They should have done this DECADES ago:
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
383 points (98.0% liked)
News
23275 readers
3283 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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).
Sounds like this will also help male rape victims.
Only penetrative rape.
Are you sure? 'nonconsenusual sexual contact' sounds like it could cover more than penatrative rape.
Unfortunately the new law seems to only cover "anal, oral, and vaginal sexual contact". So unfortunately that totally excludes any kind of forced envelopment.
What's forced envelopment? Sounds like a thing I don't want to search.
Edit: Is that female on male rape? I just took a little longer to think about it.
It describes a situation where man has an involuntary erection and is forced into traditional intercourse. While most places in Canada/the US recognize forced anal penetration as rape, many do not recognize forced envelopment as rape.
So when a woman puts her vagina on your penis nonconsensually, that doesn't count as non consensual vaginal contact?
I fully admit I could be wrong in this case, but frequently laws like this are interpreted as non-consensual contact to a vagina, making it only enforced in one direction. Re-reading this one it does seem to be attempting to make progress by removing the required penetrative element so here's hoping I am incorrect.
…am I missing something? How can a vagina envelope something without contacting it? Contact deffo happens during envelopement.
I was misled by the article and couldn’t find the law. The APnews explanation is misleading.
Here is the actual law link:
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.
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.
Or genital contact, covers everyone right?
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.
Did you read the law or simply the explanation of it in the article?
I’ve now read the law since someone above found and posted it. Terrible journalism not posting it. The law does state vaginal means contact between a penis and vagina.
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?