To think that it is odd that the UK's definition of rape is narrower than the WHO's (and many other countries) definition?

[snowflake02]

The World Health Organisation define rape as 'the physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus with a penis, other body part or object'.

The UK Law seems to place more emphasis on consent rather than force, which is great, but states that someone can only be raped by a penis:

1-(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.

Interested as to why the UK law seems to be at odds with the WHO definition and other countries such as the US? And possibly many others. Would a combination of the two definitions be more appropriate? Wondering if I am the only one who thinks the UK definition seems rather narrow in comparison?

The definition of rape under English and Welsh law (Scottish and Irish are possibly different) will be older than the WHO definition. Whether it is updated remains to be seen.

The definition of rape is narrower than the WHO guidelines but sexual assault convictions also carry prison sentences so many offenses are covered if not legally considered to be rape.

There are parallel offences of the same severity which cover penetration other than by a penis.

I think it is a matter of historic language rather than any departure from the important thing, which is that all are serious offences with the same sentencing guidelines on conviction.

That's true about the sentencing guidelines. I wonder if the definition will ever will be updated in the future.

I'm not sure it's a bad thing.

The WHO definition seems to be based on only the "No means no" mindset, whereas the UK seems to support "Only yes means yes"- which to me is a much more victim-friendly (for want of a better phrase) way of thinking.

I've explained that really crassly, but I know what I mean.

I like that the uk one includes the mouth. In the uk if someone uses something other than a penis it has a different name but I think the sentence is the same. So I am happy with the uk law it's not like if someone used an object it would be ignored they would still be charged just with a different crime.