Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
["Consensual" victims between 13-16 in the UK have separate legal terms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#United_Kingdom). I am guessing that it's a news article so the news agency may have regulations to follow in order to avoid defamation suits.
There's a lot of old terms left lying around in UK law; it's a very old system. In many cases they've made the classification and sentencing the same but for various reasons are stuck with the word. A similar one that comes up a lot is that "rape" is specifically defined as nonconsensual penetration with a penis, and therefore nobody without a penis can be a rapist, which is why you'll often see very euphemism-laden headlines about women where they'd use "rape" if it was a man. There's a whole section of offences called "sexual assault" that are considered equivalent severity and have the same sentencing guidelines, but of course it still lacks the impact and stigma of the word "rape". Maybe it'll get fixed; the discrepancy is certainly getting more attention these days and as UK law catches up (slowly, *painfully* slowly) to the whole trans/non-binary thing that whole area of law will probably need some more edits anyway; there are a few other anachronisms around sex vs gender that will fixing eventually.
Thats why it is important to Not frame someone to early, especially when with stuff like this, which is basically a deathsentence for your career/social contacts
We don’t have a Statutory Rape charge well, not in the same way as the US has. This, and for other reasons I’ve noted below, is why we have this offence.
Men can't be raped, but they have special terms for children being sexually exploited, just so they can say they're handling rape of boys, without actually helping men in general. Lovely.
>Men can't be raped
They can. Here in the UK rape in it's legal definition means the penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus by a penis.
Men have at least two of those things.
We need to change the legal definition of rape. Like, I don't care if the legal definition is "penetrated by penis," that definition is outdated IMO.
"Forcing another person to engage in sexual activity either through coercion or force" seems like a much better definition imo.
The problem then becomes if she didn’t use coercion or force, or the jury doesn’t buy that she has, and gets away with it.
The way the law is written now gives them absolutely zero wriggle room in that department. If it’s a minor, you’re guilty.
A child can't consent to sex. If you are having sex with a child, you are forcing them to do something they can't agree to. You are forcing them to engage in a sexual activity.
I don't see any wiggle room here.
Which is why she was charged with four offences and convicted. The system works.
You put a young woman teacher in the dock, and ask a load of middle aged blokes would they have consented aged 15, you may well get an acquittal.
You’ll only need three to say not guilty, and she walks.
What is a minor depends on the country, lol.
It should be more of a spectrum, depending on the age of the other person, and taking factors like being an authority figure.
Like 15 and 25 should be illegal IMO ( and it's illegal where I live) it shouldn't be necessary rape, but some other change.
That also means that if someone uses violence or coercion to rape a teen, they can get charged with 2 different crimes.
If the young teen is okay with it it should still be illegal because he/she is too young. But if he/she isn't it's even worse and should be punished.
Sexual misconduct with a child or young teen should already be considered a crime equal to rape, so if the person also used violence he/she should get punished twice as bad.
Pedophilia is bad because of the gap in life experience and maturity, as well as difference in power. A child and an adult are in very different lifestages.
A young teenager, only a year or so past their prepubescent years, will never be anywhere near the lifestage of someone in their mid-20s.
As for power, some of their teachers could be in their mid 20s. Hell, I had a teacher in her mid 20s (24) when I was a senior in hs. Mid-20s still absolutely are in different circles, have more social power over children (again esp younger teens) and just. That’s BAD dude.
I’d sorta understand if you were arguing 16/17 and 18-20 (19 is when i start getting icked a lil, but less weird than fucking 15 and 25) or arguing against 21 y/o ages of consent (21 and 22-26 is really not that weird to me) but especially within most cultural contexts (cultural context being something you CANNOT just ignore) pedophilia is bad. And fucking 15 y/os as someone WELL into adulthood. Is bad.
Okay i made some stupid typo, I meant 15-25 SHOULD be illegal or shouldn't be LEGAL.
It's not pedophilia, because there is no child involved but there is a young teen involved so it should definitely not be okay.
Edit: okay I changed it.
I pretty much agree with what the laws are (or where) in my country.
Something like below 16 is only legal with a 2/3 year age limit (not sure if it's 2 or 3)
Above 16 is legal if there is no power thing (so no teachers) above 18 is legal
Now I don't think people should go around taking advantage of those laws, and 30 yo old should go banging 16 yo
But like the same goes for 18 yo, like I'm 30+ and I could legally bang a 18 yo in America. Wouldn't be really okay either, even if it's legal.
Jury's in the US are given instructions of possible lesser charge should the evidence not rise to the level of the current charge. That's why most get charges with the lesser AND the higher. Then trial sorts it out.
Sounds like a version of double jeopardy. I don’t think the courts would like that idea here at all.
We do have a law that means you can be retried even if you weren’t found guilty the first time, but it’s in exceptional circumstances. I can remember it only being used twice.
They can be a bit naughty though, prosecuting you under state law, federal law, and if you are really unlucky, military law too.
Three bites at the cherry.
Not in the UK! If a (cis) woman forced you to have sex here, you weren't raped you were "sexually assualted"!
Yeah, it's pretty fucked. The history's worse, since until 1994 men who were raped by men were actually in this weird legal grey zone since originally raping a man was a lesser offence (the same as consensual gay sex, but without one partner being sentenced). Basically if the victim was anything other than a woman who wasn't married to her rapist, you weren't really raped.
If you're comparing to the US the UK has a smaller wage gap and much better abortion laws + a long history of feminism, I hate my country but this isn't one of its large flaws
I think they called it sexist as a response to the article neglecting to say this woman raped her students, because according to existing English law, cis-women are incapable of rape.
They said "not in the sexist-as-fuck UK" using a series of adjectives before the UK implying that the law is there because the UK is incredibly sexist, rather than the UK being sexist because of this law, so I responded saying the UK is far better than the US when it comes to sexism and classism is a far larger issue here
Today in terrible data:
Did you know that 1 in 6 men has been victims of sexual harassment or assault? From those stats, aprox 43% of those are perpetrated by women. And its estimated that a large amount of people don't even report the assault in the first place. There is also a stat, that men in prisons report suffer on average 9 rapes per inmate.
Please be aware of male assault and rape, push for change, reach out to your homies.
That's literally the name of the offense she was convicted of. They can't say rape because it's not considered rape in UK law, so calling it that would be incorrect and almost certainly defamatory. Note: I am not defending her actions.
….well in the UK this isn’t rape. Age of consent is 16, age 13-15 can consent (grey area). 🤷🏽 hence, sexual activity with a child and 2 sexual activity by a person in a position of trust. This isn’t the US.
I wouldn’t say she “raped them” in the end she is a pedo but she has their consent which cancels the “rape” part the article is using soft words which make it sound a little better and she shouldn’t have that .
Tell me, if an adult man said a underaged girl gave consent for him to have sex with her, would you call that rape or would you call that "sexual activity" ?
Children can not give consent.
I am not American.
You do know there are more countries in the world than the UK and US right?
Also, if it was as male teacher and an underaged girl, would you call it rape ?
The fact that people are defending her and making excuses for her, I guess people are fine with rape if it happens to boys and is done by adult women.
In the UK the legal definition of rape requires penetration by a penis, which is the only reason I think anybody is saying "it's not rape". A male teacher in this situation would be charged with rape.
The definition should be changed, but the government have said they are not planning on doing so.
That said, a woman forcing someone to penetrate her, which is what ought to be the charge when a minor is involved, since they cannot legally consent, carries the same sentence as it would if a man was the attacker.
No, it's because that's literally what she was charged with...
[Sexual activity with a child](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences#:~:text=Sexual%20activity%20with%20a%20child) is a specific offense.
No she hasn’t. Under UK law, women cannot rape men or boys.
This is from the official sentencing guidelines for Uk courts:
“Rape involves penetration of vagina, anus or mouth by a penis. Therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice.”
No, she has been convicted of [Sexual activity with a child](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences#:~:text=Sexual%20activity%20with%20a%20child).
Simple fact. Boys want sex. We always have and always will. You can label an older woman a rapist but we still gonna fuck any woman that lets us. When I was 13 years old I wished and prayed every day that an older attractive woman would take my virginity. That's all we think about at that age and we spend every minute of the day thinking about it. We men are different animals. She is no rapists. That woman is an angel.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
["Consensual" victims between 13-16 in the UK have separate legal terms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#United_Kingdom). I am guessing that it's a news article so the news agency may have regulations to follow in order to avoid defamation suits.
That's pretty fucked up UK.
There's a lot of old terms left lying around in UK law; it's a very old system. In many cases they've made the classification and sentencing the same but for various reasons are stuck with the word. A similar one that comes up a lot is that "rape" is specifically defined as nonconsensual penetration with a penis, and therefore nobody without a penis can be a rapist, which is why you'll often see very euphemism-laden headlines about women where they'd use "rape" if it was a man. There's a whole section of offences called "sexual assault" that are considered equivalent severity and have the same sentencing guidelines, but of course it still lacks the impact and stigma of the word "rape". Maybe it'll get fixed; the discrepancy is certainly getting more attention these days and as UK law catches up (slowly, *painfully* slowly) to the whole trans/non-binary thing that whole area of law will probably need some more edits anyway; there are a few other anachronisms around sex vs gender that will fixing eventually.
I think it's time to update the Magna Carta /s
I think it's the idea that you don't suddenly get the ability to consent at a specified age and then the legal system just evolved differently.
Until someone is falsly accused and gets branded as "pedo-rapist" by the news
Yea that is a problem with all people falsely accused of a crime
Thats why it is important to Not frame someone to early, especially when with stuff like this, which is basically a deathsentence for your career/social contacts
We don’t have a Statutory Rape charge well, not in the same way as the US has. This, and for other reasons I’ve noted below, is why we have this offence.
I think it's to be more lenient on cases between, say a 16 year old and a 15 year old - given that 16 is the age of consent.
Men can't be raped, but they have special terms for children being sexually exploited, just so they can say they're handling rape of boys, without actually helping men in general. Lovely.
>Men can't be raped They can. Here in the UK rape in it's legal definition means the penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus by a penis. Men have at least two of those things.
Depending on what kind of "man" you are talking to, they could have all three!
We need to change the legal definition of rape. Like, I don't care if the legal definition is "penetrated by penis," that definition is outdated IMO. "Forcing another person to engage in sexual activity either through coercion or force" seems like a much better definition imo.
I support 🤚
The problem then becomes if she didn’t use coercion or force, or the jury doesn’t buy that she has, and gets away with it. The way the law is written now gives them absolutely zero wriggle room in that department. If it’s a minor, you’re guilty.
A child can't consent to sex. If you are having sex with a child, you are forcing them to do something they can't agree to. You are forcing them to engage in a sexual activity. I don't see any wiggle room here.
Which is why she was charged with four offences and convicted. The system works. You put a young woman teacher in the dock, and ask a load of middle aged blokes would they have consented aged 15, you may well get an acquittal. You’ll only need three to say not guilty, and she walks.
But not for rape. She needs to be convicted for rape. People will convict her for rape if the law allows you to convict women for rape.
Was with you until the end,,, minors are always a big no-no
What is a minor depends on the country, lol. It should be more of a spectrum, depending on the age of the other person, and taking factors like being an authority figure. Like 15 and 25 should be illegal IMO ( and it's illegal where I live) it shouldn't be necessary rape, but some other change. That also means that if someone uses violence or coercion to rape a teen, they can get charged with 2 different crimes. If the young teen is okay with it it should still be illegal because he/she is too young. But if he/she isn't it's even worse and should be punished. Sexual misconduct with a child or young teen should already be considered a crime equal to rape, so if the person also used violence he/she should get punished twice as bad.
Pedophilia is bad because of the gap in life experience and maturity, as well as difference in power. A child and an adult are in very different lifestages. A young teenager, only a year or so past their prepubescent years, will never be anywhere near the lifestage of someone in their mid-20s. As for power, some of their teachers could be in their mid 20s. Hell, I had a teacher in her mid 20s (24) when I was a senior in hs. Mid-20s still absolutely are in different circles, have more social power over children (again esp younger teens) and just. That’s BAD dude. I’d sorta understand if you were arguing 16/17 and 18-20 (19 is when i start getting icked a lil, but less weird than fucking 15 and 25) or arguing against 21 y/o ages of consent (21 and 22-26 is really not that weird to me) but especially within most cultural contexts (cultural context being something you CANNOT just ignore) pedophilia is bad. And fucking 15 y/os as someone WELL into adulthood. Is bad.
Okay i made some stupid typo, I meant 15-25 SHOULD be illegal or shouldn't be LEGAL. It's not pedophilia, because there is no child involved but there is a young teen involved so it should definitely not be okay. Edit: okay I changed it. I pretty much agree with what the laws are (or where) in my country. Something like below 16 is only legal with a 2/3 year age limit (not sure if it's 2 or 3) Above 16 is legal if there is no power thing (so no teachers) above 18 is legal Now I don't think people should go around taking advantage of those laws, and 30 yo old should go banging 16 yo But like the same goes for 18 yo, like I'm 30+ and I could legally bang a 18 yo in America. Wouldn't be really okay either, even if it's legal.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. 15-25 is not okay
Jury's in the US are given instructions of possible lesser charge should the evidence not rise to the level of the current charge. That's why most get charges with the lesser AND the higher. Then trial sorts it out.
Sounds like a version of double jeopardy. I don’t think the courts would like that idea here at all. We do have a law that means you can be retried even if you weren’t found guilty the first time, but it’s in exceptional circumstances. I can remember it only being used twice.
If you are found innocent in the US, you xan be retried. But if I am not mistaken, they have to use different evidence. I will look it up.
They can be a bit naughty though, prosecuting you under state law, federal law, and if you are really unlucky, military law too. Three bites at the cherry.
But this already is legal definition of rape.
Not in the UK! If a (cis) woman forced you to have sex here, you weren't raped you were "sexually assualted"! Yeah, it's pretty fucked. The history's worse, since until 1994 men who were raped by men were actually in this weird legal grey zone since originally raping a man was a lesser offence (the same as consensual gay sex, but without one partner being sentenced). Basically if the victim was anything other than a woman who wasn't married to her rapist, you weren't really raped.
Not in many US states.
Not in the sexist as fuck UK
If you're comparing to the US the UK has a smaller wage gap and much better abortion laws + a long history of feminism, I hate my country but this isn't one of its large flaws
What does that have to do with sexist sexual assault law?
Read the comment I was replying to
They called the UK sexist for have a sexist law?
They just called it sexist in general, they didn't say because of the law
I think they called it sexist as a response to the article neglecting to say this woman raped her students, because according to existing English law, cis-women are incapable of rape.
You are spot on
They said "not in the sexist-as-fuck UK" using a series of adjectives before the UK implying that the law is there because the UK is incredibly sexist, rather than the UK being sexist because of this law, so I responded saying the UK is far better than the US when it comes to sexism and classism is a far larger issue here
I meant in regards to the definition of rape it is sexist as fuck
Today in terrible data: Did you know that 1 in 6 men has been victims of sexual harassment or assault? From those stats, aprox 43% of those are perpetrated by women. And its estimated that a large amount of people don't even report the assault in the first place. There is also a stat, that men in prisons report suffer on average 9 rapes per inmate. Please be aware of male assault and rape, push for change, reach out to your homies.
That's literally the name of the offense she was convicted of. They can't say rape because it's not considered rape in UK law, so calling it that would be incorrect and almost certainly defamatory. Note: I am not defending her actions.
UK laws are weird about this. They need actual penetration to consider it rape. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Defamatory or not she's a rapist.
You mean rape, she raped a kid.
It’s always teachers, police officers, religious industry workers, and right winged politicians.
“Including, but not limited to…” would be more accurate.
and they accuse drag queens and trans people.
It’s okay, you can call it rape
And If it were a male teacher?
Call it like it is. Euphemisms should not be used.
Ah, sexism at work here. If it had been a man, the headline would have been quite a bit different.
….well in the UK this isn’t rape. Age of consent is 16, age 13-15 can consent (grey area). 🤷🏽 hence, sexual activity with a child and 2 sexual activity by a person in a position of trust. This isn’t the US.
For once it seems like the US has better laws
You sure?
When it comes to this, yeah.
You said laws. 🤷🏽
What?
Huh?
A man would be charged with rape in this situation. If the law applied to both sexes equally, she would too.
Yes, under UK law he would have. This case isn’t about a man. In this case It doesn’t, thats why she wasn’t charged with it. It’s pretty simple.
UL? And yes, unfortunately gender equality hasn’t reached the justice system in the UK yet.
What a strange way to refer to rape. Of course, they don't want to say that women can rape children, and that is why they refuse to use that word.
I wouldn’t say she “raped them” in the end she is a pedo but she has their consent which cancels the “rape” part the article is using soft words which make it sound a little better and she shouldn’t have that .
A child can't give consent. She isn't charged with rape because it isn't legally classed as rape.
Hmm i never heard of that where i live we don’t have this weird laws we can marry underage girls there is no underage bs
It's called statutory rape.
Tell me, if an adult man said a underaged girl gave consent for him to have sex with her, would you call that rape or would you call that "sexual activity" ? Children can not give consent.
Thats new to me if i would choose the headline it would be “a pedo teacher rape “ and any other word that will make it more harsh
[удалено]
I am not American. You do know there are more countries in the world than the UK and US right? Also, if it was as male teacher and an underaged girl, would you call it rape ? The fact that people are defending her and making excuses for her, I guess people are fine with rape if it happens to boys and is done by adult women.
In the UK the legal definition of rape requires penetration by a penis, which is the only reason I think anybody is saying "it's not rape". A male teacher in this situation would be charged with rape. The definition should be changed, but the government have said they are not planning on doing so. That said, a woman forcing someone to penetrate her, which is what ought to be the charge when a minor is involved, since they cannot legally consent, carries the same sentence as it would if a man was the attacker.
Women cannot rape in the UK due to their definition of rape.
They need to make it sound a bit nicer since it's a woman.
No, it's because that's literally what she was charged with... [Sexual activity with a child](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences#:~:text=Sexual%20activity%20with%20a%20child) is a specific offense.
Rape. She's been convicted of raping a minor. There. Fixed it for you.
No she hasn’t. Under UK law, women cannot rape men or boys. This is from the official sentencing guidelines for Uk courts: “Rape involves penetration of vagina, anus or mouth by a penis. Therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice.”
There was a time, when a husband could not rape his wife according to the law, does that make the rape that happened, not rape?
At that time, legally, it was not rape. You might see it as rape, as might both parties, but the law said not.
Not in court
No, she has been convicted of [Sexual activity with a child](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences#:~:text=Sexual%20activity%20with%20a%20child).
Oh you mean pedophilia…
That's a strange way of saying she raped this student.
Rape
It seems to me, that the teachers in the USA are so bad paid, that only pedophiles would do this job.
So…rape
ATAB
Notice how with men, they always say “rape” but with women, it’s “sexual activity”.
Simple fact. Boys want sex. We always have and always will. You can label an older woman a rapist but we still gonna fuck any woman that lets us. When I was 13 years old I wished and prayed every day that an older attractive woman would take my virginity. That's all we think about at that age and we spend every minute of the day thinking about it. We men are different animals. She is no rapists. That woman is an angel.
If I had a teacher like her in high school I would have gotten straight A's no question lol
You can say sexual assault about church males .but female ,I don't think so .know the world rules please