Rapists

[Burnsy2023]

It would be interesting to see how many male rape victims are gay and how many rapists that target men are straight. Purely from a psychomological slant.

Like has been mentioned earlier, most male > female rapes are where the offender is in or has been in a relationship with the victim. I think it would be unwise to extrapolate this directly, but it may give an indication of an answer to your question.

 

[Tefal]

How is this guy not banned yet?

The quality of his troll posts is beyond poor.

yes but if you ignore kwerk then this is actually an interesting thread.

 

[Paul11]

i've never said it before, but lolkwerk

i wonder if that phrase will make its way in to the dictionary in years time "lolkwerk"

 

[Edrof]

How is this guy not banned yet?

The quality of his troll posts is beyond poor.

Agreed. Another paste & run thread. His posts rarely contribute anything that is sincere. They seem to be purposefully inflammatory, or plain daft. Such as:

That is gaytarded.

 

[Gackt]

Quite a taboo subject but does anyone think it's weird there doesn't seem to be more gay rapists? Whenever you read on the news about someone getting raped it's ALWAYS a woman, but with the number of gays about nowdays you'd think at least 20% would be gay rapes with male victims. Do the victims just not report them? Are men too difficult to overpower? One would imagine with the culture of binge drinking there would be plenty of opportunities for sexual predators to gayrape impaired men.

One theory I have is it seems to be extremely easy for the gays to get access to willing partners, just go to a public toilet or whatever like George Michael, so they don't resort to raping like a frustrated heterosexual would do. That might explain the disparity.

You have some issues.

Why is this person not banned? He posts inflammatory material, flamebait, and contributes nothing worthwhile to the forums. He's a useless human being.

 

[Zenduri]

Worst " i want to rape a man so how likely am i to get caught" thread ever....

 

[Bobcat]

One thing is for sure, with the new cap on Legal Aid that made its way through parliament at the end of 2012, if you are ever accused of rape (be that man/man, or woman/man) then you best have a BIG bank balance to fight the case (if your weekly disposable income is above £68), as the new £8K cap to fight a case against CPS is not going to cut in a lot of cases, especially if/when the case gets to Crown Court.

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

How is this guy not banned yet?

The quality of his troll posts is beyond poor.

Because his threads nearly always end up in quite good discussions where you can end up finding interesting facts.

 

[Burnsy2023]

One thing is for sure, with the new cap on Legal Aid that made its way through parliament at the end of 2012, if you are ever accused of rape (be that man/man, or woman/man) then you best have a BIG bank balance to fight the case (if your weekly disposable income is above £68), as the new £8K cap to fight a case against CPS is not going to cut in a lot of cases, especially if/when the case gets to Crown Court.

I'm surprised this didn't get more coverage.

 

["andy"]

Gays use a new drug that makes you forget the whole gay rape . You've probably been gay raped ten times by now but don't even know it

Probably better that way

 

[Woden]

One thing is for sure, with the new cap on Legal Aid that made its way through parliament at the end of 2012, if you are ever accused of rape (be that man/man, or woman/man) then you best have a BIG bank balance to fight the case (if your weekly disposable income is above £68), as the new £8K cap to fight a case against CPS is not going to cut in a lot of cases, especially if/when the case gets to Crown Court.

This can't stand too long surely? At some point it will be splashed all over the papers about someone being found guilty after losing legal aid?

 

[pingwing]

I'm surprised this didn't get more coverage.

It's come up twice in the last few months I think when we've had threads on frivilant compensation claims and how that change will "fix claimant culture".... Interesting to see its only thought about when perceived to be a positive fix

 

[Jono8]

Kwerk is being well fed here.

If you believe him to be a troll, should he therefore not be banned/suspended?

 

[Derek W]

so many stereotypes, so much Kwerk FAIL!

Not a fail in a typical Kwerk topic though, its how he 'succeeds' by posting utter ****

How is this guy not banned yet?

The quality of his troll posts is beyond poor.

^^this

and to keep vaguely on topic with a flippant remark.......'the gays' dont go around raping other men because they're too busy throwing fabulous parties!

 

[Angilion]

My understanding is its only rape if the victim is penetrated. Women cant penetrate someone.

That said, (if this is pushing the line, then im sorry, its not intended) if a woman used a strapon to penetrate someone unwillingly, would that fall under rape or sexual assault?

Sexual assault. Rape is legally defined in terms of penises. If a person doesn't have a penis, they can't be charged with rape regardless of what they do.

Same thing with indecent exposure, unless the law has been quietly changed in the last few years (which I doubt).

Personally, I think that the law should be defined in terms of actions and not in terms of what sex a person is. But I'm weird that way - I think genuine sexual equality is a good idea.

 

[Angilion]

Simply because the law of rape refers to penile penetration by the perpetrator on the victim. Women lack penises, and therefore cannot commit the crime.

They can be convicted of assault by penetration, which is penetration of the anus or vagina with a part of the body or something else, and has the same possible sentences as rape.

So realistically, the difference is only semantic. Women can't be convicted of rape, but can serve the same sentence for assault by penetration.

It's not only semantic, for two reasons:

1) "rape" is seen as being far more serious than "assault". The maximum possible sentence might be the same, but that doesn't mean that the actual sentences are or that the perpetrators are regarded the same way.

2) A woman can impose sex on a man without penetrating his anus with anything - erection is an autonomic response and the man doesn't even have to be conscious, let alone consenting.

 

[Burnsy2023]

It's not only semantic, for two reasons:

1) "rape" is seen as being far more serious than "assault". The maximum possible sentence might be the same, but that doesn't mean that the actual sentences are or that the perpetrators are regarded the same way.

2) A woman can impose sex on a man without penetrating his anus with anything - erection is an autonomic response and the man doesn't even have to be conscious, let alone consenting.

1) Like I said, the sentencing guidelines for s1 and s2 are exactly the same.

2) That's not rape as defined by s1 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003.

 

[Angilion]

1) Like I said, the sentencing guidelines for s1 and s2 are exactly the same.

Like I said, that doesn't mean the two different offenses are viewed the same way or treated the same way.

2) That's not rape as defined by s1 of the Sexual Offence Act 2003.

Yes, that was my point. I don't see why you're repeating it as if it was a counter-argument to my point.

 

[robgmun]

My friend is gay, but the taxi driver (who they found) wasn't...in fact he had/has a wife and 2 kids.

Playing devils advocate, it's entirely possible he's was repressing his homosexual side. It's very common for gay men to deny even to themselves they are gay and marry and have kids to try to convince themselves they're not.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Like I said, that doesn't mean the two different offenses are viewed the same way or treated the same way.

It says it should. Do you have any evidence that it's not?

Yes, that was my point. I don't see why you're repeating it as if it was a counter-argument to my point.

You're point isn't very clear. Are you saying this this should be treated as rape?