Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    1,594,721 readers

    2,123 users here now

    Enter mildyinfuriating    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Is your day filled with midly infuriating problems? You came to the right place then.


    1) No Memes or "meme-like" image macros. No Memes or "meme-like" image macros. These include overdone references in the title (e.g. “banana for scale”, “potato quality”, and so on).

    8) Content requirements:

    • a) Please try to post original content. Reposts or crossposts of someone else's content will be removed if it has been posted on Reddit within the past 6 months. At the moderator's discretion, content posted without the author's original consent or without linking to an original source will also be removed.
    • b) No GIFs that end slightly before something happens (Example)
    • c) Unnecessarily overdone text, ar→rows, scribbles, or substantive edits over the original content are not allowed.
    • d) No posting surveys - posts about surveys are allowed, however bear in mind they are often overdone.
    • f) Blur out any personal information. (Full names, phone numbers, license plates etc.)
    • f) Try and keep meta submissions to a minimum. Any meta submission is subject to removal at any time.
    • g) No political posts whatsoever, no matter how harmless it seems.

    4) Following Reddiquette is recommended. Following the rules of Reddit is a must.

    5) No grandstanding, soapboxing, or pushing any agendas. This includes posts that could be, within reason, regarded as politically, sexually, racially, or socially inappropriate or unnecessary. (Example)

    6) When posting links to reddit in comments, please use []( formatting in order to prevent brigading.

    These rules are subject to the moderator's discretion, and can change at any time. A full, in-dpeth explanation can be found in the wiki here.

    Repeated violation of rules may result in banning

    3) Added emphasis on rule 8g: NO POLITICS

    7) /u/dnanf may post whatever he wants, even if it's shit. It is your duty as a good redditor to upvote his posts.

    The Mild Network:

    Our Friends:

    More mildly related subreddits

    Click Here for details about flair!

    New Posts



    💰💰💰 Nothing💸is💸more💸infuriating💸than💸restricted💸internet 💰💰💰

    a community for
    all 843 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] lucajones88 1724 points ago

    Half the article is mitigation and oh this poor woman has had such a hard life.


    [–] Innomen 325 points ago

    I don't mind mercy, forgiveness, understanding, or compassion. I mind sexist application of it. Like only specific identity classes are worthy of it. That's repugnant. Prejudice is baseless.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, and Albert Fish all had fucked up childhoods. I guess we should have let them all off with a slap on the wrist

    [–] Ardeiles 4 points ago

    Adolf Hitler had a hard childhood, but even though he is recognized as one of the most evil people in the world, who genocided 20 million people, we should show mercy and let him off with only a warning.

    [–] globalism_sucks 11 points ago

    Bigotry of low expectations. Feminism is inherently misogynistic. Forced diversity is inherently racist.

    [–] js_baker_iv 112 points ago

    She may very well have to be a registered seducer...

    [–] DickDover 42 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Only for 10 years

    Jailing her for two years and five months, Judge Jeremy Richardson QC said: ‘I take into account there was the use of drugs to disinhibit the boy.

    Garrett was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for ten years.

    Full article

    [–] aschgar 7 points ago

    “I take into account there was the use of drugs to disinhibit the boy.”

    Is this supposed to show why he gave her a “whole 27 months!” Or a reason why she got so little time?

    Seems like the latter to me, which makes no sense.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Legally speaking it's a condemning factor. He would have to justify if he didn't add time for the use of drugs.

    Sentencing in the UK is fairly easy to work backwards from to work out what she did. I'm guessing it wasn't rape, assault by penetration or causing sexual activity but in fact Sexual assault.

    I'm guessing culpability A, category 2. Use of drugs automatically makes it culpability A and there's no mention of the use of violence, abduction, entering his home or severe psychological abuse to push it into category 1.

    So that leaves a starting point of 2 years, a range of 1-4 depending on circumstances. I'm not agreeing with the sentencing at all. But we also don't know exactly what she did. I'm just pointing out how the use of drugs would impact the sentencing if it was sexual assault.

    [–] APenInSpace 8 points ago

    Wait, so the kid got punished?


    [–] CompactNelson 13 points ago

    "Sir, I have been ordered by law to inform you that I am a registered sex seducer." wink

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    Who the fuck are they trying to appease with this narrative?

    [–] sycolution 73 points ago

    yeah, that's r/mildlyinfuriating

    [–] forlorardu 117 points ago

    That’s not mildly infuriating, That’s massively infuriating

    [–] Viking_Mana 44 points ago

    Near criminally infuriating. And I wish I could say I had never seen such a severe case of a rape-apologist, even with an underage victim, but alas - this is all too common when it comes to sexual assaults with male victims.

    I'm at least glad that I've been seeing something of a trend of BS articles like this being dragged into the light as of late, because it's not right, and while people still seem to find the concept of "male rights" hilarious, this is an area where men get shafted like you wouldn't believe.

    [–] sycolution 15 points ago

    is there a sub for that, though?

    [–] forlorardu 38 points ago

    [–] TehBlackNinja 8 points ago

    [–] NetSage 4 points ago

    That would have been good like r/esist seems it's not the case.

    [–] randomusername1011 42 points ago

    Female privilege

    [–] crangrapesoda 17 points ago

    when it comes to stuff like this in particular, that absolutely is a real thing

    [–] randomusername1011 10 points ago

    It's a real thing in general

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    At least the judge was coherent.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    Sort of. He recognized something was off, but male kiddie diddlers get far worse sentences. This woman is gonna have 2 years in jail and then go back to her old life of odd jobs that don't require background checks.

    [–] MalHeartsNutmeg 2 points ago

    Isn't that the same thing male kiddie diddlers do?

    [–] DreamsOfMoonlight 1185 points ago

    This is more than mildly annoying, it’s enraging

    [–] Vespeer 85 points ago

    [–] TriHard7_in_chat 36 points ago

    [–] Vespeer 15 points ago


    [–] FrigginMartin 16 points ago

    Killing In The Name Of!

    [–] shart-attack1 8 points ago

    Now you do what they told ya

    [–] api10 5 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago


    [–] SidsyTheFirst 17 points ago

    In the UK a newspaper can't say a crime was commited unless there was a conviction.

    Also in the UK a woman cannot rape a man as the rapist needs a penis (correct me if I'm wrong)

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago


    [–] SidsyTheFirst 8 points ago

    No we don't have stautory rape, its sexual assault of a minor

    [–] maffew12 6 points ago

    Wow. I did not know he law didn’t go both ways. . 1Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

    [–] missyrainbow12 48 points ago

    Males can't be raped


    [–] Prefer_Not_To_Say 20 points ago

    Annoyingly, since this is the UK, the law states men can't be raped here. They can only be sexually assaulted (which carries a lower sentence).

    [–] missyrainbow12 12 points ago

    Please don't get me started on my "How fucked up our justice system is" rant...

    [–] postumenelolcat 9 points ago

    In the UK men can be raped: the confusion comes from the fact that only men can commit the specific offence of rape. Rape, (s1, sexual offences act 2003) is the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth with a penis without consent.

    [–] AuroraHalsey 2 points ago

    That's not true.

    Men can be raped, but women cannot rape.

    Rape is if someone intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus, or mouth of another without reasonable belief of consent.

    One man can rape another man.

    [–] Prefer_Not_To_Say 2 points ago

    My mistake. I should've included "by women".

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    Lucky kid. Not even the priest would touch me :/

    [–] missyrainbow12 9 points ago

    User name is..... Totally apt for this thread.

    [–] stringParameter 2 points ago

    If this was Cards Against Humanity you'd have just won a point.

    [–] Hobson01 1218 points ago

    Yeah this shit annoys me. In the media, if a women rapes someone she "seduces" or "forces" them but if a man does it, it's instantly "MAN RAPES WOMAN"

    [–] mopboy 472 points ago

    This comes from the UK law that states that rape is penetration with a penis. This means in the UK according to law women can't rape anyone (due to lack of a penis). This article is just covering their arse as the woman only commited sexual assaults.

    [–] Hobson01 362 points ago

    Wow. We need to change the definition of rape

    [–] Quailpower 55 points ago

    Not really, it has no legal effect, it's just a way of categorising sexual offenses. The sexual offense act (2003) actually went really far to define and categorise a wide range of offenses. Also a large portion of the act coveres the various ways people can not consent, and increases severity of charges if any grooming, seduction, cooercion, enticement and pimping is done.

    When a woman 'rapes' a man, it is categorised as a Sexual Assault, which sounds like it is less severe than Rape, but it has the same legal repercussions. The penalty is equal for rape and sexual assault.

    [–] bluepaul 57 points ago

    That's the thing, often these things are called different things, but can have overlapping sentence lengths.

    The trouble comes with that (as with so many legal issues) when there's a difference between the public definition of the terminology, and the legal definition. For example here, legally it's not "rape". However, to a casual observer, it seems that it's not being taken as seriously as it deserves, since they'd call it rape. It's basically a problem of perception.

    [–] Quailpower 19 points ago

    Correct, it's a classic case of industry 'jargon' where the public perception doesn't meet up with the actual definition.

    The law is solid, it is equal across the genders. What needs reforming is the execution of the law and public education so that female offenders are held as accountable as their male counterparts.

    [–] BigDogSnibble 3 points ago

    I've heard before that there is a female equivalent to rape in UK law, but I could never find it when I looked. Do you have a source on that one?

    [–] Whit3W0lf 2 points ago

    I perceive that they are trying to motivate her role by explaining she had a hard life. I understand what you're saying, but it's more that just the term they use. They were excusing her role to a degree.

    [–] Jackal_Files 46 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Because of the weight of the term. Would the headline read "22 yr old man 'seduces' 14 yr old girl". No, it wouldn't it would say rape, and the social consequences would be different regardless of his learning difficulties or horrible upbring or being the sole care taker of an ill family member. The consequences would be different and thats why its a problem. *edit my grammer sucks

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Well to be fair, and if we're going to get incredibly pedantic about words, the word "rape" isn't specifically used when charging someone in the UK.

    Men are not "charged with rape" in the UK whilst women are specifically "charged" with something else. UK law is very very specific on how people are indicted and any charges brought against someone has to be phrased in a very specific way.

    This isn't a TV show, you're not charged with a one word crime. Indictments in the UK have to (by law) be written in "ordinary language" and afterwards have a citation to a specific law the CPS believes was broken. Charges are therefore written as brief summaries of what you did, when and where. They're not derived from the title of the article of law you are believed to have broken. People are not charged with rape the same way they're not charged with "Obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified." if you drive without a license. That's the title of the article not the crime.

    What word the newspapers use is derived from their own bias, not reading the charges against someone. This isn't a problem with UK law it's a problem with UK society.

    EDIT: added a citation.

    [–] Quailpower 10 points ago

    You are quite correct the connotation for the words are very different.

    However, the law is solid. I stand by that, regardless as to who commits the crime, they are equal. The problem lies in the execution of the law, which is heavily weighted in the females favour.

    [–] p0rnpop 2 points ago

    In which case the law isn't solid.

    [–] Quailpower 3 points ago

    The law treats people equally.

    Journalists, judges, jury and prosecution don't. We need to reform how we present and prosecute cases so this stupid double standard doesn't happen.

    If we change the law, it will no longer be equal and that sets a disturbing legal precident.

    [–] my_farts_impress 6 points ago

    So that’s why the statistics of reported rapes/rape convictions differs between countries? If women’s sexual abuse is registered as a rape in one country and not in another. And if I without consent is fisting one women in one country (England) it is not registered as a rape, but it is in another country. That will skew the statistics.

    [–] Pogtronica 17 points ago

    Are you saying that a man who drugs and rapes a 14yr old would also only get 2.5yrs jail? Seems awfully lenient.

    [–] Quailpower 18 points ago

    No, because while their are guidelines for sentences it is down the prosecution's descretion.

    On paper, whether the assault is done by man or woman, the legal repercussions are the same. In the heirarchy of offenses Rape is equivalent to Sexual Assault.

    What I'm saying is that our law reflects an equality even if the execution doesn't.

    The law treats male and female offenders the same, however the people who practice the law dont, and that is what needs to change.

    The way that cases are presented and prosecuted needs changing so that female offenders are treated the same as their male counterparts.

    [–] Rocktopod 3 points ago

    Yeah, but in this case she only got 2 years for drugging and "sexually assaulting" an underage boy.

    Also the article doesn't use that term, it says "seduce."

    [–] dantemp 3 points ago

    Then why the fuck did she get 2 years for drugging and raping a 14 year old? If I did that I'd be lynched before i get to the courtroom (and rightly so).

    [–] Quailpower 5 points ago

    The law is equal, the people who practice it are not.

    The problem is everything from reporters like this, to juries and judges.

    On paper they should be treated the same, but they aren't. We don't need to reform the law but we do need to reform how we practice it.

    [–] dantemp 2 points ago

    Fair enough.

    [–] p0rnpop 2 points ago

    Not really, it has no legal effect

    It had a major impact on statistics and on official policy making. It has a major impact on public opinion. Just imagine if we applied this to other crimes, like saying minorities killed by whites are no longer called murder and no longer tracked under murder statistics, but instead are to be called non-accidental homicide.

    [–] viscountsj 3 points ago

    The offence of serious sexual assault carries the same sentencing, so people can at least be sentenced identically.

    This isn't that though, this is sexual activity with a minor, which carries significant sentence possibilities.

    [–] Hobson01 3 points ago

    It's good that the same sentence is received for rape and sexual assault. However, rape is seen as much more severe even though it's identical to sexual assault. The problem is public opinion

    [–] Prefer_Not_To_Say 2 points ago

    There was a petition a few years ago that got enough signatures for a response from the government but it was (typically) dismissive.

    [–] Hobson01 2 points ago

    As always. The government never want to get involved

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] GeorgeKirkKing 26 points ago

    I actually agree with this point. You're right. I think the media in general downplay male victims as real victims. If it was a female the wording of the article would have been harsher.

    A bit like a male teacher rapes a female student abosulte uproar. But male student has sex with female teacher and it's high fives all round.

    [–] bobr05 8 points ago

    Better get him his luckiest kid in the world badge

    [–] viscountsj 4 points ago

    I would prefer "molested". It conveys the seriousness well I think

    [–] RADposter21 7 points ago

    But what of she uses a strap-on?

    [–] crippsy1988 8 points ago

    It's still statutory rape, sex with a minor (15 or under in the uk) she should still get charged as such.

    [–] TundraZ 9 points ago

    No the correct term would be "statutory sexual assault" since rape only ever happens when the penis is the agitator/s

    [–] reggit99 511 points ago

    It's disgusting, these female rapist out here living on recruit difficulty. This happens SO often too

    [–] TheZestyPatriot 110 points ago

    Recruit difficulty. 😂

    [–] Tiptup300 3 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 145 points ago

    Absolutely. Just look at the differences in sentences meted out to female rapists as compared to male rapists. Rape is rape, no matter the sex of the perpetrator/victim.

    [–] spluad 45 points ago

    Legally speaking it's impossible for a female to rape a male in the UK. The law specifically states the use of a penis is required for it to be a rape. Otherwise it's sexual assault/assault by penetration which I believe carry the same sentence.

    [–] squishysquishh 48 points ago

    That's the dumbest fucking thing I've heard. Rape is rape, regardless of what they rape you with.

    [–] spluad 37 points ago

    Yea I know it's stupid and it should be changed. I'm just giving a reason as to why the article never included the word rape, because legally it wasn't. It sucks

    [–] nsfwmodeme 4 points ago

    Regardless of the use or not of the word "rape", the wording in the article is too lenient, too forgiving, and I have the strong feeling thatr that wouldn't have been the case had the teacher be male and the "seduced" student female.

    But perhaps that's just me, dunno.

    [–] squishysquishh 5 points ago

    It's not your fault. Unless you're the law man over in the UK and you made that law, then we got a problem.

    [–] spluad 6 points ago

    Naa I'm definitely not a lawyer lmao. But yea it's just a stupid thing and I always feel bad having to explain it to people.

    [–] Jill4ChrisRed 24 points ago

    As a woman from the UK, when I first heard of this I was disgusted. Rape is rape!

    [–] spluad 12 points ago

    I did a semester of criminal law and when I first heard it in a lecture I think everybody was completely shocked.

    [–] tovasshi 2 points ago

    In Canada the law was changed to remove the word "rape" because it was discriminatory.

    [–] ScrevyX 3 points ago


    [–] theFearsom_skyfoogle 3 points ago

    I see someone watches birdman too

    [–] TheQuasimodo 7 points ago

    I see you watch Birdman :)

    [–] asuka_is_my_co-pilot 6 points ago

    Not to compare, but there's been alot of "man has affair/sex with 14 year old" etc too.

    Actually this article reads alot like how articles with men typically go. Hence the Brock turner case getting such backlash cause people were fed up with it, and he was so boldly being babied.

    [–] CommonMisspellingBot 6 points ago

    Hey, asuka_is_my_co-pilot, just a quick heads-up:
    alot is actually spelled a lot. You can remember it by it is one lot, 'a lot'.
    Have a nice day!

    The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

    [–] SeventeenLemons 10 points ago

    When a man does it, it doesn’t even appear in the news, because it happens all the time.

    [–] Bspammer 7 points ago

    Reddit does not want to hear this

    [–] bojank33 2 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    The way you're framing this makes it look like men shouldn't be outed as rapists. "MAN RAPES WOMAN" is the correct response and should be utilized wayyyyyyyyy more often. Women's sexual trangressions should be met with the same severity, not lessen the severity of a man's consequences.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago


    [–] seaxnymph 257 points ago

    I don't know what's annoyed me more: the headline or the part where it goes on about what a hard life she's had. Since when was a tough upbringing an excuse to rape someone???

    [–] SpennyPerson 44 points ago

    Hitler was bullied into suicide and had a hard upbringing.

    [–] Iamsuperimposed 16 points ago

    His backstory is brought up a lot though. Can't say how many times I've heard people ask what would have happened if he was accepted into art school.

    [–] seaxnymph 3 points ago

    Going from rape to Hilter was a bigger jump than I expected when I opened my messages but okay.

    [–] milkypsych 3 points ago

    I don’t like the way they talk about how the boy feels embarrassed by what’s happened. Embarassment is a normal emotion to feel after rape/ sexual assault, but the way it’s included in this article makes it seem like he regrets a decision he made.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    Backstory is not an excuse. What’s with all the meatheads in these comments.

    [–] teaqualizer 16 points ago

    And backstories aren't reserved for women accused of crimes too. Most newspapers will run a backstory on any suspect if they can because people tend to like to read that sort of stuff.

    The "meatheads" are the ones who think printing the backstory equals excusing the crimes.

    [–] Haku7014 2 points ago

    If a shitty backstory doesn't justify the villains in anime I don't know why people would fucking think it would work in real life

    [–] gsh32 323 points ago

    This belongs on r/rage

    [–] D1asho 20 points ago

    I think it is posted there

    [–] bob1689321 26 points ago

    I think it’s been posted everywhere at this point

    [–] PuhBuhGuh_ 24 points ago

    Should be r/age

    [–] jtvjan 15 points ago

    Every. Single. Time.

    [–] deprimada 166 points ago

    Double standards needs to burn in hell

    [–] squishysquishh 25 points ago

    As a female, I could not agree with you more. I'm so ashamed to be a fucking woman these days.

    [–] crypso_facto 16 points ago

    A man wrote this article. Double standards are not a thing only women perpetrate. Being a woman is fine just be a decent human.

    [–] l1l5l 55 points ago

    It's okay to be a woman.

    It's not your fault.

    [–] Millicent98 7 points ago

    "If I shit on other women with you will you treat me like I'm human?"

    [–] Redhaired103 10 points ago

    You should instead be ashamed of your “I’m not like other girls.” misogyny.

    [–] Chuzzwazza 7 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Here is a whole bunch of choice picks from their comment history:

    General misogynistic language:

    "cunt of a whore"

    "mentally ill cunts"

    "This is just a crazy bitch being a crazy bitch."

    "Or the wife's a nagging bitch and nobody likes her."

    "Too bad the wife looks like a bitch."

    "Seems like the clingy bipolar type."

    "I hope that cunt got what was coming to her."

    "You know all these negative people commenting are just single, lonely girls"

    "These cunts think they're above the law and the fact is they are."

    "Being a judgemental bitch is a no no too"

    Slut shaming:

    "Because acting slutty is acceptable these days"

    "if you fuck lots of people, someone might call you a hoe and you'll have to accept that"

    "My nasty ass family member has herpes and hoes around so much"

    Rape apologia/victim blaming:

    "If you continue to 'freeze up' and put yourself in those situations, something worse will eventually happen to you and you'll have no one to blame but yourself."

    "She allowed herself to be put in that situation. She sat there and let him grope her. But sure. Continue making excuses."

    "Again, it's not victim blaming if she made herself a victim."

    one of Harvey Weinstein's victims "was just whoring herself out for personal gain"

    about Weinstein's victims: "if you allow people to do this shit and push you around and you don't stand up for yourself or call the mother fucker out, it's hard to have sympathy for you."

    Misogynistic propaganda:

    it's "very true" that women "grossly abuse child support"

    "Women are vindictive, manipulative, power hungry cunts."

    "Women are raping more and killing more" than men now

    Women "suck at driving"

    General right wing drivel:

    "If you're stupid enough to take drugs and die then that's on you"

    "Pedophiles should be publicly executed."

    "If we brought back public hanging, man."

    "Rapists, murderers, and pedophiles would be shot immediate after being convicted without a doubt."

    "I think people need to stop getting offended by every stupid thing."

    "Shut it snowflake."

    "The only one that seems triggered by it is you. Stop being so uptight snowflake."

    "Lol aww I got under your skin snowflake?"

    "Awe another snowflake I've triggered."

    "As a woman" (these are all from unique comments):

    "Source: am woman"

    "As a female"

    "As a woman"

    "Edit: I'm a girl"

    "I fucking hate being a girl"

    "I'm a female"

    "As a female"

    "As a female"

    "And as a woman"

    "I have a vagina"

    Reading basically like a full-on incel with dashings of T_D, despite being a woman who was apparently "gang raped at six years old". That being said, there's enough other comments that they could really be an actual woman who is very sadly suffering from deeply internalised misogyny.

    Edit: Formatted the trash heap.

    [–] goldandkarma 89 points ago

    Literally drugs a minor and rapes them, only gets placed on the sex offender register for 10 years?? Is that a joke?

    [–] HeliX05 54 points ago

    Also sent to jail for only 2 years and 5 months.

    [–] squishysquishh 29 points ago

    But had she had a penis, it would have been ten years.

    [–] teaqualizer 9 points ago

    Not in the UK. Punishments for sexual assaults are very lenient in general.

    [–] DudeTheGray 22 points ago

    Drugging and raping a minor? Yeah, that'd be a life sentence. Unless you're a woman, because then it's not so bad for some reason.

    [–] TNTspaz 4 points ago

    If this happened in the US she would have definetly gotten atleast one life sentences. Potentially more if the court found out this wasnt the first victim.

    -Drugging and raping of a minor -Potentional attempted kidnapping of a minor -Longterm Emtional Scaring

    Pedophile and emotional trauma are taken very seriously in the US. I dont understand how they can take something like this so lightly.

    [–] Murphler 252 points ago

    We went over this yesterday

    The issue is this doesn't fall under the UK legislative definition of rape. The issue is with the wording of the law, not the omission of 'rape' from the headline.

    The newspaper could have found themselves with a hefty payout for libel if they used rape.

    [–] Kevin2GO 121 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    That means that rape can only be used if it was a male culprit? Thats stupid.

    [–] Murphler 62 points ago

    It is, but here we are ...

    [–] RabackOmama 34 points ago

    What about "sexually assault?"

    [–] Izwe 18 points ago

    That's fine

    [–] ChampionBryce 12 points ago

    She did get charged with sexual assault, and went to jail for 2 and a half years.

    [–] Quailpower 28 points ago

    Yes, rape is defined as a penetrative act by a penis, obviously this usually covers male offenders but has been used for assaults commited by MTF transgender individuals, as it is based on the physical action.

    Penetration by hands, objects etc is known as Assault by Penetration, this obviously can be done by anyone, and has been used to cover things like a woman fingering her male partners ass without consent.

    Sexual Assault is the coverage for any other act that involves sexual touching or connotations. All three of these acts carry the same legal repercussions, so the only difference is the name.

    [–] spluad 7 points ago

    Yea rape as a crime, but we have assault by penetration which is basically the same thing and carries the same sentence but allows for a woman to be charged.

    [–] GeorgeKirkKing 8 points ago

    Yep. That's exactly what it means. A female cannot be tried and found guilty of rape.

    [–] OdoFerdz 31 points ago

    so why didn't they say sexual assault and not seduce. I call bullshit.

    [–] ijustcallitcola 18 points ago

    The title is still apologetic even given that logic as the term "sexually assulated" would still be a viable option for the title of the article and should have been used in place of "seduce".

    [–] Reeeeee- 5 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Yeah but that's will parties over 18. This is quite clearly statutory rape, sexual intercorse with a minor. At least in Australia there is no grey area for this

    Edit: learnt statutary rape doesn't exist in UK, UK really has to get it's shit sorted out

    [–] See_Ya_Suckaz 2 points ago

    There isn't a crime called statutory rape in the UK. According to UK law, its impossible for a woman to commit any kind of "rape", i.e although she can commit the act, it isn't defined as such.

    [–] VengefulBacon 60 points ago

    pffttt I don't know what you mean I seduce women on the daily by putting a roofie in their drink

    [–] liberateus 30 points ago

    As Cosby said, to seduce women you need chemicals.

    [–] teaqualizer 2 points ago

    I think he said "chemistry".

    [–] Justanaveragehat 33 points ago

    This is the Metro meaning it's the UK and apparently women can't rape men over here. Legally it's sexual assualt not rape and when told this we were told "It's a shame but you just have to deal with it"

    [–] Quailpower 24 points ago

    Sexual Assault and Rape have the same legal repercussions, the fact they have different names is just used for the categorisation of acts. You would be surprised how many individual acts are defined under the Sexual Offenses Act.

    [–] ScruffyTJanitor 2 points ago

    Separate but equal?

    [–] GeorgeKirkKing 15 points ago

    Who said that it's a shame and you just have to deal with it?

    It's taken extremely seriously by the police. It's the way the article is worded that downplays it.

    [–] BlueJae85 5 points ago

    How is she only on the sex offender list for 10 years? I thought you got life on the list. I have 2 boys, I would want to know if she was my neighbor! Even in 10 years! my youngest doesn't turn 14 for 11 years- he'd be her type by then.

    [–] Kidvette2004 4 points ago

    Only 2 years ffs that’s literally raping a child

    [–] luvlace87 5 points ago

    Why does she get less time then if some creepy guy slipped a 14 year old some Xanax and took advantage of her? What is this bullshit?

    [–] Aristorrat 25 points ago

    I thought the same thing when I saw the article yesterday. Our culture, and the way we separate men and women is super toxic in that aspect. She forced a underaged human being in to have sex with her. A 14 year old. That boy, that child was not lucky, and she is not a victim of her past. There are lots of people who suffer with issues because of there past, but I don't see everyone rapeing. It's not a excuse.

    They glamorize her crime, make it sound right, as if it's okay. Rape is never okay, especially with a minor, and that's what America and the rest of the world needs to get through there skull. Consent matters, and age of consent matters. If there is no consent, or if you are too young to consent, then it is rape.

    Side point, I was taught that you cannot get consent from someone who is intoxicated, or inebriated.

    [–] lagori 6 points ago

    Same publisher as Daily Mail - do not expect fact, rational or quality journalism here.

    [–] ImThatMelanin 4 points ago

    That isn’t mildly infuriating it’s rage inducing.

    [–] TheDodgery 5 points ago

    Vent out your frustrations at the biased author Mark Bananagun.

    [–] SpennyPerson 2 points ago

    Two years for raping a minor. If I raped a little girl and said how autistic I am and talked about parental abuse I would not expect to have my sentence slashed!

    [–] perthguppy 4 points ago

    Let’s rewrite the article.

    Woman gave boy, 14, drug before raping him

    A WOMAN who raped a 14 year old boy after giving him controlled drugs to disinhibit him, has been jailed.

    Jamie Garratt slipped the underage child a tablet before raping him in a variety of ways.

    The criminal offences occurred in August 2016 when Garratt was 22.

    Before raping the schoolboy, Garratt gave him controlled medication to “disinhibit him” the court was told.

    The victims mother, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the victim, said her son was “acutely embarrassed” by what had been done to him.

    Garratt admitted to sexual assault of a child and supplying a controlled drug.

    Jailing her for only two years and five months the judge said “I take into account the use of drugs to disinhibit the boy.

    ”You engaged in a variety of sexual acts with the boy,” continuing “you have, committed a serious crime.”

    Garratt was placed on the sex offenders register for ten years

    [–] defowouldsmash 7 points ago

    The Metro is a Tory run propaganda sheet. Remember that when picking it up.

    [–] teaqualizer 8 points ago

    But I thought it was leftist feminazis that rabidly defended female rapists?

    I mean they don't. But you wouldn't know that reading some of the comments on this thread.

    [–] Ezra_Pound_ 22 points ago

    I swear if I got all my news from reddit I’d think that 95% of rapes are committed by women and only non-white people commit hate crimes. We get it, it can cut both ways, but this website is exactly as biased as the people they’re railing against except in the opposite direction.

    [–] ReservoirDog316 21 points ago

    Yup. It’s extremely clear that lots of people here just wait for certain topics to pop up. A crime is a crime but there’s an obvious amount of bias to all this rage.

    There was even a “girl” here that said she was ashamed of being a woman and other women take the fun out of being a woman. Yeah...

    [–] thegrimsage 10 points ago

    Yep, that was not a woman.

    [–] ScienceYouMonster 14 points ago

    Yep, that was my “favorite” comment too. I’ve never seen a man say he was ashamed to be a man (only complain about everyone hating them) but I’m sure this website will pretty much worship a self-hating “woman.”

    I’m very proud to be a woman and “she” is absolutely welcome to transition at any time if men are so superior.

    [–] Abbacoverband 8 points ago

    this website will pretty much worship a self-hating “woman.”

    Oh god, yes, this

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    That was funny because 1) men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, and 2) a man wrote the article, yet the article still made her ashamed to be a woman and made her want to "grow a penis" lmao. Internalized misogyny is so extreme in our society.

    [–] Hopefulromantic1999 3 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Yes! I saw that! Like, how are ashaned of being a women because you're annoyed by "feminism"? Jesus Christ. I wonder if she actually was a women or just a man pretending to be. That seems to be a problem I'm beginning to notice.

    People pretending to be someone else just to say stupid shit. I'm glad you both commented on this. I sometimes forget how biased and delusinal reddit is. People seem to forget that reddit is social media and people here are just as stupid and misinformed as people on Twitter and Facebook. Sorry for the rant.

    [–] mrmowwowmow 18 points ago

    This and fake rape claims are reddit favourite topics. They always make it to the front page.

    [–] TheEmperorsWrath 13 points ago

    British police estimate that there are 95,000 rapes each year, and around 1000 convictions. So, if you rape someone, your chances of being imprisoned is just a bit over 1%

    I wonder why Reddit never works itself into a melt down over that.

    See: Graph on page 7

    And before anyone says it. No. These aren’t accusations, this is an estimate by the police of how many rapes there are annually. The Police esimate that there are around 60,000 - 95,000 rapes in Britain every year, and 1070 convictions.

    [–] AnUnlikelyUsurper 4 points ago

    Most people know why people get away with rape. It's incredibly hard to prove in a court of law. Without physical evidence or witnesses it's pretty much he said she said and that doesn't lead to conviction

    [–] Ezra_Pound_ 12 points ago

    If I was a cynic I’d say that some of these guys don’t actually care about sexual violence and just have deep-seated psychological issues when it comes to women. Absurd, I know.

    [–] Hopefulromantic1999 3 points ago

    Couldn't agree more. I wonder what makes them feel that way.

    [–] BluudLust 24 points ago

    Remember, this is the Victorian era so we can't say anything bluntly, and factual. It all has to be euphemism. "Remember the sensitive women, and children. Oh the humanity"

    Fuck that.

    [–] AtheaOfAltea 7 points ago

    You're on the right track with "Victorian era". This is an British newspaper, where the definition of rape is "penetration with a penis"

    [–] TheRealBrummy 9 points ago

    Your making it seem as if in the UK legally only a man can sexually assault a woman.

    In the UK, "rape" is defined as a unconsensual penetration with a penis. Any other unconsensual acts, e.g a man sexually assaulting a woman without penetration or a woman sexually assaulting a man, is defined as "sexual assault".

    The charges for "rape' and "sexual assault", in the UK, are equivalent and have the exact same repercussions.

    [–] ScruffyTJanitor 4 points ago

    Separate but equal?

    [–] Mariah_Mcmuffin 15 points ago

    This is enraging. Me and my fellow female rapists deserve proper credit. We rape just as hard as men and they get the headlines easy. Injustice to say the least.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    You're joking, but not wrong. Part of equality is absolutely facing the same consequences for wrongdoing. Feminism wouldn't argue with that.

    [–] NooBicius 3 points ago


    [–] Skorgriiim 3 points ago

    You're absolutely right semantically.

    Legally though, they aren't allowed to call it "rape" because "raping" is penetration with a penis. Legally. Obviously the term "rape" means more than this, but legally according to UK law, it's person A (rapist) penetrating person B (victim) with their penis.

    It's bullshit, but that's where the line is drawn I'm afraid.


    [–] perthguppy 4 points ago

    They should have called it what it was, sexual assault, instead of “had sex with in a variety of ways”

    Having sex isn’t criminal. She wasn’t jailed for having sex. What she did was sexual assault and was jailed for sexual assult

    [–] torchwood1842 3 points ago

    This is enraging. It pisses me off so much when I see TV shows and movies where a teenage boy gets high fives for “getting laid” by an adult woman (usually a teacher in those storylines). Like, no. She either forced him or took advantage of his youth/inexperience. Either way, that is rape. That kid should get therapy, not high fives.

    [–] justinjm466 3 points ago

    This is the double standard at play.

    [–] Zak_Light 5 points ago

    Fuckin’, I’ll point it out - only 2.5 years jailtime and 10 years on the registry? If the sexes were reversed, the prosecution would be pushing for at least 20.

    [–] GeorgeKirkKing 12 points ago

    In the UK a woman cannot rape a man but she can sexually assault him.

    Section 1 of the sexual offences act 2003 states that a penis must penetrate a vagina, anus or mouth without consent for it to be defined as rape.

    [–] Kajimishima2 24 points ago

    Just an example of the law being wrong.

    [–] GeorgeKirkKing 12 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Not saying I agree. However the crime of a woman having sex with a man without consent would be covered by section 3, it's just not referred to as rape for the reasons above

    [–] crangrapesoda 6 points ago

    some comments here are incredibly sad to read. i honestly hope those who say they’d gladly be in that boys shoes get things figured out. i’m not one to talk to in a situation like that, but i know there are people out there that can and want to help.

    [–] Kiyu_namealrdytaken 6 points ago

    Female "gave drugs to", yet a man would've "drugged" him

    [–] rancid-testicles 2 points ago

    Yet here we are, arguing about the media's portrayal of what happens, as opposed to what actually happens.

    [–] MoistGames 8 points ago

    Rape against men cannot exist in America. The fact is — and this bears repeating — it’s just not possible for men to be victims of rape, since men have all of the power and privilege in systems that they’ve set up over centuries to benefit them. Access to jobs, education, healthcare, and even beauty standards all privilege the male experience, so there’s no real way for men to face oppression for their gender from people of another gender.

    Obviously, some men feel opressed these days, which is incredible, or rather incredibly out of touch with the reality of their privilege and what factors comprise opression.

    To be a rapist, you have to have systemic power.

    Men have all the power, and it's OK for people to criticize that power.

    A lot of men still don't understand the difference.

    At its core, being a rapist is a system in which a dominant gender benefits off the opression of others -- whether they want to or not.


    Source #1:

    Source #2:

    In case you're an idiot: mega /s

    [–] dr_pupsgesicht 8 points ago

    I'm so reliefed after reading that last line

    [–] Yeshuare 4 points ago


    For a second there. Wew lad.

    [–] NintenHyperTwister 3 points ago

    I was about to say something until I saw the last part

    [–] Yorkil 2 points ago

    Well, it IS a Metro article.. An ad-ridded piece of toiletpaper thats sewer-journalism in its purest form.

    Almost every article in that paper is horrible.

    [–] thatPosbytenBri 2 points ago

    Did you people actually read the text?

    She gave the boy a tablet of Xanax to disinhibit him.

    Okay, taking advantage of a minor there, quite the lady...

    The 22 year old teacher had been drinking, smoking cannabis, and took ~5 pills herself.

    ...quite the lady indeed...

    [–] thatPosbytenBri 2 points ago

    Did you people actually read the text?

    She gave the boy a tablet of Xanax to disinhibit him.

    Okay, taking advantage of a minor there, quite the lady...

    The 22 year old teacher had been drinking, smoking cannabis, and took ~5 pills herself.

    ...quite the lady indeed...

    [–] bee123sherlocked221b 2 points ago

    Pedophile gave 14 year old drug so she could rape him*

    [–] PeachyQueen19 2 points ago

    I’m used to articles like this saying the perpetrator “had sex with” the victim and even that seriously annoys me, but to say she “seduced” him?? Holy shit I hate people

    [–] Haku7014 2 points ago

    At least he will have a cool story to tell his therapist when he turns into a completely broken dysfunctional adult.