Abolish rape!

Star post

Trigger warning: This post is about a piece of British legislation called The Sexual Offences Act 2003.  It is absolutely not the rant of a “rape apologist”.  If you might find this post triggering, please read it only on understanding that you read it at your own risk. 

The criminal offence of “rape” should be abolished.  Seriously.  There is no need for it in this day and age.  The continuing existence of the archaic common law criminal offence of “rape”, nowadays enacted as a statutory criminal offence, is harming society.  It facilitates propaganda on the part of those anti-social elements within society who are antagonistic towards the “need” expressed in The Equality Act 2010 s149 “to foster good relations” between men and women.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 1 makes it a criminal offence, the offence called “rape”, for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence of rape is potentially punishable by life imprisonment. Section 1 should be repealed, and replaced with a measure to abolish the criminal offence of “rape”.  No man would ever again be charged with rape in the UK.  O happy day!  The archaic, gender-skewed offence of “rape” simply isn’t needed in the modern world of sexual equality.  It is obsolete.

Section 2 of the same Act also makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence is called “assault by penetration”.  It is also potentially punishable by life imprisonment.  This offence should also be abolished too.  It isn’t needed either.

Section 4 is all that is needed.

Like ss1 and 2, s4 makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, punishable by life imprisonment.  The offence is called (in s4) “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”.  Section 4 should, of course, be retained.  Men who rape women can instead be convicted of this offence and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The beauty of section 4 is that it also makes it an offence for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man without his consent.  If she does, and is convicted, she too can be sentenced to life imprisonment.  But her offence will not be called “rape”, and her male victim will not be described as a “rape victim”.

The only rational reason I can discern for anyone wishing to retain the separate offences of “rape” and “assault by penetration” that men commit against women, but women cannot commit against men, is that he or she desires the retention of an offence with an emotive and archaic name that has an anachronistically gender-asymmetric statutory definition.  Why?  So that he or she can assert loudly and wrathfully that men rape women, not the other way round. Why would anybody be gleeful at being able to assert this, loudly, angrily and often, as some do?  Because he or she wishes to continue working the mischief that has brought relations between men and women to their present-day low ebb, to the detriment of children; the mischief of stirring up as much irrational anger between the two sexes as possible.

Once we have only the gender neutral section 4 offence to talk about, we shall have become able to talk about non-consensual sexual intercourse far more calmly and rationally.  There are certain populist rabble-rousers whom (I predict) this change to the language wouldn’t suit.  A few of them are notoriously outspoken MPs or civil servants in high office.  Let them come here, and argue their case with me!  I offer to make mincemeat of their sophistry.

As a matter of interest, at least one study in the USA has reported that sexual intercourse (and other acts covered by section 4 in the UK, such as oral sex) that carry a life sentence here, to which the female victim did not consent, is slightly less common than such acts to which the male victim did not consent.  If this finding is even close to being correct, and is reflected in the sexual behaviour of British people too, then the larger number of men than women in prison for non-consensual sex acts, will cease to be quoted by certain demagogues, in the hope of whipping up even more misandry.  It will instead be quoted by men’s rights activists (misogynist or otherwise), as compelling evidence of a gender-asymmetric enforcement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in relation to the identical male and female offences that rightly both carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

I challenge anybody to provide me with an honourable reason for his or her opposing the abolition of the criminal offence of “rape” that I am today proposing, so that the majority of us who see the perils of too much gender politics can discuss with less emotion, and in a non-gendered manner, the grave problem of sexual intercourse being inflicted upon non-consenting victims, which always (and rightly) carries a potential life sentence for male and female offenders alike.  The offence, that is, already defined in the catch-all section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  The only offence that is needed in order to police non-consensual sex in society, which can enable this policing to be performed in a gender-neutral manner.


Filed under Feminism, Law, Men's Rights, Political, Righteousness, Star post

19 responses to “Abolish rape!

  1. Acknowledgment: I took the time to make this post, inspired by the following post on another blog, for which I think its author, Mike Buchanan:

    Mary Johnson writes about the false rape allegation against her son

    • mike

      “Men’s rights activists must wake up and realize that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men” -Herbert Purdy ICMI-16 https://youtu.be/PjAnRar9p4M

  2. Well argued, John. Logical and persuasive. You are 100% correct. The definition, of course, is a demonstration of the feminist agenda in the UK. And DPP Saunders is its Champion.

  3. I assume this blog post is a joke,
    If so it is in the worst possible taste and I hope you will delete it. Otherwise I will unsubscribe from the blog.
    Men and women are different. Men cannot be forced to penetrate a woman but they frequently force women unless brought up with moral conscience and inhibition. Their superior physical strength has always placed women at risk. Sane laws made by our ancestors recognizing physiological reality are now under attack from equality lunatics and Gaystapo fanatics on all sides. I say keep them – keep all the laws that acknowledge the sexes are different, Rape victims everywhere need more respect and sensitivity than this stupid article offers them.

    • “Men cannot be forced to penetrate a woman”

      That is simply not true, and a grave (and insensitive) belittling of every male victim of the s4(4) offence ever to have thus been assaulted by a woman. You might as well say that rape is impossible, because a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his trousers down. Your remark really is that silly.

      However, the essence of the offences, rape and the section 4 gender neutral offence alike, is not the use of force in the first place. It is the absence of consent.

    • Sputnik

      Moreover, Susan, nonconsensual sexual activity doesn’t necessarily involve the use of force. That’s why we have the word “coercion.” Violence, threats of violence, or threats of mayhem of other sorts… But then, an overwhelming majority of guys who “allowed” a nonconsensual sexual encounter to happen, as if “overpowered by force,” did so without violence so as to avoid physical harm to the offending female, either as a matter of personal inclination, or as a matter of fear for repercussions.

      And while the use of the so called “date-rape” drug, rohypnol (or “roofies”), is almost vanishingly rare, women of a mind to do so rely on unadulterated alcohol to get the job done with a frequency almost equal to th’other way ’round. I know a guy who awoke, badly hungover on the sofa at a girl’s house, to find his pants around his ankles. In her utter, appalling insouciance, she didn’t even see a need to cover her tracks, and evidently felt neither shame nor embarrassment. Balls!

      This came up in a conversation about Western Illinois University, purportedly the statistical “rape capitol” of upper academia in the U. S., where he sends his daughter. As I turned the conversation to rape perped by women, he chuckled and coughed up his anecdote. I pressed lightly for details, but the fact of the matter is that he doesn’t even know what happened, way back when. I felt compelled to point out to him that he coulda been on the hook for rape!— or child support— or both!!— and there wouldn’ta been a damn thing he coulda said or done in his defense. Not. one. little. damn. thing.

      Moreover, statistically, female perpetration of rape and/or sexual assault by any one or more of several such expedients is FAR more common than is widely recognized, coming in at (roughly, I don’t have the reference to hand) more than 40% of all unwanted sexual encounters experienced by either sex.

      And here’s a huge part of what we face in coming to grips with the phenomenon: “Oh!— I wouldn’t call that rape!” he said, dismissively. How ’boutchoo, Susan? Would you call it rape?

      Suppose that all she did was to pull his pants down and leave them around his ankles as a little— what?— tease? Reverse the genders on that one and see what you compute.

      And this ain’t even a newfangled phenomenon. This incident occurred circa 1980. But then, hey, we can even turn to the Bible: What of Lot’s two daughters? Did they not ply him with wine so as to render him senseless that they might then lie with him so as to “preserve his seed?” And whoever inked that bit onto the parchment?— what?— you think they just thought that up on the spur o’th’moment?

      Nuthin’ new under the sun. And THAT my friend, is not just rape, it’s incest.

      Nah. Don’t unsubscribe here. Our esteemed Mr. Blogger Allman is not at all the half-cocked crackpot you think you see. There’s ample room for this sort of actually not-so-caustic, essentially accurate observation after all these centuries of blindness. You, yourself, put it best:

      “Rape victims everywhere need more respect and sensitivity than” your hastily conceived comment here “offers them.”

  4. pissedofqwomen

    Mr Allman you are sick.and twisted. The mere thought of abolishing rape sickens me to the core. I was a victim of rape by my husband for many years and think you making this comment is just unthinkable. You really have no idea what it does to someone and what the after effects are. If you are not a women that has not been raped Don’t comment otherwise you just make yourself look like a potential rapist.

    • PissedOffQWomen, there was a trigger warning at the beginning of the article. I am NOT suggesting that the law is wrong that it is a criminal offence, punishable with a sentence of life imprisonment, to cause another person to have sexual intercourse without consent. I took a lot of trouble to warn readers that it would be easy to misunderstand the article. I was especially aware of the risk that people who had themselves been the victims of that crime (as you have said you were) would have emotional scars that made them particularly likely to misunderstand what I was suggesting.

      You have my sympathy. I promise you that the article was not saying what you seem to think that it was saying.

      • Paul Longhurst

        I don’t see the point of writing a post that’s going to cause heartache and anguish then say that you that your article is misunderstood. Defeating the object.

        • Thank you for taking the trouble to write your comment.

          I wrote this article almost two months ago, after reading the letter by “Mary Johnson” to Mike Buchanan, to which I referred in the first comment on this page. It was because of the suffering of victims like Mary, and her son, of the emotive and gender skewed-language we still use to discuss non-consensual sex in the media and politically and in indictments (only calling it “rape” when the offender is male), that I took the calculated risk of triggering another class of victims, such as PissedOffQWomen above.

          People do talk about “rape” a lot, whether I join in the discussion or not. My modest contribution to this discussion has merely been to suggest that the gendered and angry way in which we talk about rape (and especially the word “rape” itself), doesn’t help any class of victim to avoid or to recover from post-traumatic stress: neither Mary Johnson and her son who was falsely accused of “rape” (rather than the gender-neutral section 4 offence), nor PissedOffQWomen who has reacted emotionally to my suggestion, without (I feel) really understanding it properly.

      • Paul Longhurst

        This women has poured her heart out to you and yet you name her. Not very nice. But that is defeating he object. I have read and reread your post. But can not find anything that states you are against abolishing the rape charge. You are all for it. I do however agree with a lot of your other posts and will be voicing my agreement to them. But this weird.

        • PissedOffQWomen did not tell me her name. In a momentary lapse, trying to sound friendly, I addressed her by the name of somebody whom I guessed she might be, based upon earler web content somewhere other than on my blog, in which the writer of similar comments named herself, of whom PissedOffQWomen’s email address reminded me, for some reason. I have edited my earlier comment, to address her correctly as PissedOffQWomen. I apologise to her, if my guess as to her name was correct, and it was temporarily visible on this blog. It’s gone now.

          I am in favour of abolishing the rape charge, largely because of way the press report “rape” trials, in which the complainant enjoys anonymity, and the defendant doesn’t, and the terrible harassment that certain vigilante-minded, self-righteous people enjoy inflicting on those accused of rape, whom they regard as guilty until proven innocent, and (often) still guilty after they have been proven innocent. If you read Mary Johnson’s letter to Mike Buchanan, you will know what suffering this sort of harassment causes to those falsely accused of rape.

          It is a criminal offence under section 4 to have sexual intercourse with somebody without consent, punishable by life imprisonment. I don’t think it helps to foster good relations between men and women (as required by the Public Sector Equality Duty) to use the old word “rape” to describe that offence when the offender is male and the victim is female, but not to use that word when the offender is female and the victim is male.

          I appreciate the input of PissedOffQWomen. I wouldn’t have published her comment, which was quite rude towards me, if I hadn’t a great deal of sensitivity and compassion for her.

  5. Avi Barzel

    Greetings, Mr Allman. I followed you here from Archbishop Cranmer’s after you helpfully posted the html link to the infamous Gay “wedding” cake judgment text.

    I read your arguments and the comments and I’m scratching my head over why there is so much hullaballoo about this. Here in Canada the word “rape” exists in the media and in the vernacular, but in law, “sexual assault” is the only term used. The severity of the crime is judged by a number of criteria, such as the age and mental state of the victim, the application of force, duress or authority projected by the perp, confinement, level of violence, severity of all injuries and among other things, consent and the fitness to provide consent. The crime of sexual assault is not limited to penetration, and applies…at least in theory… to both sexes. The introduction to the renaming of the crime to make it more gender-neutral and to include more categories did not generate protests and was even championed by feminists. Am I missing something big enough to cause so much hurt and anger at your proposal which seems fairly similar in intent and rationale to our Canadian approach?

    • There hasn’t been much “hurt and anger” expressed at my proposal at all. I have defused it all. Generally, I am disappointed at how utterly ignored I am!

      You describe a “Canadian approach” to the nomenclature of sex offences that accords with my aspirations. That seems not to be the approach in the USA or the UK, yet. In the UK, infantile misandry is alas still de rigeur.

      Cranmer’s writing is excellent, don’t you think? He asked me, in an email, to ghost-write a first draft of Gagged Dad’s story, for him to edit into his own style, but I haven’t got around to it yet.

      Kind regards.

      • Avi Barzel

        My suggestion would be that what you need is a zaftig little stink-bomb, like the “homophobia cure” post to get things going. This is where we are now, this century; everything must be flashy, zesty, sexy, paradigm-shifting, rockin’ cerebral-crack. I’m probably missing a few descriptives. Controversy attracts, whereas intelligent, thoughtful commentary with too many facets and depth greater than a fathom hurts the brain, bores and puts one to sleep. Hey, I didn’t make this world; send complaints Upstairs!

        Anyhow, I’m in Canada and have a better handle on North American online and print publishing and then, only in certain kinds of Judaica and technical writing on a construction related specialty. Even after years of commenting on Cranmer, I don’t think I’ve got my head wrapped around UK culture yet! But in the case of the Gagged Dad, I don’t understand why you two gents are dragging your feet for! From the looks of things, it’s barely twenty-minutes of fairly superficial editing work for either of you. Still, I’d go with the “homophobia cure” piece. It truly is brilliant in that it summarizes so many disconnected, unarticulated and for some, unthinkable thoughts.

      • Douglas

        In the USA, sexual assault is not a federal offence but one held by each State. There are, last time I checked, three States in the USA which do not have ‘rape’ mentioned in law but which instead rely on generic sexual assault or (non-)consent laws to criminalise the act.

  6. Avi Barzel

    PS: Just visited your Contact page. Full address, phone numbers, cell phones…even the rickety old fax. How very nice! A few things missing, though: Your bank account number, your children’s school, vehicle license plate, a high resolution image of your signature and any biometric info you can get for us, up to and including fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA readings. O, and don’t forget to send a pic of the particular planter you keep the spare house keys under, so we don’t have to fumble about too much…time is money nowadays.

    I got a Sabbath followed by a two day festival to prep for so I’m a bit rushed, but when we both have time, you can ask me, a chap who’s been around since list serves and early websites, about 21st century online security protocols. Especially for fellows who might, just might, upset a few folks out there with their ideas and who think that their remoteness from big cities and bucolic, neighborly environments keep them buffered. Have a good weekend, and about that super-secret-special security protocol measure you can take…3 to four minutes to login into your site’s admin console and delete personal info the world can live without. Sure, one can find all that from other sources, but 99% of the people don’t know how or are too lazy.

Likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s