Consent

slum dog

In relation to rape, does male arousal amount to consent on behalf of the male or is consent just a matter of concern for females?

seamus

Consent is required on both parts, and I imagine it would not be a defence in court to show that the male was aroused, since arousal in many instances is an autonomic response.

Both men and women who have been raped have orgasmed during the rape. That is not consent.

MagicSean

Males can only be raped under section 4 which does not require them to be aroused. A woman cannot rape a man in this country so the question could only refer to sexual abuse and not rape.

slum dog

So if a woman engages in sexual intercores with a man, without his consent, what does this amount to?

seamus

I have argued in the past that in the strictest sense of the wording of the law, penetrative vaginal sex which is nonconsentual is rape, regardless of who didn't give consent.

However, as has been pointed out to me here numerous times the courts disagree and no woman in Ireland has ever been charged with rape in those circumstances.

Where the man has not provided consent, it's sexual assault.

MagicSean

slum dog wrote: »

So if a woman engages in sexual intercores with a man, without his consent, what does this amount to?

Sexual assault.

Predalien

seamus wrote: »

I have argued in the past that in the strictest sense of the wording of the law, penetrative vaginal sex which is nonconsentual is rape, regardless of who didn't give consent.

However, as has been pointed out to me here numerous times the courts disagree and no woman in Ireland has ever been charged with rape in those circumstances.

Where the man has not provided consent, it's sexual assault.

But doesn't the act only refer to how only a man may be guilty of rape in the situation of vaginal penetration by a penis?

Under section 4, the penetration is either of the anus or mouth, or the vagina by an object. So vaginal penetration by a penis can never result in a rape conviction for a female.

seamus

The act itself makes no reference to gender and doesn't explicitly state that the victim is the one with the vagina (or that the perpetrator is the one with the penis), simply that "rape" is an act which "includes" such acts.

However it is implied by the act that the person being penetrated is the victim and as I mention the courts seem to agree.

In reality we probably need a legal redefinition since nobody could rightly argue that anal or oral rape of a man is not rape. It's possible that since at the time that section 4 was written homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland, that it didn't need to be separately classified as "rape".

MagicSean

seamus wrote: »

The act itself makes no reference to gender and doesn't explicitly state that the victim is the one with the vagina (or that the perpetrator is the one with the penis), simply that "rape" is an act which "includes" such acts.

Which act are you referring to?

Predalien

seamus wrote: »

The act itself makes no reference to gender and doesn't explicitly state that the victim is the one with the vagina (or that the perpetrator is the one with the penis), simply that "rape" is an act which "includes" such acts.

However it is implied by the act that the person being penetrated is the victim and as I mention the courts seem to agree.

In reality we probably need a legal redefinition since nobody could rightly argue that anal or oral rape of a man is not rape. It's possible that since at the time that section 4 was written homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland, that it didn't need to be separately classified as "rape".

Er, it specifically states "a man commits rape if...", the offence of traditional rape is gender specific, section 4 refers only to either penetration of the anus or mouth, or vagina by an object. There is simply no way a woman can be convicted of rape involving vaginal penetration by a penis, there is no way the actus reus could be satisfied.

NoQuarter

Seamus I think you need to check that legislation again!

Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 wrote:

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

seamus

I knew I wasn't going totally crazy; though ignore my last post, I got mixed up

Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

Rape under section 4 .

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—
(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or
(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.

So I'm guessing that "rape under section 4" is an extension of the meaning of rape, rather than a replacement of such? It does mean that women can be convicted of rape, but only against another woman.

NoQuarter

No "Rape under section 4" mean sexual assault, NOT rape. Thinking about it as a kind of rape will only confuse you.

They are totally parallel to each other. Rape under the 1981 Act is simply the penetration of the vagina with a penis without consent. This can only be done by a man as you saw by the legislation quoted above.

I see your argument and it is interesting il give you that! It could only be used in relation to section 4 (1) (a) of the 1990 Act by arguing that a woman put a man's penis in her mouth or anus without consent of the man. Im not aware of any cases where this has happened though but it is interesting to think that, in theory, there is no bar to it.

And as you said, a woman can be convicted of sexual assault under section 4(1)(b) of the 1990 Act (again, using the term rape is incorrect as you will lead people to believe you mean the 1981 Act) and there was a case in the paper quite recently about a woman sexually assaulting another woman in the toilets of a nightclub, google should find that.