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.

I agree and I’m not here to argue for men’s rights. This affects Epstein victims for example in the uk.

Sentencing equivalence on paper doesn’t translate to equivalent treatment in practice — charging decisions, jury perceptions, media reporting, and victim self-identification are all shaped by whether something is called rape or not.

Completely agree OP

I think we would be far better putting our energies into ensuring victims of rape are believed and the perpetrators are convicted before we try to widen the definition of rape in law. After all, there are laws that define all other sexual assaults already.

Its not like she’s not seen as a monster here. Assault by penetration is clearer for women who commit such sexual assaults and it can have the same sentence as rape.
Making rape “gender neutral” is just wrong as it should be recognised as a specific crime males commit.

It creates this odd logical outcome where the law simultaneously says “we take all victims seriously regardless of gender” while also saying “but the worst thing we can call what happened to you depends on the anatomy of the person who did it.” The victim’s experience of violation is identical, but the legal label — and everything that flows from it culturally — is determined by the perpetrator’s body.
And there’s arguably a feminist critique to be made here too. Framing rape as inherently a penis-based act reinforces the idea that women lack sexual agency — including the agency to commit serious sexual harm. It’s a kind of benevolent sexism baked into criminal law: women are positioned as incapable of the “worst” sexual offence, which simultaneously positions them as less powerful, less threatening, and less accountable. That doesn’t protect women. It infantilises them while failing the people they harm.
The jurisdictions using consent-based definitions rather than anatomy-based ones sidestep this entirely. The question becomes “could this person consent?” rather than “what body part was used?” — which is arguably both more feminist and more protective of all victims.

Thank you! I’m really not a mra!!

Is it about gender neutrality or is it just about recognising implements can be used as much a a penis, and often are, usually against women.

I really wouldnt respond or engage with posts like that if I were you, you must know by now on this forum that the biggest insult someone thinks they can throw at you is that you're a man

Or 'are you 12' or some such nonsense.

Or just based on consent? Which is what I’m arguing for. Consent based laws not centring dicks yet again!!

you are right! I need to learn when to just stop!

You might have better luck contacting your MP if you feel so strongly about this OP: www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-an-mp-or-lord/contact-your-mp/

Legally she could be considered a rapist in the UK. Biological women are tried for rape/conspiracy to commit rape and when that happens is as an accessory/JCE etc. so a woman who schemes to enable a man to commit PIV on a non consenting man/woman/child is a rapist. Even if they didn't commit the physical act (just as you can be tried for terrorism or robbery if you help plan it).

In terms of adult women preying on male children I completely agree that's bad. However, I think South Park summed up the problem there (in a typically insensitive way). Basically, all the women are shocked when they hear about the relationship of a teacher with a child. It's the men whose reaction is "niiiice". That fits with real life where it's usually women more bothered by these relationships. Men are more likely to imagine the adult versions of themselves in the shoes of the boy and downplay the severity of the emotional impact and long term issues goose relationships cause. Not all men, but there's a reason this is being discussed on here but there's no similar discussion happening in eg PistonHeads right now

I don't think changing the definition would help in changing attitudes. more education about the long term harm of those relationship might help. More (good) women in power helps and in fact, awareness of this as an issue has definitely moved up the agenda as women got more of a voice/more positions of power.

I don’t see the problem with the definition of rape as it stands. It describes a particular act, using the penis, and applies to penetration of someone of either sex by vagina, anus, or mouth. It’s very clear. A woman can commit an equally serious crime of sexual assault by penetration, or in some cases, as joint enterprise with the male who has committed the rape. Again, very clear. Rape as it is rightly has a status of its own, particularly as it can result in pregnancy, STDs and is used as a weapon of war.

If other kinds of sexual assault are seen as “less serious” (although they are not, in law) then people should feel free to campaign around these issues. There is a lot to be said about the influence of toxic masculinity around males being sexually assaulted by females being seen as a joke sometimes, although if I knew of a woman who had sex with an underage boy I would feel the same disgust about her as I would about a rapist. Attitudes need to change about this and I can get onboard with victims being given more support and respect.

Why are you framing your argument around female perpetrators OP? If the law was to change the way you’d like, the vast majority of newly charged rapists (i.e. those who would currently have committed serious sexual assault) would still be male.

Rape and other forms of sexual assault are overwhelmingly crimes committed by men, mostly committed against women.

With current stats putting the rate at c. 3% of reported rapes resulting in a conviction within a year (ok some cases are behind and may be convicted later but also consider under reporting issues.)

Rape, sexual assault and child sexual abuse statistics | Rape Crisis England & Wales

Honestly, there are female perpetrators around but vastly fewer than men. I see no evidence that any perpetrator is facing the justice they deserve. Rape and sexual assault is effectively decriminalised in the UK now. But as men are overwhelmingly the people who commit crimes like this, worrying about low reporting or conviction rates on an already very low number, well, this is not a hill I'd choose to die on.

In general I’m against broadening definitions of words in the name of inclusivity. I think it’s important to keep a distinct term for the distinct violation of being penetrated against one’s will by the penis of another person - it’s a unique horror, and deserves its own term. When an adult woman coerces a child into sex it’s morally abhorrent and rightly criminal, but it’s not the same thing.

I would prefer the violence to stop more than I care about terms but this is the important fact:

"Most perpetrators of sexual violence are male and most victims are female"

Myths, Facts and Statistics – Devon Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Services

Know more than 20 men? It's likely one of them has been violent (sexual violence or others) against a woman in the last year.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Sexual violence and rape is overwhelmingly a male problem, perpetrated against both women and men but mostly women. Female sexual violence does occur but if male sexual violence was as low as female, it would not get the headlines it does. Women are sometimes the perpetrators, more commonly in offences against boys, however, even if you take the highest estimates, they are still outnumbered by male perpetrators, and, additionally, girls are also more likely than boys to be victims of childhood sexual assault or rape.

Underreporting is a problem in all rape and sexual violence. I've been raped by three men, I only reported one as that was the only one I had evidence for. That one person was eventually convicted but it took more than 20 years. One of those other men is now a senior police officer.

As I've said before. This is not a hill I'd die on.

Personally I would rather see a higher profile for victims of ‘sexual assault by penetration’, which is the equivalent crime not using a penis, than alter the English definition of rape.

From a feminist point of view having a separate definition allows analysis of a specific type of crime and the social coercion and culture around it. I know it is very old now but I still find ‘Against our Will’ by Susan Brownmuller an enlightening read.

Assault by penetration has the same legal consequences and sentence, so no.

I've not experienced a lower profile. It is often part of an offending behaviour which means some men are convicted of both rape and ABP which may (we can live in hope) influence sentencing. I don't personally think this is an issue.

OP is clearly copy pasting their posts from an AI chat bot. I wouldn't bother engaging.

Yes.

A commentator I sometimes read describes her rape by a woman. I wouldn’t in any way want to shout down her experience or to stop attention being directed to sexual crimes in lesbian relationships, but the context and the facts do differ from rape by a penis to me, and I think having a definition that identifies that is important. It’s not about ‘centreing the penis’.

You absolutely are here for men’s rights by arguing for the redefinition of a uniquely male crime.

You’re also obfuscating by talking about statutory rape (which doesn’t exist in the UK, although I wish it did).

Two out of three of your “examples” wouldn’t be rape if a man did them (assuming consent of the victims, abuse of power does not automatically equal a rape charge), and the third might be rape depending on the circumstances.

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of child sex trafficking. She was not convicted of rape.

Please, if you’re going to come here with “arguments” do some basic fact checking first.

Just like we need a name for the half of the population that is female we also need a name for the uniquely specific crime of sexual assault with a penis carried out by males.