It isn't theft by finding, technically or otherwise, to find a pound coin in the street and keep it. An essential element to the crime is a failure to take reasonable steps to identify the owner. There are no possible reasonable steps, and thus no crime has occurred.
It isn't battery, technically or otherwise, to pat someone on the back. An essential element to the crime of battery is that the application of force is reckless on the part of the person applying it. Without that element, it is not the offence of battery at all.
I think it's really interesting that you have invented crimes where none exist as a way of minimising the reality that someone inserting their finger repeatedly in the anus of their spouse, when they know that spouse hates it and has repeatedly said so, is criminal behaviour. It's also telling that you choose to compare an offence so serious that it cannot ever be tried before magistrates, but only a Crown Court judge, and the minimum sentencing starts at a year and goes up to life, with a relatively minor property crime.
I also find it interesting that you say equivalently awful things have happened to you hundreds of times (really? People violating your body in such a deeply degrading way after you have clearly told them you hate it, and they know this and do it again and again anyway?) and it's just men "pushing their luck". Firstly, if that is indeed so then I am truly sorry you've had such experiences and I very much understand how you are more comfortable framing them to yourself as just boys being boys, and no big deal. But nobody has the right to ignore the very clearly expressed wishes of anyone over their own body. To argue that they do is to support a culture in which a group of young boys could digitally violate a barely conscious girl in Steubenville, and then be outraged when they were convicted of raping her. No, it isn't legally classed as rape in this country when someone digitally violates someone else. It is in other countries, sometimes, but not here. But it very much is an offence, because ignoring a clearly understood no - not even failing to obtain consent, but IGNORING a clearly understood NO - while penetrating an unwilling person is a crime. A clear, and very serious crime. And if you think the police and CPP wouldn't prosecute it if they knew and he was honest about his actions, you're living in a dream world. There is nothing "technical" about his actions being criminal at all.
It's depressing that so many women are convinced men are just predatory animals who will always want to force women to permit their bodies to be used against their wishes. Ironically, given the squawks of extreme feminism, I think that's an utterly man-hating approach. I don't share that view of men at all. I don't think all men are selfish, sociopathic arseholes ruled by their dicks. I think they're human beings with the same capacity for empathy, love and mutuality as women. Arguing that a man choosing to ignore a woman's clearly expressed "no" is just "pushing his luck" shows a deeply ingrained contempt for half the human race as well as a deeply internalised inability to allow women autonomy over their own bodies.
I asked my (sweet, kind, loving and empathetic) 4 yr old son for a hug yesterday as he played with his lego. He politely told me he didn't feel like it, and I said okay. He nodded and then said matter-of-factly, as he fixed various godawful guns to his Star Wars ship, "you never have to have a hug when you don't feel like it. And you can't make someone hug you if they don't want to either." I've been instilling this in him all his life, and so have the mothers I most like with their kids - boys and girls. No, you don't grab another kid's hand and yank them about when they protest. No, you don't try to force affection on someone who says no, because they have the right to decide when they feel like being touched, just like you can't force someone to play with a game they don't want to because their feelings matter as well. You have to respect what other people want. No, you never have to kiss or let anyone touch you when you don't want it. And so on, and so on. At this age, it's about teaching them respect for others and themselves, and trying to make them less likely prey for abusers. Reading this, I think it may actually be rather more. Because it seems someone failed to teach OP's husband this very basic lesson early in his life... and various other posters here, too. What basic empathy failure must it take, to think someone can force this on someone else and it's just no big deal? And are these people failing to teach their own children these lessons, too? That men will always "push their luck" and a woman's job is to try to stop it and not "get hysterical" when she fails? If so, I am glad my child is a son, I hope my pregnancy is another son, and I can only assure the mothers of daughters that these sons will be raised to very much respect their own and other's bodily (and emotional) autonomy.
If someone tells you not to touch them in any way they dislike, you don't. If you tell someone not to touch you, they don't. If what they are doing is sexually penetrative, they need to be reasonably certain they have consent first. This stuff should not be rocket science. It's deeply disturbing to me that so many people apparently struggle with it. And as several professionals have indicated, these struggles are not shared by law enforcement or the courts.
In Ottawa, in Canada, a six month poster campaign cut reported sexual offending by 10%. The campaign was aimed at men, and the tagline was "Don't Be That Guy." Educating men on consent, and why it matters and what it means if they ignore it, has been proven to reduce sexual offending. Reading a lot of the comments here, I think many posters need to see the material, too.