Forced envelopment isn't a crime

Wow

I've read our criminal code multiple times, and contacted lawyers

What if a man "forcibly envelopes" @Deleted User

India is such a shithole

Oh wow you're really deep into that

@Deleted User Is it legal for men to rape men?

Deep

No pun intended

Probably not

Being gay is punished. So there is that.

Am I rite, @Deleted User?

Really? That seems pretty fucking anti SJW

@Deleted User Like what is the exact difference in the law between a man forcing himself onto a woman to give oral sex vs a woman forcing herself onto a man to give oral sex?

Well, the criminal code explicitly says
```§375. A man is said to commit "rape" if he:–– (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person.```

Only applies to women

In all cases

So, a man cannot be raped, even by a man

Really? No one has ever gone to prison for raping a man?

Why are people ok with this?

It's not in the criminal code

So

Homosexuality is mostly a taboo subject in Indian civil society and for the government. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code makes sex with persons of the same gender punishable by law. On 2 July 2009, in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court held that provision to be unconstitutional with respect to sex between consenting adults, but the Supreme Court of India overturned that ruling on 11 December 2013, stating that the court was instead deferring to Indian legislators to provide the sought-after clarity.[1] On 2 February 2016, however, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its judgment, stating it would refer petitions to abolish Section 377 to a five-member constitutional bench, which would conduct a comprehensive hearing of the issue.[

It looks like a problem with the code

Oh, yeah

It sounds like the epitome of the "He was a lucky guy!" phenomena that usually comes up when you hear stories about males being raped.

Gay people weren't legal

What about a kid that turned 18 du ring the rape?

But having gay sex?

Gay sex was classified under unnatural intercourse

along with bestiality

wtf @Trebjonn

I'll link a video about it, if you want

So they are for helping weak minorities and women but they hate gays?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3-IHNtJjIc

@Trebjonn It seems like they are saying males in general can't be raped?

But it's not the same anymore

377 has been amended

so there's that

Were lesbians outlawed too?

And do gay get affirmative action too now?