The first of several...

[lovingboth]

The 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]

Comments

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

(possibly apocryphal)
There was a case in the 19th Century where a woman sued for divorce on grounds that her husband forced her to perform 'unnatural acts upon him with her mouth'.
The judge threw the case out, declaring 'woman, have you no teeth?!'

[adjectivegail]

so long as they had harsh penalties for forced fellatio, i wouldn't mind if it was technically classed as rape or not. because, no, i don't think it's exactly rape, but i do see it as being very much on a par, and i don't think it's recognized as such at the moment.

[lovingboth]

Lady Saltoun (see next post) is almost old enough to have been around then...

One of the more famous acquitals for murder involved a woman's barrister saying her husband had insisted on 'Hunnish practices' (ie anal sex).

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

yes, I suspect it was that (well-known) case she was thinking of.

She's prone to making somewhat batty pronoucements in the Lords, I'm told.

Hmmm....

[purrthecat.livejournal.com]

I suspect the elderly 'Lady' (more than likely with dentures) hasn't had anything pass her lips except for food in a VERY VERY long time, if ever.

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?

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

I'd rate it as more similar to vaginal/anal penetration with an object, which I think is being made a more serious offence than it used to be (aggravated ia rather than mere indecent assault?)

[lovingboth]

Leaving aside the sections involving children, it would be split into four:

1. Rape [penetration of vagina, anus or mouth, must be with a penis] (max sentence: life)

2. Assault by penetration [of vagina or anus only, eg with fingers or objects] (max sentence: life)

3. Sexual assault [unwanted sexual touching] (max sentence: 10 years)

4. Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent [eg a woman forcing a man to penetrate her] (max sentence: 10 years, unless vaginal, anal or mouth/penis penetration involved, when it's life)

More detailed breakdown seems good

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I haven't thought in detail about this particular split, but I've thought for a while that breaking up the offence is an excellent idea. Currently, something either is rape or it isn't. This means cases are systematically under-judged, either because the offence isn't technically rape or because the court feels that rape is too strong a judgement, while occasionally the court may over-judge for lack of available options.

I don't know how this would work in practice. I suspect people may plea-bargain and get lesser offences. Is that bad, given the poor rate of conviction currently and the fact that, when it's one person's word against another, it would be hard to make an absolute judgement in any case? Personally I'd rather see a higher rate of lesser convictions, as I think this is more likely to change attitudes and behaviour.

Pavlos