. But here's the problem, sexual intercourse is practically impossible to define. What one person classes as "sexual intercourse", another person may not. This is why we base the definition on the actual act which occurred, not on whether or not it was "sexual intercourse", but on whether there was penetration. You will find this is pretty much the same the world over. Contrary to popular opinion, rape has nothing to do with "having sex" with someone, it is about penetration.

And to repeat the same line I repeat every time this comes up, if you don't see the difference between envelopment and penetration, just try penetration. It is a very different experience which is hugely more dangerous, more painful and which, generally speaking, is likely to be considerably more humiliating and (because we have made the requirement that it be a penis) may result in further problems like pregnancy or put the victim at a heightened risk of STD transmission.

I'm not saying there are no problems with this, but I am saying that it is nothing to do with discrimination based on gender. It is discrimination based on the type of act which actually occurs, and that's a perfectly acceptable principle. If I punch someone in the face, I wouldn't expect to be charged with the same crime as someone who stabbed someone in the neck because we both technically "assaulted" someone.

 

[Draxz]

Why do I get the feeling that we already have a thread for stuff like this?

I'm a newbie around here... Sorry. This wasn't planned for thought of, more or less a topic made at the moment.

I'm actually mostly happy/ glad about the feedback I got back.

 

[Draxz]

And to repeat the same line I repeat every time this comes up, if you don't see the difference between envelopment and penetration, just try penetration. It is a very different experience which is hugely more dangerous, more painful and which, generally speaking, is likely to be considerably more humiliating and (because we have made the requirement that it be a penis) may result in further problems like pregnancy or put the victim at a heightened risk of STD transmission.

If I punch someone in the face, I wouldn't expect to be charged with the same crime as someone who stabbed someone in the neck because we both technically "assaulted" someone.

I agree with you and I took out the two last paragraphs to make it easier to make a point~

See, where you've explain that rape is more harmful (especially psychological in some cases) penetration-wise (Homosexual or male>female rape) what if the female were to use objects? I'm not trying to go onto some kind of weird porn/ fetish fictional thing here, but it is known that women do like be indomitable (I think the world is) to their other. So, if a female were to do, would it be rape then?

Also, on the note of STD's, males can also receive them. I mean, what if the female had an STD and/or didn't (want to) use protection, physically.

And, what if a woman wanted a child but she had something like AIDs or HIV? Wouldn't that make it rape without penetration as well?
or it could just generally be she wanted sex but had an STD.

Also, what would your view be on not telling the other that you had/have an STD/STI? Would that make it a form of rape? Is there any cases on that or other?

 

[Terminal Blue]

See, where you've explain that rape is more harmful (especially psychological in some cases) penetration-wise (Homosexual or male>female rape) what if the female were to use objects?

Yeah, that's a crime called "assault by penetration". It does happen, and if anyone you know is or ever was a radiographer, you'll be way more familiar with it than you ever want to be.

In terms of the law, it's pretty much the same as rape in that there is no maximum sentence and the wording is pretty much exactly the same except with no reference to a penis. The only difference is that assault by penetration is not necessarily a "sexual" crime. That doesn't mean the judge can't choose to factor in the sexual nature of the crime into the decision if he or she feels it warrants it, but it's a slightly broader class of offence.

I'm not trying to go onto some kind of weird porn/ fetish fictional thing here, but it is known that women do like be indomitable (I think the world is) to their other. So, if a female were to do, would it be rape then?

Oh, feel free to go into weird fetish stuff.

I'm guessing you mean kind of D/s (dominance and submission) scenarios. I'm pretty sure that's a massive grey area, and it will come down to the very precise specifics of what happened and whether the person who penetrated his partner did all that was reasonable under the circumstances to establish consent. Again though, a female bodied person can't actually commit rape at all.

Also, on the note of STD's, males can also receive them. I mean, what if the female had an STD and/or didn't (want to) use protection, physically.

It's more difficult to catch STDs that way, also the more serious STDs are usually very rare in the female population. I'm well aware that it's possible, but my point was that it's much less likely.

Also, what would your view be on not telling the other that you had/have an STD/STI? Would that make it a form of rape? Is there any cases on that or other?

The UK, as far as I'm aware, has no specific offence for rape by deception.

However, not disclosing that you have HIV (it may extend to other STDs, but I've only heard of it in the context of HIV) means that your partner cannot offer informed consent to any activity which might put them at risk of HIV infection.

I suspect it's one of those areas which hasn't come up yet, and were it ever to do so then whoever was presiding would probably try to use the common law system to reach an equitable result in practice. Long term, that would probably result in the law being changed.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

How I found this and wondered: I heard from a friend in Northern Ireland that the legal to have sex, have been dropped to '14'. Now, I doubted this, so I did some research. In said 'Research' I found that the age was still 16 (Northern Ireland, 17) BUT! I also found something that I wasn't sure on whether or not I agreed on.

"
A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 (17 in NI) is breaking the law. Even if she agrees.
If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.
If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment.
A girl age 16 or over who has sex with a boy under 16 can be prosecuted for indecent assault.
"

This law became retarded the moment you said 'two years'. People shouldn't have two years of their lives taken from them simply because they wanted to fuck something. Trying to stop teenagers from having sex is nothing short of ridiculous and anyone that says 'don't have sex' needs to try being just a tad more realistic. I'm all for teenagers having sex, just as long as they're responsible. I'm not saying EVERY teenager should do it, but if they do lets not be condescending assholes. I didn't have sex as a teenager, but my best friend did. He was sixteen. And anyone with a single shred of common sense will see just how insane this law is. If anyone thinks that people should be locked up for having sex, then they're agreeing that their friends should be arrested. For two years. My friend's probably the nicest guy I know in the world, I wouldn't want him to have two years stripped away from him over something petty.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Kids should not be having sex, period. Kids should enjoy the time they have as kids and worry about sex after they turn 18. Then, they are free to explore their sexuality, experiment, have an active sex life, if they choose to, etc. etc.

I know that that's wishful thinking, but a lot of kids try to act like adults minus any responsibility or accountability and what will result from that is adults with no responsibility or accountability for their actions.

How about we let them have sex whenever they feel it's appropriate. Tell them that there's nothing wrong with not having sex. (Or hell, the other way around - that there's nothing wrong with sex) And actually get around to educating them as opposed to speaking with complete condescension. I'm an adult, and a lot of adults I meet don't seem to be anymore responsible or accountable for anything.


Going on about how kids shouldn't have sex isn't solving any problems. It's just pissing them off. If we want them to start making good choices maybe we should educate them and actually start trusting them.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

The laws are strange.
I was 14, and had sex with my girlfriend at the time who was 16. The fact that was illegal is...strange.

I dunno, they are the law, but who really gets in trouble for it? I mean, what parent would grass their own child up? It just seems a matter to talk over if either parents are concerned with it.
I don't think of them as laws. More as guidelines haha. If it actually is a rape situation, you'd hope the child would take responsibility and go to the authorities.

Well that's what I think, at least.

[small](sorry if this makes no sense, I just woke up *yawns*)[/small]

Kids should not be having sex, period. Kids should enjoy the time they have as kids and worry about sex after they turn 18. Then, they are free to explore their sexuality, experiment, have an active sex life, if they choose to, etc. etc.

I know that that's wishful thinking, but a lot of kids try to act like adults minus any responsibility or accountability and what will result from that is adults with no responsibility or accountability for their actions.

How about we let them have sex whenever they feel it's appropriate. Tell them that there's nothing wrong with not having sex. (Or hell, the other way around - that there's nothing wrong with sex) And actually get around to educating them as opposed to speaking with complete condescension. I'm an adult, and a lot of adults I meet don't seem to be anymore responsible or accountable for anything.


Going on about how kids shouldn't have sex isn't solving any problems. It's just pissing them off. If we want them to start making good choices maybe we should educate them and actually start trusting them.

1000% agree, Shadow.