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 don't agree with you at all OP.
Rape is specifically and rightly defined as assault with a penis - and acknowledges the fact that the penis is used as a weapon against both women and men, but mainly women, since time immemorial.
It carries additional serious risks to the victim (pregnancy, disease) - it is used as a weapon of war, and the very risk of pregnancy to the victim can even be the purpose of the crime, in war zones and normal life. These are acts of male dominance over women & girls which should have a specific legal definition.
Other charges of serious sexual assault carry the same sentencing guidelines and the term "serious sexual assault" is not exactly letting perpetrators off the hook.

OP - why does collapsing rape and assault by penetration, as you would like, help victims?

I’ve been raped.

I’ve been sexually assaulted by a male doctor. Two separate things.

It was the doctor that fucked me up mentally and I developed PTSD. Rape was not the worst thing that happened to me. Sexual assault by a doctor a very “mild” form at that, nearly destroyed me. Because of the consequences for my child (whose doctor he was).

At no point in the 5 years of seeking justice would re-framing the assault into some kind of consent described crime would I have been more supported, or believed, or less harmed.

Words can matter. But there is no way I’d want to put what the doctor did in the same category as rape. Because for most people who are raped it is the extraordinary intrusion right into one’s body that haunts, not just the lack of consent. And at no point would I want to water down the trauma by making what he did be about the fact that I didn’t even get a chance to consent.

Consent, or specifically lack of consent, certainly is something that can haunt someone after a sexual assault of any kind, but so is being duped, threatened, drugged, physically harmed, coerced. Why fixate on the consent terminology alone?

How many men are you advocating for that are telling you they didn’t consent to sex with women?

I’d be extremely concerned that that version of events (couldn’t help getting an erection despite not consenting) is top of the charts in a claim that a man didn’t really cheat. Among many other worse scenarios..

It also make it very clear that the perpetrator is a biological man!

Really good point re pregnancy disease and use as a weapon of war.

And this is why I don't call myself a feminist what a load of nonsense.

Men have used their penis to rape women for millennium. Rape is about power and control. We are lucky to have the distinction in this country and we need to retain it.

All words need robust definitions. We have other terms for penetration with an object. When I read a court case where a person (usually a man) has used an object I know that is horrible and sadistic. It tells me quite a lot about the man who carried out that act. We need the distinction.

Because the definition of rape means it is a male crime it is currently the only way we can track men who say they are women in women's prisons and services. Statistics matter, sex matters.

If we go the American way we can no longer distinguish. Suddenly you will have a peak in 'women' committing rape.

In my opinion you are doing the work for transactivists and men's rights activity with your feminist analysis clap trap - women don't want sexual agency to rape FFS.

AI
GPTZero AI Detection
Model 4.4b
We are highly confident this text was AI generated

Chance this entire text is...
AI 100%
Mixed 0%
Human 0%

I see this as a very feminist view to be honest and I don't mean that in any way as an insult but I would call myself a feminist.

We split data up for murder in terms of murder with a knife, with a gun, without a weapon etc. I see this as no different nor see how adopting "rape" for female SA would be in any way helpful.

Fact is the vast majority of SA are perpetrated by men and muddying the waters doesn't help us change that.

As for trans. I'm probably more grey area than some as I see no point in being absolutist. I am perfectly happy to deal with things issue by issue. For example, if a trans woman is counted in female C suite data, I could not give a crap. If she wants to be called "she" ditto. But when it comes to prisons and SA, then if you have a penis, I'm afraid that makes the situation very black and white. How you were socialised when young does make a difference and if you still have the capacity to commit that crime then it makes a difference too. Anything else is just going to put women at risk I'm afraid and there is no way to square that circle to keep the majority of people safe from a potentially violent small minority of men hiding behind trans to appease the wellbeing of another small minority who I accept are more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

But I think the OP is trying to solve a problem in this question which, to my mind, does not exist. There are offences which are already on the statute book. There are issues already with both girls and boys with being taken seriously when underage (you only have to look at grooming gangs to see this isn't just a problem for boys.) In many cases in any case, when the child is underage, the offender is still a man.

Why be deliberately provocative?

We split data up for murder in terms of murder with a knife, with a gun, without a weapon etc. I see this as no different nor see how adopting "rape" for female SA would be in any way helpful.
Fact is the vast majority of SA are perpetrated by men and muddying the waters doesn't help us change that.

Given that the sex of the victim and perpetrator are now being recorded on all sexual offences, this would not muddy the waters at all. Murder has several subcategories that we manage to easily track separate data for. Murder of adults vs children, murder by relationship to murderer (strangers, partner, etc), murder by the type of weapon used.

There is no reason why rape statistics could not also be given the same level of granularity in data collection. Unless you think rape is not worth that level of serious attention to detail.

These would all be section 18 GBH violent crimes surely?

I think it's very important for women that rape is kept separate from other sexual assaults (I can't speak for men). I think the distinction is very important.

Perpetrators should be charged with GBH and rape in cases like this imho.

I don't think it matters who the perpetrator is as soon as you open it out to including offences not involving a penis. There is already a perfectly serviceable law of assault by penetration. That was introduced because it wasn't a law before.

It also very clearly highlights it as a male crime, which shows off the nonsense about a woman rapist. Changing the definition just muddles this up.

Penetration by a penis is different, for all the reason given above. Campaign for more awareness/ recognition of serious sexual assault by penetration but keep the meaning of rape as it is.

I don't think there was any need to include all of that detail.

SA is horrendous. But please be aware many women commenting on this thread are rape victims or survivors depending on the term they want to use. I certainly didn't need to read that.

Any crime involving intimate parts of the body is horrendous. Any crime harming the body is horrendous but it doesn't make them rape irrespective of who is doing it just because you write a graphic account of some of the crimes perpetrated.

Apologies, accidentally quoted @IrishSelkie in my post repeating those words. I'd dearly love it if they were removed but I can't edit to remove them.

I think it’s important to keep the word ‘rape’ for the specific male crime of penetration with a penis.

Other sexual assaults, including by women (female humans) whether with a surgically created fake penis or any other implement, should also carry a heavy penalty.

Enabling and colluding with sex offences are also crimes, in their own category.

But blurring the meaning of rape would continue the erosion of women’s single-sex rights that has already caused so much harm.

Already the offence of indecent exposure is impossible to police, as men freely enter women’s changing room and toilets. Same with men spying on or listening to or generally enjoying offensive behaviour in women’s toilets — this can’t be policed when they claim to think they’re women. They are still criminal offences, but the laws are useless because they’re not enforced.

We should keep and enforce other laws covering sexual offences. They should be tightened up if necessary in light of changing circumstances such as men being allowed into women’s spaces.

But rape should remain rape. And all laws should be very clear that male-born people are men regardless of what they have done to their bodies.

Agree. And some young boys/men who were attacked by older women were actually told they were lucky, or it was joked about. It was/is probably very under-reported, but whether it is a small minority, or actually less of a minority than we think, it is awful. I would be just as upset if my son or daughter got abused by an adult. It does not stop me being a feminist to say I want equal rights and protection for all people, and if I understand your points that some victims are less likely to be helped.

The definition of rape is about using the male
anatomy as the weapon. Changing that would water down the crime. The perfectly described assault by penetration which carries the same sentencing as rape, reflecting its seriousness as a crime allows For those who do not possess the particular weapon involved in rape to face similarly serious consequences. In reality the difference is down to public perception or opinion rather than lesser legality.

The impact of sexual assault, the support to cope with experiencing it and ensuring conviction rates closer match perpetration rates , however it is named is what we ought to be focussing on.

And girls attacked by older men were treated as though they weren't victims (see grooming scandals) or that it was a "lifestyle choice".

This happens with both boys and girls.

There is still a "Wayhay! Good on you!" attitude some men have about significantly younger partners.

I'm not sure I agree it's irrelevant. In fact, it's probably the area where I most agree with the OP.

A girl who has been coerced into sex with an older male is considered to have been raped. A boy who has been coerced into sex with an older female isn't considered to have been raped, and certainly the latter crime is viewed as less grievous by many.

Female teachers who sleep with young boys are definitely seen as predatory but not as 'vile rapists' like the men are. They were discussing a case on the radio the other week where the mother of one such boy was being relatively forgiving of the female teacher and I couldn't help but think this wouldn't be the case with a male teacher raping a young schoolgirl.

"A girl who has been coerced into sex with an older male is considered to have been raped. A boy who has been coerced into sex with an older female isn't considered to have been raped, and certainly the latter crime is viewed as less grievous by many."

I'm not sure that is true though. Police themselves were made aware of grooming gangs and did nothing. My mum was a teacher at the time and alerted authorities to one case and was told it was a "lifestyle choice".

I remember Bill Wyman being on TV not in prison because of his relationship with Mandy Smith in the 80s. It's moved on a bit since then but not a lot. It's still rare for prosecutions to take place unless for example, it was from a position of trust.

The UK definition of rape has been fantasticlly useful. TRA's haven't been able to hide the crime behind misuse of words and the definition of man/woman. In the 8 year period before the CPS accepted self id there were 0 cases of rape by women. In the period afterwards, over 400. The TRAs can't pin this on actual women or claim women are as bad as men. The definition is penetration by a penis. We know exactly who they are. Just like the 98%+ of all sex crimes. Men. However they identify. They would love to obfuscate this.

This was on TV a few months back.

The reality is that if someone penetrates you without consent with a implement, yes they will get a charge of SA, but they would get less time in prison than if they used their own penis. They could theoretically get a similar amount of time, but in practice, SA with penetration gets less time than rape, even if everything else is the same.

I also think in some places (including here), you can get life for rape but not for SA.

Of course there is something wrong with that.

I still think that there is something unique about rape as currently defined, and I personally want that definition to be maintained. The power balance, the possibility of pregnancy or sexual disease, the weaponising of a body part-I think that makes rape a unique crime.