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.”

  • Dark Arc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Mildly concerned that definition could result in someone being prosecuted for rape for misreading whether someone wants a kiss.

    Edit: I looked up the actual bill, it’s fine… I figured it probably was, but god damn lemmy thanks for the down votes and assumptions of the worst for stating a simple concern 🙄

    https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S3161

    • Maven (famous)
      link
      fedilink
      85 months ago

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

      None of which are involved in a poorly timed kiss.

      • Dark Arc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        I read that, I get the intent, I support the intent but “sexual contact” seems broad enough that “oral to oral” (i.e. a kiss) could fall under it.

    • @knightry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      There are two ways to read this response.

      1. Op didn’t really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn’t understand that kissing isn’t relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.
      2. Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.

      Either way, not a great look.

      • Dark Arc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        Op didn’t really read the article or the changes in the law and so doesn’t understand that kissing isn’t relevant at all here, but decided to weigh in with a completely unrelated comment anyway.

        The article does not say that. The article says the law has been Brian’s to include (among other things) oral sexual contact.

        I did not look up the literal letter of the law, and I’m guessing you didn’t either.

        A kiss could be argued as oral to oral sexual contact.

        Which yeah, kissing someone without their consent isn’t cool … but I also wouldn’t consider it anywhere near rape if a date misread my comfort level and “went for it.”

        Op understands the change in law and is worried about their questionable behavior.

        👎

        I have some words for you about that take, but I’m not going to go there.

        • @knightry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          Oral sexual contact is mouth to genital. Nobody in the history of fucking ever has defined or understood oral sexual contact to mean mouth to mouth, until your ground breakingly stupid interpretation here. So grats on making history I guess.

    • @homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      Forced kissing, no matter how ambigous or clear the consent or lack thereof is; is not prohibited by this law.