Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
In those days it was said that men cannot be raped, which is of course not true.
In fact legally it is true (here at least): the legal definition of rape precludes male victims. It shouldn't of course, but does.

I believe all he said was that there are grades of rape, and I think there are. Like, youngsters under age having a forbidden sexual relationship, which is officially 'rape', versus someone taken against their will and maybe beaten half to death into the bargain.
I'm inclined to agree with that ... and indeed the law (in Scotland at least) does actually distinguish there. When I was at school, two of my best friends had sex with each other. Legally, being (both) under 16 at the time, this was "rape". They were 14, so it would have carried up to 10 years in prison for the boy; had they been 13 instead, it would have been a higher sentence. Should that have been treated the same as if he had grabbed a stranger and violently assaulted her? I don't think so. Dafter still, a bit younger than that and it becomes legal again, because the boy would be considered too young to be convicted of a crime.

He also (I think it was him) suggested shortening the sentence by half if a rapist confesses before the trial.

What do you - and the list - think of that?
Mad. The sentences are already far too lenient; worse, giving such a big 'discount' risks pressuring innocent people into pleading guilty rather than risk the greater sentence, while excessively rewarding guilty parties.