Married teacher rapes 14 year old, gets 6 months in jail

[e5]

Shows the kind of world we live in. Only men can be rapists, it's disgusting. She is in a position of trust and power as a teacher and convinced a child to have sex with her. I've seen it happen to men before, it is rape, plain and simple.

[dbgtz]

UK law specifically says "he" as a perpetrator and states that use of a penis is necessary (with some very strange stipulations regarding surgically constructed penises), so only people who are male-born can be rapists in the UK. In the US there is only one exception to their laws that make it possible for a female to rape a man and for it to be called such: if she straps up and enters him anally. This post goes into proper detail for anyone interested

To the first part, a lot of laws use "he", "him" etc. but refers to all.

This is pretty typical anyway, I'm not really shocked.

[FlyingJesus]

From the Sexual Offences Act (2003)

(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.

[Cassiieee]

I don't understand how people get so little for this sort of stuff...

[GommeInc]

Oh absolutely, the fact that women can't be found guilty of rape is a huge part of the problem and is the reason that around 40% of rape victims are erased by the courts completely. The fact that there are supposedly equal charges that women can face in many countries with these sexist laws means nothing because judges and society still see the word "rape" and see it as the worst crime possible as opposed to "sexual assault" which extends as far down as grazing someone's arse on a bus by accident or looking at someone the wrong way

Female teachers seem to get away with this all the time - here are three recent cases of female teachers sexually abusing their students and getting no jail time at all and even congratulations, while men get death threats and castration requests no matter how serious the crime and whether the victim was complicit or not

Rape is a technical crime. A man when he is aroused gets an erection and hence he now has a tool to stick into the complainant's 3 specific areas. A woman will have a hard time sticking a flaccid penis into her body, and a woman lacks any sort of tool she can stick into a man's 2 key areas (men lack vaginas so obviously they only have the two remaining areas). Rape is literally sticking a penis into the 3 specific areas. A woman in this country who sexually assaults a man will begin from the main crime of assault by penetration e.g. sticking a sex toy, fist etc into the complainant, down to sexual assault and lastly to making the victim engage in a sexual activity (it has a proper name but too lazy to look it up )

What she did with this boy was simple sexual assault - touching that is sexual in nature. If she stuck the boys penis into her then 1) the boy was aroused and must have consented to maintain an erection and to not run away. She is guilty of sexual assault involving a child - it can't be assault by penetration (one below rape) purely because she was the one being penetrated, not the boy unless she stuck something into the boy. Rape is very technical and consent makes it even more so difficult, hence why rape is gender specific as a man is the only sex with something that was designed to be stuck straight into a woman or another man, or youngsters.

As for the three cases, the teacher who played the "virgin game" as far as I can tell didn't rape, sexually assault, penetrate or get the pupils to engage in a sexual activity (asking people who were virgins isn't an activity). It was based on poor conduct and a ban from teaching was the only acceptable outcome. Sending texts may amount to harassment or assault, but the sexual part needs some sort of physical activity to accompany it.

Also the last teacher didn't get away with it. Both are consenting but she was in a level of trust and the punishment for that is deemed reasonable, seeing as she's now completely messed up her teaching career.

Can't really talk for the American case. American and English (and Welsh) law differ.

EDIT: Oh, I censored my post to not have anal, oral and vaginal sex as the 3 specific forms of sexual intercourse that can result in rape without consent and you already used them

[FlyingJesus]

While in this case the boy was quite possibly technically consenting the issue is that he's too young to legally be consenting. That aside, an erection is not consent and nor does it mean willingness in any way - it's a biological response to stimuli, and assuming otherwise is a large part of the reason that so many female-on-male rapes go unpunished or even unreported. Rape is sex with an unconsenting party pure and simple. When looking at figures for "forced penetration" (male-on-female rape) versus "forced to penetrate" (female-on-male rape) the numbers are almost exactly equal, yet because one doesn't count as rape in law - or in the eyes of the ignorant as a crime at all - crime stats and society believe rape to be a male issue. The actual split between gender of the perpetrator is around 60/40 if one counts envelopment as rape as should be the case. The very fact that you referred to this woman's crime as "simple" sexual assault shows further how damaging this disparity is, since people view that as a far lesser crime

I see losing one's teaching license and otherwise being free to do as one pleases as "getting away" with rape with a rather minimal punishment. Also your understanding of sexual assault as having to include the physical is well away from the truth. There is no sense in making a long post if you're completely unaware of the reality of the issue, or if you're going to dismiss half of the world's rape victims just because of how they were born

[GommeInc]

Rape is sex with an unconsenting party pure and simple.

That's far too wide a definition. What is sex? Sexual intercourse and sexual activity are not the same thing, there is some overlap but sexual activity has a much wider context. What about touching that is sexual in nature? That's not sex but according to your definition it is based purely on the lack of consent by the complainant. R v H [2005] is clearly not a rape case - shouting "fancy a ****" and tugging on the complainants jogging bottoms is not rape. Rape is when a man intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis. Why is rape male specific? Because of history - originally it was based on virginity of a woman, then ownership of a woman and generally it is now regarded as the fear of a woman becoming pregnant which holds a greater risk to the woman and not the man (it used to also cover sexually transmitted diseases but then the government recognised that women can spread it too so was omitted).

There is:
Rape - committed by men - life imprisonment
Assault by penetration - non-gender specific - life-imprisonment
Sexual assault - " - 10 years / 6 months + fines
Causing an individual to engage in a sexual activity - " - 10 years / 6 months + fines

These are all sexual activities with non-consenting parties, and not all fall within the scope of sexual intercourse (the latter specifically, though the second crime of assault by penetration may not be sexual intercourse - playing with sex toys is a sexual activity, but not intercourse which requires genitalia (specifically penis to vagina though sometimes judges rule that insertion elsewhere applies). Rape and assault by penetration are so serious because they violate the inner-sanctum of an individual. However, you're focusing on statute when in this country and even the US also have case-law. One example could be a woman who is a main partner in a law firm having to lay off employees. One man approaches her fearing the loss of his job. She says she will let him keep his job if he has sex with her. The authorities for this case all involve male defendants yet the law recognises that gender is irrelevant but only the act and mental elements are of importance - cases such as Linekar [1995] 2 WLR 237, Tabassum or Green [2002] EWCA Crim 1501. You also have to consider the nature and purpose of the activity, such as deceit, fraud, position of trust or power.

The very fact that you referred to this woman's crime as "simple" sexual assault shows further how damaging this disparity is, since people view that as a far lesser crime.

Simple as in "easy to conclude" - thought that was obvious. Facts of the case: Woman doesn't penetrate the complainant therefore its not intercourse and not rape (if the woman was a man) or assault by penetration. It's that "simple". It's certainly not a lesser crime, seeing as 10 years measures up to the same as some terrorism crimes, possession of a weapon with intent to commit a crime/resist arrest (Duggan comes to mind has he not been shot), importing/supplying class A drugs, aggravated burglary, treason etc

I see losing one's teaching license and otherwise being free to do as one pleases as "getting away" with rape with a rather minimal punishment. Also your understanding of sexual assault as having to include the physical is well away from the truth. There is no sense in making a long post if you're completely unaware of the reality of the issue, or if you're going to dismiss half of the world's rape victims just because of how they were born

Rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault have to be physical by definition and in law, while causing sexual activity without consent doesn't have to be. A case for this is R v Sargeant [1997] Crim LR 50 where the father of a girl who broke up with her boyfriend posed as a girl on the internet and got him to play with himself on webcam to humiliate him. he was convicted for causing an individual to engage in sexual activity, which can be physical but not always. It's blatantly obvious sexual assault has to be physical, so no idea what alternative reality you're in when in actual reality sexual assault IS physical. For reference, the below section of SOA and the bit in bold:

Sexual Assault in Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Show Hide

3 Sexual assault
(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.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a ) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Also dropping an argument on the pretence that I am somehow writing off half of the worlds rape victims because you fail to understand the definition of rape is ridiculous - women cannot rape so your sources are going to come back with a lack of results. It's like searching for cats who give birth to puppies. You're using the wrong terms. Search for sexual assault, assault by penetration et al and you will get far more results. Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant. I work within the law and reality, I do not live in a fantasy land which you have proven to be living in seeing as you claim sexual assault isn't always physical when clearly it is. The fact it's in black and white right in front of you and you deny it is very Undertaker-ish of you, especially when you play the presumption card (sorry Dan, but I noticed a similarity )

Edit: Also, "he" in the context of the crimes other than rape means "anyone". The law tends to be masculine rather than gender neutral. It's only specifically about men when the act goes on to state something specific to a man e.g. penis.

[FlyingJesus]

That's far too wide a definition. What is sex?

As it's currently defined by law it's the penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. That still works for gender-neutral terms.

Sexual intercourse and sexual activity are not the same thing, there is some overlap but sexual activity has a much wider context. What about touching that is sexual in nature? That's not sex but according to your definition it is based purely on the lack of consent by the complainant. R v H [2005] is clearly not a rape case - shouting "fancy a ****" and tugging on the complainants jogging bottoms is not rape.

Yep, never claimed it was.

Rape is when a man intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis. Why is rape male specific? Because of history - originally it was based on virginity of a woman, then ownership of a woman and generally it is now regarded as the fear of a woman becoming pregnant which holds a greater risk to the woman and not the man (it used to also cover sexually transmitted diseases but then the government recognised that women can spread it too so was omitted).

So history dictates reality? Up until not that long ago it was impossible for a wife to accuse her husband of rape because she was his property and it was considered indefinite consent when she married him. I'm not arguing that the law says something different, I'm arguing that the legal terms are gender exclusive and are hugely damaging to the 40% of rape victims who are turned away as non-victims.

you're focusing on statute when in this country and even the US also have case-law.

Yes because statute law doesn't allow for females to be convicted of rape despite being a huge percentage of the perpetrators.

One example could be a woman who is a main partner in a law firm having to lay off employees. One man approaches her fearing the loss of his job. She says she will let him keep his job if he has sex with her. The authorities for this case all involve male defendants yet the law recognises that gender is irrelevant but only the act and mental elements are of importance - cases such as Linekar [1995] 2 WLR 237, Tabassum or Green [2002] EWCA Crim 1501. You also have to consider the nature and purpose of the activity, such as deceit, fraud, position of trust or power.

Not sure why you're bringing up different laws and different crimes when the entire point I'm making is that there are gender-specific laws and gender-specific sentencing when there shouldn't be - the fact that other laws see gender as irrelevant is itself irrelevant.

Simple as in "easy to conclude" - thought that was obvious. Facts of the case: Woman doesn't penetrate the complainant therefore its not intercourse and not rape (if the woman was a man) or assault by penetration. It's that "simple".

Forcing someone to penetrate isn't intercourse. Right. Not sure what your experience with sex is but you seem to be under the impression that it's always something done to someone rather than something that people engage in together. Pretty archaic.

It's certainly not a lesser crime, seeing as 10 years measures up to the same as some terrorism crimes, possession of a weapon with intent to commit a crime/resist arrest (Duggan comes to mind has he not been shot), importing/supplying class A drugs, aggravated burglary, treason etc

Societally it's extremely different. A drug runner in prison can assume any role they can take for themselves, but even in the highest security prisons full of the most heinous criminals rapists are seen as dead men walking and the same tends to be the case with the average person's views. Rape is so awful that it's pretty much the one topic that no-one of a certain maturity would openly joke about, even while we constantly talk of killing and maiming and stealing and all sorts of other things. Juries and courts are just as susceptible to this and especially when the sentences that can be given are flexible you see a huge disparity in how rape is sentenced (always a jail sentence that can go all the way up to "life" and often will) and how female sexual assault is sentenced (6 months and lose your job). They are clearly not judged the same.

Rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault have to be physical by definition and in law, while causing sexual activity without consent doesn't have to be. A case for this is R v Sargeant [1997] Crim LR 50 where the father of a girl who broke up with her boyfriend posed as a girl on the internet and got him to play with himself on webcam to humiliate him. he was convicted for causing an individual to engage in sexual activity, which can be physical but not always. It's blatantly obvious sexual assault has to be physical, so no idea what alternative reality you're in when in actual reality sexual assault IS physical. For reference, the below section of SOA and the bit in bold:

Sexual Assault in Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Show Hide

3 Sexual assault
(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.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a ) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

http://www.crimeatthecoalface.com/20...ng-the-victim/ since you seem to enjoy naming specific cases

Also dropping an argument on the pretence that I am somehow writing off half of the worlds rape victims because you fail to understand the definition of rape is ridiculous - women cannot rape so your sources are going to come back with a lack of results.

Yes they can, yes they do, and saying otherwise IS writing off the 40% of forced penetration victims who are males abused by females. I understand what the current legal status of rape is, but disagree with it on the basis that it's gender-specific without necessity and allows millions upon millions of crimes to go unpunished.

It's like searching for cats who give birth to puppies. You're using the wrong terms.

No it's like saying putting your foot in a sock is the same as putting a sock on your foot, which it is.

Search for sexual assault, assault by penetration et al and you will get far more results. Also other parts of the SOA which are child related offences and position of trust (which relate to the original teacher had she been in the UK) are all relevant. I work within the law and reality, I do not live in a fantasy land which you have proven to be living in seeing as you claim sexual assault isn't always physical when clearly it is. The fact it's in black and white right in front of you and you deny it is very Undertaker-ish of you, especially when you play the presumption card (sorry Dan, but I noticed a similarity )

I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to understand that the point isn't that I don't know the current law, it's that I see it as inherently wrong and badly written in a way that excludes a huge amount of victims. The legal system is sexist and certain things need changing, just like they did when people of specific ancestry couldn't vote or when it was legal to own other human beings. As for being Danlike, that's the role you've taken on with your single argument defending the current law being "BUT IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME".

Edit: Also, "he" in the context of the crimes other than rape means "anyone". The law tends to be masculine rather than gender neutral. It's only specifically about men when the act goes on to state something specific to a man e.g. penis.

Yes, like this law does...

[!x!dude!x!2]

This is so wrong

[GommeInc]

Going to cut a lot out and simplify it

As it's currently defined by law it's the penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina. That still works for gender-neutral terms.

I can see where you're coming from. My original point was that you seem to be misleading others in the thread that it is rape and nothing else, and women can get away with sexual offences when they do not, they can be convicted of other crimes under the same law which covers rape. You weren't making people aware of the law and were placing your opinion above the facts of the matter at hand.

The definition of rape would be a complete mess with what you've just said. Your suggestion of it being gender-neutral would be "A inserting something into B's X, Y, Z", so your concern that women cannot rape wouldn't really change, as it's missing the important word "force" and still involves A inserting something. It could be changed to have another section written to be something like "OR, A forces B to penetrate with his penis A's anus, mouth or vagina" which in some sense I support because it at least recognises that the penis is important, but the owner of the penis can be the victim and the one it is being inserted into is the offender under the important use of the word "force".

Alternatively, it seems the second offence under the act of assault by penetration has been poorly written or thought through. It's intentions that insertion is a crime is good, but it's again focussed on the offender inserting something of theirs into the victim, when the victim could have something they own inserted into the offender for the offender's own sexual gratification e.g. hand, tongue etc.

Also, I found out why the SOA defines rape as penile penetration. The Home Office Consultation Document 'Setting the Boundaties' (2000) kept it confined to the penis because:

1) Rape was understood to be by the public as an offence committed by men against women and men.
2) Penile penetration was of a personal kind, carrying risks of pregnancy and disease transmission
3) Penetration of the body orifices by objects would become a new offence of assault by penetration of the former offence of indecent assault (hence we never see indecent assault being references anywhere these days)

Basically history and the public perceptions of the time have locked the law into becoming rigid. The only part that makes sense is 2, hence the importance of the penis, but as you'd probably agree - a man may not want to make a woman pregnant or give a disease to the one applying force.

... female sexual assault is sentenced (6 months and lose your job). They are clearly not judged the same.

Not necessarily - "4(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years." 6 months from a Magistrates Court but this could go to the Crown Court who would be less lenient, and many cases end up at the Crown Court for sexual assault.

Also you referenced 3 cases which didn't involve anything to do with rape, penetration or assault. They all involve consent, while rape, penetration and assault require a lack of consent. The teacher who had sex with a 16 year old received their consent BUT she was in a position of trust (they were under 18). The second one didn't involve any touching at all because she was asking sexually explicit questions about the pupils who were again over 16 but yet again she was in a position of trust. She violated s.4 of the Act. The final one again was in a position of trust with a consenting adult, therefore none of the offences.

http://www.crimeatthecoalface.com/20...ng-the-victim/ since you seem to enjoy naming specific cases

That's an Australian case. All the ones I've referenced are from the UK. In Australia, sexual assault is a broad term for all sexual offences while in the UK, sexual assault has a specific meaning. Hence, sexual assault in AU can involve no touching at all (because some offences do not need it) while in the UK sexual offences can involve no touching, but the specific offence of sexual assault in the UK must be physical - involve indecent touching, for example.

Yes, like this law does...

You're mixing up the words law and offence. The offence of rape is male specific, yet other offences under the law do not take gender into account.