Rights statement: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/oh-youre-a-guy-how-could-you-be-raped-by-a-woman-that-makes-no-sense-towards-a-case-for-legally-recognising-and-labelling-forcedtopenetrate-cases-as-rape/8166CABA33BBE64EBBAD384E1FE13551 The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, International Journal of Law in Context, 14 (1), pp 110-131 2018, © 2017 Cambridge University Press.
Accepted author manuscript, 511 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - ‘Oh you’re a guy, how could you be raped by a woman, that makes no sense’
T2 - towards a case for legally recognising and labelling ‘forced to penetrate’ cases as rape
AU - Weare, Siobhan Francesca
N1 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-law-in-context/article/oh-youre-a-guy-how-could-you-be-raped-by-a-woman-that-makes-no-sense-towards-a-case-for-legally-recognising-and-labelling-forcedtopenetrate-cases-as-rape/8166CABA33BBE64EBBAD384E1FE13551 The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, International Journal of Law in Context, 14 (1), pp 110-131 2018, © 2017 Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - The existing legal definition of rape in England and Wales is gendered, only recognising men as offenders. The law also only recognises as victims of rape those who are penetrated by a penis, either vaginally, anally or orally. This therefore excludes the female perpetrator–male victim paradigm, and more specifically those cases where male victims are ‘forced to penetrate’ female perpetrators. This paper argues that consideration needs to be given to legally recognising and thus labelling forced-to-penetrate cases as rape. Applying a methodology that draws upon the lived experiences of male victims, it is argued that there are significant similarities between compelled-penetration cases and those cases legally recognised as rape, not only because they both involve non-consensual penile penetration, but because there are clear similarities in the aggressive strategies used by perpetrators and the subsequent harms experienced by victims.
AB - The existing legal definition of rape in England and Wales is gendered, only recognising men as offenders. The law also only recognises as victims of rape those who are penetrated by a penis, either vaginally, anally or orally. This therefore excludes the female perpetrator–male victim paradigm, and more specifically those cases where male victims are ‘forced to penetrate’ female perpetrators. This paper argues that consideration needs to be given to legally recognising and thus labelling forced-to-penetrate cases as rape. Applying a methodology that draws upon the lived experiences of male victims, it is argued that there are significant similarities between compelled-penetration cases and those cases legally recognised as rape, not only because they both involve non-consensual penile penetration, but because there are clear similarities in the aggressive strategies used by perpetrators and the subsequent harms experienced by victims.
U2 - 10.1017/S1744552317000179
DO - 10.1017/S1744552317000179
M3 - Journal article
VL - 14
SP - 110
EP - 131
JO - International Journal of Law in Context
JF - International Journal of Law in Context
SN - 1744-5523
IS - 1
ER -