New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contact
New York expands the legal definition of rape to include many forms of nonconsensual sexual contact
New York will expand its legal definition of rape to include various forms of nonconsensual sexual contact, under a bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul.
New York will expand its legal definition of rape to include various forms of nonconsensual sexual contact, under a bill signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Tuesday.
The state’s current limited definition was a factor in writer E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse and defamation case against former President Donald Trump. The jury in the federal civil trial rejected the writer’s claim last May that Trump had raped her in the 1990s, instead finding the former president responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse.
The current law defines rape as vaginal penetration by a penis. The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact. Highlighting Carroll’s case at a bill signing ceremony in Albany, the Democratic governor said the new definition will make it easier for rape victims to bring cases forward to prosecute perpetrators. The law will apply to sexual assaults committed on or after Sept. 1.
“The problem is, rape is very difficult to prosecute,” Hochul said. “Physical technicalities confuse jurors and humiliate survivors and create a legal gray area that defendants exploit.”
The current law defines rape as vaginal penetration by a penis. The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact.
Would it be so hard to include penile in there as well.
No, but men can't be victims of such things anyway, didn't you know? ^/s
The OP isn't great. The actual law is fairly clear that men are included.
This is copied from a reply I made further down, about the actual law:
Important to also not this:
- (a) "Oral sexual [
conduct] contact " means conduct between persons consisting of contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the anus, or the mouth and the vulva or vagina.
It does include raping a man orally explicitly in this. No hand stuff is included for anyone. The OP had poor wording, but the law seems fine. Maybe it should be expanded to using hands and other things to rape as well, but it doesn't exclude men. The way the law is written, it isn't rape to penetrate anyone with a dildo, for example. Also, a woman can't rape a woman except for orally in this law.
It has some oversight, but the oversight is not men, it's just certain methods.
- (a) "Oral sexual [
It did, as the law was simply broadened to include more information ... not wiped clean to only have the new information.
Their point is that the broadened law does not appear to clearly and obviously cover men being raped by women.
For instance, is it rape under this new law for a woman to forcibly use her hand to jerk off a man without his consent? If not, then shouldn't it be?
Shouldn't the law state that forcible and nonconsensual contact with a penis is a crime?
Permanently Deleted
Ah yes, because people without penises can't rape people right?
Is that why we need it specifically added?
They should have done this DECADES ago:
Jesus Christ. I have never heard of that case.
It was HUGE when it happened.
Funny how the wiki lists some people that are currently still relevant (Guilliani as mayor serving as an alleged inspiration for the assault, Jack Smith as prosecutor).
Does this include “forced to penetrate” so male victims can get some justice when they’re raped by women?
From the article, the new definition includes the following:
nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact.
I don't see how penetration wouldn't be considered a form of sexual contact. Obviously there will be more sophisticated legal arguments for both sides when such an issue inevitably makes it to court, but if a woman forces a man into any form of anal, oral, or vaginal sex it should be covered based on the face value of the law.
Unfortunately this will likely have little to no impact on how seriously our society takes such cases, not to mention the problem of men not coming forward in such situations.
Yes. The bill itself is here: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S3161
It defines sexual contact as an act between 2 people, then separately defines rape as engaging in such an act without the consent of the other person.
So, if a penis makes contact with a vagina, that is always vaginal sexual contact under this law. If someone engages in vaginal sexual contact without the consent of the other person, that is rape under this law; without reference which gender is the victim.
The specific wording is even less ambigous, because it says "he or she engages in vaginal sexual contact". As defined by this law, there is no way for a women to engage in vaginal sexual contact with anyone other than a man [0]. Note that for this provision, all that changed was a broadening from sexual intercourse. The gender neutrality of the rape definition had always been there.
This does mean that contact between a hand or toy and a genital is not any type of sexual contact (as defined by this law), but that oversight applies to both penises and vaginas, so is not a gendered decision.
The law also defines anal and oral sexual contact, and puts them everywhere it puts vaginal sexual contact
[0] Or at least, no way for a vagina owner to engage in it without a penis owner. Since the law doesn't really talk about gender, there was no need for special provisions to cover trans folk.
Probably not :(
Thank Trump
A state had to update their rape laws because an ex-President literally got away with rape (criminally).
Let's just think about that for a minute.
They didn’t already? Jeez. Everywhere needs that definition
Non consensual oral contact? Like either party?
Someone kissing you on the cheek without your consent, is that now part of the definition?
Mildly concerned that definition could result in someone being prosecuted for rape for misreading whether someone wants a kiss.
Edit: I looked up the actual bill, it's fine... I figured it probably was, but god damn lemmy thanks for the down votes and assumptions of the worst for stating a simple concern 🙄
The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact.
None of which are involved in a poorly timed kiss.
I read that, I get the intent, I support the intent but "sexual contact" seems broad enough that "oral to oral" (i.e. a kiss) could fall under it.
Forced kissing, no matter how ambigous or clear the consent or lack thereof is; is not prohibited by this law.
There are two ways to read this response.
- Op didn't really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn't understand that kissing isn't relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.
- Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.
Either way, not a great look.
Op didn't really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn't understand that kissing isn't relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.
The article does not say that. The article says the law has been Brian's to include (among other things) oral sexual contact.
I did not look up the literal letter of the law, and I'm guessing you didn't either.
A kiss could be argued as oral to oral sexual contact.
Which yeah, kissing someone without their consent isn't cool ... but I also wouldn't consider it anywhere near rape if a date misread my comfort level and "went for it."
Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.
👎
I have some words for you about that take, but I'm not going to go there.