In cases where a woman rapes a man...

Hello everyone, I have seen this hypothetical question posed before, so I am posting it here.

This is a debate thread. The subject matter is a bit disturbing, so don't read it if you are very easily upset.

If a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, should she be forced to get an abortion or give that child up for adoption if the raped man wants nothing to do with the child?

Because if she were to keep it then what do you think the difference would be between that scenario and the scenario of a male rapist who impregnated a woman via rape having the legal right to take custody of the baby that was the outcome of a rape he committed?

Hope I made that clear.

Now I would also like to make clear that female on male rape is well within the limits of the possible. Not only through "statutory rape." It is physiologically possible for either a man or a woman to make an unwilling or even unconscious man ejaculate. Check the link that dispels myths on the subject. I have copied and pasted the relevant passage.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

>> Myth: Getting an erection or ejaculation during sexual assault means you "really wanted it" or consented to it.

Reality: This is one of the things that can cause male rape survivors a lot of confusion and guilt when they do not know how things work. For a start I can honestly say that getting an erection shows nothing other than your body responds how it is suppose to do. It is a totally normal thing to happen and has nothing to do with desire. Have you never been on a bus, or sat in an office meeting, and it has gone hard all by it's self for no reason ?
Basically, unless you have some medical condition that stops you then you will get an erection when it is manipulated. It is a result of stimulation, and it does not matter if you do not want it to happen or not. There is little you can do to stop it most of the time.
Sadly, some males become confused and think an erection equals arousal equals them wanting it. In reality all it means is that part of the body has nerve endings that respond to touch and that touch can be wanted or not wanted, pleasant or non pleasant. With lubricant you will have even less choice as to how it responds to touch. It is the same as the body will respond to someone tickling you and you will probably laugh, but if it is done at a time or by a person you do not want to tickle you it will still respond.
If you were penetrated, the pressure in the prostate gland (see diagram below) also will cause an erection. Anyone who has ever had a DRE (short for Digital Rectal Exam) of the prostate at their doctors will know that getting an erection often happens during the examination. <<

Even if a man has been knocked unconscious by a blow to his head, it is still possible to force his penis into a state of erection by putting a rubber band around it. This causes blood to pool in the penis, resulting in erection that will only stop when the rubber band is removed.

Sadly, many ignorant people flat out refuse to believe that abuse of any kind by a girl or woman is even possible, whatever the age or gender of the victim. Popular perceptions of abuse perpetrated by women manage the difficult feat of being even worse than popular perceptions of male on male rape.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

That's not the only way a woman can rape a man, in fact that is really rare.

More common cases are statutory rape, or rape where the victim is blackmailed or threatened. (yes, that's also considered rape - if a woman blackmails or threatens a man to have sex with her against his will, it's still rape).

In a survey answered by hundreds of rape and sexual assault support agencies, they estimated that 93.7 percent of male rape perpetrators are male and 6.3 percent were female.

Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

Unless we're in South Africa, LB. Everything is...different there.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

I expect that man on man rape is a lot more prolific than woman on man rape, but bear in mind that the statistics are skewed by the fact that victims of women would be more ashamed about reporting it.

The focus of the poll is about the issue of conceptions via rape which are impossible with male on male rape. I do not deny that male on male rape is an issue of enormous seriousness.

The lurid scenario I wrote in the original post was meant to give a very clear cut hypothetical case of woman on man rape, however, lil bitchiness is exactly right about both the other ways it is possible and the fact that those other ways are much more likely. Besides statutory rape, women who are rapists are most likely to take advantage of men who are drunk or high, or use to blackmail. But these cases are virtually impossible to prove in a court of law because of popular perceptions that female on male rape is somehow more acceptable than male on male or male on female rape.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

So that means the 6.3% are less important? Rape is still rape. Why not address the 100%?

In one respect, victims of deviant women (whatever their age or gender) are even worse off than victims of deviant men, because even today, society still either disbelieves them or is scornful towards them and they are much less likely to receive legal and therapeutic support 😬

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

I don't believe I said anything about ignoring, but about addressing a particular in the logical order.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
So that means the 6.3% are less important? Rape is still rape. Why not address the 100%?

Yes, why not? Considering that more women are raped by men then men by other men or women, why the hell is it not addressed?

So, if for example 90% of the crime is committed in an impoverished neighbourhood while 10% of crime is committed in a filthy rich neighbourhood, we're clearly not going to bother addressing the impoverished neighbourhood first and the reasons for crime, because crime is crime, right?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if for example 90% of the crime is committed in an impoverished neighbourhood while 10% of crime is committed in a filthy rich neighbourhood, we're clearly not going to bother addressing the impoverished neighbourhood first and the reasons for crime, because crime is crime, right?

I think the solution is simple:

Allocate 90% of the resources to the poor neighborhood and 10% to the rich one.

Problem solved.

But there's two opposing ideas on how to approach this:

But there are other factors to consider: rich neighborhoods will have security systems with camera. This will make catching the bad guys easier. So not as many resources will be needed for the rich neighborhood to solve lots of the crimes. So we could probably end up with a 95% and 5% resource allocation and our "per capita crimes solved" ratio would be equal in both locations.

But even better: we could argue that the people in the rich neighborhood provide the most taxes to the municipality, by far, so we should work more with our clients that pay the bills. So a 50-50 split is more fair. Without the rich neighborhood, the poor neighborhood would not get nearly as much attention.

Reality: 90% of Law Enforcement resources are spent on the "poor"'s crimes, anyway. They commit the most crimes.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I said anything about ignoring, but about addressing a particular in the logical order.

There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

Yes you are right. And I only focused the thread on female on male cases because of the issue of pregnancies resulting from such rapes which are not covered properly by the law in any of the English speaking countries.

Male on male rape is certainly the more prolific problem for male victims, but we can address both at the same time.

I want a woman to rape me.

Aside from the blackmail thing, I don't think a woman can rape me. I'd pretend to hate it for her sake (cuz I'm considerate like that), but really, my boner's not going anywhere.

Actually it could be done with a rubber band kiddo.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I want a woman to rape me.

Then it wouldn't be rape. 😄

Originally posted by Bigon
Actually it could be done with a rubber band kiddo.

Are you talking about the same technique that the "cock ring" employs?

Obviously I am my friend, but rubber bands are cheaper and anyone has ready access to them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Aside from the blackmail thing, I don't think a woman can rape me. I'd pretend to hate it for her sake (cuz I'm considerate like that), but really, my boner's not going anywhere.

Sexual arousal has nothing to do with whether or not it is rape.

I think you missed his point.

I'm trying to figure out how a woman would rape a man? Aside from being tied up, and dildo raped, how does she rape a man if he is erect? An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.