Male victims of domestic and sexual abuse remain significantly under-recognised within both public perception and throughout the UK justice system.

Through engagement with victims and review of case experiences, we have seen how complex domestic and sexual abuse cases can be. However, male victimisation is often misunderstood, minimised, or treated as secondary when compared to female victimisation. Cultural assumptions about gender roles can shape how allegations, counter-allegations, coercive control, and sexual harm are interpreted at every stage of the process.

The current legal framework contributes to this imbalance. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, rape is defined strictly as penile penetration. This means that if a woman forces a man to penetrate her without consent, the offence is charged under a different statutory title — typically “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent” — despite the harm being equivalent.

In cases involving cross-allegations, this creates a structural asymmetry: one allegation may carry the statutory label of “rape,” while the other — involving non-consensual penetration — does not. The word “rape” carries exceptional weight in public perception, media reporting, reputational impact, and investigative mindset. When identical acts are labelled differently based solely on the sex of the perpetrator, the law itself creates disparity in recognition.

Legal terminology is not just technical wording — it influences seriousness of perception, social stigma, and professional consequence. Where one allegation is described in law as “rape” and another equivalent allegation is categorised differently, the imbalance in terminology can shape how allegations are understood before evidence is fully assessed.

Male victims report experiences including coercive control, sexual coercion, humiliation-based abuse, reputational threats, and legal counter-allegations that are not always recognised with equal seriousness. In cases involving competing claims, neutrality must be strictly evidence-led. Yet without clear, gender-neutral statutory language and balanced oversight, confidence in impartial investigation can be weakened.

This is not about diminishing protections for women. It is about ensuring that male victims are not overlooked.

A justice system must be defined by the act and the harm — not by assumptions about who can commit it or who can suffer it.

We are calling for a statutory review of the definition of rape to ensure that non-consensual penetration is recognised in gender-neutral legal language. Rape should be defined by the absence of consent and the act committed, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator.

Reform would strengthen investigative clarity, reinforce neutrality in counter-allegation cases, and improve recognition of male victims across domestic and sexual abuse frameworks.

True equality before the law requires that harm is recognised consistently, applied consistently, and investigated consistently.

By signing this petition, you support a justice system that treats victims based on evidence and harm — not gender-based expectation.