The first of several...
Apr. 3rd, 2003 11:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lovingbothThe Sexual Offences Bill is currently going through Parliament (the committee stage in the Lords, to be precise). There are several controversial points within it.
Starting with clause one... Rape has traditionally meant penetration of the vagina by a penis without the woman's consent. Adding male rape in the 90s meant that anal intercourse without consent is currently also 'rape'.
It is proposed that putting a penis in someone's mouth without their consent should also be 'rape'.
It is currently 'indecent assault', a rather wide ranging offence covering everything from an unwanted sexual proposition to penetration using objects without consent. The alternative in the bill would be to include it in the new offence of 'sexual assault'.
What do you think?
[Poll #119958]
Starting with clause one... Rape has traditionally meant penetration of the vagina by a penis without the woman's consent. Adding male rape in the 90s meant that anal intercourse without consent is currently also 'rape'.
It is proposed that putting a penis in someone's mouth without their consent should also be 'rape'.
It is currently 'indecent assault', a rather wide ranging offence covering everything from an unwanted sexual proposition to penetration using objects without consent. The alternative in the bill would be to include it in the new offence of 'sexual assault'.
What do you think?
[Poll #119958]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hmmm....
Date: 2003-04-03 04:22 am (UTC)That said, I do think that psychologically forced fellatio is in the same category of being defiled as vaginal or anal rape. I know that some people will disagree with me here, but I think it's very similar. The difference is however that you probably can't breathe due to a blocked airway, so not only is one being forced into a sexual act, but one is also in fear of choking.. I think that because the mouth is seen everyday, somehow people see the violation of it in a lighter way.
I agree with the person that at the very least it should be described as 'aggravated indecent assault' rather than simply 'indecent assault'. Isn't that the same charge that 'flashers' get?