'There can be no middle ground.'
According to law a woman cannot rape a man:
“Sexual Offences Act 2003:
Part 1 Rape
A person commits an offence if HE intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis B does not consent to the penetration and A does not reasonably believe that B consents.”
This use of HE is all the way through the Sexual Offences Act 2003, did someone forget that the word SHE exists?
Any man alive understands that sometimes a part of their body has a mind of its own, so to speak. You ask people to take heed of this scenario:
A woman abducts a sixteen year old male, strips him naked at knife point, ties him up and takes her own clothes off. He does not give his consent, but a part of his anatomy wants to rise to the occasion. The woman then proceeds to have sex with the male.
Does arousal mean he consented?
You believe that the scenario above constitutes rape, however the law does not.
Time for a change?
Women are either equal to men or they are not, there can be no middle ground.
You also draw people’s attention to the following link:
Woman Jailed for crying Rape.
“You framed an innocent man; you accused him of the most serious offence to be brought against a man in the criminal calendar.” David Lane QC
He has been put through hell, his family have likely disowned him, he will never be rid of this accusation and his life is swimming in the toilet. She should have been given longer in jail, no doubt.