>Women can be perpetrators of the equally serious crime of assault by penetration. Men can be the victims of rape or assault by penetration
But the point being that a woman forcing a man to have sex counts as none of those things. It only ends up in that list if she sticks something in his butt.
Sure, but the lesser (but still serious) offence of sexual assault is very clearly defined, non-gendered in law, and while subject to more under-reporting and under-recording of male victims is still mostly male perpetrators and female victims. That's unlikely to change even if every victim is accurately reported and recorded, or if the English and Welsh crime of rape is expanded to "non consensual sex".
Your use of "force" here is unhelpful. We know that juries don't convict because they feel that force is necessary for rape - thus women who don't fight back are not seen by juries to have been forced into sex.
It's much better for us to focus on consent, and to educate people that consent can't involve coercion.
That recognises the under-conviction of rape for women victims; and it also promotes the rights of men to not consent to sex and to have that recognized as the abusive crime that it is.
My aim here - just in case it's not clear - is to make it easier for men to report crimes committed against them, and to make law enforcement record those crimes, and to make juries convict those crimes. I also want to make those things happen for female victims. (And here where I use male / female I don't want to limit to a gender binary).
But the point being that a woman forcing a man to have sex counts as none of those things. It only ends up in that list if she sticks something in his butt.