New definition of rape to include men

matou

#los2188
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
20,149
Reaction score
2,523
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet. There has been a new American definition of rape to include men as victims. I would think that mention of gender is irrelevant in these crimes but anyway I hope this will be helpful.

The new definition is: “The 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.”

Sorry this is from a Canadian news source but that's were I got the info.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...hanges-definition-of-rape-to-include-men?bn=1
 
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet. There has been a new American definition of rape to include men as victims. I would think that mention of gender is irrelevant in these crimes but anyway I hope this will be helpful.

The new definition is: “The 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.”

Sorry this is from a Canadian news source but that's were I got the info.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...hanges-definition-of-rape-to-include-men?bn=1

This is so oddly worded. I assume this must be the federal definition, right? Rape is also against the law in every state and each state must have its own definition.

I find the wording odd: "no matter how slight". Taken literally, one might legally "rape" an infant while cleaning him or her during a diaper change.
 
This is so oddly worded. I assume this must be the federal definition, right? Rape is also against the law in every state and each state must have its own definition.

I find the wording odd: "no matter how slight". Taken literally, one might legally "rape" an infant while cleaning him or her during a diaper change.

It's from the Obama admin so I guess it's federal. I suppose with the diaper scenario, it would necessitate a doctor to decide if penetration occurred, even if it's slight. I've wiped my daughter pretty hard and dug right in but I doubt that I came close to penetration (eww).
 
But as with any crime, wouldn't there have to be intent? A doctor doing a pelvic exam, a doctor doing a prostate exam, or even a diaper change would qualify under the way this is worded. But if there is no intent, then I would assume that there would be no crime.

After five kids, I've never wiped one hard enough that it could be considered penetration, no matter how slight, so I wouldn't really be concerned. But someone that doesn't know what they are doing could be an entirely different story. I'm sure there will be changes and exceptions added before it becomes official.
 
While I agree with making the statue more gender ambiguous, I didn't think the previous statutes really concentrated on the gender. Though I must confess I haven't read the laws.

I do feel that many times males will decline prosecution, because they fear social stigma, and that even LE will doubt a male claim of rape. Esp if it is female vs. male. That won't change with a statute change.
 
But as with any crime, wouldn't there have to be intent? A doctor doing a pelvic exam, a doctor doing a prostate exam, or even a diaper change would qualify under the way this is worded. But if there is no intent, then I would assume that there would be no crime.

After five kids, I've never wiped one hard enough that it could be considered penetration, no matter how slight, so I wouldn't really be concerned. But someone that doesn't know what they are doing could be an entirely different story. I'm sure there will be changes and exceptions added before it becomes official.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think "intent" is required of all laws. One can break traffic laws without intending to do so, obviously; but perhaps different rules apply there.

I'm not actually worried that OB-GYNs will be prosecuted en masse. I just find it odd when laws are worded so poorly. (In my view, of course. It's entirely possible the law is quite clear to prosecutors, defense lawyers, and LE.)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
3,787
Total visitors
3,884

Forum statistics

Threads
591,529
Messages
17,953,932
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top