My dissertation argued that the crime of rape (found in s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003) should be reformed to encompass female perpetrators. Under the current framework, while both men and women can be victims of rape, only a man can commit the crime. This is due to the focus on penile penetration by the perpetrator in the definition of rape.

In chapter one, I supported my position by rebutting common rationales for retaining the current statutory framework. I analysed multiple research studies focused on men’s experiences of non-consensual penetration of a woman to invalidate the claim of insufficient evidence that women are capable of coercing men to penetrate them. Secondly, the justification that the public understand rape to be a crime committed by men was critiqued. I argued that the scope of rape should not be determined using public understanding and reform can play a role in changing public attitudes. Further, the perception that penile penetration by another causes greater harm to victims was corrected. Regardless of whether the unwanted penetration was committed by a man or a woman, the central harm of rape – the breach of sexual autonomy – occurs. Finally, the belief that a gender-neutral approach to rape would diminish the fact that women comprise the majority of victims was refuted.

I then moved on to examine how a gender-neutral approach to rape law can help remedy defects created or supported by the current law. One defect is the appearance of a hierarchical system of sexual offences, where assaults by men may be perceived as ‘worse’ than assaults by women. Further, by limiting the perpetrators of rape to men, the law reinforces harmful stereotypes, such as the belief that men always want sexual intercourse. This contributes to the research finding that some men have ‘gone along’ with unwanted intercourse. The belief that men always want sexual intercourse shifts the responsibility onto women to restrain men, and contributes to the victim-blaming culture e.g., women are said to be ‘asking for it' when they wear revealing clothing. As well as disrupting harmful stereotypes, reform would allow male victims of forced penetration to label their experience as rape. Studies show that labelling an experience as ‘rape’ can bring benefits to a victim, such as reducing the feeling of isolation and bringing a sense of empowerment.

While it is hoped that law reform will bring the advantages discussed, I acknowledged that reform is not capable of doing this alone. In chapter three, I highlighted various educative strategies that could be implemented alongside reform. For instance, education targeted at schools and expert evidence presented in trials could aid the disruption of sexual stereotypes.

I concluded by advocating for reform of rape law, specifically the adoption of a gender-neutral approach to the definition of rape, encompassing female perpetrators. The indefensible arguments for retaining the current framework discussed in chapter one alone justifies a gender-neutral approach. It is unnecessary for female and male perpetrators of unwanted sexual intercourse to be prosecuted under different offences. However, the ability of a gender-neutral approach to help remedy defects and stereotypes supports the need for reform.

Related Blogs

• 

  Reforming Corporate Insolvency Law for the 21st Century: Shaping the Future of Insolvency

• 

  Adverse Influence, Mental Ill Health, Risk, and Criminalisation: Does mental ill health increase the incidence of criminalisation of care-experienced children in England?

• 

  Rewriting the Rules, The Green Exchange; Evolving Environmental Policy and Legal Practice in English Law through Ecosystem Services Schemes

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.