Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Rape, Redefined

(As the title says I'm talking about rape, namely the new definition of it. Tread carefully.)

I'm sure that by now you've read somewhere about the Justice Department redefining rape. Let's review shall we.

Before:
The law then defined rape as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."
As you can see that's a very narrow definition of rape that leaves out A LOT of rape cases. a female teacher drugging a male student? Rape but only because of the age different, not because of the act itself. The recent revelations of Sandusky? Not rape. A man forced to penetrate a woman against his will or under means in which his ability to consent is taken from him (ie drugged or drunk)? Not rape. Not a very inclusive definition.

Now:
The crime of rape will be defined as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim," a Justice Department statement said.
As you can see this covers a lot more instances of rape are covered. The language is not gender specific and covers many types of penetration and that is a good thing for sure. But I have to say that I have a tiny bit of skepticism here.

When asked about rape I generally think "sex against someone's will or under conditions where they can't consent". I try to be inclusive of all forms of sex and not just penetration sex. To me it seems this new definition is depending on defining sex as penetration and then from there defining penetration without consent as rape. And that's where I think my skepticism lies in this new definition.

For instance is oral sex on someone’s labia/clitoris/surrounding area (which doesn’t always include penetrating the vagina) without the consent of said labia/clitoris/surrounding area’s owner considered rape? Is manual stimulation of a penis (hand job) against the penis owner’s consent rape?

Believe me I'm not trying to nit pick for the sake of nit picking. I just want to make sure no rape victim is left out.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This isn't a legal redefinition, it's merely a classification scheme change.

That said, it does indeed exclude men who are forced to penetrate from the "rape" category.

It also seems open to a lot of mischief concerning sex and alchohol. If they start counting every act of sex in which a woman or man had even one drink as "rape" the numbers will explode.

So very much a mixed bag. However the people PUSHING this - I can assure you that they want to push the numbers high, and that they don't give a sh** about men who are raped.

So in the end, I think this is a loss. It doesn't truly open rape to males in its categorization scheme, and the inflated numbers will be used to push the "rape culture" meme up the ass.

America is, to put it bluntly, fucked. This is only a small nail in the coffin but each time I see something like this and know what its really about, I become happier thinking of the collapse to come.

Clarence

EasilyEnthused said...

I'd like to see all sexual assault broken down into three categories:

Class 1 Sexual Assault: No skin-to-skin contact

Class 1 Aggravated Sexual Assault: No skin-to-skin contact but a threat or actual violence

Class 2 Sexual Assault: Skin-to-skin mucous membrane to non-mucous membrane contact

Class 2 Agg. Sexual Assault: yadayada- with violence or violent threat

Class 3 Sexual Assault: Mucous membrane to mucous membrane contact

Class 3 Agg. Sexual Assault: (Should be obvious)

I'd like to remove "rape" from our vocabulary, honestly.

Tamen said...

Hugo Schwyzer is one feminist who have clearly stated that he won't call envelopment rape.

http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2012-01-erections-arent-consent-what-the-new-fbi-definitions

-->