Proposed reform of Scotland’s rape laws

It’s an easy life (relatively speaking) if you are a sex criminal in Scotland. Want to rape someone without being prosecuted as a rapist? No problem – since rape is defined as the penetration of the vagina by the penis, simply pick an alternative object, an alternative orifice, or just bugger a man. If you don’t fancy a struggle, there is an even easier way. It’s only rape in Scotland if she has explicitly refused (or her refusal is implied, e.g., if you have to bash her around beforehand). So pick some nice girl in a pub, then ply her with booze until she passes out unconscious. Unless she told you earlier that she wasn’t up for sex – and someone else heard her tell you and is willing to stand up in court and say so – you’re home and dry! (If only other crimes were treated similarly – ‘It wasn’t theft, officer! He didn’t say I couldn’t take his car!’ )

Unfortunately for sex criminals, this happy state of affairs may not continue for much longer, because legal types in Scotland have unveiled proposals for reform. The changes will make it possible to rape a man. They will also redefine ‘against someone’s will’ to mean lack of consent, rather than presence of refusal. Furthermore, they will spell out various scenarios where consent cannot be given, which include, when the person is unconscious. (If having sex with inert bodies is your thing, then you might be better off just investing in a good quality sex doll.) Also, if the reforms go through and you happen to find yourself up in court on rape charges, just claiming ‘she said I could’ won’t cut it – you’ll have to explain to the court what you did to ascertain whether or not she was up for it. A small suggestion: maybe just ask politely next time you meet a lady and want to take her home to your bed.

8 thoughts on “Proposed reform of Scotland’s rape laws

  1. Well, this may really affect my plans for Scottish holiday filled with lots of non-consensual sex. Just so I can be sure of where I stand, can you give me a link to something on the proposed reforms?

  2. Oh wow. For once, America seems to be ahead of the game here (what???). Although definitions of rape vary from state to state, I do believe that every state (or nearly every state) is in better shape than Scotland appears to be. Our pursuit of justice in rape cases is severely lacking, however.

    Here, lack of consent is in the books, and technically, voluntary drunkenness does not constitute consent. Therefore, if a woman who is raped while she was drunk can plead no other legal defense, her state of drunkenness at the time is enough. In my state (Colorado), ‘forcible rape’ is defined as “any sexual penetration directed against another person (including oral, anal, or use of an object) against that person’s will, regardless of age” (Colorado Uniform Crime Reporting Definition). Our books further read: “Any penetration, no matter how slight, is sufficient to complete the crime” (C.R.S. 18-3-401).

  3. “For once, America seems to be ahead of the game here ”

    Very much depends on the state. Many still have marial rape exemptions (it’s okay to rape some as long as you are married to them) and excuse underage rape if you agree to marry them after.

    Also having the right laws is only the first step. Many countries have great standards for rape – but never apply them in the court (eg. the case in Italy that got dismissed because she was wearing tight jeans – and so clearly he couldn’t have gotten them off her without “consent”)

  4. So, are there no sexual assault laws in Scotland? Is it actually legal to anally rape someone, or can the perpetrator be charged with assault, but not rape? I’m kind of curious.

  5. Yes there are sexual assault laws, which mean that if you were to anally rape someone, you could be charged with sexual assault. But sexual assault is a lesser crime than rape – carries less punishment.

  6. Scotland is becoming morally bankrupt year by year, the latest consultation document which SNP man Kenny McAskil wants to introduce into law is for youngsters under 16 to have the freedom of a full sexually active lifestyle, including penile penetration.
    Really sad isnt it, that kids as young as 13, who may be physically as well as emotionally immature, are being encouraged by this regime to freely participate in a lifestyle that could lead to the trauma of pregnancy and/or of abortion at such a tender age.
    Doctors will confirm that most of these youngsters bodies are not ready for penetration at such a young age and are at a higher risk of infection for sexually transmitted disease due to the thin lining of the walls of the vagina.
    This consultation document also makes parity with young boys having anal sex with each others consent, anyone with a grain of sense in their head knows that the rectum is not designed for penetration, and that incalculative damage can be inflicted on inner rectum of a young boy by the penetration of a large penis.
    For the sake of our youth and the morality of our Nation, I plead with anyone who has an input on this document, please speak up for the well-being of our children and not for the morally bankrupt minds of the minority few self seeking individuals.

Comments are closed.