The tutor is facing life in prison for raping the boy. But if the boy admits he forced her to have sex with him, isn’t that rape too?
It is according to this definition:
Unwanted sexual touch or sexual use of someone through force or coercion is rape. To coerce someone sexually is to get them to engage in a sexual activity they do not want through guilt-trips or nagging, threats, bribes, intimidation or some other kind of emotional pressure or force.
Can there be such a thing as mutual rape?
Part of my confusion stems from a plethora of cases I’ve read about involving sex between college students. Typically, if the girl decides that she really didn’t want to have sex, or had sex while drunk, she can get the guy in a lot of trouble. Actual physical force or violence is not required.
I find myself forced to wonder whether it might be now possible to be a rapist and a victim of rape at the same time. Especially if the rapist is also a drunken victim, unable to consent.
Funny how something once so simple has been rendered so utterly confusing.
Not funny at all, but expected whenever government completely takes over the process of cultural definitions by legal fiat.
Hence: There is no situation legally in which a 30 year old woman can have sex with a fifteen year old boy that is not rape – because by definition any such sexual incident is, and must be, an instance of rape as well.
So even if the 30 year old was forced by her victim to have sex with him, he, not she, must be the rapist.
Which raises some interesting – and no doubt unintended – implications for any rape of an older woman by a teenage male, doesn’t it?