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.”

  • Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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:

      1. (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.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          §2.1 Vaginal Sexual Contact. It’s contact between a penis and vagina or vulva. There’s no directionality to it. It’s only about consent that defines who raped whom. If a woman forces contact between a penis and her vagina or vulva, she raped him with vaginal sexual contact.

    • Raz@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, but men can’t be victims of such things anyway, didn’t you know? ^/s

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Docking and urethrae insertion are a thing, but penetration is clearly not the sole definer because this change is about sexual contact.

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It did, as the law was simply broadened to include more information … not wiped clean to only have the new information.

      • beardown@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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?

        • homura1650@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          No. But it is also not rape under this law for a man to forcibly use his hand to jerk off a woman.

          If a woman makes non consensual contact with a mans penis using her vagina, mouth, or anus, that is rape under this law.

          Perhaps the law should cover it. But the absense of hand-genital contact in the law is gender neutral.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            But it is also not rape under this law for a man to forcibly use his hand to jerk off a woman.

            From the top comment of this thread:

            The new law broadens the definition to include nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Important to also not this:

                1. (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.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Do you have a copy of the new law to prove it doesn’t say anything about non-consensual contact?