>>99744953>Does that just not include male on male rape?It depends. For the purpose of prosecution?
Nope. A guy fucks you in one of 5 states he can't be charged with rape.
For the purposes of crime reporting? That changed in 2013. 5 years ago. Until that time, a man raping a man wasn't reported to the FBI uniform crime reporting as rape. Just sexual assault. It's why rapes against men are statistically so low.
>Seems awfully sillyThere are different standards for men and women and if you want parity in the law and treatment of the sexes, you have to acknowledge these instead of saying it's entirely one sided and demand that only ONE side be treated better. If women were treated the same as men, nobody would be on board with that as it would mean women would get a much worse shake for a lot of things.
If men were treated the same as women, a lot of feminists would probably be upset as well since that would mean men would be treated much better in other situations. The biggest problem I see is that there is no standard that you can set that is universally better for everyone. If you hold everyone to the standard to which men are held, a lot of women are not going to like it and they're going to get much worse treatment for certain things. For example. Most people (men and women) would NOT want women to have the same rate of homicide victimization as men. Or homelessness. Or suicide. A lot of those things would mean you now want women to be murdered, commit suicide or be homeless WAY more.
>>99745114Oh, they can and will be PROSECUTED. Just not for rape. It's sexual assault. Which is sentenced MUCH more differently than rape. It also has a considerably shorter statute of limitations. For example. A man was raped as a 19 year old in California in 1997 (Or was it 96?) If the woman who raped him could be charged for rape, he could press charges. The statute of limitations for sexual assault means he cannot press charges.