Issue with the British definition of rape

[confusedbydating]

I feel the British definition of rape limiting it to a penis is not fair to victims. This is especially the case in women on women violence and in what would be called statutory rape in other countries. I don’t feel it’s fair to victims of something like an older woman sleeping with an underage boy or a doctor and a patient to tell them this wasn’t rape because there was no penis involved when arguably someone had sex with them without them being able to consent. Surely doing this silences victims and erases their experiences?

when I say this to British people I get told no this isn’t right but I do think countries with statutory rape laws are more protective to victims in these cases.

It’s worth noting that Scotland actually reformed its law in 2009 to include penetration by any body part or object in its definition of rape, so there’s precedent within the UK itself for the kind of change I’m arguing for.

i would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

This is the current Scottish law on rape. Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009

(1)If a person (“A”), with A's penis—
(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,
penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape.
(2)For the purposes of this section, penetration is a continuing act from entry until withdrawal of the penis; but this subsection is subject to subsection (3).
(3)In a case where penetration is initially consented to but at some point of time the consent is withdrawn, subsection (2) is to be construed as if the reference in it to a continuing act from entry were a reference to a continuing act from that point of time.
(4)In this Act—

• “penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and
• “vagina” includes—

(a)the vulva, and (b)a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B, having been created in the course of such treatment.

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/sexual-offences-scotland-act-2009-now-in-force/

I should correct something from my earlier response though — Scotland’s Act still defines rape as penetration by a penis specifically . What it broadened was recognising male victims and oral/anal penetration, not penetration by objects or body parts. Sexual assault by penetration — covering any other body part or object — is a separate offence

As long as the punishment is not diminished, does it matter what it is called - serious sexual assault covers all these things and carries the same sentencing guidelines as rape.

Statutory rape is different because that’s to do with age of consent rather than violence or coercion. Again as long as there’s a parallel crime to protect the vulnerable, it’s name doesn’t actually matter

English law on rape. Also recognises male victims

(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.

But here’s the thing. There’s research suggesting that cases of female-perpetrated sexual violence are taken less seriously precisely because the legal and cultural framework doesn’t use that word. And the precision argument cuts both ways — you could argue it’s more precise to define rape by the absence of consent rather than by the anatomy of the perpetrator.

I meant male victims of female violence. It’s not widespread but it happens.

Only women who have a surgically created phallus can commit rape under Scottish law. For any other women there's no difference under English and Scots law

I acknowledged the mistake and corrected it. Can we leave the mistake now and go back to the main discussion?
i get it, you understand Scottish law better than me. But the argument is there have been law changes and there is precedent.
do you want to engage or do you just want to keep copying and pasting legal frameworks at me?

Oh dear, is this one of those ‘women are just as bad as men’ manosphere posts? My priority around sexual violence is to campaign for prosecuting the 95% of male perpetrators who currently go unpunished, instead of engaging in whataboutery about the tiny number of men who are victims of sexual assault by women. As a feminist, I centre women and girls and campaign against VAWG. There is more than enough work for women to do there without having to consider the menz as well. If men want this change to the law they can make the legal argument, gather the stats, demonstrate the injustice they experience in criminal law, and campaign for it themselves.

Women are not capable of rape. The law here involves the use of the penis.

I am not sure why you wish to paint women as rapists. They are not. Yes serious sexual assaults can and do occur, perpetrated by women. No one denies this.

Please note here I am referring to the old fashioned cunty type of woman, in case you are confused.

oh wait, is this an MRA type attempting a gotcha?

I’m not a man. I’m a woman. And I’m arguing something as a feminist that I think the law doesn’t address. I’m not here to argue for men’s rights or to say that women aren’t commonly assaulted by men.

The comparison with statutory rape frameworks is interesting too. In jurisdictions like most US states, rape or sexual assault definitions are broader and often gender-neutral, focusing on the absence of meaningful consent — whether because of age, power imbalance, incapacity, or coercion. The emphasis is on whether the victim could consent, not on the specific body part used. That framing arguably centres the victim’s experience more fully.

The premise of your OP was that Scottish law had been revised to define rape as something other than penetration with a penis and this created a precedent in the uk. You repeated this incorrect claim again.

I don't believe there is any need to change the legal definition of rape.

No really not here for men’s rights. Here for victims rights. Never thought I’d be saying I’m fighting for men.

The cases you’re raising sharpen the point well. A female teacher who has sex with a 14-year-old male student cannot be charged with rape under English law. A woman who sexually assaults another woman cannot be charged with rape. A female doctor who exploits a patient sexually — same. The law technically covers these acts under other offences, but by withholding the label “rape,” there’s an argument that it linguistically minimises what occurred and creates a hierarchy of sexual violence that maps onto the perpetrator’s anatomy rather than the victim’s experience.

I quite agree that forcible penetration by other tjongs, not just penis, by anoyone of any sex is rape. It is incredibly damaging act designed to do the same, if not worse trauma to the victim as penis imho.

Confusing any of this with statutory rape is facile - statutory rape is an offence n because children of either sex cannot give consent because they are children. The matter you raised has no connection to that offence at all.

Edited for typo

No I didn’t. I put a correction and a link to what the law change was, explained by an expert because I’d done a bad job.

I cant see the need for a change OP, simply because other countries define it differently. If someone says they are raped it is clear what has happened

But the law won’t always acknowledge this in Britain, and as a victims rights activist I think this is wrong

But if the woman was the perp, it wouldn’t be called rape in England. Do you see what I mean?

Surely these are centred in cases in the UK too? If a man is charged with rape there’s not going to be much focus on his body parts as it’ll be taken as a given he has a penis and is accused of using it in the crime of rape. So the focus is on the circumstances and consent etc

But what if it was ghislaine maxwell for example? In the US she’s rightly a rapist. In the uk legally she’s not.
I don’t think that’s fair

Yeah, we should follow the laws as per the US where it’s lawful to execute people.

No. The pattern of male violence towards women should not be obscured by semantics which would skew statistics and make the evidence for it less accurate. Women committing the offences you are concerned with face the same level of punishment as male rapists, so there is no disparity in law.

we don’t have to follow all of them but I can say in this case I feel they are more protective of victims rights and experiences?