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.”

  • pulaskiwasright
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does this include “forced to penetrate” so male victims can get some justice when they’re raped by women?

    • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • pulaskiwasright
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Iwhy wouldn’t it include unwanted penile contact if vaginal contact is pointed out? It seems like it’s worded specifically to prevent men from getting justice.

        But this is just how the article explains it. It’s not the actual law.

      • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        This law is supposed to reduce ambiguity, why wouldn’t they just state genital contact to reduce the grey area further? With this new law someone could argue that the vagina owner is consenting so it isn’t rape.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.